Zone System, Light Meters, Obsolete?

Hi again all, After just receiving my 4x5 field camera a few days ago,

I went into the closet and dusted off my Minolta Spotmeter F, and my

Ansel Adams 'The Negative' book and decided to start reading it and

really get a grasp on using the zone system, development, my meter,

etc.Then I ran into this quote from a guy named Ken Rockwell:

 

"As of 2005 the best meter for any film camera is a calibrated DSLR.

You can use the DSLR's LCD to preview the effects of lighting, light

ratios, zone values, color temperatures and everything just like

looking at a processed chrome on a light table. Once you get the look

you want on the LCD you just transfer the exposure from the DSLR to

your film camera"

 

So am I just wasting my time studying Ansels book and using my

spotmeter?I do have a Nikon D70 (soon to be D200) and a Canon 20d that

goes down to ASA 100.I've been inspired by the likes of guys like John

Sexton's work with T-Max 100, but this Rockwell guy makes it sound in

the rest of his articles that even B&W film and processes like N+

development are now obsolete, that you just shoot color, covert and

control contrast in photoshop and digital printing.Is there any truth

in this?Any thoughts?Thanks.......................Chris

What you've read is only Ken's opinion.

Good, careful technique is always valuable. As Ansel Adams said once: "Luck favors the prepared". So the better your technique, the better chance you have of getting close to the correct exposure when something amazing takes place.

About thislast quote about B&W, I'd guess that doing 4x5 meant using the wet darkroom.

Hello:

No your meter is not obsolete. I think somewhere on Rockwell's site he does mention the use of Adams' Zone system. In some ways, I am sure that Rockwell is right that too many of us get caught up in f/stops and N-1 and miss taking wonderful pictures.

 

You can use a DSLR to check on exposure, but remember this still only gives you an exposure based on the camera meter's opinion of the scene. One of the reasons to use LF is to adjust the film development and exposure to fit the contrast and the mood of the subject and on each shot if you want. (And basically I am talking about Black and White film here.) I personally don't like to use my DSLR this way and still calculate the exposure with a handheld.

 

However, try to experiment! See if you like the results by either method! Your milage may vary.

A DSLR can be useful as a light meter. You just have to make sure that the sensor's

dynamic range is a match for the film you're using. (The digital's 100 ISO setting might not

jibe with the 100 T-max you're using, for example).

 

The beauty of the zone system is the ability to expand and contract development, and you

can quickly come to those decisions with a spot meter. Shoot a 5-stop landscape with

your Nikon and your view camera with T-Max and make B&W 11x14 or 16x20 prints. Then

see what you think of Ken Rockwell.

<i>So am I just wasting my time studying Ansels book and using my spotmeter?</i>

<p>

No. I think you are wasting your time reading Ken Rockwell.

<p>

For starters, a DSLR doesn't have the dynamic range of film. If you are shooting negatives, the DSLR has a considerably smaller range. If you are shooting chromes, the DSLR might have a somewhat longer range. In either case, it isn't likely going to translate directly.

<p>

I could go on, but you get the point.

Wow. What an expensive light meter a DSLR makes. No, your old analog spot meter is NOT obsolete.

It seems like Rockwell is talking about using the digital camera's viewing screen for a lot of different things, not just exposure. I don't photograph in a studio so I don't know how useful my D100 would be to "preview the effects of lighting, light ratios, . . color temperatures and everything. . . " But from the standpoint of substituting a digital camera's viewing screen for an exposure meter, the image on my D100 viewing screen often doesn't look the same when I open it on my computer, much less the same as a print. I can see using the camera as a meter but at least with my camera, I wouldn't base an exposure on what the image on the viewing screen looked like.

 

While scanning software and Photoshop give us much more flexibility than we had in the darkroom, I still think it's advantageous to start with the best negative I can get rather than being sloppy with my metering and development and counting on Photoshop to fix all my mistakes.

If you are working with film those are not obsolete by any means. There are a variety of

film and developer combinations today that allow us to work from N+3 to N-7 in the zone

system. From what I seen of Ken's work much is in color. I would agree that for color the

most advanced meters are in the new digital cameras since with the exception of the F6

there has not been a lot of development in the film camera arena. However, for your film

work on 4x5 it will be hard to not get value from The Negative.

 

I think that if you don't know what really makes a good exposure much of your work is left

to chance. A digital image or Polaroid are great tools but not necessarily the best or only

good tools to help create an image. A digital camera does provide a ton of information,

but more information isnﾒt always good information. There are times when meters (digital

or analog) are wrong (backlighting, fog etc.) and knowing when to override the meter is an

important skill, if you are processing your own black and white film, you need to

compensate for changes in develop times and exposure based on the plus and minus

development times. I exposure and develop differently if it is N+3 or N-5. The processes

outlined in The Negative are far from obselete if you are developing black and white film.

Without them, we don't have any reliable way to deal with low and high contrast scenes.

 

I would argue that the High Dynamic Range features of digital in CS2 and in the D200 are

in response to photographers not understanding exposure or for people who understand

exposure and need to way to deal with digitals lack of ability to capture as many zones of

data in a single frame on film (speaking mostly of black and white here). The HDR process

gives black and white digital photographers a tool that opens the full zone system again.

But, this doesn't remove any of the knowledge or skills that Adams refers to in The

Negative. A good exposure is a good exposure.

 

Seeing light and knowing what you need to adjust exposure/development of film or

generate multiple digital shots to get the end image you want is really the end goal. I have

spent a long time with and the concepts in The Negative and they have been valuable in all

my photography (B/W, E6, Digital). I encourage any one to learn those concepts and if in

the end the digital camera is what works as a meter great, but you will have a foundation

for why that the right tool and how to maximize that tool.

 

Ansel's Moonrise was taken without a meter, it was based on his knowledge of expsoure,

EV ratings, development and the candle/foot power of the moon. He would have missed

the shot getting out two cameras for the metering and shooting.

Yes, your light meter is obsolete. Ship it to me and I will dispose of it properly.

 

Robert

I'm afraid Ken Rockwell has just too many opinions and sometimes a lack of hard facts to back up those opinions. If you want a better argument on the Zone System, I'd suggest you look at Roger Hicks site which has his take on it <A HREF="http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps%20zone.html"> right here. </A>

If I remember right, Ken Rockwell is also the guy who recommends that you avoid using a tripod, because it will stifle your creativity!

I currently own 4 DSLR's and two light meters; a Sekonic 558 and a Pentax Zone V Digital.

 

Guess what I use -- make that rely on -- when shooting film in my 4x5? Yep, the Pentax Digital with it's Zone scales...

 

Cheers,

So you replace a spotmeter with a camera that's 5 times the size and 10 times the weight to make a B&W squirt-jet photocopy of a color film negative. Makes sense to me.

The DSLR might be handy for N-2, but it can't even do the 9 zones of N, not to mention N+3. Doesn't have the dynamic range.

 

But, yeah, for E100G, it might be a pretty reasonable match, since E-6 film can't do 9 zones. The histogram is a mighty valuable feature. You just need the smallest cheapest camera with a histogram function, and a zoom lens.

 

But a lot of DLSR's have rather "fudged" film speeds. Like their ISO 400 is really 320 or less.

if what he says is true then his pictures should reflect it, compare his images to Sexton's and decide for yourself.

Ken is an excellent photographer and seems to be a famous person as regarding photo theories however, IMHO, some of his claims and conclusions seems to be exxageratedly generalized and over self-assured. His site and opinion tend to get accepted blidnly by many photo beginners

(just like I was pointed out to his site a while ago by many beginners like me), once being backed up by a personal experience I take many of his conclusions with grain of salt. I don't like the "absolutism" he expresses in many technical aspects. What doesn't work for him may work much better for others, not sure whether he would be ready to accept this fact.

I myself relatively newbie into LF having bunch of experience in 35mm and MF prior to taking the plunge in LF. Up until yesterday I didn't have a dedicated meter (spot meter in particular) and used to lug with me my Canon system, often just to serve as a spot meter. Found it to be a serious burden which often just disturbs to a clear picture taking by LF. So I was eyeing for a good spot meter for a long time until few days ago noticed an ad selling Pentax Digital Zone VI modified Spotmeter for a very reasonable amount, so I jumped on that opportunity. What a great releaf going out just with my 4x5 field cam and few lenses and a little cure meter not being loaded like a truck with the gear I'm going to utilize a mere of few % of it...

I also tried friend's DSLR to serve as a meter checking LCD - didn't turn to be a worthy idea either...

 

Alex

I have a Nikon D70. I have much more trouble getting proper exposures with it than I do when I use my spotmeter with my 4 x 5 view camera. The latter requires a few readings, deciding on which zone---usually II or III for an important shadow---to determine the exposure. With the digital camera, I often have trouble with getting detail in the shadows.

>>But from the standpoint of substituting a digital camera's viewing screen for an exposure meter, the image on my D100 viewing screen often doesn't look the same when I open it on my computer, much less the same as a print.

 

Brian made an important point here.

 

Most of my shooting (as a proportion of shutter clicks) is with a DSLR, and over in DSLR forums, there is a weekly question about whether handheld meters aren't obsolete, given the cameras' histograms and LCDs. The LCD and histogram do NOT provide a perfect translation of what the end result will be, especially if the lighting varies from the blandly "average lighting." Low key portraits, especially, will render the tiny-scale camera histogram useless and will require experienced "translation" of the LCD image. So I still use hand-held meters for anything that's in the least tricky.

 

After all is said and done, the LCD and histogram on the camera do not perfectly translate to what I get on the monitor or in the final print anyway...much less what I'd get in a translation from the DSLR's LCD to a totally separate camera using a totally different workflow.

 

I DO use my DSLR with my 4x5 (I'm shooting primarily portraits with electronic flash)--there is value to its approximation, and it's both faster and cheaper than shooting a bunch of Polaroids. But I still have to meter according to what I know the 4x5 technology will provide.

 

I don't even see how people can rationally discuss exposure without using Zone System terminology or some approximation of it. The existance of standardized gray cards provides a way that I can say "medium gray" and people reading my words on the other side of the planet will know what I mean.

 

But the Zone System certainly makes it convenient for me to talk about how a meter reading will render a given tone (say, the white lace of a bride's dress) and about how adding three stops to the meter reading will give me the results I really want. Without Zone System terminology, that becomes much more difficult to describe.

If you decide to use Roger Hicks as an authority on the subject of correct exposure, I'd suggest you stick with other and better personalities. Be it Adams, White, Davis, Picker, Mortensen or several others. The fact is that Zone System:

 

1. it is NOT difficult to understand, although it might be a bit intimidating at first (but worth learning never the less)

 

2. the testing is NOT all that time consuming and it DOES make a difference

 

3. in the end it helps visualize (as in mental transformation of the scene before you to that in a print)

>>The fact is that Zone System:

1. it is NOT difficult to understand, although it might be a bit intimidating at first (but worth learning never the less)

 

2. the testing is NOT all that time consuming and it DOES make a difference

 

3. in the end it helps visualize (as in mental transformation of the scene before you to that in a print)<<

 

In addition, the Zone System was invented specifically to make it easy for students to understand exposure properly. It's actually a learning aid for beginners, not some high-guru mumbo-jumbo for experts.

Dear Witold,

 

I'd be the last to claim 'authority', and as I say, I do not pretend to be a great photographer. On the other hand, I stand by what I said in that module: if the ZS suits you, great, and if it doesn't, that's OK too, because it clearly isn't essential or all great photographers (among whom, as I say, I would not include myself) would use it.

 

The module was written for those who, like myself, were intimidated by the ZS as novices but who (unlike myself) may not subsequently have learned enough sensitometry to see the Zone System as a subset of sensitometry -- a subset which many do indeed find tedious and jargon-laden. If you already use it or believe in it, and it works for you, great, and you are more than welcome to promote your views. My view was that a rational counter-argument to Zone excesses and fundamentalism could do no harm.

 

To add a little, my advice to anyone who does (or indeed doesn't) get on with it, don't start (a) feeling guilty (b) feeling stupid © insulting others who don't believe in it. There are plenty of other routes to good photography.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger