Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams

[coreduo]

These I think are the recommended exposures for different shades of black, gray, and white that comprise the subject. I read them in Ansel Adams' book THE NEGATIVE. I experimented if it can apply to digital as the same way as film. It does...Thank Ansel for the diligence employed in coming up with these recommended exposures. They are still of good use as of today..


ZONE 0 (darkest black)

1/125 at f/22

ZONE 1 (Black)

1/60 at f/22

ZONE 2 (grayish black)

1/30 at f/22

ZONE 3 (dark gray)

1/30 at f/16

ZONE 4 (gray)

1/30 at f/11

ZONE 5 (moderately light gray)



ZONE 6 (light gray)

1/30 at f/5.6

ZONE 7 (grayish white)

1/30 at f/4

ZONE 8 (whitish gray)

1/15 at f/4

ZONE 9 (whitish)

1/8 at f/4

ZONE 10 (invisibly white)

1/4 at f/4

 

[benlonghair]

I really need to pick up his books.

 

[Overread]

I think taken out of the context of the book these recommended exposures mean nothing to readers here (and I think if you copy the whole book here it will be breaking copywrite ).

Without any form of context its hard to really give any meaning to these values nor application.

 

[Josh66]

Without any form of context its hard to really give any meaning to these values nor application.

Yeah... I mean, assuming the light was 'right', I'm sure those settings would work, but what kind of light are we talking about here?

 

[coreduo]

You must always assume sufficient lighting whether artificial or natural...Or for the present generation, presumption that it would undergo autoediting by Photoshop...

I experimented it on my D5000 Nikon. It works. Man, I just was imparting to you what he taught. It was a quote from his book and referred to him as an author. There was no violation of intellectual property rights..Just when you list your bibiliography when you submit a research paper...

 

[bazooka]

I think what they're saying is that "sufficient lighting" could mean anything. Moonlight is sufficient lighting if your exposure time and aperture are set correctly, likewise a sunny day. But you certainly wouldn't use the same for both. So under what lighting conditions is he referring to?

 

[coreduo]

I really need to pick up his books.

benlonghair, Ansel Adams has 4 books to his credit. I know the three: The Camera, The Negative, The Print. There is another one but I forgot the title. I think the other one was his seminal work. I keep on reading and reading The Negative..Once you've mastered his book, I think no precarious situation can disappoint you..Just read his recommended exposures..

 

[coreduo]

I think what they're saying is that "sufficient lighting" could mean anything. Moonlight is sufficient lighting if your exposure time and aperture are set correctly, likewise a sunny day. But you certainly wouldn't use the same for both. So under what lighting conditions is he referring to?

All his sample pictures were either under direct sunlight or artificial lights..Usually he takes pictures of the Grand Canyon which is under direct sunlight or portraits under direct sunlight..But there are pictures taken with artificial light..

 

[Petraio Prime]

These I think are the recommended exposures for different shades of black, gray, and white that comprise the subject. I read them in Ansel Adams' book THE NEGATIVE. I experimented if it can apply to digital as the same way as film. It does...Thank Ansel for the diligence employed in coming up with these recommended exposures. They are still of good use as of today..


ZONE 0 (darkest black)

1/125 at f/22

ZONE 1 (Black)

1/60 at f/22

ZONE 2 (grayish black)

1/30 at f/22

ZONE 3 (dark gray)

1/30 at f/16

ZONE 4 (gray)

1/30 at f/11

ZONE 5 (moderately light gray)



ZONE 6 (light gray)

1/30 at f/5.6

ZONE 7 (grayish white)

1/30 at f/4

ZONE 8 (whitish gray)

1/15 at f/4

ZONE 9 (whitish)

1/8 at f/4

ZONE 10 (invisibly white)

1/4 at f/4

This is useless without knowing what lighting conditions you are in, what speed film you have, etc.

On an unrelated point, every copy of that book should be burned. It's full of nonsense and lies.

Adams has done more to destroy any understanding of B&W photography than anyone ever. His books and ideas are total hogwash.

 

[Aragorncito]

I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.

I have been doing B&W 35mm photography for 46 years. I know more about what I need to do than Adams ever dreamed of. His ides are totally wrong. Pay no attention to them.

The first error he makes is to assume that tones are the most important feature of photographs. He's wrong!

 

[coreduo]

He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...

 

[Petraio Prime]

He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...

Because they're full of falsehoods!

He used large-format camera. He would have been helpless photographing anything that wasn't stationary.

I'd like to see if he could have done this, for instance:

http://www.photographyboard.net/airborne-skater-1.jpg-846.html

Or this:

http://www.photographyboard.net/chasing-the-ball-1086.html

Or this:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html

Or this:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-1085.html

No, he could not!

 

[Overread]

Ahh so its not that his words or theories are incorrect but that his methods are focused around landscape and stationary subjects and not live action!

 

[Petraio Prime]

Ahh so its not that his words or theories are incorrect but that his methods are focused around landscape and stationary subjects and not live action!

No, there's far more to it than that...he's wrong about almost everything!

I have respect neither for his work nor for his misguided 'teachings'.