Zone System

Hi, I just can't remember it! I know the theory. Expose for the shadows, develope for the highlights. Can anyone give me an example. This is how I understand best. If you meter the shadow, and place it in Zone III, and meter the highlight, and place in Zone VII, what do you do next? How much more or less developement for N-1, N-2, N+1, N+2? And how do you know if its N-1,N+2, etc. I have a Gossen Luna Pro F, and the Zone System calculations are on the face of the meter. This is very simple to use. I just can't remember. I appreciate any feedback. Raven

I would urge you to read Ansel Adam's "The Negative", which is

probably the best photography technique book ever written. You will

find the answers to all your questions there. A close second is "The

Print", the next book in the series.

By all means, read Ansel's books, as mentioned. Zone VI Workshop (I

believe that's the title, by Fred Picker, is also good)

The Zone System works because the photographer calibrates it with

their own equipment and ways of working. No actual numbers from my

circumstances would work with any certainty in yours. You have to work

out your own.

Hi

I would urge you to follow the advice suggested above. To answer your

question, use your light meter to place your important shadow areas

(where you want to retain detail) on Zone III. Now measure you

important highlight areas where you want deatil and see which zone

they fall on. If the highlights fall on Zone VII, go ahead, shoot and

develop normally. If it falls on Zone VI, shoot (well, overexpose

slightly), and give N+1 development. If it falls on Zone VIII, give N-

1 development. And so on.

DJ

Just to clarify my last post. You can't place shadow and highlights

because natural scene contrasts vary. You place one and see where the

other falls and that gives you development times. Re development

times, you will have to calibrate to your equipment - you light

meter, you shutters, the enlarger you use etc. Start with the time

recommended by the manufacturer. Ideally, run a few tests as

suggested in the books recommended above.

DJ

Duh, me again. You overexpose slightly when you're doing N-1 dev and

not N+1 as I'd mentioned in the previous post. I'm really leaving the

building this time. DJ

Or you can do it the way Fred Picker's followers do, expose for the

highlights and let the shadows fall where they may. Read The Fine

Print as has been suggested, and I beleive there a couple more schools

of Zoning out there. Pat

Unfortunately, Fred Picker's technique just doesn't work when you are

doing photography in the Utah desert (and many other places). I have

run into many, many, many situations where if I placed the highlights

on zone VIII, the important shadows would fall on zone I or below. No

amount of development would save the shadows in these cases. I would

advise against using this technique.

 

<p>

 

Christopher Cline

 

<p>

 

Salt Lake City, UT

 

<p>

 

http://www.wcslc.edu/pers_pages/c-cline/cline.html

Back to Raven's question. The concept of exposing for the shadows and

developing for the highlights is the foundation of contrast control in

black and white negative making. The Zone System is a means of

quantifying that concept and applying it in a predictable and useful

way over a broad range of shooting situations. The real trick is to

train your eye to properly select the part of the scene that should

fall in Zone III or Zone VII. What is your idea of distinct textural

detail? And once you find out, how do your materials and technique

translate that perception to the final print? As for placing any part

of the scene on Zone VII? Has someone discovered a film on which

shadow detail can magically be enhanced with increase in development?

It works the other way! The thinnest portions of the negative are

pretty much done by about halfway into the prescribed development

time. It's the highlight areas (densest areas on the negative) that

continue to develop beyond that point. The whole concept of N, N- and

N+ is to control how dense those highlight areas get. The first meter

reading you take helps you determine exposure, the second helps you to

plan development. This is of course, just a very basic explanation of

what happens. I, too would suggest some reading. An old college

English prof. once told me that the sign of an intelligent person is

that they agree with you! I don't know of anyone who agrees with

placing anything on Zone VII!

Raven, I would still suggest Picker's method, and also suggest that

you check out Ansel's method and there was one I heard of that was

something about Beyond the Zone System, if you find them interesting

do the test so that you will know for yourself what the results will

be. I think they might all work, just different approaches, but Fred's

is the one that I tried and found that it worked for me and there are

several other's in my neck of the woods who use it also. If you do the

test for your personal exposure index and do the test for zone VIII,

it will work for you anywhere in the world. Pat

I don't know of anyone who agrees with placing anything on Zone VII!

 

<p>

 

 

unless it will be a very high key image! scary

Well, I feel moved to comment. For the past five years I have been

pursuing the technique of putting the highlights (eg clouds in full

sun) on zone VIII and letting the shadows fall where they will. In

that instance, one avoids blocked up highlights. Clearly if one is

shooting in bright sunlight, dark objects in shadows will not show

sufficient detail. I beleive this is unavoidable with just about any

form of compensating development if you have 16 plus zones in one

picture and simply represents the boundary of the medium. In lower

contrast scenes, I place the highlight on zone VIII and print it down

to the zone I want (I think one of the previous posts was based on

the misaprehension that placing the highlight on zone VIII means that

you have to print it as zone VIII - in fact Picker's technique is

based on the fact that that is exactly what you dont have to do).

 

<p>

 

For the past four years I have been using chromogenic film (first XP2

and now TCN400). Pursuing this technique with this film gives IMHO

superior reproduction in contrasty situations to modified development

with silver film: the highlights dont block up but can in fact be

printed through with enalrging time, not information loss, being the

only constraint; the highlight areas thus overexposed are grain free;

shadows retain contrast. Works for me.

Pat, from your response it appears that I may have stepped on your

toes, for which I apologize. Like the rest of us, you are a

contributing member of this group and want to share your knowledge and

experience with others without being told you are wrong. My statement

can certainly be interpreted as saying that using Fred Picker's method

of exposing for the highlights is wrong, which is not what I intended

to do.

 

<p>

 

I'm glad Pat responded, because it made me think harder about what I

wanted to say. I completely agree that in photography there are many

different techniques that give the same final result. Where I

respectfully disagree with Pat is that Picker's exposure method is an

alternative technique to the same end result. Picker's method is

actually a simplified version of the Zone System that doesn't always

give the same results as the Adam's version. As a physics professor,

please indulge me with an analogy from physics. In order to describe to

introductory students the properties and behaviors of atoms, we

introduce the Bohr model of the atom in which the electrons orbit the

nucleus at set distances. While this model is useful and gives some

correct answers for atom behavior, it is not the correct model and is

therefore limited in scope. To accurately describe an atom, you need to

use quantum mechanics, which is mathematically too complex for an

introductory course.

 

<p>

 

While the differences between Picker's simplified zone system and

Adam's zone system are not as great as the physics example, Picker's

method is still limited in scope. So I will state instead that I advise

using Picker's exposure method with extreme caution and knowledge of

the limitations. There are times when using Tri-X sheet film (which has

a very pronounced shoulder) where the highlights are very important and

the EV range is not too large that I will place the highlights on zone

VII or VIII so as not to block them up. But if I'm using T-Max 100

(which has a very long straight line with no real discernable

shoulder), I don't have to worry about the highlights blocking up, so I

place my important shadows on zone III or IV and develop for the proper

negative density range.

 

<p>

 

Sorry for the long response. I hope this all makes sense.

 

<p>

 

Chris Cline

 

<p>

 

Salt Lake City, UT

 

<p>

 

http://www.wcslc.edu/pers_pages/c-cline/cline.html

You can easily pull 15 stops into a controllable range with highly

diluted dev. and long dev. times, I have a shot of a priest in front

of his church, he has a bright white satin robe on in full sunlight,

and yet the interior of the church has full detail. This surely isn�t

accomplished by reading the highlights and letting the shadows fall

where they may!

 

<p>

 

 

Why do people voluntarily restrict their options?

Interesting comments. To take the physics analogy a little bit

further: all Newtonian mechanics is wrong; Einstein proved that.

Still if you build a bridge using Newtonian mechanics, you are

unlikely to go to far wrong. My point is that no one is saying the

model is the same, we are just arguing how "good" it is for every day

use. Pointing out the difference, therefore, doesnt take the argument

any further: we are just left with one correspondent saying it is

good enough and another saying it isnt. Tough to resolve without

going into the field together and doing some controlled tests.

 

<p>

 

From the philosophical point of view - "why do some peoply

volountarily restrict their options". That is an excellent question.

I do so because I find it increases my freedom. Just as working with

one lens can liberate your vision, so knowing exactly how the zones

are going to fall using Picker's technique can focus what pictures

you take and what you dont. For me it works 90 per cent. of the

time. The 10 per cent. where it wont is compensated for by the

quickness and simplicity of the technique.

 

<p>

 

Having said that I would quite like to have taken that priest shot...

You make the mistake of thinking that the zone system in its entirety

is too complicated and slow, the opposite is true, it becomes very

intuitive and swift with practice. I can guarantee that anyone who is

practiced at the zone system as Adams teaches can determine exposure

just as fast, even faster, than those who use a "simpler" method as

Pickers.

restricting your technique or equipment does not "free" your vision

in any way, any more than a painter who says,"I will only use one

kind of brush", this sort of nonsense is a plague that is common

amoungst photographers and it is rubbish.

 

<p>

 

How can my vision be freed if the image in my head cannot be matched

with a lens, how can my vision be freed if my technique does not

measure up to what I see in my minds eye?

 

<p>

 

 

Many claim that my point of view shows an obsession with equipment or

technique over vision, I find that the opposite is true. I use the

equipment and tech. necessary to bring my vision to fruition and then

I go on. I find the opposite view to be more about an obssesion with

equipment/technique.

Look, this really does not yield to "right" and "wrong". First, the

point about one lens (which is really a tangent) goes like this: you

can walk around, look at the world and come up with the mental vision

of what you would like to see and fit the lens to take it. If you can

do this all the time, you are a very lucky man. It happens sometimes

to me but like any other mental attitude it sometimes doesnt. With

one lens you have to look for what might make a good picture: in some

sense this constraint causes an extra effort which means one may see

pictures one might not otherwise have seen - in arty shorthand this

is considered as liberating. I actually do usually use a variety of

lenses but sometimes I just like walking around with a Rollei 2.8F

and looking for pictures. I am sure that I have taken pictures I

would not otherwise have seen even if I had an equivalent focal

length lens in the bag just because of the difference in mental

attitude. Game theory shows that you can increase the probability of

positive outcomes by restricting choice and if you dont believe in

the difference in mental attitude that comes from restricting options

think about Alexander burning his boats. Still try it for a day and

if it doesnt work for you, forget about it.

 

<p>

 

As far as the Picker vs full Zone method goes, you are right

(although I meant making notes, seperate devlopment etc rather than

metering in the field) but I find chromogenic film goes a long way in

achieving the same effects (albeit with more darkroom effort) and

given I use a lot of roll film, that is a good compromise for me.

Chris, thanks for the consideration, I appreciate it. You lost me in

the physics example though. I do have a question for you or anyone who

cares to answer. I understand that there are 15 EV's out there, my

question is how do you go about placing 15 stops on a material that is

only capable of 7 stops? I talked with a Kodak rep today and he told

me that all b/w films had a latitude of 7 stops and that included

T-max. Now I do understand the idea of compression in computer files,

but I also know that print paper is only capable of 9 stops, at least

accordding to Ansel, zone 1 being black, zone 9 being paper base

white, where are you going to place zones 10-11-12-13-14-15 and have

them show as distinct seperate zones? I would like to know where Mark

found this situation that showed 15 stops, no offense Mark but my

meter has 20 EV values which have to be placed somewhere in the 8

zones on my meter, 9 if you count the 0, to my eye there is no

difference between 0 or 1 or 2, I can see the difference between 2 &

3, so how do you get 15 stops, maybe its just semantics, but I am

willing to be instructed. The other thing the Kodak rep pointed out to

me was that none of their photographic materials were based on any

Zone system, that all the Zone systems were setup by individuals who

wanted to get a better negative than the one obtained by following

Kodaks suggestions. Pat

This is an interesting discussion. I have used both approaches,

having read the negative several times before reading Fred Pickers

Zone VI Workshop, The Zone VI Workshop is a very easy way to

understand the basic concepts of the Zone System.<P>I got in trouble

a few years ago on a forum by repeating what a workshop instructor

had said in that the Zone VI Compensating Developing Timer would not

work down to 55 degrees as Picker claimed. Several people gave me

the Picker advice of "TRY IT". I placed my developer tray in the

refrigerator aand brought the developer temperature below 50 degrees

and much to my amazement the print made at a normal temperature was

very close to the print made at 48 degrees.<P>Fred also makes the

claim that most all "normal" scenes will fall in an eight stop

range. Well, I have "TRIED IT" and it is very easy to prove this

wrong. Use his example of placing something something dark in the

shade and a bright sunlit highlight, it almost always read more than

8 stops for me using several meters including the Zone VI

meter.<P>Kodak has really come around in trying to give good

information to photographers using black & white materials. Their

approach is more along the lines of that from Beyond the Zone System

by Phil Davis than that outlined by Ansel in The Negative. The idea

is still the same, YOU must find out what your materials will do for

YOU. Have Fun.<P>Jeff White<P>http:\\www.jeffsphotos.com\index1.htm

Pat, first off, let me apologize for being so cranky the other night.

 

<p>

 

Ansel actually allocated 11 zones to the zone system (0-10)

 

<p>

 

The amount of contrast in a scene relies more on where you will place

the shadow detail, i.e., if I go for full detail in shadows that

means my highlights will be way up out of the "normal development"

range, if I go for shadows with little or no detail all shades of

contrast (or zones) will move to the left on the scale (at least on

my meter!) and the highlights will be more in the "normal range". If

in the priest shot I didn't want detail inside the church, the

priest's robe would have come down on the scale of contrast--simply

because I placed the inside detail lower on the scale. It�s all

relative.

 

<p>

 

To pull that kind of range into a normal scale takes a highly dilute

development. Hc-110 from stock solution, diluted 1:30 (almost water)

18 to 20 min development time with agitation only every 3-4 minutes

for about 15 secs. What happens is that the developer exhausts on the

highlights much quicker than on the shadow areas, allowing the shadow

areas to catch up, also you need to give an extra stop of exposure to

help the shadows. The times are approximate; you should test this out

for yourself of course.

Mark, thanks for the info, I will try that in the fall, right now my

darkroom as we speak is 92-F (no a/c), but I will set up the

photograph and try it both ways. Pat

This has been fun reading all the various responses. Lots of good

discussion and ideas out there. Just a few quick responses.

 

<p>

 

Actually Mark, Newtonian mechanics is not wrong, it is just limited in

its application. Similarly, Picker's method is not wrong, I just

wouldn't use it if my shadow detail to highlight detail EV range is

greater than 5 or 6 stops.

 

<p>

 

Jeff, it's good to hear from you and to see your work on your web

page. (Jeff and I attended a Ray McSavaney/John Sexton workshop

together 5 or so years ago.)

 

<p>

 

Pat, to add to Mark's suggestion for compensating development

technique and times, I'll e-mail you some additional times to start

with that I got from Don Kirby, Ray McSavaney, and Bruce Barnbaum (all

the info is at home right now). I'll also e-mail you the name of a

compensating developer that Neil Chapman recommended for T-Max that he

says easily handles a 15 stop EV range. He used it for the

environmental portraits shown in Photo Techniques a couple of issues

ago.

Both Brett Weston and Imogen Cunningham said they thought the zone

system was a crock; both they and Adams took pretty good pictures. You

decide.

Swelle, they all practiced the zone system to some extent, after all,

it is nothing more than applied sensitometry. What takes a Cunningham

or a Weston years of trial and error to learn about film and the

exposure of the same can be grasped in a very short time by someone

who studies the zone system.