Zone System discussion

Your participation would be appreciated.

 

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?

act=ST&f=10&t=710&s=1d4489c98c9d39a313bbfe860e6acfec

 

Eric

Eric, What would you like to discuss about the zone system?

Please go to the link provided in the first post.

i'm not a member of that other forum, so i will post my comments here. i read the thread on the link from the other post you referenced, and i would like to speak to the idea that the "zone system is good theory" and the idea that st ansel created the concept of contrast control via development/exposure manipulation. ZS is not a theory - it is simply a specific application of sensitometry based on earlier concepts. adams did not invent this idea, as many believe, and as adams apparently wanted people to believe. the idea of expanding and compressing contrast by exposing for the highlights and developing for the shadows has been around since the late 1800s, and the method was discussed in a number of photo books from that period. ansel adams and one of his fellow teachers, fred archer, merely codified the process in a very rigid manner so he could teach it in a more specific way to his students. i dont think i have seen any reference in which ansel noted the provenance of the actual concept behind the ZS, nor is there even any mention of fred archer in "the negative". my study of the ZS many years ago left me rather unimpressed, and while i do, on occasion, use overexposure/underdevelopment to reduce contrast in rare difficult lighting situations, i do not tend to pay much attention to any rigorous application of ansels technique. something like 98% of all my architectural work utilizes straightforward exposure and development.

Actually it always has ben possible to achieve a good print using

other techniques . Techniques like two bath development ,

flashing the paper , split contrast printing , etc. etc. , have existed

for a while , i doubt that the use of a contrasty lens will give the

same effect a N+1 development .

I don't agree that the film is better now , since it is not as rich in

silver as it was before .

I see the zone system as a tool not to get to desperate

measures to achieve the effect you want in a print . The other

techniques require time and in some cases the result is not as

good . what's wrong in having a good negative ?

Having said this , i rarely use the detailed zone system because

i mostly shoot in situations where the film can record everything .

hmmm - i mis-spoke in my comments above. i went back to "the negative", and ansel does indeed mention fred archer in the introduction. sorry for the misinformation.

Not only does Adams mention Archer, but he also admits freely that the Zone System was just systemization of previously known procedures.

No way ! I actually thought that the picture of Adams with the

tablets a la Moses had been shot after God told him to show

up on top of the Half Dome . Too bad there wasn't a burning

Bush waiting for him , that would have saved us a lot of troubles

.

Burning bush, eh? That would probably require N -2 to maintain the subtle highlights of the flame.

You have really gotten some excellant answers!The bottom line is:you only get about 5 stops of information,the zone system is about placement.Where you place your higlights,will dictate where everything else will fall.Unless you shoot in a studio,and control brightness range and light ratio exactly,you will find that using the ZS is the only way to get top quality prints of high contrast subjects.

Sounds to me like certain someone made an attempt here to discredit Ansel's contribution to the development of techniques that became so helpful to so many in their attempts to achieve a so-called fine print.

 

That particular ONE post is a biggest piece of Ansel related BS I've seen on this forum in a while.

 

It is one thing to disagree with what he successfuly tought so many, yet another to accuse him of actually stealing it. It must feel like an odd truth to some, but reading the cover does not tell the whole story.

 

I think we are free to express our opinions, we can hate photographs of any of the known and influential photographers, yet when it comes to stating the facts, we should all strive to deliver the actual truth. If not known, no reason to bring it up.

Burning Bush? Just let me know when & where & I will be there with at least 3 cameras to photograph it.

Oh my , my ...

I sure hope that that ONE person Witold is relating to, is not

myself ..

I hope , Witold , your mighty finger is not pointed at me , again .

I am glad you didn't get offended for the burning Bush .

Ansel Adams always went out of his way to give credit to Fred Archer for development of the zone system because no one else did.

 

Sure, plenty of people knew that negative tonal ranges were affected by exposure and development. That's what H and D figured out in the late 19th century. The great contribution made by Adams and Archer was to take that known fact and create a systemt that could be used to make negatives with a predictable contrast range and thus allow the photographer to make the print that he or she visualized at the time the exposure was made.

 

The zone system isn't a way to make a "correct" negative. It's a way of producing a negative that will allow you to make the print you want to make as easily as possible. It's an artistic tool that when used optimally requires you to visualize the print you want to make and then allows you through control of exposure and development to obtain a negative from which you can produce that print with as little effort as possible. You might envision a scene lacking in contrast as a print with higher contrast (i.e. you would place the shadows on the zone you want and then expand contrast by plus development) or you might envision a high contrast scene as a relatively flat print (i.e. you would place the shadows on the zone you want and then reduce contrast through minus development). You might place the shadows on Zone II and develop so that the highlights fall on Zone V to allow you to make a dark, moody print or you might take the same scene and make a high key print by placing the shadows on Zone V and develop so that the highlights fall on Zone VIII. It's all about your vision and how to translate that vision to the print, not how to achieve "correct" exposure and development.

 

As several people have pointed out, there are many ways of obtaining "correct" (read "boring) exposure and development. The zone system isn't one of them.

Hey jnorman, in the case of your pictures I wouldn't say "straight forward", its more like, "average".

 

 

:)

<i>Hey jnorman, in the case of your pictures I wouldn't say "straight forward", its more like, "average".

 

:)

 

 

</i><p>

 

This from the big mouth with no images to show...hmmmm...takes a lot of courage to criticize people when you are not putting yourself out there Ken...bravo!

i can see i have offended some of you ansel fans. i cannot help my feelings toward adams, whose work and reputation have been, IMHO, greatly exxagerated in significance over the years. before i studied the history of photography, i was impressed by many of adams images, and there is no doubt that he produced some effective and highly technically competent photographs during his career. but at this point, i believe the vast majority of his work to be formulaic and derivitive, and his vision of landscape photography has been outdone by a number of contemporary photographers, and poorly mimiced by thousands of others. in regard to the reference to my own photographs as "average" (let's see - ken, what did you say your credentials are that give you enough credibility to critique my work?), if my work is good enough to have several hundred of my images in the permanent collections of 3 major art museums, the smithsonian, and the library of congress, along with a number of books (three of which i authored), i must be doing something right...

 

in the future, i shall attempt to avoid expressing any further opinion on adams, because i do not enjoy argument, nor do i wish to upset the many fine photographers who have learned so much from his teaching. also, again i would like to thank those who continue to share their knowledge and expereince here on this forum - even though i have been doing this for well over 20 years now, i still learn things from you guys.

I think satire on burning bush is more productive than discussing Zone religion subjects. As for the personal attacks... why? They make no sense & have no intelligent purpose.

Jorge, if you think having images posted here is some kind of sign of how good one is it doesn't suprise me.

 

jnorman, defending your images by telling us who collects them or that you have put out some books doesn't defend the images, it only bloats your ego. the images talk for themselves, if you have anything worth looking at please let me know and I will check them out.

 

all the credentials I need is to look at them, but other than that, I was selected to be the personal printer to Horace Bristol, have been offered employment with one of the biggest food photography studios in LA, and have several of my prints in the personal collections of two generations of the A.Adams family.

 

but I let my images talk for themselves.

jnorman, I forgot to mention that it wasn't your opinion of Adams that upset anyone, it was that you opened your big mouth without knowing what you were talking about. happen a lot does it?

ken - you sound like quite a guy. i tried to correct my earlier mis-statement, and i tried to be gracious about your insult, and i tried to give you some idea of my credentials. your responses demonstrate a lot about your character.

Returning to fame AA and his Zone System. I have read with great interest his 5 books some 20+ years ago (among several other outstanding books on photography by other authors). I think anybody can practice his/her own methodology of exposure control and achieve excellent results, without resorting to the rigors of the ZS. I, for myself, do not look at the surroundings through the segments of 10 or 20% gray scale, rather picture (previsualize) the image as a whole.

 

And I would prefer many of the photographers to speak about the subject of their images in terms of composition, content, etc. instead of resorting to jargon: �I placed the shadows on Zone II and developed so that the highlights fell on Zone YY to allow you...�

Certainly teaching the rigors of the zone system to the beginners is an overkill, and I met many poor souls completely lost at counting the Roman numerals instead of developing their vision!

 

As to the AA books, the text is quite engaging, although not as clearly expressed as for example writings by Andreas Feininger. The choice of illustrations in AA books on photo technique is, however, hopeless. One would have to work hard to find worse collection of mundane photographs.

"i tried to give you some idea of my credentials"

 

no, what you tried was to brag about yourself because I dared to critize your pics.

As a self-taught beginner (I exposed my first negative 6 weeks ago), I found the writings of Adams, Picker, & Barnbaum on the Zone System absolutely essential for insight into the interpretative possibilities and parameters of both film and paper. Although I have only exposed 500 pictures and have yet to make a 'photograph' I believe that utilizing this system has certainly extended my understanding of the creative possibilities of photography, will I buy a densitometer...... probably not, however a basic grounding in the Zone System has been invaluable to me and is well worth the effort for any beginner... It affords a wonderful technical window through which to view your 'vision'.

<<picture of Adams with the tablets a la Moses>>

 

Anyone know if there's a scan of this on the web. I saw it years ago and would like to take another giggle at it.