B&W Photography, Zone System and you

[JeffGreene]

My question below relates to B&W print film.

Many of us when discussing developers mention our particular B&W film's true ISO that we shoot at versus the stated ISO on the box. We talk about the "pushing" or "pulling" required in various contexts to achieve our image and what we "envisioned" for the image and how particular developers support our vision or don't.

How many of you rely on the zone system in your photography? Do you meter for the deep shadows (i.e. Zone III) or not? Are there particular photographic subjects that you find more suited to its use (i.e. landscape, still life, portraits, etc). Do you use a densitometer?

I'm sure many of the pro's here have internalized it and no longer think strictly in those terms. As I've aged, I find myself spending more time thinking about the system and its application to the composition process. There's an enormous amount of talent on this forum, and I look forward to learning from all of you. Thanks in advance.

Respectfully,

Jeff

[wlewisiii]

I have read much about it & would say that, after years of study, I _almost_ understand the zone system. As a result I try to duplicate a centerwieghted TTL meter with my hand held or just wing it based on sunny 16.

Trying to put my dark area on Zone III or wherever just makes my head hurt.

William

[Anupam]

With rollfilm I just test for EI and development time. My target densities are geared towards my diffusion enlarger. With sheet film I go the whole hog. Spot meter, N- and N+ developments etc. Not that big a deal really once you have tested the basics with a densitometer, it becomes fairly intuitive - just a part of how you work.

-Anupam

[larmarv916]

Ok...for starters there a whole group of books written on the subject. But again...the whole zone system is blown way out of realistic relation to the real world. Not to mention the basic concept that "if" all you spend your time thinking about is the theroritical development of "roll" film with a system that was really designed work with sheet film and water bathing and other single....dip and dunk shooters. Your in for a lifetime of headaches.

Sure you zone system works on "roll film" but again once you are not shooting every frame with the idea that each exposure will be identiacal.....you have now gotten off the train.

In reality there are vey few situations where any scene in the brightest or darkest lighting can not be effectively shot with normal exposure.that is suggested by the film manufactures instructions. Yes we all bracket when shooting landscapes and other non action situation subjects. And if a whole roll is developed to help cut or ingrease range it is not really a drastic undertaking. All that being said.

Zone is only a tool to help you extract the "emotional" view you wish to save to enhance.

Zone is only a tool to help you be aware of the contrast range between details in the high or low shadow areas you want to hold. Once you get past a range between your higher detail values and your lowest detail values is beyond a few stops. you can kid yourself into thinkging that you are master of your destiny.....But really it is "shot" in the dark, with roll film.

So high contrast situations where you have a total range of 10-12 stops is only doable with sheet film and water bathing. Which was around before zone system was, the "golden child" of every member of the F64 Gang. you dont have clue as the mountains of sheet film that were wasted over the years by self styled "Zone System" wizards.

In the land of 35mm photography...you are either in sun light or open shade. Unless you are shooting the shadow side of a subject and under strong backlite conditionsl There is little need to spend any effort on coputation on Zone denisty computations. So do not make needless work for yourself.

The "Sunny 16" did not just come from nothing. All the early journalistic Leica shooters just used the rule of thumb that on the "shadow side" of the street "open 2 stops"

Sure your going to have some films that want to "blockout" But most often that is from temperatures or excessive agiation or other sloppy processing. Nothing here is some deep dark secrets.....there are none.

But blowing your brains out over some fantasy of the perfect negative on "roll" film...is a waste of your time. Basic process and metering will be more than enough to get you a great print. It's the composition that is always more important.

There are no classic images that are based on techincal excellence of undesirable subjects.

Good Luck......Laurance

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I use it for most of my work....the subject matter that isn't moving. I mostly photograph buildings and objects that sit still, so I can carefully set exposure, and that is really what the Zone System is about. I don't know what you're asking about as far as it having anything to do with composition. It doesn't...the zone system is about exposure and developing time.

I think a lot of people learn the Zone System and think they have to shoot mountains and western landscapes with a large format camera and make photos just like Ansel Adams, John Sexton, and Bruce Barnbaum make. You don't. I use medium format cameras and sometimes 35mm sucessfully with the zone system and my pictures don't look like the aforementioned photographers' work.

I set the shadow areas i need detail in on zone III if it is something real dark. If the scene hasn't got anything that dark I choose a lighter tone to base exposure on. In this example I based exposure on the white fog. You're not 'supposed' to do that in the Zone System, but it works for scenes with no real darks:

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/portfolio/abandoned/images/pics/hoagland-trees2.jpg
The darkest tone is about zone 4 or 5. I set the white fog to zone 8, the dark tree trunks fell between 4 and 5, and I developed normal. I printed with a little more contrast than the original scene had (by printed I mean scanned and adjusted curves in photoshop. I use a film scanner).

[tmfabian]

I use the zone system with roll film when shooting night scenes or anything with a large n-(enough to compensate)

[Roger Hicks]

The Zone System is for the most part a subset of basic sensitometry, as first set out by Hurter and Driffield in 1890. The only thing it adds -- which is a work of unalloyed genius -- is the naming of Zones.

In some ways, it is a simplification of basic sensitometry. In others, it is a complication -- not least because it dates from before the days when densitometers were readily affordable.

When I first encountered it, I found it forbiddingly complicated, so I set it aside until I was ready to come back to it. When I finally did come back to it, having read a lot about sensitometry in the intervening years, I found it needlessly complicated and rather opaque. My wife (who is a far better printer than I) feels the same way.

There's a free piece that sets out our views on our website Some may find it of interest. It leads to hate mail from those for whom the Zone System is a religion rather than a means of exposure determination, but we think it's a fair analysis:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20zone.html

Cheers,

Roger

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The Zone System is for the most part a subset of basic sensitometry, as first set out by Hurter and Driffield in 1890. The only thing it adds -- which is a work of unalloyed genius -- is the naming of Zones.

In some ways, it is a simplification of basic sensitometry. In others, it is a complication -- not least because it dates from before the days when densitometers were readily affordable.

When I first encountered it, I found it forbiddingly complicated, so I set it aside until I was ready to come back to it. When I finally did come back to it, having read a lot about sensitometry in the intervening years, I found it needlessly complicated and rather opaque. My wife (who is a far better printer than I) feels the same way.

There's a free piece that sets out our views on our website Some may find it of interest. It leads to hate mail from those for whom the Zone System is a religion rather than a means of exposure determination, but we think it's a fair analysis:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20zone.html

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

I'm surprised you find it complicated. I find it easy...point the spot meter at the dark tone you want detail in, give two stops less exposure than meter says. Check white or brightly lit spots in pic to see if they go over zone 7 using exposure determined from dark tone. If not, change developing time. I think the problem is the books make it FAR harder than it needs to be.

I find using built in camera meters harder. Does the average of all the tones in this scene work out to the middle grey the meter thinks it will? No one can figure that out in their head just by looking! So people use the in-camera meter and guess on how much exposure compensation to use. I don't like to guess, i tend to screw up when I do that.

[Roger Hicks]

I find it easy...point the spot meter at the dark tone you want detail in, give two stops less exposure than meter says. Check white or brightly lit spots in pic to see if they go over zone 7 using exposure determined from dark tone. If not, change developing time. I think the problem is the books make it FAR harder than it needs to be.


Dear Christopher,

We are of one mind on this: the key lies in that part of your reply that I put in bold.

Reading the darkest tone in which you want texture is nothing to do with the Zone System: it's basic sensitometry.

In fact, there's an extra complication even in your straightforward explanation, and it was introduced at the behest of less-than-knowledgeable Zone System users as a result of their mid-tone obsession.

The earliest commercially successful spot meter (SEI c. 1948 -- I have one with Huw's modern LED conversion) didn't bother with a 'mid-tone' index: just a shadow index (for negative) and a highlight index (for transparency).

Without the Zone System sticking its nose in, you just took a direct reading instead of going 2 stops down. Likewise, you can use I.R.E. 1 (neg) or 10 (tranny) on today's Pentax meters (I have both).

Cheers,

R.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Dear Christopher,

We are of one mind on this: the key lies in that part of your reply that I put in bold.

Reading the darkest tone in which you want texture is nothing to do with the Zone System: it's basic sensitometry.

In fact, there's an extra complication even in your straightforward explanation, and it was introduced at the behest of less-than-knowledgeable Zone System users as a result of their mid-tone obsession.

The earliest commercially successful spot meter (SEI c. 1948 -- I have one with Huw's modern LED conversion) didn't bother with a 'mid-tone' index: just a shadow index (for negative) and a highlight index (for transparency).

Without the Zone System sticking its nose in, you just took a direct reading instead of going 2 stops down. Likewise, you can use I.R.E. 1 (neg) or 10 (tranny) on today's Pentax meters (I have both).

Cheers,

R.

I wish most meters worked like your SEI Photometer or the Pentaxes. I have two spot meters, a Gossen Ultra Spot II and A Sekonic L-508. The Sekonic gives midtone readings only, and the Gossen's Zone system function is very cumbersome...easier for me to take a midtone reading and figure it in my head.

I'm jealous of you having the SEI. When I was a teenager I got my hands on a copy of Dunn & Wakefield's book on exposure meters and I have wanted an SEI to play with ever since.

[Roger Hicks]

I wish most meters worked like your SEI Photometer or the Pentaxes. I have two spot meters, a Gossen Ultra Spot II and A Sekonic L-508. The Sekonic gives midtone readings only, and the Gossen's Zone system function is very cumbersome...easier for me to take a midtone reading and figure it in my head.

I'm jealous of you having the SEI. When I was a teenager I got my hands on a copy of Dunn & Wakefield's book on exposure meters and I have wanted an SEI to play with ever since.

Dear Christopher,

I know what you mean about the Gossen: I have one too. Normally I just set the ISO at 4x the EI I'm using!

Dunn and Wakefield's book is brilliant -- I have it, and based a lot of my own book Perfect Exposure on what I learned from it -- but don't be too jealous about the SEI. The telescope view is upside-down; the comparison spot is not always the right colour (as you know, there are two choices); and the calculator scale, even with Huw's modification, is super-slow. With the original calculator, scaled in British Standard Log film speeds, it was even worse. You really NEED the LED conversion, which is several hundred dollars, and even then, it's my least used spot meter...

On the other hand, the 1/2 degree comparison spot allows you to meter areas even smaller than 1/2 degree, simply by overlapping them with the spot. There's a lot more about the updated SEI on:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/sei.html

Cheers,

Roger

[40oz]

I use what i've learned from reading about the zone system to get what I want on film. It certainly helped me understand how to use exposure and development. That isn't to say I ever have performed formal tests or take notes. I just pay attention to my negatives and am careful when considering exposure. I certainly don't think of things in terms of N+1 or anything. But I do appreciate understanding how to get what I want on film.

[Ade-oh]

I've always looked on the zone system as one of those unnecessary complications of our craft that we photographers get hung up on, probably as a substitute for real creativity. To that extent I tend to lump it in with obsessing about lens sharpness or the effects of different types of developer with B&W film as a distraction from what I see as my main aim in taking photographs, which is to create interesting images. Understanding how to obtain proper exposures is certainly an important part of the craft of photography, but it is relatively easy to do. I think of the zone system as a fringe fetish.

[projectbluebird]

I don't use the zone system, although I've read a number of books about it. The concept is simple, but the application is complicated. Instead, I meter for the shadow, and err on the side of overexposure.

You can't print (or scan) something that isn't on the film!

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've always looked on the zone system as one of those unnecessary complications of our craft that we photographers get hung up on, probably as a substitute for real creativity. To that extent I tend to lump it in with obsessing about lens sharpness or the effects of different types of developer with B&W film as a distraction from what I see as my main aim in taking photographs, which is to create interesting images. Understanding how to obtain proper exposures is certainly an important part of the craft of photography, but it is relatively easy to do. I think of the zone system as a fringe fetish.

When I was in art school the lazy students said things like this: "Learning how to get perfect exposure gets in the way of my creativity", or "Knowing how to use a light meter gets in the way of my creativity", or "Being precise with my developing time, temp, agitation, etc gets in the way of my creativity".

No, it doesn't. It just requires some effort. Guess how many of those "Creative" people are still involved in photography now, 9 years after I graduated from Indiana University. How many? NONE. Only two of the photo students from my years there are still doing photography today, and we both gave a damn about learning the technical aspects of how photography works.

All you lazy "creative photographers" who think you don't need to think to be a "Creative" photographer can write me when you get tired of your hobby and move on to something more exciting. I'll still be here, still photographing, still exhibiting, still earning my living as a PHOTOGRAPHER. A photgrapher who uses the zone system, cares about lens sharpness, and understands that different developers most certainly affect the look of my images and knows how to choose accordingly.

[delft]

I wonder how the zone-system stands when films are scanned and post processed. As long as the scene falls within the films dynamic range, there seems to be not much need to expand / contract by N +/- developping to adapt to the dynamic range of the paper.

Greetings,

Dirk

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't use the zone system, although I've read a number of books about it. The concept is simple, but the application is complicated. Instead, I meter for the shadow, and err on the side of overexposure.

You can't print (or scan) something that isn't on the film!

Quite right. The books make it sound complicated so you'll buy the books to learn this ultra-complicated technique. It takes some smarts to read those books like you and I have and find the real system in there, which is very simple. Expose for the dark tones and if the light is contrasty, reduce dev. time. No note taking needed, no complicated math, no years of testing. You have to test, but it isn't as complex as most books make it sound, and the actual application of the zone system is simple. really. And a little overexposure is not so bad compared to underexposure on negative films....of your within a stop and you're a decent printer, then no one will know the difference. I still prefer to get my exposures as close as possible to perfect, and the zone system makes that work.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I wonder how the zone-system stands when films are scanned and post processed. As long as the scene falls within the films dynamic range, there seems to be not much need to expand / contract by N +/- developping to adapt to the dynamic range of the paper.

Greetings,

Dirk

If you do adjust the dev. time as needed, the films scan and post process with much less effort. It is a lot like darkroom printing really; you could develop everything the same and use different paper grades in the darkroom and get good results, and you can scan and adjust contrast in Photoshop. I actually think printing negs with too much or too little contrast was EASIER in the darkroom than it is using a scanner and photoshop. I have used a Nikon LS-8000 scanner for 6 years and printed in the darkroom for a decade before that.

[Ade-oh]

All you lazy "creative photographers" who think you don't need to think to be a "Creative" photographer can write me when you get tired of your hobby and move on to something more exciting. I'll still be here, still photographing, still exhibiting, still earning my living as a PHOTOGRAPHER. A photographer who uses the zone system, cares about lens sharpness, and understands that different developers most certainly affect the look of my images and knows how to choose accordingly.

Balls. You can learn all you will ever need to know about the technical aspects of photography in a week or so but some photographers - professional as well as amateur - won't learn to take good pictures in a lifetime. The zone system is neither necessary nor sufficient to make you a good photographer; it may be helpful if you take B&W landscape or still-life shots, but that's about it.

[Ade-oh]

Expose for the dark tones and if the light is contrasty, reduce dev. time. No note taking needed, no complicated math, no years of testing.

If it's that easy, why bother with 'The Zone System' (cue music from Beethoven's 5th Symphony)? This is what you learn in the first couple of days of any taught photography course.

[oftheherd]

Has anyone heard of or used the YOB system?

[merlin]

Spot meter and Zone System are your two best friends when it comes to individual development of, say, single 8x10 sheets. Determining your exposure is actually – be it shadow detail down to Z4, Z3 or Z2 or saving a highlights in Z8 – a big part of the fun when working with a big, slow camera.

Applying such nuance to the faster world of 35mm doesn’t work well ... unless every frame in the roll is of the same subject from the same vantage point at the same time. Said, comfort with the Zone System certainly helps me see shadows better – helps my basic Sunny 16 approach in some vague, inexplicable way.

Just opinion. What ever works ... works.

[vdonovan]

Chris: that is a stunning landscape.

I use a half-assed version of the zone system, but what I think is fairly in the spirit of Adams. He writes a lot about "visualization", being able to look at a scene and know what it will be like in the print.

I meter the most important area of the scene (often the highlit side of a face) and put that into the zone I want it to fall. Then I meter the other parts of the scene and see what zones they will fall into. I shoot roll film (usually 120) so I rarely adjust development, but at least I know what I'm getting into.

[merlin]

... I don't wish to start a war, but I have never understood why people go to great lengths to gain manual control over and mastery of the other aspects of their cameras (focus, shutter speed, aperture) and then ignore exposure or just play it by ear with Sunny 16. Seems like saying "I'm going to build a strong house with three well-designed walls, and they toss some crap up for the fourth wall and hope the house doesn't fall down." Why not take control?

No war imminent b, just enjoy crossing my fingers when I have a small, simple, un-electric camera in hand. Guess I've always preferred being out of control as opposed to being in.

Great 'fourth wall' analogy tho ... my hope is that if the first three walls are well built and well utilized the house will stand.

[Athos6]

I once tried to read a book on the zone system when I was in the library, it looked interesting. Seemed like you really needed to understand each film, ie. spend a lot of time checking how it responded to exposure and developers. If I had a dark room and a large format camera I'd be all over it. As it goes now, I meter the sky and the darkest part of the picture and pick a shutter speed in the middle, seems to work well for me, when I remember to do it that is :)

[BillP]

I have no truck with any form of organised religion. If the zone system works for you, good for you, but I just can't be arsed.

Regards,

Bill

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have no truck with any form of organised religion. If the zone system works for you, good for you, but I just can't be arsed.

Regards,

Bill

Bill, I am an athiest. I have no need for religion either. The zone system is just an exposure technique that simply works. Some people have methods that work that don't involve the zone system, and that's cool. Others are too stupid or lazy to understand the technical aspects of sensitometry that the Zone System attempts to make into a real-world usable exposure determination method, so they make fun of it as a religion because they can't fault it on technical grounds (which they don't understand).

[larmarv916]

The greatest problem with Zone System...that for the most part, it's functional benefits are wipped out as it is rather a excuse for Photo Babble. what is Photo Babble...it is mindless dialog of the vasts majority of self styled...mostly large format shooters who need some way to find a tool pretend that they are some how superior. Obsssive expression to ride the coatails of the F64 Gang. That being said Zone was only ever designed to allow for tayloring custom developing, filter usage and exposure into a somewhat predictable "single" negative to be printed on number 2 paper.

The hard core Zone flunkies probably waste more film and paper than any group and in the end....actually produce almost nothing. Also it was not designed for usage with slide film like K2 Really only B&W as that was what was only what realy true artisits shot with.

You hear some much phony dialog from these clowns ....Oh if only your highlights were .001 less dense..that kind of crap. It's like hearing a similar dialog about....Oh only Hypo developers really work for Zone system.

I have a 5x7 and on the rare occaision I feel the need to use it....it is because I need to process each sheet of film in a manner that is dramatic.....water bathing and so on.

Uderstand the concept takes all of about 10 min and does not ensure you will have anything but a way to engage in photo babble at your next fine art cocktail party.

In the end you can excuse yourself for why the techincal excellence of your print makes up for a total lack of apperciation for it's lack of appeal to people who are only interested in beautiful or interesting photos that do not requre a 45 min validation. I think we there was a childs bed time story.....The Emperor's New Cloths.

Zone system should never be the reason your work is superior....actually if it is superior no one should "need "to know !!!

Best Regards....Laurance

[williams473]

Man this keeps coming up, so eventually I gotta remember the name of the book that gave me my "AH-HA!" moment with the zone system back in school. Trying to read Adam's version makes my brain boil, but someone wrote a "Zone system for 35mm" which, in a nutshell talks about basically metering for the shadows, because if you want detail in them and you lose it in the neg, it's gone. I never worried about adjusting time for contrasty/flat light, because in a roll of 36 exposures I find my light changes significantly enough that processing the roll for the light is pointless. Actually, I usually just process a minute over the recommended time and it seems to work well as a method. I think pure zone system photography is good for those who want to work REAL slowly with view cameras etc., but pieces of it can come in real handy even for 35mm shooters. Even if you only get a bit of it, it's helpful.

[gns]

I guess anyone who says "Hmm, harsh sunlight today. Better shoot my tri-x at 200 and cut back dev. time" is practicing a simplified zone system aren't they?

Cheers,
Gary

[wray]

Man this keeps coming up, so eventually I gotta remember the name of the book that gave me my "AH-HA!" moment with the zone system back in school. Trying to read Adam's version makes my brain boil, but someone wrote a "Zone system for 35mm" which, in a nutshell talks about basically metering for the shadows, because if you want detail in them and you lose it in the neg, it's gone. I never worried about adjusting time for contrasty/flat light, because in a roll of 36 exposures I find my light changes significantly enough that processing the roll for the light is pointless. Actually, I usually just process a minute over the recommended time and it seems to work well as a method. I think pure zone system photography is good for those who want to work REAL slowly with view cameras etc., but pieces of it can come in real handy even for 35mm shooters. Even if you only get a bit of it, it's helpful.
Are you thinking of the book by Carson Graves?

[Roger Hicks]

I guess anyone who says "Hmm, harsh sunlight today. Better shoot my tri-x at 200 and cut back dev. time" is practicing a simplified zone system aren't they?

Cheers,
Gary
Dear Gary,

No, they're not. They're practising basic sensitometry, which antedates the Zone System by well over half a century.

This is why the Zone System is often derided as a religion. A book called 'Really Easy Sensitometry' would not sell as well as a book called 'Zone System for 35mm' or 'A Zone system for All Formats', because the title didn't contain the invocation to the Blessed Ansel, the magic words 'Zone System'.

Nor would Really Easy Sensitometry need to be as thick as a Zone book. A 48-page pamphlet could contain all the sensitometry you need to know, and tell you how to get results that at least equal any Zone practitioner of similar artistic and technical ability. In fact you could probably get it into 16 pages. But there's more profit in a big, thikh book...

Part of the appeal of the Zone System for some people really does appear to be the jargon and the overcomplication; the feeling of being one of the Elect who has managed to read all through the Sacred Works.

At best, the Zone System is a way of understanding some aspects of sensitometry, with the aid of the truly brilliant Naming of Zones. People like Christopher, you will notice, say that they find it an easier way to understand sensitometry than some of the others they have tried, and they aren't obsessive about it.

At worst, it's jargon-laden mumbo-jumbo practised by rotten and obsessive would-be photographers who would be well advised to learn to walk (or even crawl) before they try to run.

And of course there are countless gradations in between best and worst.

Cheers,

Roger

[gns]

Well, they are both using the same principles to manipulate the characteristic curve towards a more usable or desired result.

Cheers,
Gary

[Roger Hicks]

Well, they are both using the same principles to manipulate the characteristic curve towards a more usable or desired result.

Cheers,
Gary
Dear Gary,

True enough, but to conflate the two is a bit like conflating the workshop manual for a 1979 Ford with the whole of automotive engineering. The Zone system is a partial (and jargon-laden) restatement of a much greater and more illuminating whole, namely, sensitometry.

I just find other explanations of basic sensitometric principles easier to understand -- including the book by Dunn and Wakefield that Christopher mentioned.

Cheers,

Roger

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I guess anyone who says "Hmm, harsh sunlight today. Better shoot my tri-x at 200 and cut back dev. time" is practicing a simplified zone system aren't they?

Cheers,
Gary


Like Roger Hicks said, it is basic sensitometry. But notice that several respondents to this thread declared that they never change developing time for different light conditions, ever, and that doing so is a waste of time.

[Roger Hicks]

. . . several respondents to this thread declared that they never change developing time for different light conditions, ever, and that doing so is a waste of time.
Dear Christopher,

As in "F____ it, I'll fix it in the darkroom"

The better the printer you are, the easier you can deal with a difficult negative. On the other hand, I (like you) would rather produce a negative that's easier to deal with, whenever possible.

Yes, because I mostly shoot 35mm, I have a standard time. But for a whole roll of flat subjects I'll add 50%, and for a whole roll of contrasty ones, I'll cut 15%.

This 15/50 rule works well enough for me. Sometimes I'll even go outside those figures. The exact figures are a matter of personal taste: someone else might use 20/40 or 10/60. Chances are that if they do, they know why they are doing it -- which I think we agree is what it's all about, whether they acquire that knowledge from the Zone System or elsewhere.

Cheers,

Roger

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Dear Christopher,

As in "F____ it, I'll fix it in the darkroom"



Yeah! LOL Or "I'll fix it in Photoshop". Fixing in the DR or PS is pretty easy if the subject is too flat, but contrasty subjects can be a pain. I find that constrasy negs are easier to fix in the darkroom than they are when scanned into photoshop, and that is part of why I go to the trouble of using the zone system. I can't do darkroom printing anymore, the chemicals cause me skin allergies and sore throats, even with good ventilation. I can process film, since it is done in those little metal tanks, but not printing. So, I use a Nikon film scanner and 'print' using photoshop to adjust contrast, dodge and burn, etc. I think the scanner is a lot less tolerant of contrasty films than the enlarger and low-contrast grade paper is.

[gns]

Sensitometry is the study of how the materials behave (not a method of working). Mister tri-x/200 and Mr. Zone system are both applying that knowledge to practice. One's method just being a bit more elaborate or controlled. They differ in degree, not substance.

Cheers,
Gary

[Morca007]

Maybe I'd use it if I were shooting landscapes on sheet film...

[Roger Hicks]

Sensitometry is the study of how the materials behave (not a method of working). Mister tri-x/200 and Mr. Zone system are both applying that knowledge to practice. . . They differ in degree, not substance.

Cheers,
Gary
Dear Gary,

Exactly -- and the Zone System is a subset of sensitometry.

All sensitometry is applied, or it is worthless. Once you have absorbed and learned to apply the principles, the route by which you absorbed and learned to apply them does not matter very much.

Sensitometry may be applied in a number of ways, with or without any reference to the Zone System. This is why I say that someone who cuts EI and decreases development isn't using the Zone System: he's using basic sensitometry, which was well known, well understood, and widely applied long before the Zone System was invented.

'Expose for the shadows -- develop for the highlights' has been a well known principle since the 19th century; the Zone System is merely a highly formalized, and some would say overcomplicated, restatement of this. It adds nothing except the naming of Zones. This is, as I have repeatedly said, a work of genius which makes it much easier to analyze a photograph tonally; but it is far from essential, and it is the only thing that the Zone System brings to sensitometry. The rest, it either oversimplifies (reducing to rote) or overcomplicates (photographing grey cards).

Once you understand speed points, the H&D curve, gamma (and its derivatives) and the time/contrast curve in a given developer, you don't need the Zone System. Personally, I find it easier to think in terms of the speed points, the H&D curve, gamma (and its derivatives) and the time/contrast curve in a given developer than to use Zone System jargon.

Cheers,

Roger

[Ade-oh]

'Expose for the shadows -- develop for the highlights' has been a well known principle since the 19th century; the Zone System is merely a highly formalized, and some would say overcomplicated, restatement of this.

Yes, exactly right. Once you have a basic understanding of the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, film sensitivity and depth of field - together with a basic understanding of how developers work - you're in like Flint. You can be taught this in a couple of hours: unfortunately, it's the 'stupid and lazy' creative aspects which are important in photography.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Yes, exactly right. Once you have a basic understanding of the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, film sensitivity and depth of field - together with a basic understanding of how developers work - you're in like Flint. You can be taught this in a couple of hours: unfortunately, it's the 'stupid and lazy' creative aspects which are important in photography.

You make me laugh.

[oftheherd]

Is it disdained in this discussion of the Zone System, or has nobody here actually heard of the Y.O.B. Exposure System http://cgi.ebay.com/Photography-Y-O-B-Exposure-System-Parry-Yob_W0QQitemZ260058004141QQcmdZViewItem ? It was covered over several issues of Peterson's Photography some 25 or so years ago, and in a book by Parry C. Yob. I never tried it but it seemed useful.

Just curious.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Is it disdained in this discussion of the Zone System, or has nobody here actually heard of the Y.O.B. Exposure System http://cgi.ebay.com/Photography-Y-O-B-Exposure-System-Parry-Yob_W0QQitemZ260058004141QQcmdZViewItem ? It was covered over several issues of Peterson's Photography some 25 or so years ago, and in a book by Parry C. Yob. I never tried it but it seemed useful.

Just curious.

I've never heard of it, I wonder what it is/how it works? I Googled, but all I got were links to places selling the book, no info about what the system actually entails. I may have to trek downtown to the library and do some digging....

[charjohncarter]

I've never heard of it, I wonder what it is/how it works? I Googled, but all I got were links to places selling the book, no info about what the system actually entails. I may have to trek downtown to the library and do some digging....


That is really something, I can get accordion lesson with my search engine, but nada, zero, 10% of nothing, zilch on 'The YOB Eposure System.'

[charjohncarter]

Chris, I hope you have a better library than I. Ours serves 1.2 million people and Parry C Yob produced a 'no results.'

[Ade-oh]

Personally, I find it easier to think in terms of the speed points, the H&D curve, gamma (and its derivatives) and the time/contrast curve in a given developer than to use Zone System jargon.



Personally, I find it easier to switch on my light-meter, take a reading and then use my 30-odd years experience in photography to adjust the exposure to suit the prevailing conditions. Oh, and I often bracket too.

[Roger Hicks]

Personally, I find it easier to switch on my light-meter, take a reading and then use my 30-odd years experience in photography to adjust the exposure to suit the prevailing conditions. Oh, and I often bracket too.

Well, yes; no arguiment from me on any of that.

On the other hand, when you start shooting black and white and haven't had 30 years' experience, it's quite easy to come up with badly exposed, overly contrasty or too-flat pictures. Understanding the relationship between speed, contrast and development time is useful in curing this.

It takes only a few minutes to explain how all this works -- as I said before, a 16-page pamphlet would do it -- which is why I get a bit annoyed at books an inch thick, riddled with jargon, that encourage people to run before they can walk.

Start out with the manufacturers' film speeds and dev times, and you'll do better than following the advice of some self-appointed guru. If you want better quality, you have to learn somewhere. My view is that for the raw beginner, the Zone System as normally taught is about as far from the best way to do this as you could easily get.

In other words, the Zone System is too complicated for the beginner, and once you know enough to undertand it, you probably no longer need it.

Cheers,

Roger

[oftheherd]

I've never heard of it, I wonder what it is/how it works? I Googled, but all I got were links to places selling the book, no info about what the system actually entails. I may have to trek downtown to the library and do some digging....

It is interesting that there seem to be no commentaries on it as there is on the Zone System. Everybody seems to want to explain the Zone System with their own twist of how it can best be understood.

Yob starts out commenting on Hurter and Driffied, that they assigned a single value, gamma, to to developing their glass plates (by inspection), and that their work was monumental without accurate shutters or light meters. Then faults film manufacuturers for using the contrast index later.

He says that to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights is a great photographic myth requiring developing by inspection. By the way, those are brief comments at the beginning of the book. He doesn't belabor those points.

He then goes on to explain his system. Instead of starting with the negative and its exposure and development, he starts with the enlarger and works backward. He believes that allows the acheivemnt of proper exposure for each negative, and doesn't require changes in development. Tests are required with easy to construct testers to test the enlarger used by the individual photographer.

That doesn't do his book and system justice. I haven't read the whole book and tried the system. I hope to this summer.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

It is interesting that there seem to be no commentaries on it as there is on the Zone System. Everybody seems to want to explain the Zone System with their own twist of how it can best be understood.

Yob starts out commenting on Hurter and Driffied, that they assigned a single value, gamma, to to developing their glass plates (by inspection), and that their work was monumental without accurate shutters or light meters. Then faults film manufacuturers for using the contrast index later.

He says that to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights is a great photographic myth requiring developing by inspection. By the way, those are brief comments at the beginning of the book. He doesn't belabor those points.

He then goes on to explain his system. Instead of starting with the negative and its exposure and development, he starts with the enlarger and works backward. He believes that allows the acheivemnt of proper exposure for each negative, and doesn't require changes in development. Tests are required with easy to construct testers to test the enlarger used by the individual photographer.

That doesn't do his book and system justice. I haven't read the whole book and tried the system. I hope to this summer.

It is demonstratably untrue that you must develop by inspection to develop the highlights properly. You can test this by measuring a bright surface, exposing it a certain amount (say, 3 stops over the meter reading..or zone 8 in z-s terms). If you develop films with this exposure in the same developer for the same time, temp, agitation then you'll get the same negative density. You can then test developing times to reduce or increase this density as needed and they'll be repeatable too. No need for inspection if you are consistant in your working methods and take a little time to test your materials.

He is right about the influence of the enlarger though, different ones give different print contrast. So, you need to take that into consideration.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Chris, I hope you have a better library than I. Ours serves 1.2 million people and Parry C Yob produced a 'no results.'

The library in Fort Wayne, Indiana is the largest in the state, bigger than Indianapolis's library in terms of the size of the collection, and they didn't have it either. This must be a very obscure book, because I have searched for some very obscure things and always found a copy there.....

[Roger Hicks]

It is interesting that there seem to be no commentaries on it as there is on the Zone System. Everybody seems to want to explain the Zone System with their own twist of how it can best be understood.

Yob starts out commenting on Hurter and Driffied, that they assigned a single value, gamma, to to developing their glass plates (by inspection), and that their work was monumental without accurate shutters or light meters. Then faults film manufacuturers for using the contrast index later.

He says that to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights is a great photographic myth requiring developing by inspection. By the way, those are brief comments at the beginning of the book. He doesn't belabor those points.

He then goes on to explain his system. Instead of starting with the negative and its exposure and development, he starts with the enlarger and works backward. He believes that allows the acheivemnt of proper exposure for each negative, and doesn't require changes in development. Tests are required with easy to construct testers to test the enlarger used by the individual photographer.

That doesn't do his book and system justice. I haven't read the whole book and tried the system. I hope to this summer.


Basically, I wouldn't bother to go to the effort of reading it, because (at least as you have described it) he's simply wrong.

You can control paper contrast (via paper and developer choice) but enlarger contrast for a given enlarger is fixed and with a fixed negative contrast you can ONLY use paper contrast to control print contrast.

'Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights' is about as far from a myth as you can get. The former is the only way to ensure adequate shadow detail; the latter is (admittedly slightly sloppy) shorthand for controlling contrast and maximum density. You certainly don't need to develop by inspection, and if he thinks you do, he has missed most of the point.

I had assumed that the first reference to Yob was a joke. In English, a yob is a layabout, wastrel, lout, troublemaker, hooligan; it is backslang for 'boy' and a 'yob' is often referred to as 'a backward boy'. From what you say, the latter definition sounds likely. I am not surprised that his work has sunk into deserved obscurity.

Cheers,

Roger

[Turtle]

The zone system is very handy in LF where individual sheets are used but it I am honest the more film I shot the less I worried about applying it with more rigor. I came to realise that there is so much one can do with a neg in a B&W darkroom that as long as I had good shadow detail (easy to meter or estimate even without a spot meter) and did not blow the highlights to hell by over developing I could make the print I wanted. When using a TTL meter with my 35mm and MF cameras I have gotten to know the meters and how they deal with cetain lighting and so can normally be sure to get decent shadow detail. If I do not, then a spot meter would not have helped because that tends only to occur when the shot has to be grabbed...and that tends not to allow for spot readings. It is far quicker to fire a frame at the exposure you first come up with then do another plus or minus. I generally end up with lots of very different contrast conditions on one roll so I am not going to be able to vary development. If I know the entire roll or the bulk has been shot in very low contrast light I might add some time or reduce it if the contrast has been very high, but this is rare.

For rollfilm/35mm, the best skill is pre-flash and fogging paper. When highlights get very dense this is a life saver and very, very quick to apply in the darkroom once you know your papers. It might sit ill with purists, but then I only care what the print looks like!

The zone system can be a creativity killer. rollfilm formats excel when shooting with a degree of spontaneity/fuildity and if this describes your photography, understanding teh system may be handy, but you aint going to be able to rigorously apply it. If shooting static images and generally having one scene (or contrast index per film/back) then it can be handy.

Interestingly the only problem I tend to have is insufficient contrast in my negs as I use a very diffuse head....an image printing nicely below G2.5 is VERY rare for me!

This might upset a lot of people, but I see a correlation between those obsessed with the szone system and uninspiring images. It must not be allowed to get in the way or be seen as 'rules'. Instead it is a tool, but one you can choose to use, or not.

[larmarv916]

Roger...again I agree with you and your latest post. So many self styled ZONE GURU'S are really nithing but hot air.....The is this effort to spend more time reinventing the wheel. rather than just going out and shooting. In the end what all of these "Guru's " do not want ot deal with is there own short comings on the artistic level.....actual finished work.

They would much rather wast hours of phony angst while life passes them by.

Best Regards...Laurance

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

His books were published by Petersen and Amphoto which is akin to being published by chiltons, not often a library book.

The Y. O. B. Exposure System: Precise Exposure Control in Color and Black and White by Parry C. Yob Paperback, Amphoto, 1980.

Amazon lists three for sale.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0817421750/ref=sr_1_olp_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211288119&sr=8-2

Actually the library here has a large collection of Chilton's car repair manuals. A lot of people here fix their own cars, including me. Mechanics are too expensive to pay to do work anyone is capable of doing himself with a little effort.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Roger...again I agree with you and your latest post. So many self styled ZONE GURU'S are really nithing but hot air.....The is this effort to spend more time reinventing the wheel. rather than just going out and shooting. In the end what all of these "Guru's " do not want ot deal with is there own short comings on the artistic level.....actual finished work.

They would much rather wast hours of phony angst while life passes them by.

Best Regards...Laurance

All that phony angst and hot air. Here are some of the charlatans and fools who waste thier time exposing and developing to get a good easy to print negative instead of doing the smart thing and just going out and shooting:

David Plowden
http://www.davidplowden.com/archive/

Bruce Barnbaum
http://barnbaum.com/photographs.html

John Sexton
http://www.pdngallery.com/legends/sexton/

Those idiots, their work is crap compared to yours. By the way, what's your website so we can see yours?

And to all you geniuses who say that the Zone System and other methods of exposing and developing using applied sensitometry are only usable with large format. Not only do I do it quite well with medium and small format, so does Plowden...he shoots exclusively with Hasselblads.

[Roger Hicks]

And to all you geniuses who say that the Zone System and other methods of exposing and developing using applied sensitometry are only usable with large format. Not only do I do it quite well with medium and small format, so does Plowden...he shoots exclusively with Hasselblads.
Dear Christopher,

I'd say you're trying to prove a negative here (in the logical sense, not photographic).

There are great photographers who do use the Zone System.

There are at least as many great photographers who do not use the Zone System.

All are likely, however, to have acquired a working knowledge of the basics of sensitometry -- essentially, exposure and development -- whether formally or informally.

Surely you would agree that some Zonies use the Zone System to disguise the fact that their pictures are all but devoid of content. Not the ones you cite, perhaps, but even then, I have yet to be moved by a Sexton picture, except in the realm of exquisite tonality. Maybe it's just his subject matter.

And while I don't claim to be a great photographer, www.rogerandfrances.com at least absolves me from 'put up or shut up'.

Cheers,

Roger

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Dear Christopher,

I'd say you're trying to prove a negative here (in the logical sense, not photographic).

There are great photographers who do use the Zone System.

There are at least as many great photographers who do not use the Zone System.

All are likely, however, to have acquired a working knowledge of the basics of sensitometry -- essentially, exposure and development -- whether formally or informally.

Surely you would agree that some Zonies use the Zone System to disguise the fact that their pictures are all but devoid of content. Not the ones you cite, perhaps, but even then, I have yet to be moved by a Sexton picture, except in the realm of exquisite tonality. Maybe it's just his subject matter.

And while I don't claim to be a great photographer, www.rogerandfrances.com at least absolves me from 'put up or shut up'.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

My comments weren't aimed at you. You understand how film and devloping works and apply that knowledge to your work in order to get the best results. I was aiming at the people here, smug in their ignorance, who reject any testing of materials or use of developing as a tool to control contrast. The reason I defend the zone system is that for many, it is a symbol of such use of applied sensitometry. You can use any system you want and call it what you want as long as you don't just follow what the meter's averaged reading of the whole frame tells you and then refuse to change dev. time for different light. Some here seem to delight in, and indeed celebrate such laziness.

As far as putting up or shutting up, I wasn;t asking that of you either. I've read your articles in magazines like Shutterbug since I was a little kid (I got my first manual SLR at age 11 and began using my father's camera at age 8). I've always admired your work. I was talking about guys on this thread who have no website yet they bash others as uncreative.

[larmarv916]

Christopher...you had better be careful who you put hold up for champions. Needless to say you have missed the "point" of everyone.......that is Zone does not justify or rubber stamp someones work as superior. Nor does it even ensure quality. The system has been twisted into a justification why those who do not bow down to Zone Guru's are inferior.

Also Christopher....Also I went to photography school with one of the people on your list. I will not metion his name here but does not deserve any artistice respect. A "Brown Noser" of extordinary talent...yes.

What show me you are really not that versed on Zone...is that you would have rather quoted the best book on Zone.....that was written by anothe school chum of mine....John Woods
Wood's book on Zone was and stil is a tour de force.....most likley out of print released about 10 + uears ago. Woods was actually a great guy and the mentor on Zone system to one on your list.

What yo ureally need to do is make a list of all the famous photogrpahers that did not use or care about Zone. Let me start a list for you HCB, Haas, Aget, Newman, Doisneau, Brassai, Horst, Capa, Brady, Brandt, Burri, Chim, Kertesz, Arbus, Eisenstaedt...just to name afew.

Again you desire to feel threatened is a reaction to this "cult" associtaion that Zone creates a false system of status because you hitched you print to Zone. Is the issue. We all love the work of the original mater photographers who actually used it.....but those people were great not becuase of Zone. rather because they had a great Eye and dedication to create great images. It is the polotical use of Zone that is the real problem you so refuse to acknowledge. You seem so intent on taking everyones comments on this so perosnally.

Best Regards......Laurance

[hiorgos]

Wow, dense and interesting thread! Really.

Just wondering, .. I have some knowledge about the zone system, and how to compensate the 18% grey when taking a picture. i'm willing to go back to film, but it can be discouraging not to be able to take a nice good exposure because the camera's lack of spot meter and -horror- that I actually have to send the film to the shop becasue I cannot have a dark room at home.

Is that bad to send the film to a good photo shop for developing?
Will I have to buy a spot meter, probably more expensive than the camera?
Is it possible to get good prints and consistent results using only the camera-lab combo?

Regards.

[williams473]

Hirgos,

There's no need to buy an expensive spot meter unless you plan to be a long way from your subject (or you don't have any cameras with meters.) Try my "poor man's spotmeter" solution! I shoot on a couple old cameras without meters - when I do this, I just take along my SLR which has a spot meter in it and use that. It has everything I need - the ability to meter a small (usually shadow) area and adjust for film speed, fstop and shutter speed - then simply apply the settings to what you are shooting with. Even if you could only find a cheap SLR that had center weighted metering, you could buy a cheap 18% grey card from any photo shop and place it in the light you will be shooting in, meter that up close (thus filling the center weighted area) and get good enough meter readings.

Another little trick you can use if you don't have a grey card - green grass in full sun meters roughly 18% grey - I've used that many a time and gotten good negs. If you live in the desert, I can't help you there :)

As far as sending film to a lab for processing, it will be fine, although quality can vary greatly depending on who you use. Better to send to a top lab through the mail than use a local yokel. I prefer to process my own, but "developing for the highlights" is barely aplpicable in role shooting - however, exposing for the shadows is, which you can do for each shot if you choose using a simple in-camera meter.

[Rey]

This is a great thread, full of information. So, please allow me two insert my two cents. I am not a professional photographer and I do not develop my own film (but I plan to). I use roll film, mostly 35mm, but 120 as well. I understand, conceptually, the zone system very well, but I fail to understand how full application of it it could help me, as not being a pro, it may take me a couple of weeks, under varying conditions to finish a roll, so adjusting development time will not work. I have read that "zone system for 35mm" book, and applying its methods helped tremendously. I find I can get good results by metering zone III in shadows and hoping the highlights fall in place. On the other hand, I find highlights are often more difficult to adjust in photoshop than shadows, so I wonder if metering for highlights would be a better method for digital darkroom manipulation. Haven't tried that yet.

[williams473]

Rey,

I think you're on the right track - that is exactly how I use it - meter the shadows I want in zone 3, stop down two stops from the reading, and I'm good. That's not Ansel Adams' zone system, but frankly, old Ansel wasn't a street shooter so who cares? That zone for 35mm is what made sense to me, too.

I wouldn't meter for highlights - just use a yellow filter to make sure you get some nice tone in your skies. Black and white film has a wide latitude, so if you get the shadows right, the rest will falll nicely whatever the contrast situation is. I also usually overdevelop by 30secs to a minute, which errs on the side of making sure I have some detail in my highlights, and the extra time won't affect your shadows.

Multicontrast photo papers are so good these days, it's hard not to be able to save some pretty badly missed exposures - I know I have. It can take a lot longer than a perfectly exposed negative, but it can be done.

In Photoshop however (and this is why I don't use it for black and white work) I too find I have problems with the shadows getting as dense as I want them without taking on a blocky, digital look. I admit I'm not the best on PS though, so it could just be my lack of experience on a PC.