PDA

View Full Version : Is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?



Shen45
4-Sep-2012, 20:34
Which is more important, a perfectly calculated zone one or an image that has subtlety or drama, impact or delicious nuances of tonality.

I have noticed a slavish adherence to rigid systems that call for deep shadow detail and creamy highlights when in fact that may be a wonderful representation of a step wedge but a lifeless representation of the scene [or whatever].

With the zone system basically formulated to standardise most negatives on a normal Grade [2] paper in the 50's how applicable is this antiquated system with modern films and VC papers?

In reality it is not a standard system because 10 different photographers presented with a scene may all choose to meter z3 differently. Then the determination of development can be skewed further by correct or incorrect choice of z7 or 8 or whatever highlight is chosen for setting development.

These simple individual variations bring the zone system fairly close to a box speeder with an average meter and normal development.

If my statements are incorrect why is the endless uncertainty of testing and the inordinate waste of materials justified for the often less than mediocre - often compressed tonality - associated with this system.

I can understand the American adoption of the Zone system but wonder if it is regarded as highly in Europe. Here in Australia it is reasonably popular but historically wasn't accorded a lot of attention. To my eye and it is not just lighting conditions European photography in general seems to convey more drama and impact by not attempting to get masses of shadow detail into an image. ** Very personal opinion ** There is a drastic over emphasis on shadow detail in most work today because of the fetish enslavement to finding your own personal EI and getting information into areas of the film it was never really designed to cope with.

Film is designed for fairly narrow parameters and when you step outside of the manufacturers specifications you run the risk of producing a long tone scale image that can be very flat dull and visually boring regardless of the actual content.

I am rapidly coming to the opinion that while the zone system served Ansel Adams wonderfully and likewise some photographers today it can be a total millstone around the neck of the majority of photographers, it promotes anxiety about every individual shutter and its accuracy, it causes fear that your EI is different to someone else and causes many photographers to second guess their actual creative processes.

:) So is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?

C. D. Keth
4-Sep-2012, 20:56
:) So is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?

Not at all. That's like saying that stick charcoal is obsolete because somebody invented pencils. If you want your negative to record detail in every part of a scene, the zone system is a well-described way of doing that.

You don't need to think about it all the time or ever use it. Certainly don't let yourself become a slave to it, seeking technical perfection over artistry. Having said that, I don't think a photographer who works on film can really call their skills complete without knowing their way around the zone system.

Kirk Gittings
4-Sep-2012, 21:08
The ZS is a tool not a straightjacket.

Vaughn
4-Sep-2012, 21:19
It is not the system, it is the understanding behind it.

Gem Singer
4-Sep-2012, 21:21
The fundamental principle of the Zone System is: "Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights."

The method you use in order to achieve that principle is up to you.

Leigh
4-Sep-2012, 21:29
Tuco recently posted a building interior in Architecture that has direct sunlight streaming through the windows and open door.

He used N-2 development to control the contrast, resulting in a beautiful print.

No, ZS is not dead, but neither is it Master.

- Leigh

Nathan Potter
4-Sep-2012, 21:54
Use of the zone system really depends on how fussy you are and what degree of perfection you want from your craft. It's all a matter of fitting the brightness range of your scene to the density range needed from your negative. Yes it is a seemingly complex task in the beginning but there are ways to make it simpler.

I tend to use a calibrated Stouffer step wedge placed over the film in the camera; then a single shot yields about a 10 EV range spanning the deepest shadows to faintest highlights. Then I just pull the contrast index using a few N- and N+ development times as a calibration. I'll plot a sensitometric curve of EV vs Density for the N+ and N- development times and actually carry them into the field and refer to them for critical work.

For darkroom printing I typically shoot for Dmax = 1.5 to 2.0. For scanning I'll keep the Dmax at 1.5 or below.

Nate Potter, Austin TX, / Corea ME.

Maris Rusis
4-Sep-2012, 22:00
I use the zone system to get maximum spatial and photometric information in the negative. This does not mean I'm necessarily going to use all the information when making the positive but it gives me more options.

One thing that I've abandoned mostly is N+ and N- development protocols. Going up one paper grade is very similar to N+1 development and N-1 is closely matched by going down one grade. Even N+2 and N-2 can be fudged, more or less. Really long scale scenes, or really flat ones, can be fitted to useful negative densities by development modification but I'm thinking more often that it's not worth it. A scene that difficult to look at for what it really is rarely becomes magical through development gymnastics.

Big B&W film also offers a generous tolerance for extra exposure and detail is well preserved at even high densities. The only deadly sins to avoid are insufficient exposure and insufficient development. The zone system, simple or complex, is a good way of ensuring this.

Merg Ross
4-Sep-2012, 22:18
The ZS is a tool not a straightjacket.


It is not the system, it is the understanding behind it.


The fundamental principle of the Zone System is: "Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights."

The method you use in order to achieve that principle is up to you.

Well said. And to deviate from the principle is also acceptable; however, an understanding is paramount.

Kevin J. Kolosky
4-Sep-2012, 22:23
what has always bothered me about it is that it seems to say that if you end up using a different grade of paper than grade 2 you did something wrong!

Michael Alpert
5-Sep-2012, 04:39
I have noticed a slavish adherence to rigid systems . . .

Well, yes, of course––"slavish adherence" to any system, rigid or not, is self-defeating. We have all seen very unimaginative photographs that are technically accomplished. Adams, at his worst, produced unimaginative imitations of Watkins; at his best, he created work that was more personal. The zone system, as I understand it, is a way to produce negatives that are consistently easy to print. Adams was not a very articulate writer, so he presented his rather simple method in a complicated way. Still, an understanding of the basic idea is useful––even with modern materials. The relation of the zone system to Art is another matter, which is your point.

Frank Petronio
5-Sep-2012, 05:07
Getting a full range of tones in a negative allows you to do whatever you please after the fact, versus limiting yourself with some blocked up film. I don't think many people really do the entire pre-visualization thing.

David de Gruyl
5-Sep-2012, 05:16
The zone system, as I understand it, is a way to produce negatives that are consistently easy to print.

That's the idea. It requires thinking about the paper (or at least the gamma of the paper) while shooting, and then following up on that while developing. In a sense, he (Adams) traded the complications of printing for the complicating both developing and shooting. To be honest, using Phil Davis' extension (Beyond the Zone System) as a basis for shooting has helped my printing. I wouldn't say that it is perfect, but any analytical method is bound to produce more consistent results than not.

The main problem with images shot using the Zone system is the flat look created when the zones are placed dogmatically. It is much like printing a negative for maximum tonal range: you end up with too little contrast. There is always a trade-off. The "art" is in deciding whether something is black or shadow / white or highlight.

To top all that off, you still need to use dodging (I use masks for that, so I just reset the base exposure to effectively burn in the un-masked parts). I've found that mask based dodging is far superior in terms of consistency to dancing with wands, but it is also more time consuming.

To bring it back to zone system: it is not a silver bullet, but it does give you more room to work with when you are adjusting an image.

rdenney
5-Sep-2012, 05:35
Use of the zone system really depends on how fussy you are and what degree of perfection you want from your craft. It's all a matter of fitting the brightness range of your scene to the density range needed from your negative.

This is it. Good technique cannot give life to a dead photo, but bad technique might make it impossible to achieve those creamy tones you desire. Film and development has advanced since the Zone System was codified, and we now have digital scanning and processing, giving us more margin for error. The Zone System was a huge advance over the intuitive and empirical processes it replaced. So, we may not need all the precision some have applied to it. But it still comes down to our negative having what we need or getting in the way of our expressive intentions.

Rick "do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

Brian Ellis
5-Sep-2012, 05:38
You don't understand the purpose of the zone system. It's the opposite of everything you seem to think it is. E.g. it's not "a rigid system[s] that call[s] for deep shadow detail and creamy highlights" when those qualities would result in a "lifeless representation of the scene." In fact its purpose is precisely the opposite, i.e. to allow the photographer to make a negative that will avoid deep shadow detail and creamy highlights in the print when that isn't what the photographer wants the photograph to look like. It also isn't "basically formulated to standardise most negatives on a normal Grade [2] paper." Again, it's purpose is precisely the opposite, i.e. to allow the photographer to make a negative that will print on whatever grade of paper the photographer anticipates using to make the print she or he wants to make.

You say that "[i]n reality it is not a standard system because 10 different photographers presented with a scene may all choose to meter z3 differently. Then the determination of development can be skewed further by correct or incorrect choice of z7 or 8 or whatever highlight is chosen for setting development." EXACTLY! In criticizing the zone system you've actually just stated its principal benefit. Different photographers might choose to meter Zone III differently because they see the scene differently and want to make a print that reflects their vision of the scene, not necessarily just some standardized print with deep shadows and creamy highlights. And development doesn't skew anything further, it's simply another aid to making the negative, and ultimately the print, that the photographers wishes to make.

I could go on and on but the basic point is that the zone system isn't designed to make one kind of standard negative from which one kind of standard print can be made, it's a system designed to allow the photographer to make whatever kind of negative he or she wants to make in order to end up with a print that looks like the photographer wants the print to look. It's a system designed for maximum creativity ("art" if you will) and minimum rote. Or as Rick Denney said, "it . . . comes down to our negative having what we need or getting in the way of our expressive intentions."

Brian Ellis
5-Sep-2012, 05:42
what has always bothered me about it is that it seems to say that if you end up using a different grade of paper than grade 2 you did something wrong!

Good grief.

Scott Walker
5-Sep-2012, 07:48
The ZS is a tool not a straightjacket.

Well said

E. von Hoegh
5-Sep-2012, 09:48
Which is more important, a perfectly calculated zone one or an image that has subtlety or drama, impact or delicious nuances of tonality.

I have noticed a slavish adherence to rigid systems that call for deep shadow detail and creamy highlights when in fact that may be a wonderful representation of a step wedge but a lifeless representation of the scene [or whatever].

With the zone system basically formulated to standardise most negatives on a normal Grade [2] paper in the 50's how applicable is this antiquated system with modern films and VC papers?

In reality it is not a standard system because 10 different photographers presented with a scene may all choose to meter z3 differently. Then the determination of development can be skewed further by correct or incorrect choice of z7 or 8 or whatever highlight is chosen for setting development.

These simple individual variations bring the zone system fairly close to a box speeder with an average meter and normal development.

If my statements are incorrect why is the endless uncertainty of testing and the inordinate waste of materials justified for the often less than mediocre - often compressed tonality - associated with this system.

I can understand the American adoption of the Zone system but wonder if it is regarded as highly in Europe. Here in Australia it is reasonably popular but historically wasn't accorded a lot of attention. To my eye and it is not just lighting conditions European photography in general seems to convey more drama and impact by not attempting to get masses of shadow detail into an image. ** Very personal opinion ** There is a drastic over emphasis on shadow detail in most work today because of the fetish enslavement to finding your own personal EI and getting information into areas of the film it was never really designed to cope with.

Film is designed for fairly narrow parameters and when you step outside of the manufacturers specifications you run the risk of producing a long tone scale image that can be very flat dull and visually boring regardless of the actual content.

I am rapidly coming to the opinion that while the zone system served Ansel Adams wonderfully and likewise some photographers today it can be a total millstone around the neck of the majority of photographers, it promotes anxiety about every individual shutter and its accuracy, it causes fear that your EI is different to someone else and causes many photographers to second guess their actual creative processes.

:) So is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?

The zone system is, to put it very simply, applied sensitometry. It will never be redundant. You can even use it with color transparency film. It provokes anxiety only in the already anxious. There is no "inordinate waste of materials"- quite the contrary - and the results are "mediocre" only when sloppy method and or poor previsualisation is/are used. The zone system is not for everyone, apparently.

Drew Wiley
5-Sep-2012, 11:31
The Zone System is simply a shorthand learning tool. It is not a religion. And no combination of exposure, film, and developer is articulated into neat segments, but consitutes a particular curve shape which you then intelligently control to achieve a useful negative. I don't even think about it anymore unless I'm trying to teach a beginner. What
I do is actually visualize where a particular meter reading will land on the film curve relative
to other values, and I can do it almost subconsciously with all kinds of film and developer
combinations. But it's easiest to learn just one combination at a time. VC papers make
printing easier in many cases, but won't necessarily salvage a poor exposure in the first
place. What kind of shadow and highlight reproduction you want is up to you - you define
your own artistic rules, not some how-to manual.

cowanw
5-Sep-2012, 14:06
The Zone System has evolved to meet newer photographers needs and, thus the understanding of the System and the verbalization of it has changed.
This is what wiki says (in part)

"The Zone System requires that every variable in photography, from exposure to darkroom production of the print, be calibrated and controlled. The print is the last link in a chain of events, no less important to the Zone System than exposure and development of the film. With practice, the photographer visualizes the final print before the shutter is released."

What we often hear now, as in this thread, is the importance of getting the information on the negative. However, given the dynamic range of B&W film, this was (and is) less of a problem than fitting the image on 1930's paper. Which was critical to "the System". But never invoved good VC paper, much less Photoshop.
An understanding of Sensitometry is great.
Partial application and personal interpretation of the System is common and very useful.
Visualization is a great tool, but the underlying necessity of The Zone System to match the scene to a (graded paper) has been supplemented by other tools.

Doremus Scudder
5-Sep-2012, 14:11
This subject is a bit tired, but I'll add a quick comment or two anyway.

The Zone System is a tool that allows you to visualize a final image and arrive at a exposure/development/printing scheme to realize that visualization. It is not necessary to have a deep black or bright white if you don't want them. It is important to have calibrated your system so you know what you are going to get.

The essential element of the Zone System, in my view, is the visualization process. The ZS gives you the tools to mentally compose the tones of an image and translate that to a final print. It does not make you adhere to any particular paper grades, range of tonalities or exposure technique.

For example, I use the Zone System to routinely "overexpose" my Tri-X (to get an important shadow farther up onto the straight line portion of the film), "under-develop" that same image to pull a highlight down below where it would be "correct" on grade 2 paper, and print that negative on grade 4 so I can emphasize local contrast more than I could with grade 2. Of course, I used quotes above, because all this is exactly right for the image I visualized, and I used the Zone System correctly to achieve the final result I wanted.

The Zone System is a tool; it can be used a number of ways to get a number of results and, "an image that has subtlety or drama, impact or delicious nuances of tonality" (or all of the above) is precisely its goal.

Best,

Doremus

Leigh
5-Sep-2012, 14:19
It is important to have calibrated your system so you know what you are going to get.
Yep. That's the goal. The ZS provides a structured methodology that can be used to achieve that goal.

But it's not the only methodology that can do so.

Whatever works best for you, your chemical processes, and your thought processes, is best.

- Leigh

Doremus Scudder
5-Sep-2012, 14:24
Yep. That's the goal. The ZS provides a structured methodology that can be used to achieve that goal.

...
- Leigh

That's one of the goals. Like I mentioned above, for me, it is the Zone System's use as a visualization tool that is most important for me, and which is missing from many (most?) other systems.

Best,

Doremus

Eric Biggerstaff
5-Sep-2012, 16:01
Brian nailed it! Well said.

Kirk Gittings
5-Sep-2012, 16:09
When I was using graded papers, I aimed my exp/dev at a grade 3 paper as my normal because I believed it gave me a particular mid tone contrast/look that I liked on a couple of particular papers. That is the beauty of the ZS. It gives you the control you need for consistent personal expression-not for mass producing "great" prints that look like everyone elses.

Kevin Crisp
5-Sep-2012, 16:40
I think of the zone system a tool that will help me get a negative that I can use to make the print I had in mind. This does not mean every negative is exposed to give deep but detailed low values and contrasting whites with just a hint of detail. I could mean that, though. If you are exposing film without having in mind the end result, that is a different problem. Even then it can prevent you from blowing out highlights. Better to have the best negative I can get for the end result I want than to take a generically exposed negative and torture it into submission in the darkroom.

It does seem to be slavishly used by some. I find myself shooting more and more handheld on trips with my Crown Graphic. I use an old Weston Master V and double exposure. Negatives are quite printable. More lately I use the lowest shutter speed I can handhold at f:11 or f:11 and don't use the meter. Again, the negatives are always printable. There are lots of ways to get the negative you want, learning the zone system added immensely to my understanding of how to do that, even when I don't use it.

emh
5-Sep-2012, 16:43
...it can be a total millstone around the neck of the majority of photographers, it promotes anxiety about every individual shutter and its accuracy, it causes fear that your EI is different to someone else and causes many photographers to second guess their actual creative processes.

I think it's just the opposite of a "millstone". My introduction to ZS was about 35 years ago, in college. At first, it seemed somewhat intimidating. I had never run tests of that sort prior to that class. I wondered if an adherence to the system would have a negative impact on creativity. After finishing the tests, I began using the system in the field. Rather than inhibiting creativity, it freed me to further enhance my vision (or lack thereof... :-) )
I still remember the first time I came upon a scene, "pre-visualized" it, metered it, shot it, developed the film, and made a print which exactly matched the "pre-visualization". It was a real epiphany.

Roger Cole
5-Sep-2012, 18:18
No.

Next question?

;)

ic-racer
5-Sep-2012, 19:12
So is the zone system now redundant ...?

Now?? The "N" permutations of development faded in to oblivion with the popularity of rollfilm and high-quality fiber-based multigrade papers many years ago.

Kevin J. Kolosky
5-Sep-2012, 19:29
Doremus, Kirk, and Eric

Who cares what kind of system you used. I just spent the last couple of hours looking at each of your websites and thinking that although there has to be some sort of exposure controls in place (expose more or less, develop more or less), it is really the places that you go and the vision that you have once you get there that makes great photographs.

And You guys have made some great photographs!!!!!

Bill Burk
5-Sep-2012, 20:30
I don't think of hitting Grade 2 as a requirement. But it sure is nice to go through twice as much Grade 2 paper as anything else.

Drew Wiley
6-Sep-2012, 10:18
I standardized on Grade 3 paper for years, esp Seagull G3. Now that VC papers are the
cat's meow, there's no strict rule in play, because each paper/dev situation is somewhat
different. Same with the old silly adage to place shadows on Zone 3 - I never do that.
With some films, I place the shadows on Zone 2, 1, or even 0. It just depends what the
toe of the film looks like. Some films will allow clean gradation way down, some won't.
Same situation with the highlight the other direction. The Zone System can be applied to
any of these conditions, but don't expect everything to work the same way it did when
Ansel or Minor White taught it. Products have changed quite a bit.

Robert Budding
6-Sep-2012, 13:20
There's nothing wrong with understanding the materials with which you work.

Pawlowski6132
7-Sep-2012, 03:09
There's nothing wrong with understanding the materials with which you work.

But, I can understand my materials and not use the zone system right? I believe in making a flexible negative (over expose and reduce development) and use darkroom technique and materials to print however I want.

Robert Budding
7-Sep-2012, 04:01
But, I can understand my materials and not use the zone system right? I believe in making a flexible negative (over expose and reduce development) and use darkroom technique and materials to print however I want.

You should use what works for you. I do find it odd, though, that people who do not use the zone system often choose to mischaracterize it.

Drew Wiley
7-Sep-2012, 15:21
A flexible negative because you overexpose and underdevelop??? Well, it depends upon what you mean as flexible. You might sacrifice midtone and highlight microtonality doing that. And again, different film and developer combinations will respond differently. Maybe
you'll want higher contrast in the print, and will be unable to achieve it due to such a strategy. One shoe simply does not fit everyone or every exposure situation!!! And the Zone System does not dictate you do things one way or the other! It simply provides you
with a simple model to previsualize what is likely to happen, and to expose adn develop your film accordingly, that is, once you have already established the relevant parameters
through testing.

Robert Budding
7-Sep-2012, 17:44
A flexible negative because you overexpose and underdevelop??? Well, it depends upon what you mean as flexible. You might sacrifice midtone and highlight microtonality doing that. And again, different film and developer combinations will respond differently. Maybe
you'll want higher contrast in the print, and will be unable to achieve it due to such a strategy. One shoe simply does not fit everyone or every exposure situation!!! And the Zone System does not dictate you do things one way or the other! It simply provides you
with a simple model to previsualize what is likely to happen, and to expose adn develop your film accordingly, that is, once you have already established the relevant parameters
through testing.

Whatever makes people happy is fine with me . . . But the flip side is that they shouldn't complain when I do a bit of film testing.

Nana Sousa Dias
22-Sep-2012, 15:23
What I really care is about the negative. If the negative has all the shadows detail I wanted when I was shooting and the highlights are bright and printable, then, ZS worked well for me. If I'm gonna use a MC paper to print the negative, I have even a lot more of control, if I decide, for example print with split-contrast, so, modern film and MC papers are one more step beyhond ZS...