The Zone System (from Spot Metering and Recompose in Beginners)

[Autonerd]

Hey all, continuing the conversation from this thread since we were wandering off topic.

I don't want to get zapped for off-topic (maybe we should move this to another discussion if it blooms) but within that control at the development level, that really limits how you can alter your exposure to what you can compensate for in printing. You're basically just over/underexposing the photo and printing accordingly. Which, okay, nothing wrong with that -- but my take-away has always been that the ability to manipulate all three elements of the process (the camera, the negative, the print) was the key to the Zone System. Drop one and you're kneecapping yourself.

I think that's looking at it back to front. I don't think you're choosing an exposure with a view to 'compensating' in later parts of the development/rendering process.

But isn't that the whole point of Zone? Before I go further I must disclaim that I have not been a Zone practitioner, so my understanding is purely based on what I've read (and it's been a l-o-o-o-n-g while). So here goes:

You expose the photo to get the range of tones you want, knowing this may not represent them properly were you to use standard developing and printing. (Okay, I know we never do standard printing per se, we usually start with a test strip, but we wind up in the same range.) We know we will alter our developing and our printing to get a photo that a) makes full use of the tonal range of the film and paper and b) looks reasonably like what we saw IRL when we looked at the scene.

Now that I think about it, sort of an early ETTR, no?

And getting back to your point, Bob, is that not what we do when we push film? We choose an exposure with a view to compensating in the development process, so we'll get about the same density in the negs that we'd get if we shot at box speed.

(And speaking of "same density in the negs" -- as I type that, is that a good metric to use? Since we know the idea of "proper exposure" is such a tough one to nail down.

In fact, I think that point of view is quite strongly linked to the fallacious exposure= lightness (or should do) idea.

Definitely not true in digital, but certainly more true in film... although as I type that I am second-guessing it, because we do have a second exposure in the print process that can compensate. (And that might play to your point about zone w/o development compensation.)

I think the idea of the system is, at all stages through the process, to maximise options (i.e) information, to allow maximum creative choice in subsequent stages. If you are subject to some constraints at different stages then you need to make different choices at the others.

But I think those are two different things, sort-of. Maximizing information, yes, to be sure -- but you're kind of limiting your choices down-stream, are you not? Let's say I push my film two stops because light is low. I haven't necessarily maximized my choices; I've narrowed them -- I believe I *have to* extend my development time to get more silver on the neg and get a usable image.

It's akin to saying that it is all 'poo' because there is not a continuously variable set of emulsions available, or that it's 'poo' in digital because you're stuck withe the same sensor.

I just think the "poo" part is people who think that the Zone System *only* involves how you meter the scene and set your exposure -- as you said, it's a set system, and to be used it *must* involve considerations of development and printing as well.

(For those joining us new, I started with a point that you can't *really* zone with roll film, unless all pics are of the same scene, since you can't compensate development for each frame as you can with sheet film.)

Aaron

 

[Autonerd]

Replying to Quarkcharmed's post ...

When you shoot digital in the field, how would you apply the original zone system and how exactly would you compensate the exposure for digital printing?

W-e-l-l-l-l-l, since I don't do much .RAW processing (yet -- still can't find the time to learn), I can only speculate -- but as you mentioned, I see the parallels to ETTR. You set an exposure/ISO combination that, if used as a SOOC .JPG, would result in a photo that didn't look "right" (presumably blown out) in order to maximize information, then make the changes in your processing to get the proper image lightness, and have a photo with more highlight/shadow detail than one might get in, say, an SOOC .JPG of the same scene shot in P mode.

Broadly speaking, the zone system tries to maximise the dynamic range of the whole shooting-to-printing chain for film. ETTR tries to achieve the same goal in digital. But the zone system as is, by the book, is not really applicable to shooting and processing digital images.

By the book, no -- obviously increasing development time does no good on your PC. But it's exciting to me that you can use the same basic principles -- would it be better to say the same philosophy? -- to draw more visual information out of the data captured by the camera.

Aaron

 

[NickZ2016]

B&W didn't have standard processing. Unlike C41 B&W was always dependent on the contrast goal you wanted. Agfa would publish a higher contrast target when compared to Kodak which meant the times they gave were longer.

The Zone system starts out with testing your film stock. That lets you adjust development times

 

[kenw]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

 

[raylinds]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS, I can attest to the challenge of applying it to roll film. But it can be done- even if it sometimes requires some compromise. The "expose for the shadows, but develop for the highlights" approach is best done on an individual sheet film images, but using interchangeable film backs or multiple camera bodies can help. Also, modern variable contrast paper is much better than what was used in Adams' day and can help tame highlights. And, of course, there is the use of dodging and burning in.

The critical aspect of the ZS is to not lose the details in the shadows. Ideally, you can avoid blown out highlights when developing the negative, but it is not an exact science and even Adams would sometimes have to compensate for it when printing. That is why the third book in the series, The Print, is also an essential part of the Zone System.

--
Cheers,
Ray

 

[PhotoTeach2]

My interpretation of the Zone system was "processing/printing" methods to either maximize contrast to enhance low-contrast scenes, or to minimize it to save high-contrast scenes.

We can still "process" via RAW & PS/LR, etc. -- but to some degree, all digital cameras have the ability to do that, (albeit w/ JPEG output).

We can increase/decreast contrast, and/or increase/decrease color-saturation, (again in-camera or in PP).

In an extremely high Dynamic Range scene, we can "bracket" (exposures) and then do HDR for a final image.

We minimize noise by maximizing exposure via ETTR, (and trying to stay at "base" ISO).

I would suggest Ansel, (those of us that knew him only call him "Ansel"), use "incident" metering, (or relied on Sunny-16 Rule), for his basic exposure.

SPOT-metering does indeed now allow us to optimize exposure for specific Whites/Blacks, (w/ proper use of Exposure-Compensation EC when in auto-modes).

The main difference is that Zone System exposed for the (B&W) shadows, and then processed for the highlights, whereas in digital, we have to be more concerned about "saturating/blowing" highlights, (and then recovering shadows while hoping for low-noise -- but w/ HDR option if necessary).

 

[Gato Amarillo]

With the zone system in film the rule was "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights."

In digital we expose for the highlights (ETTR, more or less) and process for the shadows.

In film this was very tricky. You had to meter accurately for shadows and highlights (or judge by experience) and really know how your film and developer behaved.

In digital you can do it visually. The camera histogram and blinkies can give you a very good idea of the exposure (if you know your camera well enough) and you can judge the shadows on the computer screen for the processing.

Life has become much simpler.

Gato

 

[tony field]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS

The zone system is ideally Suited to digital. My 1° Minolta spot metre is perfectly calibrated to work with 14 zones of dynamic range.it is very easy-to-use if you have time to meter. Virtually all of Ansel Adams writings are applicable directly or indirectly to shooting digital Zone systems. All you need is a bit of imagination and can see how the ratings do in fact relate to digital.

, I can attest to the challenge of applying it to roll film. But it can be done- even if it sometimes requires some compromise. The "expose for the shadows, but develop for the highlights" approach is best done on an individual sheet film images, but using interchangeable film backs or multiple camera bodies can help. Also, modern variable contrast paper is much better than what was used in Adams' day and can help tame highlights. And, of course, there is the use of dodging and burning in.

The critical aspect of the ZS is to not lose the details in the shadows. Ideally, you can avoid blown out highlights when developing the negative, but it is not an exact science and even Adams would sometimes have to compensate for it when printing. That is why the third book in the series, The Print, is also an essential part of the Zone System.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony

 

[TN Args]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS

The zone system is ideally Suited to digital. My 1° Minolta spot metre is perfectly calibrated to work with 14 zones of dynamic range.it is very easy-to-use if you have time to meter. Virtually all of Ansel Adams writings are applicable directly or indirectly to shooting digital Zone systems. All you need is a bit of imagination and can see how the ratings do in fact relate to digital.

Yeah but, as others have already mentioned, it's a waste of time at the digital exposure stage, where you just do ETTR for raw and that's that.

You can start playing with zones on the PC.

 

[tony field]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS

The zone system is ideally Suited to digital. My 1° Minolta spot metre is perfectly calibrated to work with 14 zones of dynamic range.it is very easy-to-use if you have time to meter. Virtually all of Ansel Adams writings are applicable directly or indirectly to shooting digital Zone systems. All you need is a bit of imagination and can see how the ratings do in fact relate to digital.

Yeah but, as others have already mentioned, it's a waste of time at the digital exposure stage, where you just do ETTR for raw and that's that.

You can start playing with zones on the PC.

In a practical sense that is certainly true however that does not negate the applicability of the zone system if you know how to use your light metre

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Replying to Quarkcharmed's post ...

When you shoot digital in the field, how would you apply the original zone system and how exactly would you compensate the exposure for digital printing?

W-e-l-l-l-l-l, since I don't do much .RAW processing (yet -- still can't find the time to learn), I can only speculate -- but as you mentioned, I see the parallels to ETTR. You set an exposure/ISO combination that, if used as a SOOC .JPG, would result in a photo that didn't look "right" (presumably blown out) in order to maximize information, then make the changes in your processing to get the proper image lightness, and have a photo with more highlight/shadow detail than one might get in, say, an SOOC .JPG of the same scene shot in P mode.

Yes, with proper ETTR the out of camera images tend to look too bright - not necessarily, but quite often. However you don't really need to know about the zones in order to successfully ETTR.

Also unlike the zone system, you don't really think about final printing when doing ETTR.

Broadly speaking, the zone system tries to maximise the dynamic range of the whole shooting-to-printing chain for film. ETTR tries to achieve the same goal in digital. But the zone system as is, by the book, is not really applicable to shooting and processing digital images.

By the book, no -- obviously increasing development time does no good on your PC. But it's exciting to me that you can use the same basic principles -- would it be better to say the same philosophy? -- to draw more visual information out of the data captured by the camera.

In terms of maximising information for postprocessing, yes, ETTR is similar to the zone system, and vaguely resembles it, but I'm not sure if the zone system influenced ETTR in any way.

In the previous thread, my point was, the zone system by the book couldn't be recommended to a beginner digital shooter.

 

[raylinds]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS

The zone system is ideally Suited to digital. My 1° Minolta spot metre is perfectly calibrated to work with 14 zones of dynamic range.it is very easy-to-use if you have time to meter. Virtually all of Ansel Adams writings are applicable directly or indirectly to shooting digital Zone systems. All you need is a bit of imagination and can see how the ratings do in fact relate to digital.

Yeah but, as others have already mentioned, it's a waste of time at the digital exposure stage, where you just do ETTR for raw and that's that.

You can start playing with zones on the PC.

My post was specifically geared towards the post that said that the ZS was not designed for roll film cameras. I need to keep in my that this is a digital-centric forum. I was not into the Zone System in my earlier life doing digital photography. I am going to have to adjust my workflow now that I am getting back to digital. I am aware that in digital I will need to expose for the highlights rather than shadows. It will be a learning curve for me.

Although I am aware you can do a lot of exposure manipulation in the software, I still think one is better off with a well exposed image to start with. I have to think that Ansel would approve of the use of histograms.

 

[Autonerd]

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film.

Clearly I need a refresher and a re-read.

 

[Autonerd]

In the previous thread, my point was, the zone system by the book couldn't be recommended to a beginner digital shooter.

Okay -- and with what you wrote above, I see the point you are making.

Aaron

 

[TN Args]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS

The zone system is ideally Suited to digital. My 1° Minolta spot metre is perfectly calibrated to work with 14 zones of dynamic range.it is very easy-to-use if you have time to meter. Virtually all of Ansel Adams writings are applicable directly or indirectly to shooting digital Zone systems. All you need is a bit of imagination and can see how the ratings do in fact relate to digital.

Yeah but, as others have already mentioned, it's a waste of time at the digital exposure stage, where you just do ETTR for raw and that's that.

You can start playing with zones on the PC.

My post was specifically geared towards the post that said that the ZS was not designed for roll film cameras. I need to keep in my that this is a digital-centric forum.

Yes, and there is a forum for film camera talk, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1072 (not shooing you away: I only mention it because you are new here and may not have noticed it yet). This thread could easily have gone there if the OP didn't want to talk digital, so I assume he does.

I was not into the Zone System in my earlier life doing digital photography. I am going to have to adjust my workflow now that I am getting back to digital. I am aware that in digital I will need to expose for the highlights rather than shadows. It will be a learning curve for me.

Although I am aware you can do a lot of exposure manipulation in the software, I still think one is better off with a well exposed image to start with. I have to think that Ansel would approve of the use of histograms.

Enjoy your new (refreshed) digital journey! Your A7R IV has so much dynamic range that ETTR may seem a bit obsessive, chasing after that last ounce of IQ. But there will be times when you might want to do it. For general use, though, it very rarely produces a 'nice looking' photo straight out of camera (usually too bright), so can feel like extra work compared to using metering or histogram on-screen preview to get the overall brightness right.

cheers

 

[raylinds]

The Negative is available in nearly every library and can be found in scanned form on the web as well. It might be worth brushing up on it…

Adams himself even has a section in the book on applying the Zone System to roll film. He also mentions early in his description of the Zone System in the most recent edition that the ability to create contrast expansion or contraction via development alteration is greatly reduced in modern emulsions compared to those when he started out. So he himself writes both it is useful on roll film and minimizes the importance of negative development alteration.

Good post. As one who has spent the last few years shooting exclusively medium format film and using a Zone VI modified spotmeter in my obsessive pursuit of the ZS

The zone system is ideally Suited to digital. My 1° Minolta spot metre is perfectly calibrated to work with 14 zones of dynamic range.it is very easy-to-use if you have time to meter. Virtually all of Ansel Adams writings are applicable directly or indirectly to shooting digital Zone systems. All you need is a bit of imagination and can see how the ratings do in fact relate to digital.

Yeah but, as others have already mentioned, it's a waste of time at the digital exposure stage, where you just do ETTR for raw and that's that.

You can start playing with zones on the PC.

My post was specifically geared towards the post that said that the ZS was not designed for roll film cameras. I need to keep in my that this is a digital-centric forum.

Yes, and there is a forum for film camera talk, https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1072 (not shooing you away: I only mention it because you are new here and may not have noticed it yet). This thread could easily have gone there if the OP didn't want to talk digital, so I assume he does.

I was not into the Zone System in my earlier life doing digital photography. I am going to have to adjust my workflow now that I am getting back to digital. I am aware that in digital I will need to expose for the highlights rather than shadows. It will be a learning curve for me.

Although I am aware you can do a lot of exposure manipulation in the software, I still think one is better off with a well exposed image to start with. I have to think that Ansel would approve of the use of histograms.

Enjoy your new (refreshed) digital journey! Your A7R IV has so much dynamic range that ETTR may seem a bit obsessive, chasing after that last ounce of IQ. But there will be times when you might want to do it. For general use, though, it very rarely produces a 'nice looking' photo straight out of camera (usually too bright), so can feel like extra work compared to using metering or histogram on-screen preview to get the overall brightness right.

cheers

Thanks!