The Zone System

[compur]

^ A lot of people use Flickr for posting film photos:
http://www.flickr.com

 

[Petraio Prime]

^ A lot of people use Flickr for posting film photos:
http://www.flickr.com

Thanks.

 

[Mike_E]

If Pet comes up with something worth reading could somebody let me know. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the ignore button. And to think that I made it all the way through jerryph.


BTW the quote is/was from the site you linked to/claimed although a quick perusal shows it to no longer be there.

 

[epatsellis]

Compare my photo of the rugby game. Note the compositional aspects (triangles, diagonal lines, etc.).

I don't aspire to create photographic 'art'; photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'. What I do excel at is create visually interesting photographs. I do think this one is rather good, and is the kind of work that not everyone can do well:

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

This sort of photograph depends on a little luck, of course. But look at the diagonal tension between the ball being pitched in the lower left of the frame and the faces being pushed in the upper right of the frame. This is close to a perfect photograph, as close as can be achieved under the conditions. No zone-head could dream of making such a photo. It's beyond their understanding and capabilities.

To the first point, I thought that Steiglitz, et. al. established that over a century ago, you may want to Google "photo secession". Photography, as an art, has been accepted for over a century, do you, in contrast to those photo historians, curators and authors, bring something to the table we don't know about? Would you care to share it with us? A blanket "I don't accept photography as art" isn't enough, elucidate, please.

To the second point, all photography is based on compositional principals of varying sophistication (see the Gestaltists work, for examples of advanced compositional theory). While from a photojournalistic standpoint (where you seem to be stuck idealistically, btw), the linked image is very good; from a fine art perspective, it's a no starter, displaying a lack of cohesiveness and no communication of concept, typically banal and "snapshot"ish. Note that we come from different worlds, and have different notions of where the line between documentation/photo journalism and Fine Art exist. (or in your case, the outright rejection of the concept of Fine Art Photography)

Art (capital A) communicates concepts or feelings through the use of compositional tools and media, please explain the concept you are trying to communicate with this image in a manner that would be consistent and present your argument at the level of a university level academic portfolio review, please.

I was referring to Tri-X Pan (ISO 400), not Tri-X Professional (ISO 320)

My error, I haven't use TX of any flavor in years, the reciprocity issues (solved by TMY, incidentally), make it an absolute last choice for me.

I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at 'realistic' representations.

Only if YOU want it to be realistic, ref. Rieslander, Uelsmann and others. Does your rejection of photography as an art form extend to these artists as well. (please do tell, as Jerry and I have an ongoing discussion going on about a very similar topic) For further examples, I suggest you review Steiglitz's Equivilents series, as well as Edward Weston's large body of work. You may also wish to peruse the work of Man Ray's photograms as part of his larger body of New Bauhaus work, Margaret Bourke-White, HCB (Henri Cartier-Bresson), and others. I'm guessing that you also find the work of Picasso, Dali, Mondrian, Rothcko and Pollack "sick" as well. Understanding starts with an open mind, free of preconceived notions and a willingness to attempt to understand.

Nonsense. Besides, I don't follow ISO guidelines. I generally give more exposure and less development, and print on higher-grade paper. My negatives are generally more delicate than ISO guidelines call for, because that works better, giving better sharpness and finer grain. See Barry Thorton's book Edge of Darkness.

So, essentially, you expose for the shadows and pull development, aka N- development. Funny, where have I heard that term before....Yes, Barry has a methodology that works well, for smaller negatives. If one has a target resolution of ~10lp/mm in the final print, shooting 4x5 and 8x10, one really doesn't need to get "absolute maximum" sharpness, a 16x20 from a 4x5 negative only requires 40lp/mm of resolution in the negative, easily obtained with any lens made in the last century or so, Even with poor technique. I agree that Barry's methods are invaluble if you need higher enlargement ratios (working with smaller negatives), but in the rest of the photographic world, it's just an adaptation and simplification of the Zone System. He and I had several conversations regarding this very issue, and while his techniques are essential for smaller format work, as you move up in negative size, they become less and less important.

Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just know that every process and activity has certain limitations that must be respected. You need to understand your materials and equipment.

Look at some of the stuff I have on-line here:

http://www.photographyboard.net/members/gnarly1/

Be sure to page through to the older stuff.

No, but I have established a working speed for films based on making prints. A densitometer is not needed at all to make good negatives. You do tests to find this out, by printing them.

But you contradict yourself, only by having objective, hard data (e.g. denstiometer readings, both transmissive and reflective) can you control your process, printing is verification that you have gotten it right, not a metric in and of itself. How else can one learn the limitations of the materials at hand without empirical data? The true artist knows how to use those limitations, and how to manipulate them to suit his vision. While your approach may hold valid on that one negative, printed at that time, future negatives may or may not have the same characteristics. The measure of success is the final print, yes, but it is not a measure of whether your negatives have been exposed and processed properly, separation of cause and effect, one of the core principles of the scientific method.

No, I reject all of that mysticism.

So, you don't look at a scene, try different vantage points, determine which, if any contrast control filter you need (if shooting black and white). Essentially, you just fire away and hope???? While you may not do it consciously, I bet at some level you do, nearly every photographer of any experience does, though not typically conciously. Are you sure you're not really an art major, heavily influenced by Dadaism, rejecting all that came before? (and attempt at humor, btw)

I tried the original version of TMY and found it was poorly suited for outdoor / available-light work. The new version may be better.

Poorly suited in what way? it has one of the longest stright line curve segments since Super-XX, minimal reciprocity failure, and is very tolerant of mis-handling. All of my Fine Art work is shot on TMY or TMX, with only a few exceptions. It is one of the most predictable, stable long tonal range modern emulsions around, bar none.

Not at all. I use grade 3 as 'normal' (which is optimum for 35mm) and develop my film so that sunny scenes of typical subject matter fit that grade. Rarely do I adjust contrast in printing. I typically vary between grade 3 and 3.5, rarely anything else. It just isn't necessary.

Optimum according to whom? I bet if you changed enlargers, or paper, ore developer, your "optimum for 35mm) would go away quickly. Grade 3 compresses the upper values horribly in my opinion. What enlarger, paper, filtration are you using, out of curiosity?

The card is wrong for its intended use.

No, it's intended use is to give you a repeatable, consistent shade of gray to meter from. Kodak even cautions against using a gray card for sensiometric testing, recommending either a Q13 or Q14 card. Every year I send all my meters to be recalibrated and checked out, on each invoice is a reminder from the cal shop to "verify metering and either adjust to your process or recalibrate your process". This is from one of the largest light meter service centers in the world, do they know something you and I don't?

I don't reject 'calibration'; I reject zone system manipulations of contrast. I rarely vary more than half a grade from grade 3. The photos look best that way.

Manipulations are but a small part of the zone system, a very small part. What "looks best" to you may not to others. I have printed several Fine Art prints for clients that, due to lower light levels than in the gallery where my work was on exhibit, requiring a slightly lighter print. Are they wrong? Of course not, the effect on tonality and light levels is intuitive, or should be.

I recommend that book too, and it rejects the zone system approach as well.

One thing I recommend to everybody that asks me about learning photography, at the very least, take a few art classes at the local community college, it's easy to get caught up in the technical nonsense, and somehow miss the forest for the trees. Having a good solid footing in art history, compositional skills and color theory make photography infinitely easier, and make the photographer a well rounded artist as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree, though I would ask that you at least consider some of what I've written.

 

[Petraio Prime]

If Pet comes up with something worth reading could somebody let me know. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the ignore button. And to think that I made it all the way through jerryph.

Are you casting aspersions on my posts? I just find it rather incredible that the zone system is taken at all seriously by anyone, ever. It is nothing but mysticism and unscientific nonsense.

 

[epatsellis]

Petraio, out of curiosity, how old are you?

 

[guitstik]

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Petraio, out of curiosity, how old are you?

Age is 60. Why?

I know all about the zone system, thank you very much. In the late 1960s it was all the rage. But slowly it dawned on me that the photographs made with severe expansion or contraction looked like crap.

 

[epatsellis]

I would have guessed much, much younger. Any tool, taken to an extreme can look horrid, (just take a look at the HDR Craze a year or so ago) In moderation, either technique can be effective, if not over done.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I have always wondered why people say things like this, instead of either criticizing the arguments of the posters, one way or another. It is amazing to me how gullible people are, and that when anyone questions or attacks the ideas or work of some guru or icon (such as Ansel Adams or John Sexton) that they feel in some way hurt. Do people actually think that these people are infallible? That it is not possible that they're wrong?

There is a fable about the emperor having no clothes. If you like Ansel Adams photographs, fine (I like one or two of them), but he is no god, and he certainly was wrong about the zone system and the best way to make B&W photographs.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I would have guessed much, much younger. Any tool, taken to an extreme can look horrid, (just take a look at the HDR Craze a year or so ago) In moderation, either technique can be effective, if not over done.

Why did you think that? I don't belong to the hippie crowd and never did. A lot of the Western-landscape-hippies are zone-zombies.

Yes, the HDR stuff looks like crap too.

Over the years I have tried to 'purify' my technique more and more, with the result that I use almost no manipulation of contrast these days.

I'd like to see a zone-zombie do anything like this:

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

Contrast manipulation, as I have come to realize, is so lame. It is no substitute for having something interesting to photograph in the first place.

 

[epatsellis]

(while my gut instict tells me this is best done in a pm, in the interest of an open, hopefully constructive dialog, I'm posting it here)

My contentions are based soley on my opinions. I have found the Z.S. to be invaluable to characterize a new film or film/dev combo. My questions from above still stand, can you elucidate, in a manner more revealing than "it's b.s." your following statements:

"I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at 'realistic' representations."

"...photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'"

No, I reject all of that mysticism. " and more specifically how you compose and expose with no preconceived visualisation

"The card is wrong for its intended use." and specifically my comment regarding the use of Q13 and Q14 cards for sensiometric purpsoses

"I rarely vary more than half a grade from grade 3. The photos look best that way" and specifically what confers upon you the abilty to determine "best" for other's 35mm work?

I await your replies.

 

[guitstik]

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I have always wondered why people say things like this, instead of either criticizing the arguments of the posters, one way or another. It is amazing to me how gullible people are, and that when anyone questions or attacks the ideas or work of some guru or icon (such as Ansel Adams or John Sexton) that they feel in some way hurt. Do people actually think that these people are infallible? That it is not possible that they're wrong?

There is a fable about the emperor having no clothes. If you like Ansel Adams photographs, fine (I like one or two of them), but he is no god, and he certainly was wrong about the zone system and the best way to make B&W photographs.

If you do not remember, I have tried to debate you on this issue several times on this post. I do NOT think that A.A. is god just because I happen to enjoy his work. I like a lot of ART and I think that photography can be art if it is viewed that from the outset by the "artist". If you start out by viewing it as cold, heartless and mechanical that is what you will get. The ZS is just another paintbrush in my art kit just as the paper type, developer or even the choice of lens that I use. You are such a zealot against the ZS that I keep expecting you to strap on an enlarger and blow yourself up:lmao: That is why this is a "train wreck" it just keeps going on and on without resolving anything and people just keep coming back to watch.

 

[epatsellis]

Petraio,
just to clarify, I'm neither invalidating you experience nor opinion, nor am I attacking you personally. However, I ask that you afford me the respect of clearly elucidating your statements, many of which are in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings, to better understand where you are coming from.

I would appreciate sticking to the facts, political and societal references (e.g. the use of the term "hippies" and "zone-zombies") would be counterproductive to same.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Petraio,
just to clarify, I'm neither invalidating you experience nor opinion, nor am I attacking you personally. However, I ask that you afford me the respect of clearly elucidating your statements, many of which are in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings, to better understand where you are coming from.

I would appreciate sticking to the facts, political and societal references (e.g. the use of the term "hippies" and "zone-zombies") would be counterproductive to same.

1) There is a sort of "photo-culture", from which I try to distance myself. In general, I don't seek out the company of photographers, and do not consider myself a 'photographer', for cultural reasons. It is important to understand that this 'culture' affects your opinions, and it's why I try not to look at much other work these days. I'm not interested in what others do, really. There are indeed 'landscape hippies' and 'zone zombies'. Those terms represent a mind-set. Those people look at each others' work and reinforce their approaches. The trouble is it's a closed box. Not one of them is even remotely capable of doing anything like my rugby shot. They don't have the reflexes, anticipation, compositional skills, etc., to do this sort of thing on the fly. It's just beyond them. If it's not a rock or tree or waterfall, they're hopeless. Is that condescending? Perhaps, but it represents the truth of the matter.

2) I had for a long time felt there was simply something 'wrong' with the zone system approach in principle, but I wasn't quite sure what it was. When I found that quote from Kodak, which essentially says "the mid-tones are most important of all, more important than highlights or shadows", it finally clicked (see the Kodak quote earlier in the thread). The problem with contrast manipulation is that it messes up the mid-tones. Kodak had made thousands of photographs using all sorts of exposure and printing combinations, and asked viewers to judge them. This was time-consuming work, but it enabled Kodak to develop exposure and processing recommendations that were based in reality. That statement summarizes this testing.

I also read Thornton's book, which shows how to get best sharpness etc., from small formats. Although I had already (re-) discovered this myself years before, it was nice to see it all carefully explained and verified.

3) Thus, what I say is not "in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings". On the contrary, what I am saying is that what Kodak said is right and what the zone system gurus teach is wrong.