Topic: The Zone System - a dimwit's approach

[choppert]

Oy Oy!

(Ab)Using the zone system as (mis)interpreted by me, with my fancy new Mamiya 7.

You know what they say about a little knowledge? 
Well, I've been re-skim reading my Ansel Adams book on the Zone System, and thought I'd cheapen the whole thing by thinking how I can make it easy to remember, if in fact I've got the right end of the stick in the first place?....

Using the spot meter find the darkest part of the scene (in which I want just a bit of shadow detail)
Under-expose by a couple of stops (to compensate for the meter trying to make the dark bit 18% grey)
Snap away - that way the shadows should have that darkness but detail still in them.

Under develop by a couple of stops, using the lazy-arse "stand for half an episode of Columbo" method

What on earth will I get if I do this?  (I'll put this into practice when I dare get the camera out in front of Mrs Chops!)

Answers on a postcard....

[LT]

The zone system will only really help if you're planning to print conventionally.  If you're planning to scan negs, then you dont have to be quite so precise.  The scanner can cope with under/over dev/exposure much better then the limitations of silver gelatine papers.  Silver papers can only cope with about 5 stops of detail, whereas film records about 10 or something - so scanning copes with problematic negs much better.

Your plan sounds about right to be - I'm sure you'll be fine.  I'd stick with dev as per manufacturers recommendations unless you've done the tests to match your own film speeds etc.  If you find the negs are too contrasty, reduce dev by 10% and try again, if too flat, increase by 10% and see what happens.
 

[hookstrapped]

Oy Oy!

(Ab)Using the zone system as (mis)interpreted by me, with my fancy new Mamiya 7.

You know what they say about a little knowledge? 
Well, I've been re-skim reading my Ansel Adams book on the Zone System, and thought I'd cheapen the whole thing by thinking how I can make it easy to remember, if in fact I've got the right end of the stick in the first place?....

Using the spot meter find the darkest part of the scene (in which I want just a bit of shadow detail)
Under-expose by a couple of stops (to compensate for the meter trying to make the dark bit 18% grey)
Snap away - that way the shadows should have that darkness but detail still in them.

Under develop by a couple of stops, using the lazy-arse "stand for half an episode of Columbo" method

What on earth will I get if I do this?  (I'll put this into practice when I dare get the camera out in front of Mrs Chops!)

Answers on a postcard....

I follow the under-expose by a couple stops bit, but I don't understand why you would then underdevelop a couple stops.  Are you thinking less contrast will give more shadow detail (?)

[choppert]

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights?

Have I got the wrong end of yet another stick? 

[LT]

you are absolutely right Matt, BUT, first, in order to be a true ZS devotee, you need to work out your personal film speed and development times to make the whole process fit with your own practice. In theory you should do for each variable in the whole procedure (eg one test for each light meter you use, for each lens you use, for each film you use, for each developer you use, for each paper you use, etc etc etc etc).  which is just plain ridiculous.

You then will supposedly, if you are using sheet film cameras,  have ultimate control to enable you to record the exposure of each sheet of film (at your already worked out film speed) then adjust the development for the Subject Brightness Range for the Film (SBR) - enabling you to expose for shadows and adjust exposure for the highlights.  If you are using Roll films, as I know you do, this is nigh on impossible unless the SBR of each shot on a roll is exactly the same - very unlikely.

The Whole ZS testing and development process it to enable you to compress the SBR of a scene into the reduced tonal range of a silver gelatine paper.  IF you are not printing traditionally, there really is no point, and you will find you may have to stretch tonal range using software to get it looking right, which will introduce all sorts of graininess and other artefacts. 

Now, if you are finding that your negs are already too contrasty, then of course you should reduce development times, but if not, there is no need to do this.

If you are really set on trying a ZS like process with roll film, I'd follow the advice of Barry Thornton and stick with what you are doing metering and exposure wise, then do some testing with compensating developers - dilute perceptol, or dilute rodinal, or maybe a tan and stain developer like precyscol.  they should help  you get the most detail from your negs which you can then use in photoshop or the darkroom.

 

[Pete_R]

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights?

Yes, but the point is you should adjust the processing to suit the highlights of each individual photograph (which is why the zone system doesn't really work with roll films). If you have a low contrast subject, then you may want to expand the contrast by giving extra development or, with a high contrast subject, you may contract the contrast by underdeveloping.

Under developing everything will pretty much ensure you get something on the film (as long as you use a suitable ISO rating) but it won't be matched to the subject or your previsualisation of how the final image should look - and that, to me, is the point of the zone system.

Personally, I think of the zone system as just a means of communicating or recording the details of how an image should appear and the methods of achieving it. The actual processes involved are nothing original and can be used without referring to the zone system. Exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights is one small part of it and there's no reason you can't use that as a method of working - but it's not the zone system.

I think the best description of the zone system is in Adams' The Negative. In just one chapter he explains it fully whereas others have taken up whole books and do a lesser job. But to understand it's use I think you need to read Adams' accounts of how he approached some of his images. There's some examples in the book. One, describing the photograph 'B Bufano and large sculpture' he says 'I placed the shadow of his face on zone IV and gave N-1 development. The material of the sculpture fell about on zone VII.' Now how could he say the same thing without referring to the zone system? Like I say, I think of it as just a method of communicating and nothing more. What it definitely isn't is a system that guarantees an end result and I think that's where most people misunderstand it.