Just out of curiosity .......

[Shen45]

Some people use the "full" zone system, while some use BTZS, but if you are NOT using these methodologies how are you approaching the question of exposure and development? The following questions are predicated on a full wet darkroom experience culminating in a non digital printing method.
Do you test your film or use the manufacturers recommendation.
If you don't use the Zone system or BTZS [or something similar] which metering system do you prefer, spot or incident?
If you are using both spot or incident have you encountered pluses or minuses for any metering method?
How or what are you doing to compensate?
Do you concern yourself with expansion and contraction based on the light in a scene or do you rely on some other means?
What role does variable contrast multigrade paper play in your darkroom?
Historically not every photographer has used the Zone system or BTZS [or something similar] so this is a series of curiosity questions rattling around in my head as I ponder the methods my fellow photographers use. Obviously I've missed many points pertinent to a non ZS or BTZS work flow so please add anything that clarifies your methods. My questions are not based on whether one or other way of doing things is better just a desire to understand photographic approaches.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Edward Weston would have looked at an object or scene and said... that's a bit darker than normal so I'll expose a little less... or that's a bit duller than average so I'll develop a little longer. It's a process called SOTPZS. Let me know if you figure that one out. I have no idea what meter he used, if any.

[Heroique]

I’d say 95% of the people here would be satisfied w/ their results 95% of the time if they simply used an incident meter & standard development tables (film & paper) for 95% of their shots.

However, if you always worked like this, you’d be denying to yourself what’s so rewarding about LF photography – or what makes it so ... creative, contemplative, therapeutic.

Mainly, I’m an AA-inspired zone user, but I also use the simpler method above w/ excellent results & great joy.

[Chuck P.]

Some people use the "full" zone system, while some use BTZS, but if you are NOT using these methodologies how are you approaching the question of exposure and development?

Like Heroique, I'm a AA inspired ZS user myself-----but putting that aside, whatever you do with black and white film, you would be best served by "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights", both the ZS and BTZS are predicated on that, only executed differently. Using a spot meter or incident meter without implementing the aforementioned "systems" still needs to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

[Doremus Scudder]

I use the Zone System. For me, it does what I need understandably and quickly and, most importantly, helps me visualize.

But, I could easily envision other methods of getting much the same results technically, especially with larger film.

One would be simply to incident meter and adjust exposure on the basis of experience to keep shadow detail, erring on the side of overexposure when in doubt and then developing by inspection to the correct contrast gradient, again, by experience. I believe this is what Edward Weston did.

Contrast control was much less of an issue with older printing-out papers which were, in essence, self-masking. So, if you could use such paper, then you would only need to make sure you have enough exposure, develop to a fairly high contrast grade and print on POP, checking the print until it reached the proper density. I think lots of 19th century photographers worked this way. I love older prints made on POP and gold toned.

With modern materials, one still has a range of contrasts to choose from in VC papers. Add to this different developers and other contrast-changing techniques, and one could easily standardize on a system of basic exposure using an averaging reflected-light meter with one or two adjustments (i.e., extra exposure for contrasty scenes). In fact, I recommend this for roll film users, since I feel the Zone System really does not work well with roll film when scenes of different contrast are on one roll. In essence, one does a few tests to arrive at a personal EI that preserves enough shadow detail (subjective assessment) in averagely-lit scenes, then, recognizing that an averaging meter will underexpose contrastier scenes, one simply adds a stop or two of exposure for those scenes, based on a quick visual assessment and experience. Developing is done to place the most-common scene on grade 2 1/2 or 3 and then the rest of the contrast control is achieved by changing contrast filtration. This is exposing for the shadows and changing paper grade for the contrast (highlights); a Zone System in short form and without Zones...

A scheme using two-bath developing, which inherently controls contrast would be viable as well. In this case, one one only need to ensure adequate exposure, achieved as above.

So, why do I use the Zone System? Did I mention it was a visualization tool?

Best,

Doremus

[Bill_1856]

4/ISO @ f:22 (adjusted with 60 years experience for the lighting and filter factor). Confirmed with Weston Euromaster. Developed in tray at recommended time and temp, in compensating developer (usually Rodinal 1:100 or Diafine). Printed on multi-contrast paper with lots of burning and dodging.
Ansel Adams I'm not!
I miss Polaroid.

P.S. Nice post Doremus.

[E. von Hoegh]

Edward Weston would have looked at an object or scene and said... that's a bit darker than normal so I'll expose a little less... or that's a bit duller than average so I'll develop a little longer. It's a process called SOTPZS. Let me know if you figure that one out. I have no idea what meter he used, if any.

I started using the zone sysyem, it's basically applied sensitometry and every beginner should learn it, as it shows you how to take full advantage of your film and developer combination.
After quite a few years of using the same film, developer, shutters, and meter, my methods are more like Weston's.

[Old-N-Feeble]

E. ... I gree with you. I started doing B&W photography when I was 13. I bought my first LF camera and began studying the ZS at 15. I eventually developed my own techniques base on the ZS without "strict" adherence to it and modifying my development times at allow for selenium toning of the negs which increases film contrast and H&D curve in a good way... at least with Agfapan it did.

[Thom Bennett]

Steve Simmons has an excellent methodology detailed in his book, "Using the View Camera." After unsuccessfully trying to wrap my head around AA's methods, Steve's explanation and practical exercise of determining your own ISO and development times made it easy for me to grasp and, more importantly, put into practice. I have tried M&P's DBI but haven't mastered that quite yet. I have been printing on silver chloride papers and palladium prints which allow for adjustments in contrast in a way that I am comfortable with. I try not to do too much dodging and burning.

[Peter Mounier]

... It's a process called SOTPZS. Let me know if you figure that one out.

Is this a guessing game? I'll guess "Something Other Than Pure Zone System"

I use the Zone System myself, but with the advent of scanning and digital printing, the precision isn't as critical as it was in wet darkroom printing.
But you're asking the question to those who don't use the ZS, so I'll leave now. I just wanted to play Guess the Acronym.

Peter