Something for those serious in Traditional B/W Photography to read.
http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/
http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/
The Zone System, does it matter?
- Thread starter Bobman
- Start date
- Status
With so few people doing dark room work is it still applicable?
Never fully understood it.
Once upon a time "zone system" & "Cibachrome" were terms bandied around, in one-up-manship tussles among photo hobbyists.
I guess long ago people like Ansel Adams were trying to get around technology problems with technique because photography is a mix of physics and chemistry.
It seems the epson specialist B+W printer is selling like hot cakes even at price >$1,000.
Never fully understood it.
Once upon a time "zone system" & "Cibachrome" were terms bandied around, in one-up-manship tussles among photo hobbyists.
I guess long ago people like Ansel Adams were trying to get around technology problems with technique because photography is a mix of physics and chemistry.
It seems the epson specialist B+W printer is selling like hot cakes even at price >$1,000.
Personally the zone system teaches me not only about getting the best tonal range, but also how to visualise how a photo is like in the final print. If I like it dark and moody, even if a subject is brightly lit, I will stop down to get what I want in the final print.
With that, I guess it is applicable to photography in general.
With that, I guess it is applicable to photography in general.
I had the privillege to learn from Zone System masters like John Sexton and George DeWolfe. I used to conduct elementary-level workshops on Zone System, both locally and in the United States.
There is this misconception that the Zone System is used in black-and-white photography only. Kernel is right, Zone System is applicable in all areas of photography, regardless whether B&W, color or infra-red. Digital, negative or transparency. Natural lighting or studio strobes.
There is this misconception that the Zone System is used in black-and-white photography only. Kernel is right, Zone System is applicable in all areas of photography, regardless whether B&W, color or infra-red. Digital, negative or transparency. Natural lighting or studio strobes.
LittleWolf
New Member
sabahan said:
I would dare say what counts is the result, not whether "P" mode or any other mode was used. Since your friend appears to be able to sell his photos for a living, his/her customers appear to agree.
Same about the so-called zone system: one can record the dynamic range of a scene without assigning roman numerals to arbitrary "tones": it is a simple, straightforward task that is no more complicated than being able to use a light metre and a read a characteristic curve.
The response of most electronic ("digital") sensors is fixed - there is no film development step where one could mess around with film's characteristic curve. This eliminates one of the key "zone system" rituals. The only remaining parameter is the exposure to achieve (or come sufficiently close to) the best signal/noise. Using the rational approach of Occam's razor, the whole zone hooplahoo has to go.
LittleWolf said:
I agree to most part of your reply except for the last part where digital sensor characteristic curve can't be change. I find when one use raw mode on the digital sensor we can do that. Things like exposing the digital sensor on different exposure value (over, under and even the correct exposure) and then use different raw converting programs yield different results. Even the different channel output come out different. When exposing a digital sensor like film we want the exposure for recording the maxium best information on the sensor just like film. It may not be the best looking right out from the camera, but will yield a better production information to print. That could happen through testing something Zone system teaches. Then we use the testes we did before hand on different process(different exposures, different raw converting programs, different settings and even different digital sensors) we can yield different charactristic curves for the digital sensors.
Agree, zone system helps to know the tonal range in the scene and metering to effectively retain as much detail as possible (or compromise wisely/creactively) on film or digital sensor. Even though I use P mode most of the time, but knowing where & how to meter still applicable in all shooting.singscott said:Even in digital Zone system still very much appily here. A very good exposure method for not only film but the things it teachs can easily adapted to digital sensor
Matrix metering can help to solve most problems (and thus xone system not quite needed) but it can't handle tricky situations with very high contrast well.
Just hope to voice my limited option
Hi, isn't this the traditional darkroom section?
besides, Zone system is really helpless on 35mm.
and not unless ya are ready to calibrate your 'system'
film choice, paper choice, chemical choice, developing & printing procedure etc.
then ya can talk about contraction and expansion. then ya can tell me what 'ZONE' ya want to do.
that's e whole package.
of coz there's alot of medium format users here too, not to forget it.
if they play by e system as well?
I use partial of it for visualisation only frankly.
regards
besides, Zone system is really helpless on 35mm.
and not unless ya are ready to calibrate your 'system'
film choice, paper choice, chemical choice, developing & printing procedure etc.
then ya can talk about contraction and expansion. then ya can tell me what 'ZONE' ya want to do.
that's e whole package.
of coz there's alot of medium format users here too, not to forget it.
if they play by e system as well?
I use partial of it for visualisation only frankly.
regards
Again, there is this misconception among my students (and many others) that the Zone System cannot be used with 35mm film system. Althought not as convenient as with medium format film backs or sheet films, it can be done. And once you get the hang of it, it is as easy as any other formats.
I understand most folks here photograph digitally. And with more and more people shooting in RAW files, the photographer's understanding of the Zone System is even more crucial. I find myself using and applying the system, all the time. Ansel Adams "The Negative", even though written for films, many of the concepts behind are still very useful with digital.
I understand most folks here photograph digitally. And with more and more people shooting in RAW files, the photographer's understanding of the Zone System is even more crucial. I find myself using and applying the system, all the time. Ansel Adams "The Negative", even though written for films, many of the concepts behind are still very useful with digital.
photobum said:
I agree totally with you.
The misconception regarding the zone system is unfortunate, as shown by the comments here in this thread.
Too many are caught up with the technicalities of the ZS, instead of the principles of how to see light and assign tone values to images.
I remember when I was a student at RIT taking the required Zone System class in my freshman year, none of the students own a medium or large format system. All of us learn the Zone System from scratch using nothing but our trustworthy 35mm camera and a 50mm lens.
We cried, we sweat, we cursed in the darkroom to achieve the perfect zones. This was one class nobody enjoyed because everybody were so caught up with the technicalities. The failure rate in this class was 73% (many dropped-out of photography major because they couldn't made it in Zone System). Those who had made it, were all interpreting the zone system as a measuring tool, which many of us find it useful in our later lives. It is one thing I learn in school that I will never, ever forget.
I learn more photography in Zone System class than any other major classes combined.
We cried, we sweat, we cursed in the darkroom to achieve the perfect zones. This was one class nobody enjoyed because everybody were so caught up with the technicalities. The failure rate in this class was 73% (many dropped-out of photography major because they couldn't made it in Zone System). Those who had made it, were all interpreting the zone system as a measuring tool, which many of us find it useful in our later lives. It is one thing I learn in school that I will never, ever forget.
I learn more photography in Zone System class than any other major classes combined.
LittleWolf
New Member
student said:
For which, if one was remotely serious, one would study physics, not the "zone system".
LittleWolf said:
Really? I am truly educated by your wisdom. Thank you for your enlightenment.
I will shall heed such invaluable advice. Very hard to come by. Hear ye all!
But how does physics help me to determine what aperture and shutter speed to chose for photographing snow? Hmmmmm. Well, never was good with physics.
I got it! Those Nikon and Canon guys had it all figured out! Just click "snow mode" and I am there! Thank you!
LittleWolf
New Member
student said:
Not necessary to thank me; helping the needy is only sound practice.
You could use a physical instrument like a light meter to make a measurement. You can relate this measurement to the sensitivity, which is defined by physical measurements as well (but the manufacturer should have done this for you already). You convert your findings to a combination of physical quantities such as (exposure) time and aperture.
The necessary basics of light were understood long before Nikon (a physical instrumentation company, by the way!) and Canon were even founded. And long, long before Ansel Adams cooked up his "zone system". But Ansel Adams was not rooted in science - he was a pianist - which might explain things to an extent.
- Status
Similar threads
