Exposure

"... I wish to dispel here any thought that my approach is rigid and inflexible......

Then why the f... did he make such a song and dance act out of it?!

 

Come on; hands up. Who actually exposes individual sheets of film, and then proceeds to give them tailored normal, curtailed or extended development?

 

.... anybody?

 

The very popularity of rollfilm, 35mm, remote processing labs, and especially reversal/transparency material show how widespread true use of the Zone system wasn't and isn't.

 

Because colour reversal material is totally unforgiving of exposure changes, and thinking that it's capable of capturing 9 one stop separated Zones is a recipe for complete failure and disappointment.

Likewise with straight OOC digital Jpegs. No gently rolling-over H&D curve there to cover up a misjudged brightness differential.

 

Yet RAW digital files now give us the chance for a renaissance of the Zone system's principles - with post-processing 'development' tailored to individual exposures.

 

In fact not just the slope of the tone curve, but its entire shape is open to manipulation. Of which, I'm sure, Adams would have approved.

 

Just as long as we don't delude ourselves that we can capture brightness values up to 4 stops higher than an 18% reflectance, while simultaneously placing that 18% reflectance at mid-grey. Limit your 'whites' to 2.5 or two and two-thirds stops above a nominal Zone V and everything will be fine.

 

I'm not going to propose a fully-formed alternative 'zone' system for the digital age. Maybe 'Expose To The Right' is all that's needed. Or some slight expansion on that.

 

But I will propose that Adams original Zone system no longer has much relevance today, in the form he published it, over half a century ago.

Edited December 4, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Then why the f... did he make such a song and dance act out of it?!

 

Come on; hands up. Who actually exposes individual sheets of film, and then proceeds to give them tailored normal, curtailed or extended development?

 

.... anybody?

 

The very popularity of rollfilm, 35mm, remote processing labs, and especially reversal/transparency material show how widespread true use of the Zone system wasn't and isn't.

 

Because colour reversal material is totally unforgiving of exposure changes, and thinking that it's capable of capturing 9 one stop separated Zones is a recipe for complete failure and disappointment.

Likewise with straight OOC digital Jpegs. No gently rolling-over H&D curve there to cover up a misjudged brightness differential.

 

Yet RAW digital files now give us the chance for a renaissance of the Zone system's principles - with post-processing 'development' tailored to individual exposures.

 

In fact not just the slope of the tone curve, but its entire shape is open to manipulation. Of which, I'm sure, Adams would have approved.

 

Just as long as we don't delude ourselves that we can capture brightness values up to 4 stops higher than an 18% reflectance, while simultaneously placing that 18% reflectance at mid-grey. Limit your 'whites' to 2.5 or two and two-thirds stops above a nominal Zone V and everything will be fine.

 

I'm not going to propose a fully-formed alternative 'zone' system for the digital age. Maybe 'Expose To The Right' is all that's needed. Or some slight expansion on that.

 

But I will propose that Adams original Zone system no longer has much relevance today, in the form he published it, over half a century ago.

 

The zone system is to allow you to visualize the final image even before you make the exposure but today with digital you don't need that.

"Come on; hands up. Who actually exposes individual sheets of film, and then proceeds to give them tailored normal, curtailed or extended development?"

I used to do that all the time when shooting 8x10 or 4x5 film. On a bright sunny day I may have had to use N-1 to lower the highlights to Zone 9 and on darker cloudy day N+1 would raise the highlights up to Zone 9. But you are right, I no longer do that. I haven't shot film in a long time.

You need that with digital too. Maybe not so much for technical reasons. But if you do not have an idea of what picture you are creating the moment you press the button, maybe it would be time to put the camera down and pursue some other thing.

Decisions about what to do to get that what you want still have to be made. We still have to intervene to get there. And still have to consider the limitations of the medium and how to bend things to get where we want to be.

 

And that's what Adams said when he explained the zone system: it's a way to bend things so they end up fitting in our prevision.

And that's what he did to the zone system: bend, cheat, whenever it was necessary to do so.

 

Is the zone system practical? Sure it is. To begin, it was and still is a very good teaching tool. Then, it has to be remembered that it is 'just' a formalized expression of the age old truism "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". Which is still true now we're using digital capture ("expose to the right"). Further more, it gives more control over the process than the truism (which says nothing about how to do that), and can be used in a very practical way (unless you're a miniature format photographer who habitually captures two consecutive christmasses on one roll). You need two magazines, and an empty spare for when you can't get what you want using the film in the other two, designated to whatever n+ or n- variation you thought you would need. Remember: previsualisation. You rarely went out for a shoot on a sunlit beach with ISO 1600 film, or for a dim jungle shoot with ISO 32 film. We know in advance what we most likely need when we go out.

So yes: very practical.

 

And please stop that talk about precise and correct reflectance values and such. It has been said often enough that that is misguided, missing the point of the zone system.

Edited December 4, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

And please stop that talk about precise and correct reflectance values and such.

Then why do most Zone system enthusiasts put such store on 'calibration' and poke a spotmeter at every part of the subject?

 

And are you arguing that there is no value in knowing exactly where 'white with texture' will fall in the final image for a given exposure?

 

Let's just stick a wet finger in the air to get an exposure reading then, shall we?

Edited December 4, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

Then why do most Zone system enthusiasts put such store on 'calibration' and poke a spotmeter at every part of the subject?

 

And are you arguing that there is no value in knowing exactly where 'white with texture' will fall in the final image for a given exposure?

 

Let's just stick a wet finger in the air to get an exposure reading then, shall we?

Why? Because you have to. To know 'where you're at' and what to do next.

That's not the same as harping on about differences in stops and 18%.

 

I am most certainly not arguing that. If you think so, you show you do not get it still.

 

You mention calibration as part of the zone thing. Think about that.

Because colour reversal material is totally unforgiving of exposure changes, and thinking that it's capable of capturing 9 one stop separated Zones is a recipe for complete failure and disappointment.

It should probably be pointed out that the Q-13 grayscale photos posted above have captured only a 5-stop range from a scale that spans a known 6.3 stops. Should one conclude that this is somehow considered good or that digital is a complete failure and disappointment?

It should probably be pointed out that the Q-13 grayscale photos posted above have captured only a 5-stop range from a scale that spans a known 6.3 stops. Should one conclude that this is somehow considered good or that digital is a complete failure and disappointment?

It should be realised that most of that shadow compression is due to the limitation of an 8 bit JPEG and the non-linearity of the sRGB tone curve.

 

You could take a picture on any medium you chose, and it would still look much the same after being mangled by JPEG compression and most displays' colour-space.

 

Plus there isn't a camera and lens yet made that doesn't add some shadow flare through glass surface and dark-chamber reflections. Such that you can never get an exact one-to-one tone-curve relationship between the real world and the image plane. Especially at low brightness values.

 

In fact, the old and poorly-coated glassware used by Ansel Adams may account for some of the highlight compression and discrepancy between his real-world brightness values and captured Zones.

Why? Because you have to. To know 'where you're at' and what to do next.

That's not the same as harping on about differences in stops and 18%.

Sorry, but it is exactly the same as 'harping on' about differences in stops.

 

Poking about with a spotmeter will only confirm that there are no more than 2.5 stops difference between a grey-card reading and a matt white surface. Whether that's a whitewashed wall, a fluffy white cloud, or freshly fallen powder snow.

Edited December 8, 2020 by rodeo_joe|1

It should be realised that most of that shadow compression is due to the limitation of an 8 bit JPEG and the non-linearity of the sRGB tone curve.

It seems you are saying that digital is inferior to film.

 

However, the flattened tones shown on that Q-13 scale are fully 3 stops lighter than the area where JPEG/sRGB data problems begin to occur. My not-very-special monitor will readily display another stop below that from JPEGs, so in my view the rather obvious problem lies somewhere other than the file format.

 

Plus there isn't a camera and lens yet made that doesn't add some shadow flare through glass surface and dark-chamber reflections. Such that you can never get an exact one-to-one tone-curve relationship between the real world and the image plane. Especially at low brightness values.

Curiously, I have a cheap old JPEG-only Canon CCD point and shoot with a super-zoom lens that will easily reproduce every step on that scale.

 

In fact, the old and poorly-coated glassware used by Ansel Adams may account for some of the highlight compression and discrepancy between his real-world brightness values and captured Zones.

I'm not privy to Adams's lens selections, but I am guessing that if wanted to capture all 11 zones, he was not probably not using his worst lenses.

Although I think the 1 stop = 1 Zone description issue mentioned here is irrelevant to the practice of the Zone System, there must be an original reason to use that "definition" ... Personally I consider it is plenty clear, but I understand that could not be "the clearest". We know there are different opinions (and reasons) about that.

I think to know the real answer we should have a deep knowledge of Adams` very personal procedures and results (that I don`t have), probably beyond what is written on the "trilogy" (or "tetralogy")... We are translating an objective metering of the scene into relative contrast values on paper, an outdoor scenario with variations in brightness to printing materials that could be quite different from one brand to another... it is a complete process developed many decades ago that cannot be analyzed disjointedly or uncontextually without falling into somekind of "legal fraud".

Edited December 11, 2020 by jose_angel

I learned photography with digital first, and I think it’s the best way to go. As someone else said, it’s instant feedback, not instant gratification. It allows the student to receive constructive criticism at a reasonable time. Plus, it’s exciting, seeing a well made shot in real time. I think it gives you more incentive to stick with photography. Once you master the basics, and get to the intermediate level, then start shooting film.

Hi Rodeo Joe.

 

I read with great interest your point about zone VIII being an impossible 144% reflectance. I was reading about the same point on a Photrio forum about the same topic.

 

Someone there posted this quote about a previous poster saying zone VIII should have no texture at all:

 

"I think you are conflating reflectance with exposure value. Each step is not doubling reflectance but relative brightness which can go up or down without a limit."

 

The quote is from post #21 on this thread: Zone system mathematically inconsistent

 

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'd like to get comments on it.

 

Thanks.

Hi Rodeo Joe.

 

I read with great interest your point about zone VIII being an impossible 144% reflectance. I was reading about the same point on a Photrio forum about the same topic.

 

Someone there posted this quote about a previous poster saying zone VIII should have no texture at all:

 

"I think you are conflating reflectance with exposure value. Each step is not doubling reflectance but relative brightness which can go up or down without a limit."

 

The quote is from post #21 on this thread: Zone system mathematically inconsistent

 

That sounds reasonable to me, but I'd like to get comments on it.

 

Thanks.

 

Yes. For example if the sun is in frame, then the incident light on the subject in front of you will be many zones less than the sun.

 

Note also that fluorescent objects can "reflect" much more light than the visible incident light, at least for some wavelengths.