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...)
Bookmarks