Anyone Here Seriously Use the Zone System?

What are your thoughts about the application of this enigmatic system?

I think the system is quite useful to have the highest control specially while shooting LF film, but quite uncomfortable if you don't shoot a lot or if you just want to have some control and fun when shooting different formats and materials. The process of testing is quite long and boring and very likely with operator mistakes. You need a lot of materials and a densitometer. So I never advice to follow this method at first.

Just learn how exposure works, and how development affect the density of exposed areas. Start using standard ISO and developing times, and adjust them to your needs on the run. Adams books help a lot to understand this topics. You don't need to go to the extreme. Just build your own procedures for some basic scenarios as you may need it, e.g. like shooting high contrast under direct sunlit scenes (overexpose and underdevelop), for indoor portraiture in a given studio (depending on the light you use). You'll notice if you need more or less contrast, or if the film is under or over exposed. Important to take notes of everything...

Edited January 4, 2021 by jose_angel

I had the zone system dial for my old Weston Ranger 9 meter, with ten grey patches on the dial. I notice that my Gossen has ten Roman numerals. It's certainly not a complete zone system, but can be a handy reference to connect brain with numbers.

After much intense study and all of your help - I get it. But there is no 4x5 view camera, sheet film, hand-held meter or bigger enlarger in my future so I'll just carry on as before and hope for the best.

I suspect that if Ansel Adams ever handled a 35mm camera, it was to prop up the leg of a 10x8 camera tripod to prevent it sinking into a patch of mud.

Yes he did! One of his famous photograph of Georgia O'keefe and Orville Cox was taken with a 35mm Contax.

Oh sure. All of his most famous landscapes were shot on a Leica.

 

There are pictures that stir the emotions despite, or because of, their technical imperfections, and those whose impact depends on their technical and tonal superiority.

 

Most Zone system followers choose to chase the latter. But chasing it with a 35mm camera seems just a bit pointless.

I am not sure but I don't think he ever used a Leica.

In actual fact, the camera Ansel Adams used was a Contax, which he liked very much, particularly for portraits (as anyone would whose images were often done on huge glass plates).

 

In his "examples" he has small format images

 

Ansel Adams

1984 Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs.

ISBN 0-8212-1551-5

In fact, the very second image in the book, Examples, is taken with a Contax:

 

Examples p7

Alfred Stieglitz,

New York City, c. 1935

 

This is one of my first photographs with

the Zeiss Contax 35mm camera, given to

me by Dr. Karl Bauer, then the Carl Zeiss

representative in America. Dr. Bauer was a

very fine gentleman with a deep interest in

photography and young photographers. I

was proud to have a Contax; it was undoubtedly

one of the finest cameras of the

time. The Leica was also a superb instrument,

of course, but I preferred the operational

design of the Zeiss Contax. The original

design of the instrument was refined

on the basis of the practical experience of

German photographers using pilot cameras.

Because of this very sensible approach

to design, the functions and operating controls

were well planned, not only on the engineers'

drawing boards, but from the photographer's

viewpoint. I have worked with

Contax I, II, III and the Contarex Professional

(the last one produced). 1 still have

the Contarex, and it works to perfection

after more than thirty years' use.

On one of my various trips to New York

in the 1930s, I visited Alfred Stieglitz with

the Contax in hand and infected him with

my enthusiasm for it.

For me the value of the Zone System is not in using it as wrote/ unless doing large format film, but that it gave me a deeper understanding of exposure, exposure constraints, and exposure manipulation.

 

Even shooting digital or roll film where per shot development is not possible, knowing the Zone System helped understand when and where a particular exposure may require adjustment to yield the intended result.

 

In short, if you think about an image in zones, you can more easily the dynamic range of the subject against the constraints of the camera and/or media.

 

Just my 2 cents. I could be wrong.

Common Joe ! Be kind to the ZS Master ! Like you and I, in his mid 60's he recognized the weight of the 8x10's on his (our ?) body.. I see tons of his MF work and a classic picture (by Weston ?) is of him with a "new" Contax camera. . .somewhere in the mid 1930's. I use a "modified" ZS with all my cameras. For some people it works. . . others scream. Aloha, Bill

The Zone System really isn't difficult to understand and is entirely applicable to roll films and 35mm. Although those films don't allow variable development for individual frames, the exposure principles are exactly the same. Variable development isn't central to the concept.

 

I agree with an earlier comment that Fred Picker's out-of-print "Zone VI Workshop" book is the best primer. It was a required textbook in a college photography course I took many years ago.

 

Before I took that course and learned the Zone System, my winter snow pictures were always underexposed and hard to print. I didn't understand that my light meter was reading the white snow as middle gray. When I read Fred Picker's examples and placed the snow on Zone VII or Zone VIII (two or three stops more than the meter reading), my pictures were properly exposed and easy to print.

 

Also, his book explained how to calibrate my film exposure and developing to my camera and meter. Most b&w films processed in most developers can't be properly exposed at box speed. Much later I wrote a series of articles in Shutterbug magazine about this:

 

Personalizing Your Film Speed, Part 1

Personalizing Your Film Speed, Part 2

Tom, I don't have a dark room and develop at an outside lab. I shoot 4x5 and MF in both BW (Tmax 100 and 400) and chromes (Velvia 50 and Provia 100). I don't use the zone system. I use either a 10 degree reflective, incident meter or lately, I've been trying to adapt my digital camera using its histogram and meter readings.

 

I looked at your articles. They're very educational but don't; seem to really apply to my methods Any recommendations about setting film speeds or other recommendations you can make the way I check exposures?

If you don't develop your own film, you can't fully calibrate the film speed to your camera and meter, unless your lab does custom development. But maybe it doesn't matter if you're not making darkroom prints. My experience is that negatives intended for scanning and computer printing should be a little thinner than negatives intended for darkroom printing.

 

Also, I'd rely more on the incident meter than the reflective meter, assuming it's accurate. A 10-degree spot meter will give very different readings depending on what it's pointed at. Incident meters don't care what the subject looks like because they measure the light falling on the subject, not the light reflected from the subject. If you're shooting 4x5, it's a slow process anyway.

Tom!

You 2 posts seem to contradict each other. The earlier post you talked about the Zone system and your last post talking about incident meter. How do you use the Zone system with the incident meter?

...How do you use the Zone system with the incident meter?

 

I found this online:

 

"Incident meters measure the light falling onto a subject. They are the meters with the white globe that portrait photographers shove under a subject’s chin. They are incredibly useful and accurate meters when your subject is in close proximity to you and in the same light. Because they measure the light falling onto a subject instead of light reflected off of it, the different tones or light values of the subject will register on their proper zone automatically. There are certain methods that are variations of the Zone System that use incident meters, but for the most part the Zone System relies on reflective metering."

 

from this article:

 

Mastering the Zone System - Part 1: Zone System Metering

Vincent has it right. An incident meter doesn't care about the subject's tonality, so it should always indicate the correct exposure, whether the subject is light, dark, or in between. Of course, this assumes your film speed and development are calibrated to your camera and meter, which is a prerequisite of the Zone System. Years ago, when I was using Kodak Microdol-X fine-grain developer (no longer available), I learned by experimentation that Tri-X should be exposed at ISO 125 or 160 in my camera instead of box-speed ISO 400. Without that calibration, all my photos would have been 1.5 stops underexposed, no matter how I metered.

 

That said, the Zone System does indeed emphasize reflective meter readings of specific subject tones so you can place them on your Zone of choice. For example, when taking a spot reading of sunlit snow, maybe you'll want to place it on Zone VII instead of Zone VIII to record more detail if you care less about losing some detail to underexposure in the lower Zones. A popular misconception of the Zone System is that it's a rigid method of exposure and development. It's actually a flexible method. You can place any subject tone on any Zone for creative reasons.

I found this online:

 

"Incident meters measure the light falling onto a subject. They are the meters with the white globe that portrait photographers shove under a subject’s chin. They are incredibly useful and accurate meters when your subject is in close proximity to you and in the same light. Because they measure the light falling onto a subject instead of light reflected off of it, the different tones or light values of the subject will register on their proper zone automatically. There are certain methods that are variations of the Zone System that use incident meters, but for the most part the Zone System relies on reflective metering."

 

from this article:

 

Mastering the Zone System - Part 1: Zone System Metering

 

I know how the incident meter works and I know the Zone system just don't how you use the Zone system with an incident light meter. The link tell me the incident light meter is not good for Zone system. You said there is method to use the incident meter with the Zone system but didn't say how. .

...You said there is method to use the incident meter with the Zone system but didn't say how. .

 

I didn't say there is a method to using an incident light meter with the Zone System. The article said that (which I quoted).

I didn't say there is a method to using an incident light meter with the Zone System. The article said that (which I quoted).

That's why I said Tom contradicted himself. On the on had he said the Zone system is useful and yet he mostly use the incident light meter because he only needs one reading.

The only reading is the correct one. I was trained on 16mm motion picture cameras. We were issued a Weston meter, and told to use the incident method almost exclusively.

The point here is : you don't get to bracket exposures. Find a Weston meter instruction book, from, say, series 5 on, online, and absorb it.

But, avoid most Weston meters,they are old and tired. The principle remains sound.

Even shooting digital or roll film where per shot development is not possible

Not strictly true of digital shooting.

By shooting RAW, and carefully controlling the exposure, you have a huge amount of control over how the image is processed.

Want a roll-off in the highlights? No problem. Or a lift of the shadows? Easily done.

 

In short, almost anything that N+/- development can do, can be achieved on a shot-by-shot basis with any decent digital camera.

 

A rollfilm camera with interchangeable backs also allows magazines earmarked for N+ or N- development to be swapped from shot to shot.

 

35mm film and shooting only digital JPEGs - not so much.

But, avoid most Weston meters,they are old and tired.

There was a change in the selenium cell with the introduction of the Weston IV. Prior to that, the cell seems to have been better sealed. I have older Weston II and III meters that still work perfectly, while you'll be hard-pressed to find a fully functioning and accurate model IV, V or Euro-Master.

 

BTW. The model III was the first to be calibrated for ASA/ISO.

Edited January 8, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

I have older Weston II and III meters that still work perfectly, while you'll be hard-pressed to find a fully functioning and accurate model IV, V or Euro-Master.

 

In my personal experience with both hand-held meters and in-camera meters, those that were pretty solidly encased seem to still work, while those naked to the environment are usually 'shot'

Old Light Meters - an accumulation

I do not use all the steps in the Zone System but I apply the concept to almost all my work. I have been to a workshop where we used a densitometer to calibrate film speed and development time, so I understand how it works. Light meters are designed to place the metered area in zone V or middle gray. When I took pictures at my granddaughter's ballet recital I used the internal spot meter to pick the area I wanted middle gray and got good pictures. Use an averaging meter built in or hand held and the black background will be middle gray and your subject will be washed out. So understanding the zone system is very useful.

Use it, like it and made this to assist my brain.

 

A ten stop range in print, and with standard development?

 

A good trick if you can pull it off!