Zone System Jargon !?

OK, I'm tired of pretending like I understand. You disciples of St.

Ansel are quite fond of making statements like the following:

 

"So I metered the bark on the tree for my mid range and placed it in

zone VI."

 

You all say that as if you were stating: So I started with A and

then I followed it with a B and of course I then attached a C, D, E,

and of course FGHIJKLMNOP... etc.

 

What the heck are you talking about? Are you going to make me read

the whole book? Just give me a hint and if I like it ... I'll read

the book.

 

I'm not a black and white shooter obviously. I don't want to be. I

have no aspirations in that direction. I do not develop my own film

and God willing I never will. So try not to explain to this six year

old why sex is better than chocolate.

 

I just want to know how you place what God created exactly where YOU

want it in your film latitude.

Scott:

 

There's no mystery about it, and nothing saintly about Ansel. He (or is that HE?) would be the first to say as much.

 

Think of it this way: Meters have to be calibrated to something. Most, if not all, see the world as lighter or darker shades of middle gray. Point a meter at a white wall and it says "15 EV of light falling on a GRAY wall." The same is true for a Black wall or anything in between.

 

All the Zone system is, is a way of metering (and developing) to make the white wall white, or any other shade you want. Middle gray is Zone 5. Pure black, Zone 0. White, Zone 10. 10 zones, 10 F stops. 10 log steps between clear paper and d-max.

 

So all you do is point the meter at the shadows. The meter gives you a reading that makes the shadows gray, or Zone 5. But you don't want them there, so you close down two stops. You PLACE the shadows on Zone 3. Okay. Then, LEAVING THE METER DIAL AS IS, you point it at the brightest point you'd like to maintain detail and note the reading. Look down on the dial and see it corresponds to 5 stops (or EV levels) above the shadows. I.E. it FALLS on Zone 3+5=Zone 8.

 

"Aha!" I hear you say. "My scene encompasses more than 8 or 10 stops, what now?" Okay, the highlights are 2 stops higher than you'd like, just develop less. That drags the highs down the amount you need. Range between light and dark too small? Develop more.

 

That's it. And it's no theory, just a rough and ready application of sensitometry. Just a way to harness the way film works. No magic, no B.S.

 

Sure you can get carried away with calibration and fussing; and yes, the latitude of most film makes careful metering and development less neccessary. And no, a good negative doesn't mean it can be printed without dodging and burning. And no, it's not nerdly at all. Once you figure it out, you can meter and nail a scene to look the way you want it to look in about 45 seconds.

 

Finally, don't trot out Ed Weston's not using a meter as an example of the dichotomy between the Zone System (Mere science) and true art (t.m.). Weston's years of experience meant he could meter, more or less, with his eyes; and he did plenty of "Expansion" and "Contraction" when he developed his film based on what those eyes and what his experience told him. Ina way he applied sensitometry as carefully, precisely and creatively as did Ansel Adams: He just did it all in his head.

>>>>"I'm not a black and white shooter obviously. I don't want to be. I have no aspirations in that direction. I do not develop my own film and God willing I never will. So try not to explain to this six year old why sex is better than chocolate."<<<< MY, this will endear you to a lot of people, and at my age, chocolate is better than sex. To successfully utilize the ZS, you have to get into calibration with YOUR camera, film, developer, metering, paper, and printing techniques. In the simplest of terms, the ZS is nothing more than expanding and contracting contrast through the control of exposing and processing, usually in combination with one another. And organ transplanting is merely opening up, taking out the old, putting in the new, and sewing up the hole. If you have no interest in doing it, why ask?

Marshall,<p>

That was a great description. I've read the books from Adams to White and I think it just now really clicked.

Scott, Since you seem to be using transparency film you must try

to hold the important highlights from burning out, that is

overexposing. You then depend on the latitude of the film to

retain detail in the important shadows. That works if they are

within 4/5 stops of each other. When there is more contrast

range than that, one end of the scale or the other will suffer.

Some transparency films will handle a seven stop range, but that

will be a greater problem if you attempt to print that image

because the contrast range of print material is no more than 4

stops without a lot of dodging, burning or masking, and then you

are back to the opposite side of the Zone system.

I use only transparency film in my day job but really love the

creativity of B&W in my personal endeavors.

Paul

Karl, thanks. Just got a look at your portfolio. I really like Tree Bones and Door Knob. Stairway shows wonderful flair for something too few photographers can do, which is show the presence of something by the absence of something else. Bravo. Good eye.

Scott, I hope this information will be useful.

 

First off, I assume that you're still using slide film. As a consequence of this, you are restricted to an exposure latitude of five stops at the absolute maximum, ranging from pure black to pure white (i.e. clear film base).

 

You know that if you meter a subject and then expose with the indicated reading, the subject will be represented on the transparancy as a medium tone (i.e. half way between black and white). You also know that if you give the subject more exposure than the reading it will be rendered lighter than a medium tone, and conversely if you give it less, it will be rendered darker than a medium tone.

 

Here's where I want you to cut me some slack and just follow my train of thought.

 

For historical reasons, we'll call the indicated meter reading a Zone V (that's Zone 5 in roman numerals). Hence if we meter a subject and then expose that subject according to the meter reading, we have 'placed it on Zone V'.

 

In the original Zone System, if we were to give the subject 1 stop more than the indicated reading, we would have 'placed it on Zone VI(6)'. The subject would be rendered lighter than a Zone V placement. Expanding upon this, if we were to give the subject 2 stops more than the indicated reading, we would have 'placed the subject on Zone VII(7)'. The subject would be rendered lighter than a Zone VI placement, and significanly lighter than a Zone V placement. The converse holds true for giving less exposure than indicated (Zone's IV and III respectively).

 

As Marshall has already noted, the original Zone System consisted of 10 Zones, representing tonal gradations of grey from darkest black (Zone 0) to brightest white (Zone X). Since it fell midway between the two end points, Zone V was considered to represent a mid-tone, and as such is also representative of exposing a subject using the indicated meter reading.

 

You will note that in the original Zone System, a Zone is equivalent to a stop. Hence one stop more exposure than the meter reading (Zone V) corresponds to Zone VI. And so on.

 

There are two things to note here.

 

1. The scale that you use (if you choose to use one) does not need to consist of 10 zones. It should consist of however many zones you feel are required to represent the different tonalities that your emulsion (i.e. chosen film) is capable of reproducing. I'll expand upon this later.

 

2. The difference between two adjacent zones on your scale does not need to correspond to a stop. It can be a half stop, or a third of a stop; the key is that a zone should represent the smallest tonal variation on your emulsion that your eye can cleary distinguish when looking at the developed transparancy.

 

For me, a Zone (on Velvia) represents half a stop. My scale consists of 9 or 10 zones (this ain't an exact science) with Zone V again representing a medium tone. Thus, ordinary shadows are placed on Zone IV, deep shadows with texture are placed on Zone II - III, deep shadows requiring substance but no texture are placed on Zone I, black is placed on Zone 0. Highlights are slightly less linear on transparancy, but I hope you get the idea.

 

Having said this, in most cases you will find that the contrast range of a scene exceeds the contrast range of Velvia. Something has to give, or you need to wait until the light changes.

 

What I have covered here is the exposure side of the Zone System. However, the Zone System in it's entirety also deals with development. Dealing with development is outwith the scope of this article (and pretty much academic for slide film anyway).

 

Best regards,

 

Mike

Is sex really better than chocolate???

A light meter is calibrated to 18% reflectance or Zone V in Ansel's Zone System (some meters are calibrated to 12% and about Zone 4.5, in which case an adjustment may be necessary).

 

To "place" the bark of a tree on Zone VI, meter the tree, and then add one stop more exposure to account for the difference between Zone V (meter calibration) and Zone VI (where you want the object metered to be placed).

 

To place a specific shadow area on Zone III, you meter the shadow, and then subtract two stops exposure from the meter reading to account for the difference between Zone V and Zone III.

 

The �place� terminology makes even more sense when you have a spot meter with a Zone VI Studios Zone Dial Indicator (or equivilent) pasted on it ($3 at Calumet). It would definitely help to see such a meter to better understand.

Marc

 

While I agree with what you said about how meters are calibrated, don't confuse Scott with that. It doesn't matter how the meter is calibrated to a certain percentage. All that matters with a meter is that it is LINEAR. That is becasue the user should calibrate their meter to their way of doing things, and their materials, not some pie in the sky factory calibration. that is done by three simple tests. a maximum black for minimum time test, a zone 1 test, and a zone 8 test.

 

Kevin

It's interesting, once you become familiar with the principles of the Zone System, it becomes natural and easy. I guess I struggled with it by reading on my own, until it began to make sense. It makes sense, because it's so consistent with the way film behaves.

 

The underlying principle is that, as one increases or decreases development time, one increases or decreases respectively the amount of contrast in the negative. That is, changes in development affects the light levels more in the high values of the print (e.g. clouds, facial tones, snow, etc.) than it does the low values of the print (e.g. shadow areas). So, with a lengthy development, the high values will be further in brightness from the low values, and with less development, the high values will be closer to the low values in the print. Keep in mind that, with changes in development, the low values in the print (shadows) aren't that much affected.

 

This behavior of film gives one the means to match the contrast of the negative to the contrast of the scene being photographed. Since the low values of the print don't change that much with different lengths of developments, one can practice the age-old maxim of B&W photography and "expose" for the shadows (in the print) and "develop" for the highlights. That is, one can set the exposure to make the shadows about what they would want in the final print. If it's a high contrast scene, then it's possible that the highlight areas of the scene might be too bright in the print, and show no detail at all. So, one decreases the development to bring down the highlights a little until they show some detail. Remember, the shadows won't be affected nearly as much, so even with changes in development, they will stay about the same.

 

Or, if a scene is flat, the highlight areas of the print may not be bright enough in the print if the film is developed for a normal length of time. So, one would increase development time above normal to make these highlight areas a little brighter (higher) in the print.

 

To repeat using the jargon of the zone system, if the shadows are "placed" at a certain low level of brightness by setting the exposure, then the highlights will "fall" at a given level of brightness if one uses a normal development time. If the highlights "fall" too high, because of a contrasty scene, compensate by decreasing development to bring them down. If the highlights "fall" too low, and would provide a muddy looking print, then increase the development a little to brighten these highlights.

 

As applied in the zone system, "zones" give one a way to previsualize what tones will look like in the final print. "Zones" extend from Zone 0, entirely black, to Zone 10, entirely white. Each increase in one zone represents a stop more light, a doubling of the amount of light reaching the film. If Zone 5 is about middle 18% gray, then Zone 3 is about the limit in the shadows where one will see good detail. Below Zone 3, and there will be little detail. Again, if Zone 5 is about middle 18% gray, then Zone 7 will be about the limit of full detail in the highlights and Zone 8 will be about the limit of showing any detail in a highlight. These zones provide one with a visual vocabulary in which to think about the different levels of brighness values in the final print. One finds a shadow of the scene in which they want full detail, so they will place this on a Zone 3 by setting the exposure so that the shadows in the print end up where they want. Having set the Zone 3, if they find that a highlight in with they want detail falls above Zone 8 (above five stops over their Zone 3 in the scene), then they will want to decrease development to bring them down. The zones in the Zone system are only a mechanism of previsualization, so that one can think and talk about the different brightness levels that are possible in a print. Again, a sort of visual vocabulary.

 

As to different development times, five different times usually represent the extent to which one can change developement times to match the film contrast to the scene's contrast. "N" is the normal development time. "N-1" is a decreased development time from "N" enough to bring a Zone 9 in the scene down to a Zone 8 in the print, and thereby obtain detail in that highlight. An "N-2" development will bring down a Zone 10 in the scene down to a Zone 8 in the print. Correspondingly, an "N+1" development time will bring a Zone 7 in the scene up to a Zone 8 in the print, and an "N+2" development time will bring a Zone 6 in the scene up to a Zone 8 in the final print.

 

Back to the Zone System jargon, with respect to a normal development time, the N+1 and N+2 development times represent "expansions", because they lengthen the distance in the final print between the shadows and the highlights. Development times N-1 and N-2 represent "contractions", because the decrease the brightness level distance between the shadows and the highlights in the final print.

 

For example, through testing, I found that my "N" development time is 10.5 minutes for HP5 developed in ID11 mixed 1:1 (stock versus water) at 68 degrees. My N+1 and N+2 development times are 12min,20sec and 15min,15sec respectively. My N-1 and N-2 development times are 9min and 7min,30sec respectively. This works for my equipment, my light meter, my enlarger (based on condenser enlarger), my lenses, the paper I use (Ilford Gallery Contrast 3) etc. They would likely be different for your light meter, enlarger, etc.

 

In between these development times, one can make changes using paper contrast. This begs the question, why not just have one development time, N, and then use paper grades to make all contrast adjustments? Because, it doesn't work! One doesn't get the subtle highlights or subtle shadow detail that one might want just by changing paper grades. Good printing isn't so much having good darkroom techniques as it is having a good negative with which to begin!

 

I can briefly describe my testing methods to determine these development times. I have a board in which I've cut out a 6" hole at the center. Covering this hole from behind, I have a translucent piece of plastic, and behind it (3/4") a frosted piece of glass. By placing one to three blue photofloods behind this board, in combination with changing my aperture, I can duplicate any light level from Zone 0 or 1 up to Zone 10. I use blue photofloods, because I figure regular panchromatic B&W film is corrected for daylight. (I tried regular incandescent lights inside one time and got erroneous results.) I use a densitometer to determine my actual film speed, which is usually half the stated ASA, or a half-stop more. Once I know my film speed, I can take photos of the above test board to achieve any zone I want. I begin with Zone 8, and try different development times until I find one in which a Zone 8 has the texture that I want on the printed paper. That becomes my "N" development time. Then, I find a development time to bring a Zone 7 up to a Zone 8 to obtain my N+1 development time. I find a development time that brings a Zone 9 down to a Zone 8 to determine my N-1 development time. Etc.

 

Contrary to what it might appear, I don't spend a lot of time testing. I do this once, and then I'm good for a long time, using that particular film.

 

This has been a much lengthier post than I had originally intended, perhaps more than you wanted. I've learned much from others on this forum. Perhaps others might pick up a tip from what I've learned about the Zone System. I hope it helps.

Kevin,

 

I did not mean to confuse anyone about meter calibration. But if I did not mention it, this thread would definitely degenerate into a flame war (which maybe you have started) by those who are obsessed with the subject. My comments were purely defensive, and I agree that the difference is accommodated by film speed testing.

I think that it is important to mention here that using black and white tonalities to describe color materials is like trying to compare sex with chocolate. While one may be better then the other at varying times in ones life, they are obviously not the same.

 

To the person who is working with color materials it is important to determine if one is working with negative or transparency materials and just as others have mentioned, tranparency material by the very fact that it is a positive representation of the scene carries differing exposure considerations then a negative material.

 

As others have mentioned, the major consideration that a transparency shooter has to contend with is the highlight exposure as opposed to the negative shooter who has the major concern of shadow exposure.

 

Transparency materials are very typically overrated in their EI by photographers who take the time to test their materials. How much? usually somewhere on the order of 1/3 to 2/3 stop. The reason being that this keeps the highlights within usable exposures and also gives greater color saturation in the transparency. The thing to watch here is that shadow detail will experience the same decline in exposure.

 

Negative materials conversely are quite commonly underrated in their EI by those who take the time to test their materials for the reason that they are most concerned with capturing shadow detail and the extra exposure will enable them to do that. The thing to watch here is that highlights will experience the same increase in exposure.

 

It is useless in my opinion to think in terms of Zone terminology for a color shooter especially if one does not use a spot meter or if one has no compensating factors built into the film processing.

 

Regards,

 

Donald Miller

I think I get it.

 

I'll tell you one thing .... these wonderful explanations certainly give one a greater appreciation for B&W photography.

 

I can't help but think as well, as I study these well versed explanations ... how DO people learn photography without the www? That I can get such detailed answers from several perapectives merely by asking the question ... just amazes me. I really cannot thank you all enough. Once again I'm printing this one out.

I hate to say it, but you should really read Ansel Adams's The Negative in which the Zone System is expounded. Many details won't be directly relevant to what you do with transparency film, but the general principles do apply, and Adams specifically addresses how to apply them to transparency film. Moreover, it is a pleasure to read just to look at the different photographs and to read Adams's comments about them.

 

You should be able to find it at any decent public library. They do have public libraries in Texas, don't they? :-)

Sorry my flippancy annoyed you. I think it was that extra Glen Fiditch nightcap. I asked because I AM interested in exposure and many of my questions about exposure have been answered using ZS jargon. So because I really want to grasp this whole concept I needed to have the keys to unlock the language. Now I do.

Yer right. I now see that I should read the book. I guess no aspiring photog such as myself can afford not to have some of St Ansels works on his shelf. I've just been resisting. Futile obviously.

Scott, sorry to chime in so late in this thread. Steve Simmons wrote an easy-to-understand article in the latest issue of "View Camera". He calls his method "The Two Point Exposure System". It's basic Zone System technique, simplified. More useful for B&W negative film and printing. Since it's difficult to find a lab. that will follow your exact requirements for E-6 processing of transparency film, you are limited to learning to match the type of color film you choose with the method you use to determine the correct exposure for the scene you are photographing. That's why I recommended Jack Dykinga's exposure method. I know that you have his latest book, "Large Format Nature Photography". As Steve would say, "It not rocket science".

Chocolate lasts longer!!

Before you read Ansel Adams's "The Negative", I would suggest you first read Fred Picker"s "Zone VI Workshop" I read it years ago and have no regrets. Picker's little book opened the way to many ZS books. BTW, Edward Weston used a light meter but his son Brett Weston never resorted to one.

David they have pills and creams for that LOL!! All this pre-visualization stuff kills me. I can't remember what I hoped to do today, yesterday, let alone remember some high brow pre-mental-parapsychological-hoohaa .... now what was I going to say????

Marshall: Clap, clap, clap! You explained in a very simple simple way, something many people have to search a lot in Ansel Adams books! Everything is in the book, of course, but the "Man" had so much things to write on that book, that, sometimes, it's hard to find what we really need to know! When I travel, I always carry some books with me, "The negative" and "The print" are always among them, everytime I open it, I find something new!

Scott, not to be flippant or demeaning but you really would benefit from going

to the bookstore and buying a few books and spend a few evenings reading

them.

 

Knowledge is learned, and reading is a great way to learn that knowledge.

There are no short cuts. No matter what anyone tells you, you must have a

basic understanding of expsoure before you can make great images. Once

you obtain this knowledge, talent will step in a help you to find your vision.

 

Buying books and creating a library will provide you with hours and hours of

enjoyment and learning. There are no shortcuts.

 

BTW, Ansel was just a man. He had his faults I suppose. And imagine this,

many of his photograps are quite pedestrian, some however are brilliant.

There are many wonderful photographers that have come before us, learn

from their work and above all else, have fun.

 

Best regards,

 

Mike

Michael took the words out of my mouth (or fingers). I've seen the numerous questions you've posed here over the last few months. Every time a question pops into your head you seem to jump on the computer and ask people here to provide you with answers. People here are very generous with their time and you've been given a lot of good information that I'm sure has been useful but I think you're doing yourself a disservice by seeking to be spoon fed in this manner. I don't think you can really understand the zone system, for example, by asking the question you asked here. And if you had read any decent book that deals with the zone system and tried to understand it, you wouldn't have had to ask the question you asked here (and you certainly wouldn't have asked where something is placed "in your film latitude").

 

I don't believe you'll ever acquire a good working knowledge of the fundamentals of photography in this manner. You ask how people learned photography before the internet. They learned it the same way before the internet as they are learning it after the internet - they read books about it, they take courses, they attend workshops, they go to galleries and museums, most of all they actually go out and spend a lot of time making photographs. In other words, they devote some real time and effort to it.

 

I don't mean to sound overly critical here, I think you're making a good faith attempt to learn something about what you're doing and lots of people don't even do that, but I think you're going about it in the wrong way. Just my opinion of course.

OK. I think your criticism is legitimate. Please allow me a couple words in self defence however.

 

I have half a dozen books and I do plan to get several more. I don't ask a question everytime one 'pops' into my head. I try to ask good questions that I believe others might benefit from.(Please see Karl's response to Marshal's contribution above.)

 

Not all my threads are questions. I try and make things interesting. An awful lot of questions on this board cover rather dry technical aspects of some small corner of LF. Often regarding one specific camera that probably ten people might have interest in. That's ok but I like to 'talk LF' I enjoy immersing myself in all the useful aspects of it and I try to provoke broad ranging discussions.

 

You would be absolutely correct in your criticism if all I was doing was asking questions around here and expecting to learn photography in the process. Believe me when I tell you that's not what I am doing. I just happen to be a bit of a keyboard jockey and I really enjoy getting into it on the LF board.

 

I've tried to contribute some small amount to the cause here by supporting photo.net and I will continue. I understand where you are coming from as I have had the same reaction to the occasional person who barges in here from seemingly nowhere and demands attention with a million uneducated questions? I will try and curb my enthusiasm and hold it down to a dull roar.

 

Thanks for your help, as always.