Zone System. Metering. Digital.. Etc. (Help.)

<p><em>Reposted from above. Sorry. Couldn't figure out how to set google privileges, or re-edit my previous post. Tech details are in the captions below each pic.</em></p>

<p>The images below are the worst of the trials--the ones I mentioned early on--and posted here by request. <br />These were shot at a nearby mall, in day light and again at night. I wanted: glare / reflection off the windows, sharp front-to-back (little bokeh), detail in the darks. Underexposure is on purpose. In each, I spot metered a mid-grey spot, then adjusted for underexposure.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12011492-lg.jpg" alt="" width="655" height="437" /><br />3pm Daylight. 1/20th, f8, iso 100.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12011491-lg.jpg" alt="" width="655" height="437" /><br />8pm Evening light + strong ambient. 1/50th, f8, iso 400.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12011454-lg.jpg" alt="" width="655" height="437" /><br />Reference shot. 8pm Evening light + strong ambient. Auto Program 1/50th, f2, iso 400. (Pattern metering.)<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12011490-lg.jpg" alt="" width="437" height="655" /><br />1pm Daylight. 1/250th, f8, iso 400. Day-for-night fail.</p>

<p>Again, these are the worst of them. They show the the focus problems I mentioned. I'm not looking for aesthetic crit; rather comment on technique. (Typically I photograph guys in way worse light and they're moving. Mannequins. Sheesh. Training wheels.) Thanks so much. And again, best for the holiday weekend. Wishing you each a terrific start to the season.</p>

The Zone system was not about visualizing the scene; it was about visualizing how you wanted the print to look.

Exposure couldn't always get you the look you wanted. If I metered a scene in which the darkest shadows fell on Zone 1 and fluffy clouds fell on Zone 10, pure white with no texture, I had a problem that exposure adjustment couldn't control. Normal exposure would give me good shadows but I would have pure white featureless clouds. Closing down two stops would give me nice cloud textures on Zones 8 and 9 but my Zones 1,2 and 3 shadows would all be Zone 1, pure black. Ergo, I would expose normally to keep my Zones 1, 2 and 3 shadows but would give N-2 film development to bring the clouds down to Zones 8 and 9.

To do that with digital, you would have to expose for the clouds as far to the right on the histogram without clipping and then adjust or convert for the shadows in Photoshop to darken them down.

To use the Zone system without post processing is simply to say, "I want the facial values to be correct so I will set the face tones to Zone 6 and let everything else fall where it may."

<p>"Richard, The zone system is a process for <strong>film, </strong>and negative film"<br>

I read this book once called "The Simplified Zone System" . In this book the author and also Photographer used The Zone sytem to shoot slides, color slides at that. Since slides have about the same dynamic range as a digital sensor you can easily transfer this technique to digital. </p>

<p>The approach he used or proposed was to break the Zone system into 5 Zones instead 10 or 8 which is used with B&W film in which the 18% grey lies in the middle of the chart. On the left side the middle grey would be dark grey or 9% and black or 4.5%. To the right of 18% middle is light grey at 36% and white 72% reflectivity. Of course this technique takes allot of visualization just as the original zone system since you have to place your subject at the right position from "Normal(18% grey)Exposure". </p>

<p>For example if your subject was a black cat you would close down 2 stops or (N-2) from normal exposure. If your subject was a snowy lanscape you would open up 2 stops or (N+2) over normal exposure and so on. This is OK if you have the time and are not bothered by allot of contemplation but to me an easier way is to find something in the scene which approximates middle grey and base your exposure off that. This too might require a spot meter and a little thinking though. Of course these days you can just shoot RAW and avoid all the mental gymnastics. </p>

@Harry, thanks.

<p><p><i>"This is OK if you have the time and are not bothered by allot of contemplation but to me an easier way is to

find something in the scene which approximates middle grey and base your exposure off that. This too might require a

spot meter and a little thinking though. Of course these days you can just shoot RAW and avoid all the mental

gymnastics."</i><p><p>

<p><p>

This seems like the way to go, and echos much of the good advice given here. I'm grateful for the boiling-down of it

all; and, again, I regret, some, my mis-ref to the zone system proper, and all the discussion that's caused. The

examples i poste in my previous post are failed applications of the technique, but I can see that, with practice, it'll work

well.<p><p><p><p>

@James: agreed. Postproceesing is as key to producing a good digital image as is darkroom/print to film. What i

meant in my earlier comment: I want to get as much intention of the moment in-camera as possible. I doubt I can say

more without getting into deeper discussion about something on which we agree.

<p><p><p><p>

A related comment on post/darkroom. I'm always slack-jawed when I see that passage in the "War Photographer,"

when Nachtwey sends his printer back to the darkroom multiple times to burn a piece of sky he'd visualized, at the moment of making the image, as bright.

Then come Cartier-Bresson, in another famous vid, telling Charlie Rose how he doesn't care about printing, just

making the best image of the moment. Bresson, who gave us art, wanting to be true to the moment of capture;

Nachtwey, our proxy witness, a guy who risks his life to bring us a the reality of war, caring as much about reproducing the image using darkroom technique as he did when he composed it while under fire in Bosnia.

<p><p><p><p>

(I don't mean to be snarky. I deeply respect both men. I've documented homeless street life in NYC and conflict in the

Mideast. Neither experience is forgiving. Each is rewarding.)

<p><p><p><p>

Last: I spent some time this weekend looking at the EXIF data of some pics made by photojournalist I admire. All were

pattern-metered. I takeaway from this that Harry's point--and others' posted here--about shooting in RAW prevails. (no

big discussion needed re RAW. I'm an adherent. My q on metering was prompted by a want to refine my process on

the shutter-click end.)