Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma

I am curious re: the use of the Zone System as compared to a "Non Zone system" usage amongst the forum readers/shooters.

Let me be a bit more specific using myself as an example. There are times I envy those who practice the Zone system (a la Adams et al)-----going for the longest range of whites to blacks in their imagery----technical wizardry. Pushing the film to its ultimate usage as well as making prints with likewise long ranges of tones. I commend you, but I am not there.

Yes, I somewhat use contraction/reduction in my exposures/processing, metering , etc., however, as stated above, I'm not laboring over the Zone System. I am content getting a wide range of tones as possible using my system & relying on my Ilford paper & use of Dekol as well as having a "decent" negative. I say again, a "decent " negative.

So the question on my mind is thus: Are forum readers intent upon the usage of the Zone System in creating their negatives or are forum readers using "their modified Zone System" (like mine)? Which is the Majority or the Non Majority?

Please keep in mind that I identify with David Vestal's philosophy et al that the important end result is a print that is "meaningful, personal & says something", and that is what I strive for in my imagery. I believe I am successful to that end.

Your comments or methods used, please

Having been forced by market pressures to use color most of my professional career, I adopted standard methods to achieve “perfect” lighting conditions since color transparency film could not easily be manipulated with the Zone System.

As a pro, the budget was always there to rent equipment, hire assistants, etc. to clean things up.

As a (now retired) amateur, the pressure to produce according to the client’s deadline is off. If the light stinks, I go home. No longer any need to make myself crazy.

I remember hearing stories about a particularly laid-back fine art photographer in Southern California. The legend says that every morning, he hung his light meter out the window next to his bed. If it didn’t read at least f/11, he rolled over and went back to sleep.

As to specific methods, I employ an incident meter and subscribe to Edward Weston’s meter dial calibrations: five stops of surface pigmentation plus two stops of b&w light ratio for a total acceptable subject reflection density range of seven stops (or Zones).

That’s Edward Weston the English designer of the Weston Meter, not the California green pepper nude photographer guy.

The Zone System is a wonderful thing, in principal. My only misgiving is when it is used as a cure-all or excuse for working in ugly lighting conditions. Used responsibly, I’m all for it. Just not for commercial color film assignments. (Heaven only knows what the kids are currently artificially tweaking out of digital.)

I'm a modified zone system user myself. Like you, I work for the best possible negative within the constraints I set for myself - I'm not willing to spend days doing film testing, developer testing, etc to micro-control my exposure, development and printing processes. There are only so many hours in the day, and of the ones that are my own, I'd rather be spending them taking pictures or admiring final prints than slaving in a lab to pin down within 10ths of a stop the precise film speed I should use for each lens I own (all of which has to be repeated any time you change a variable, like get a new emulsion lot, buy a new lens, or develop your film in a different darkroom (process your film in a rental darkroom in a different city or move somewhere with a different water source, for example)). Even St. Ansel had to dodge and burn his prints, so that's proof that getting super-anal up front will not eliminate problems in the output stage.

Just go out, take your photos, and do what you need to do to make photos that satisfy you. If you are unhappy with the results you are getting, then become more sysematic in your approach (or less... there is something to be said for the aesthetics of the imperfect).

I'm a Vestalian: my practice is to expose for the shadows, develop for a standard time that yields readily printable negatives of moderate contrast for even fairly contrasty scenes, and leave the rest for the darkroom.

I am familiar with both the Zone System and Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System, and although I think the latter is a superb approach to learning sensitometry, I don't find either system to be useful as a routine working tool.

I use the "half-assed" Zone System. Years ago, I went through the drugery of doing film speed tests and development tests. I'm still using ( stupidly, perhaps) the same film speed and development times I came up with 15 years ago (Tri-X). But they're producing results good enough for my bathroom wall.
As someone who is not very technically inclined, I just point my spot meter at shadow areas where I want detail (which determines my exposure). Then I check the bright areas of the scene to see if they fall higher than Zone VIII (which determines my develop time). My problem is that I still have trouble differentiating between Zones II and III.

I guess I'm a Beyond-The-Half-Assed-Zone-System photographer - I discovered the Zone System years ago while I was still a music major in college. Adams system reminded me very much of music analysis, so I instantly understood it. I later found Fred Picker's film speed test and development time test. A couple of years ago, I found and experimented with BTZS. I liked BTZS, but found in the light here, I frequently got underexposed negatives with the incident meter.

So, now I use my spot meter, using one film speed time for my film, and place the shadows where I want them. I use the meter to determine the other values, then use Phil Davis's formula for determining my development. Sort of. Because while developing, I also use DBI to decide when to pull the print. Ha.
juan

I don't use all the control that the Zone System provides. Most of my subjects have a fairly consistent 4-5 stop brightness level so my standard development works. But I should do some work on contrast control for the odd exceptions.

I do find it useful to use a spot meter to place the shadows and highlights then I can decide if I need to favour one end or the other and how much flexibility I have for the mid-tines. It seems to be working out, since my large format exposures seem to be about right 8-) Personally I have found that understanding the system gives me better control using any exposure method - reflective, incident, or multiple spot. It isn't magic, just a description of what happens with _every_ exposure and development.

It wasn't until I went to the Sierra Nevadas a couple of years ago that I saw any need for the Zone system. Photographing in the Southeast USA and Europe there has been little (or no) need for expansion or contraction. Just learn where to point the meter and give everything "Normal" development. When one photographs for 35 years with almost nothing but ASA 10 and 25 Kodachrome, the inherent latitude of B&W film seems infinite.

Definitely a half-assed zone system user. I usually meter in two places or so, most of my exposures are N, about one in five is N-minus-whatever, and about one in fifty is N-plus-whatever. This is all the precision I've ever needed. Darkroom materials (and digital ones) are so flexible that I don't feel the need for laboratory-accurate negatives. They just need to be close, and they always are. I'd rather not waste valuable brain time while I'm in the field trying to be creative.

For what it's worth, I sense that some people treat the zone system as some kind of religion. All it really is is a technical vocabulary that helps clarify what photographers have been doing from the begining. When people say "i just expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," they're doing the same thing that zone system users do; they're just not using the same words.

I use Phil Davis's Beyond the Zone System refinement of the Zone System with very good success. What I mean by that is that my negatives almost always give me a nice straight print on my chosen paper, Ilford MGIV FB at a grade 2.5. (To address Scott's point about even AA having to burn and dodge: I certainly have never made a landscape picture that did not require some manipulation in the darkroom; but I do maintain that a negative that yields a good straight print will require less work to get to the final print.)

BTZS is, of course, a "modified form" of the Zone System, but it is at least as complex. I think the question Raymond means to ask is how many of us are using a simplified version of the zone system?

BTZS works well for me, but I am not a BTZS zealot. I recognize that because of the forgiving nature of variable contrast paper I could probably do pretty well with some simpler variant of the zone system. For example, many photographers seem to do alright by placing their shadows in Zone IV and then ignoring film speed loss caused by minus development. The generous exposure will almost always prevent unprintably thin shadows. Any other deficiencies in the negative are remedied by means of variable contrast paper.

I stick with BTZS because I find it conceptually clear, and, having taken the time to master it, I find it is actually pretty easy to use in the field. But any photographer who is consistently making good negatives with some simpler system would have no reason to change to BTZS or any other system.

I learned the zone system about 25 years ago using Adams' and Minor White's books. Made myself follow it scrupulously for about a year. It worked.

Then I sort of left it behind and my own little system took its place; rate HP5 @ 200, meter the scene in half a dozen different places with a spot meter, paying most attention to the spread between highlights and shadows/dark areas. Figure I gotta stretch or shorten the development according to the range of light and nature of the lens, factor in the filter, add a little for bellows extension, a bit more for reciprocity, a little more or less because it seems right... I never do the numbers other than generally pushing times up and down in my head. It seems just as reliable, and has a nicer karma to it than standing out there with a calculator pushing little buttons. But to each his own...

It might be closer to what Minor White called "the Zen System." I've heard that phrase attributed to him, but I've never seen it in it's original context, so I don't know exactly what he meant by it. Anyone know the original usage?

One thing I don't often hear remarked about the zone system is how different lenses change the values. I switch back and forth from 19th century uncoated to modern multi-coated, everything from rectilinears and double gausses to plasmats. I like them all, but the modern lenses (especially the Nikkor 450 M) are quite contrasty, and the zone (or whatever exposure/development system one uses) is about contrast control more that just overall density. If your lenses vary much, you'd need to calibrate for each of them. (That's why I like my more informal system, I just know a lens is a bit soft or hard, and figure it in...)

I use the Zone system in terms of metering and place/fall in all formats. I also do use it with development controls in sheet film, but not all the time.

Lately I am much more inclined to use it to its full potential, and being that I just started using a new film (Bergger BPF200) I am quite excited to the full potential of reduced/increased development. I have yet to do a full test for film speed and then reduced/increased dev times with 8x10.

I'm in the full-fledged category of zone system user. I do my calibrations for a given film-developer combination. I don't do separate calibrations for different papers and different lenses. I figured that, while "Uncle" Ansel may have done his calibrations for a particular paper at the time, he eventually ended up printing those negatives on many other papers. So, I use Ilford Gallerie III graded paper as a middle of the road paper, and I use 150mm Symmar-S lens as a middle of the road lens for my calibrations. (As I understand it, this paper is sort of in between a II and a III grade.)

I've never thought of the "zone system" as necessarily striving for richest black to richest white, nor do I think that Ansel Adams portrayed it as such. It's an exposure-development strategy based on the time honored approach of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. This approach has solid roots in how film actually responds to both exposure and development. The zone system merely enables one to help predict how the tones in the final image can be expected to appear, regardless of whether the print emphasizes shadows, highlights, or both.

At one time or another, we've all been complimented on our printing. Yet when this has occurred, I've always acknowledged to myself, it's not in the printing, it's in the negative.

Lacking a spot meter or the budget to buy even a used one, much less a densitometer, I can't apply the Zone System properly, but I do think Zone thoughts as I'm preparing for an exposure with my plate cameras -- always, trying to ensure that I have detail where I want it, in both highlight and shadow. In my case, that boils down to something close to the way Adams describe Weston's metering technique -- one of waving the meter around the scene, scratching his head a bit, and then setting the exposure.

Oddly enough, this seems to work pretty well unless the scene has far too much brightness range (even though I'm using a very old Gossen Sixtomat), and I'm (slowly) learning to compensate for that by eye.

"There are times I envy those who practice the Zone system (a la Adams et al)-----going for the longest range of whites to blacks in their imagery----technical wizardry. Pushing the film to its ultimate usage as well as making prints with likewise long ranges of tones."

Wow, I didn't know I did all that when I use the zone system (as I do). All I'm trying to do is produce a negative that will allow me to make the print I want to make with as little manipulation as possible. As far as I know, that's all the zone system is designed to do.

"Even St. Ansel had to dodge and burn his prints, so that's proof that getting super-anal up front will not eliminate problems in the output stage."

You misunderstand the purpose of the zone system. Nobody I've ever heard of who uses the zone system has claimed that it can or should eliminate the need for dodging and burning . Objects in the scene that have the same luminance value will have the same density in the negative but I may not want them to have the same density in the print. In that case I'll dodge them if I want them to be lighter or burn if I want them to be darker (or do other things to make them look the way I want them to look in the print). The need to do that doesn't mean there's a problem with the zone system, it simply means we may not want every object or area in the scene that has the same density in the negative to look the same in the print so we dodge, burn, etc. to make them look the way we want them to look.

"Yes, I somewhat use contraction/reduction in my exposures/processing, metering , etc., however, as stated above, I'm not laboring over the Zone System."

I don't know exactly what you mean by using "contraction/reduction": in your metering or in your exposures but apart from that, there's no need to "labor" over the zone system. It's hard to imagine anything in photography less complicated than the zone system. Place the darkest important shadow area on the zone you want, see where that results in the brightest important highlight falling, develop accordingly. That's the zone system.

I`m going to agree with John Cook for the most part. Develope standard and expose enough for the shadows. If the light is no good, don`t waste film. Expansion doesn`t make overcast look like sun.

I did a shot last fall where a dark brown paneled door was in half shadow cast by a tree. Detail had to be in the shadow and the elements were such that natural lighting would never be right.

I overexposed three shops and made a lot of frames which I experimented with in the development to get a printable scene. It turned out great and several photo instructors wanted copies. This was a rare situation.

Last week I did a black and white of a brand new Norfolk Southern locomotive. For those who don`t know, they are pure glossy black with some white stripes. It had to show detail in the trucks and car body panel lines. It got 1/3 stop extra and standard development for #2 paper. The print is one of the best I have ever done or seen by anyone, anywhere. There is detail everywhere and the print has punch without being contrasty. If normal will do this, I have little use for zones. 4x5 fp4+, D76 1:1, Ilford Multigrade. No burning or dodging.

Brian, you mean just expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights? Wasn't that what Nadar (or maybe it was Brady) recommended?

I don't think it was Nadar or Brady, I think it was Joseph Niepce.

I don't use the Zone System. My primary intention at shooting time is to record as much information as possible. So I usually expose for the shadows. This gives me more degrees of freedom in later darkroom work (but usually is more work). I have made totally different prints from the same negatives and several years in between. I usually do not want to make a decision on the final print at shoot time. However, I would consider the Zone System, if contact prints were my intention.

I used to meter everything meticulously, and then develop according to the zs. Now I tend to do it very intuitively. Sometimes I still meter highlights, sometimes I just have a feel for my developing time according to the scene I was shooting. I've even forgotten to bring a light meter a few times, and "used the force" to make an exposure. Seems like I get some really nice negatives too. Of course, I've made mistakes doing it both ways, too. I almost always make two exposures for that reason.

I'm not only a half-assed zoner, but I'm an inconsistent one at that. I'm not proud of that; just confessing my sins.

I've been using (up till now) for the past ten years, Delta 400 as my favored 4X5 film. I found out that the Delta films didn't respond as well to plus and minus development, or at least, that they didn't respond in the same way. So I modified my Zone approach, and ended up using normal development for at least 80% of my shots. That may have something to do with living up here in Maine rather than in the tropical glare of warmer climes. But normal for me works most of the time. If it's not normal, it's almost always plus and almost never minus. I only do a plus or minus, not an N+2 or an N-2.

As for the inconsistent part, sometimes I get antsy doing all the spot readings and just use my incident dome on my Sekonic 508 (depending on subject, background, lighting,etc.), and about 90% of the time, the negs are great and print easily with minimal manipulation.

I use variable contrast paper almost exclusively and a split-filter method of printing with my Beseler colorhead--- one exposure at full magenta and one at full yellow. Works great. Improves local contrast. Reduces dodge and burn needs.

Larry

"I`m going to agree with John Cook for the most part. Develope standard and expose enough for the shadows. If the light is no good, don`t waste film. Expansion doesn`t make overcast look like sun."

"I don't use the Zone System. My primary intention at shooting time is to record as much information as possible. So I usually expose for the shadows. This gives me more degrees of freedom in later darkroom work (but usually is more work)."

You guys have some interesting ideas about what the zone system is ...I just have no idea where you got them. The ZS is nothing more than a vocabulary for describing what you do when you control exposure and development to get the negative density range that you want. It has nothing to do with the light being "no good," with making overcast look like sun, with recording more or less information than is possible.

Black and white photographers figured out a long time ago to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. St. Ansel just came up with an easy way to think about this and to teach it.

You guys have some interesting ideas about what the zone system is ...I just have no idea where you got them. The ZS is nothing more than a vocabulary for describing what you do when you control exposure and development to get the negative density range that you want.

Not quite. The truly distinctive feature of the Zone System as promoted and practiced, and indeed of BTZS as well, is the notion of varying development on a sheet-by-sheet basis to try to achieve an optimal match with one's preferred paper in a specified contrast grade.

For me, that level of control just isn't worth the hassle - it doesn't buy me any meaningful advantage in making the prints I want to make.

What Paul said. It's just about having a negative with a good tonal range, including accessible detail in the highlights and the shadows.

For filmspeed and dev time testing I have used george DeWolfe's system as described in an early VC mag issue. A test target made up from 5 pieces of mounting board with one stop brightness difference gives you 5 zones, so you need only to expose 2 sheets of film to produce 9 zones (zone 5 duplicated, one on each sheet of film). Gets you in the right ballpark very quickly.

On the side I am currently investigating the Photographic Tone Control approach according to Norman Sanders, a visual method, no need for densitometer, from his book with same title, 1977. Instead of his test target I use a Wallace Expodisc on the camera lens and hold another in front of my spotmeter; that gives me a zone 5 and I go from there.

In the field I expose the shadows @ zone 4 and develop acc. to subject brightness range.

Well, as usual this forum has great answers to a question. I am always impressed by all of you.

I will add my small two cents worth.

I think the Zone System has become overly complicated by the many books and systems out there. I don't think it was ever intended to make a "perfect" negative that would produce a "perfect" print on a grade 2 paper. Many books, workshops and photo courses seem to try and teach everyone that the system was designed to do that. I just don't think that was the origional intention.

In my opinion the system was origionally designed to allow an artist to gain enough control over their tools to allow them to make a negative in ANY manner that would enable them to create a print that communicated their interpretation of a scene they were photographing.

I use the system, and it is easy since there is no right or wrong way to use it. On some images I might place my shadows on Zone 2 while on others maybe Zone 4. It doesn't matter becuase I will place the shadows and highlights anywhere I want to in order to be able to print an image as I interpreted it at the time I made it. I have no intention of creating prints that look or feel the same, that represent reality.

A good negative is any that allows you as the artist to create a print that communicates the scene to a viewer in a manner that you feel is best.

Some testing of materials is required, but not much really. Just enough so you are comfortable and understand your tools enough to allow you to make the negative the way you want. To have it come out as intended when you exposed it.

To "Zone" or not to "Zone" is a good question. Many important photographers use it, and many don't. What matters is understanding your materials (tools) well enough to make negatives that allow you to make a print the way you want , and be able to do so consistently. When you can do this, then you can go from just trying to record something on film to creating something that you might consider art.

If you are creating negatives that allow you to create the art you want, and can do so consistently and with thought, then the system you use does not matter.

"The truly distinctive feature of the Zone System as promoted and practiced, and indeed of BTZS as well, is the notion of varying development on a sheet-by-sheet basis to try to achieve an optimal match with one's preferred paper in a specified contrast grade."

I believe that's a Phil Davis variation on or supplement to the zone system if I remember my two workshops with him correctly. It isn't, as far as I know, a primary objective of the traditional zone system. The zone system as developed by Archer and Adams has as its primary goal predictability/control in making a negative from which the desired print can be made as easily as possible (at least that's always been my understanding, I never heard anything about matching negatives and paper grades until I took my first workshop from Phil Davis and heard about his Plotter and Matcher programs).

That doesn't mean a "perfect" negative or a negative that fits on any particular contrast grade paper or even a negative with detail in the darkest and brightest areas of the scene. It just means a negative from which you can make the print you want to make with as little manipulation as possible. If you want to place the darkest shadow on Zone VI and give the negative N+2 development so that you'll have a negative from which a high key print can be easily made, fine. If that means placing the darkest shadow on Zone I and N - 2 development to make a dark, moody print, that's fine too. Both involve use of the zone system, neither involves making a "perfect" negative or one that will fit a particular paper grade.

I certainly agree with you that trying to make a negative that will fit on a pre-determined paper grade is more hassle than it's worth. If that was what the zone system was all about I never would have bothered to learn it and use it. And I certainly don't think everyone needs to use the zone system to make excellent prints, it's just a tool that some people like and others don't, which is fine. I don't think Edward Weston even used a light meter much less the zone system for most of his career and he made some pretty good prints.

"You guys have some interesting ideas about what the zone system is."

Amen to that.

I guess the Zone System is really just a special type of Rorschach test...

I really care about only one thing when exposing a negative: getting adequate density in the shadows. I deal with the highlights by developing to a single, conservative time with a non-aggressive developer, and avoiding films that are prone to excessive highlight density or that have a curve too convoluted to allow for a "full information" print without heroics. That's all.

Oren - If that works for you, that's just fine. Maybe I never found the right developer or maybe here in Florida with its bright sun (except when we're under a hurricane watch, which seems like all the time lately) the scenes I photographed contained too much contrast. But when I first started out I had a lot of trouble keeping detail in both the shadows and the highlights. If the shadows contained detail the highlights were blown out and if the highlights contained detail the shadows were black blobs. The zone system cured that problem for me and as I learned more about it I used it for other, more creative, purposes and I've been using it ever since.

I have never understood the debate. All Adams did was give photographers a means of accurately controlling exposure and development with repeatable results. It's not a goddam religion. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Use trial and error or do a bit of testing, as Adams suggests. Yes, there are people who will make pilgrimages to the southwest in order to reproduce exactly Adams' pictures, using astronomical charts to make sure the moon is in EXACTLY the same place, using exactly the same developer, wearing exactly the same hat, yada yada yada yada. The rest of us just want to be able to make good photographs and the idea of visualization and placement is a very useful technique.

Geez, Don, now you tell me. And I just had my nose broken so I could be like Ansel...