Exposure systems

[Quantumcat]

I am new to the world of large format photography and have the first of what will most likely be many stupid questions. I shot 35mm and some med. format film back in the 80s, and have been shooting 35mm digital for the last 4 years so I am familiar with the basics of photography. My question is on exposure systems. There seems to be at least 4 systems out there.
1. Zone system by Ansel Adams
2. BTZS by Phil Davis
3. VIDEC system by Andrew Eads.
4. Use your digital SLR to figure it out and adjust for bellows?

Without starting any kind of a Mac/PC or Canon/Nikon type flame war, what does everyone here use?

I will be shooting B/W landscape type stuff and at least at first having a local photo store developing the negatives. At that point I will most likely have the negatives scanned into the computer and use NIK/Photoshop for finial processing.

[Bruce Watson]

They all come down to the same thing: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. What the various methods do is teach you how to accomplish that. So it's only a matter of picking the system that best fits your own particular way of working -- the one you are most comfortable with.

Me, I use a modified Zone System approach.

[Leigh]

Get a good exposure meter and do what it tells you to do.

I use a Sekonic L-558, which does incident and 1° spot.

As with any new discipline, choose one set of tools and use them until you understand their strengths and weaknesses.

As Bruce said... Expose for the shadows. You can't print detail that's not on the negative in the first place.

Shoot Fuji Acros (b&w 100ASA). You can't blow the highlights even if you try.

The various "systems" all do the same thing.
They let you translate one particular tone/color of the subject to one particular gray scale value.
And that's all they do. They can't change the laws of physics or chemistry.

Then comes the subject of development.
You can expand or contract the tonal range of the negative a bit by changing development.

But that's all high-school level stuff. You're still in grade school.
Learn to make a good negative from a normal subject. That alone can take a lifetime of practice.

- Leigh

[Mark Barendt]

I wrote this a while back to help people get a feel for metering. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/115941-primer-incident-metering.html

[Ken Lee]

If you don't want to discuss the pros and cons of each system - and merely want a tally of how many people use each - then perhaps a poll is better than a discussion.

[Mark Barendt]

They all come down to the same thing: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

Dunn & Wakfield, in their Exposure Manual talk about various way besides exposing for the shadows and why it might be good to do it differently. It's a good reference and can be found used 3rd and 4th editions are most relevant.

[Leigh]

I wrote this a while back to help people get a feel for metering.
That's a good writeup, Mark.

I use incident metering unless there's something unusual about the subject, then I vector off into ZS.

- Leigh

[Jim Noel]

Ansel Adams and Fred Archer worked together to formulate the Zone System as a way to gain consistency in exposure and development of film and paper. All others have come after, and offer variances on the original.

[BrianShaw]

Get a good exposure meter and do what it tells you to do.


This kind of advise often seems to disputed vehemently... but, honestly, it is the best option. Go with one of the "systems" when/if it will do something to improve upon the basic approach which Leigh so clearly stated. And this is especially true when having a lab process for you and scan/photoshop the prints.

p.s. PC and Nikon

[Ken Lee]

Brushing aside the suggestion that we merely brush aside the issue and do what the meter tells us to do (I have never heard my meter tell me to do anything: perhaps I need my hearing checked) - another interesting method not mentioned here has been proposed by Sandy King for those who scan their film.

If we use a highly compensating developer which develops negatives to a uniform contrast index - such as Divided Pyrocat or Diafine - then we can meter for the shadows and let the developer handle the high values. The simplest way to do this is to take an incident reading for the "open shadows" (a BTZS term) with a meter set at 2x the effective film speed or ISO.

Because the developer guarantees highlight definition, issues of compression and expansion get relegated to post-processing. Every shot is exposed and developed the same way. This approach is welcome when shooting roll-film, since we don't have to worry about the brightness range of any scene: all are handled automatically.

See http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?98377-Diafine-Help-please-for-uneven-development and http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97694-Diafine-substitute-Metol-for-Hydroquinone

[BrianShaw]

Brushing aside the suggestion that we merely brush aside the issue and do what the meter tells us to do (I have never heard my meter tell me to do anything: perhaps I need my hearing checked)...

Your hearing may be fine; how is your eyesight? Ha ha ha.

[Regular Rod]

I am new to the world of large format photography and have the first of what will most likely be many stupid questions. I shot 35mm and some med. format film back in the 80s, and have been shooting 35mm digital for the last 4 years so I am familiar with the basics of photography. My question is on exposure systems. There seems to be at least 4 systems out there.
1. Zone system by Ansel Adams
2. BTZS by Phil Davis
3. VIDEC system by Andrew Eads.
4. Use your digital SLR to figure it out and adjust for bellows?

Without starting any kind of a Mac/PC or Canon/Nikon type flame war, what does everyone here use?

I will be shooting B/W landscape type stuff and at least at first having a local photo store developing the negatives. At that point I will most likely have the negatives scanned into the computer and use NIK/Photoshop for finial processing.

Large Format = Zone System
Roll Film = Expose for Zone III and let 510-PYRO or OBSIDIAN AQUA or diXactol look after the highlights.

RR

[SergeiR]

They all come down to the same thing: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

they - if as in all listed above - yes.
Overwise - you are mistaken


Ansel Adams and Fred Archer worked together to formulate the Zone System as a way to gain consistency in exposure and development of film and paper. All others have come after, and offer variances on the original.

No, there were systems developed before that. And after that. And some of them have nothing to do with AA design

You can open photography manuals printed in 19 century, long before AA came, and find quite good exposure suggestions and systematic approaches.



Large Format = Zone System
RR


thank God , no. It is not equal. And seriously - enough with pushing that developer of yours.

To answer original question - as long as you using the SAME approach in how you meter thing and access scenes - it becomes system. Will be based on AA or on something else - entirely doesnt matter as long as you getting results you like.

[Regular Rod]

they - if as in all listed above - yes.
Overwise - you are mistaken



No, there were systems developed before that. And after that. And some of them have nothing to do with AA design

You can open photography manuals printed in 19 century, long before AA came, and find quite good exposure suggestions and systematic approaches.





thank God , no. It is not equal. And seriously - enough with pushing that developer of yours.

To answer original question - as long as you using the SAME approach in how you meter thing and access scenes - it becomes system. Will be based on AA or on something else - entirely doesnt matter as long as you getting results you like.

Forgive me Sergei I should have used a different symbol from =. My mistake. I would go back and change it but the forum application doesn't allow me to, so I will repost in an effort to be more clear. The point about the three developers I listed is that they are compensating developers. None of them are "mine" I happen to use them (along with other developers).

RR

[Regular Rod]

I am new to the world of large format photography and have the first of what will most likely be many stupid questions. I shot 35mm and some med. format film back in the 80s, and have been shooting 35mm digital for the last 4 years so I am familiar with the basics of photography. My question is on exposure systems. There seems to be at least 4 systems out there.
1. Zone system by Ansel Adams
2. BTZS by Phil Davis
3. VIDEC system by Andrew Eads.
4. Use your digital SLR to figure it out and adjust for bellows?

Without starting any kind of a Mac/PC or Canon/Nikon type flame war, what does everyone here use?

I will be shooting B/W landscape type stuff and at least at first having a local photo store developing the negatives. At that point I will most likely have the negatives scanned into the computer and use NIK/Photoshop for finial processing.

For Large Format: Zone System
For Roll Film: Expose for Zone III and let 510-PYRO or OBSIDIAN AQUA or diXactol look after the highlights.


RR

[Leigh]

When I said earlier that ZS and its clones are advanced techniques, there was a good reason:

ZS is a SYSTEM.
It includes every step from identifying a subject, envisioning the final print, then using the methods and materials required to make that print.

In order for it to work, you must select ONE film, ONE paper, and appropriate chemistry for each.
Then you must do exhaustive testing to see how variations in exposure and processing affect each material.

If you want to use a different film and/or paper, you must repeat the entire process with the new material(s).
The same is true if you want to change developers (or toners or other post-processing steps).

Only when you have completed all of this can you "place" a particular subject tonality on Zone IV, or use N+1 development to achieve a desired density range.

It ain't a chinese menu. You can't pick one or another feature of the system and expect to get any particular results.

- Leigh

[ROL]

I am new to the world of large format photography and have the first of what will most likely be many stupid questions. I shot 35mm and some med. format film back in the 80s, and have been shooting 35mm digital for the last 4 years so I am familiar with the basics of photography. My question is on exposure systems. There seems to be at least 4 systems out there.
1. Zone system by Ansel Adams
2. BTZS by Phil Davis
3. VIDEC system by Andrew Eads.
4. Use your digital SLR to figure it out and adjust for bellows?

Using #4 is really cheating yourself of the film experience, though I have done it myself when I have forgotten to bring my spot meter. But then I already have a good bit of knowledge and experience in "exposure systems". A good belt will guard against that anyway :rolleyes:.

You can't go wrong with #1. Its principles are basic to the others, and if appreciated can take you all the way to your print (as intended).


Without starting any kind of a Mac/PC or Canon/Nikon type flame war, what does everyone here use?
I will be shooting B/W landscape type stuff and at least at first having a local photo store developing the negatives. At that point I will most likely have the negatives scanned into the computer and use NIK/Photoshop for finial processing.

You will find more helpful sub forums here with regard to that nonsense. As already stated, #1 will take you from film to print. If you're not printing yourself you may as well not bother with #1, as it can be difficult to fully comprehend and in fact poorly understood by some practitioners. That ZS is intended to give the photographer the utmost control within the limitations of the traditional process. I use the word nonsense because while there are plenty of good and necessary reasons to embrace digital processes in all their forms, it leaves me with a blank (and cranky!) stare as to why anyone, particularly a post-digital convert, would want to shoot a huge, expensive piece of film and not have as complete control as possible throughout the making of an unadulterated print, IMAO. Sure, just hand it off to your lab for developing and PS it, if that makes you proud... many do. AHH, progress. :p

[BrianShaw]

... why anyone, particularly a post-digital convert, would want to shoot a huge, expensive piece of film and not have as complete control as possible throughout the making of an unadulterated print, IMAO. Sure, just hand it off to your lab for developing and PS it, if that makes you proud :p. (...many do)

If the goal is the making of an unadulterated print there isn't much question about it, as you say. Making an unadulterated print is very difficult and requires total control. But that doesn't seem to be the goal in the original question, or so I assume from how I read the posting. Many people make really nice prints using, both, "adulteration" and cropping. I was assuming that given the proposed hybrid workflow. In that case, any of the systems could yield a workable neg... just as an incident reading or even a general-coverage reflected reading could. Why complicate things until there is a good reason to do so? There should be no shame placed upon folks who use labs or computer post-processing... it really is progress (just not of the traditional kind)!

[ROL]

I feel perfectly justified in offering a differing opinion in a non-digital forum. I quoted the OP because my purpose was to offer reasons why he may not want or need to invest in the ZS. I thought it was clear that I accept prints anyway they're made, as long as the photographer can justify them or they have a market. I'm backing away from non-confrontation in this case, and talking about another way to do things, because the rising tide of digital production is completely overwhelming traditional processes to the point that the "other" side is rarely heard, and very often disparaged by digital commercial products and services. I'm not anti-D. Blather on your indignancies. Picking at my words shows poor comprehension, or possible communication on my part, or both, of the point. Deal with it.

[BrianShaw]

"Blather on..."; "Deal with it"???? Dude, I was basically agreeing with you. Since this is a discussion forum I was "discussing" a POINT made... not picking at your words to degrade either you or your opinion. Sheesh.

[ROL]

"Are you talking to me? No matter... why so rude?" I'm not shaming (your rude words) anyone. See how that works? Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Cranky! (see first post). You make my point that nothing can be said about traditional process and techniques without righteous indignation from those who will not, cannot invest in those processes.

OK, you're now editing your posts but I'll leave mine as they are. This wasn't about you, but changing your words is shameful and cowardly. You've made it so.


ROL OUT!

[BrianShaw]

One of us must not be reading/writing the same English language. Sorry to have interacted with you or your post. Have a good day, Madam.

EDIT: Dude, yes I changed it to reduce the potential for confrontation. I realized that there is no need for such. I have nothing to hide, nor to be shameful about. We just happened to be typing at the same time. So I repeat my original question: "Are you talking to me? No matter, why so rude?" To that I also ask... and why are you so confrontational? If your comment wasn't directed at me that is fine. Just say so. No matter, I will gladly apologize for ruffling your feathers. There is no need for that on this forum.

[ROL]

One of us must not be reading/writing the same English language. Sorry to have interacted with you or your post. Have a good day, Madam.

Wow, that's pretty sweet, honey. Nice cover.

[BrianShaw]

sigh. I'm signing out for a while folks. Sorry for this unfortunate interruption of a perfectly legitimate thread.

[Kevin Crisp]

This isn't a bad resource for starters:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/af9/

For me, I had no trouble understanding Adams' explanation of the zone system in his The Negative. Then I did the film speed test and development time test and that was all I needed.

[Bill Burk]

It ain't a chinese menu. You can't pick one or another feature of the system and expect to get any particular results.

I agree there are dangers when you pick and choose. My feeling is that the traditional Zone System is a complete system with basic flaws which just happen to cancel each other out. If you want to use the Zone System, as it was taught, then you need to do it all - otherwise its flaws MIGHT NOT CANCEL OUT.

You might take two different systems that make different assumptions, and cause problems (Specific example: Place shadows on Zone IV as Bruce Barnbaum advises + Shoot at "Half Box Speed" because it is common practice. It may work fine, but you can see that you will get more exposure by combining two systems than if you listened to one expert).

But if you are careful, I think you can take a step back and look at different techniques that have been taught over the years, pick the parts that work for you, and devise a system of your own. (Doesn't EVERYBODY do this anyway?).

The fun part here is figuring out what the different systems glossed over or got wrong (like flare), how they worked anyway, and how your system won't have that problem.

[Leigh]

The admonition to shoot at "half box speed" derives directly from the fact that the vast majority of photographers can't identify an 18% reflectance in a real-world subject, WRT a spotmeter exposure reading.

- Leigh

[Mark Barendt]

Another lable that fits the zone system is "industrial process". I'm not using that as a perjoritive, it is good to know what you are going to end up with when you start.

The zone system (or any other system) is just a specialized way of working, designed to get a specific type of output. Each system (even say mine for my studio work) can be very good at its task.

It needs to be said though that these systems are subsets of the whole, one trick ponies; there are other ways to shoot and other styles that are just as valid.

For example pegging exposure to the shadow point is only important when those shadows are truly important to the photo in question. For landscapes, sure that's normally important, for portraits of people the exact placement of the shadow point is often, in fact I'd even suggest, normally irrelevant.

A second example is the exact placement of the shadow point on the film curve as specified by the system. Having that carry through is nice, it makes for less testing and guessing when printing, it is great for standardized work, but, most negative emulsions have a significant amount of latitude. Excellent, almost indistinguishable, prints can be made across a fairly wide range of camera exposure settings without any change in film development.

[Mark Barendt]

The admonition to shoot at "half box speed" derives directly from the fact that the vast majority of photographers can't identify an 18% reflectance in a real-world subject, WRT a spotmeter exposure reading.

- Leigh

Nor where its going to land on paper.

That is why I am such a big fan of incident metering.

[Bill Burk]

The admonition to shoot at "half box speed" derives directly from the fact that the vast majority of photographers can't identify an 18% reflectance in a real-world subject, WRT a spotmeter exposure reading.

- Leigh

And I thought it just got you better shadow detail.

[Leigh]

Excellent, almost indistinguishable, prints can be made across a fairly wide range of camera exposure settings without any change in film development.
True that. :D

The ZS, its clones, and all other "systems" work by standardizing the process, and minimizing the influence of variables on the result.

You can develop your own "system", with results every bit as good as any published system, just by taking pictures and making prints.
Take copious notes at every step of the process. Standardize on one film and one paper, and a specific developer for each.
Write out your processing regimen for both materials, and follow those religiously, with absolutely no variation.

Over time, comparing the resulting negatives and prints, you'll develop your own style that's every bit as "valid" as anything published.
They key is consistency, so you understand the consequences of any change in exposure or processing.

Following a published system may shorten the time required to achieve "good" prints by forcing you to follow the recommended
methods. However, those may not match your personal shooting style.

- Leigh

[DennisD]

....it's only a matter of picking the system that best fits your own particular way of working -- the one you are most comfortable with.

I think Bruce Watson's early post sums it up well. Read about and study the various "systems". Pick the one which seems to fit your style and method of working and understanding.

Go thru the procedures and various tests as outlined to determine film speed and best printing results. If it all works for you, great. If not, move on to another "system" or method.

You won't know what's right for YOU until you try ...and no one here can say what works for you, (despite whatever they may think) though their thoughts and suggestions are well intended and may, indeed, be very helpful as you make your exploration.

But the point is: make that exploration yourself, hands on !

Good wishes in your search.

Dennis

[Bill Burk]

The ZS, its clones, and all other "systems" work by standardizing the process...taking pictures and making prints.
Take copious notes at every step of the process...

I like that advice. Maybe it IS the key.

While I don't pick one camera, one lens, one film, one format. I DO have one developer for film, one developer for paper, one paper (two grades). So I see where you are going and I might have a system that works because I reduced SOME variables.

[Mark Barendt]

I like that advice. Maybe it IS the key.

While I don't pick one camera, one lens, one film, one format. I DO have one developer for film, one developer for paper, one paper (two grades). So I see where you are going and I might have a system that works because I reduced SOME variables.

I settled on one paper and on developer for a long while and that made a big difference in the quality of my prints, that choice was good and important and one that I recommend.

Lately though I decided to try and use up my paper leftovers, the stuff I'd been struggling with that pushed me to settle on one fresh, dependable, nice paper.

Turns out that it wasn't the paper that was the problem. Like normal, it was me. I simply didn't have the chops or understanding at that point to see and keep up with what the papers were offering me.

As my grasp of the craft grew in my one paper world, my ability to deal with various papers and other variables has changed too.

[Leigh]

While I don't pick one ... film...
The suggestion to use one film and one developer is just to get you fully acquainted with that environment's strengths and weaknesses.

I said back in post #16:

If you want to use a different film and/or paper, you must repeat the entire process with the new material(s).

There's no limit to the number of combinations you can use if you want. The key is to know each one intimately, not just as a party pretty.

- Leigh