The Zone System

[christopher walrath]

PM sent

 

[coreduo]

Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.

The trouble is most of what it contains is false.

 

[guitstik]

Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.

The trouble is most of what it contains is false.

Your being a little negative and not very helpful at all to the question at hand. If your only reason for posting is to raise your post count then try to be a little bit more helpful. I'm not trying to be ugly but some people can be put of by this kind of attitude and just leave altogether and not return because of not getting their questions answered.

Try this site for a little more explanation. A simplified zone system for making good exposures

dxqcanada and Mike_E are correct, we need to know what it is that you are having problems with, what don't you understand. We could spend a lot of time stomping over the same ground and not get anywhere at all, if you could try to tell us what you do understand we can clear up the muddy areas.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.

The trouble is most of what it contains is false.

Your being a little negative and not very helpful at all to the question at hand. If your only reason for posting is to raise your post count then try to be a little bit more helpful. I'm not trying to be ugly but some people can be put of by this kind of attitude and just leave altogether and not return because of not getting their questions answered.

Try this site for a little more explanation. A simplified zone system for making good exposures

dxqcanada and Mike_E are correct, we need to know what it is that you are having problems with, what don't you understand. We could spend a lot of time stomping over the same ground and not get anywhere at all, if you could try to tell us what you do understand we can clear up the muddy areas.

What has my post count to do with anything?

There is nothing to 'understand'. The zone system is simply nonsense.You can tell your teacher that.

The zone system is wrong conceptually and rests on fundamental errors. It is a fraud, and this should be pointed out. The vast majority of B&W photographs should be exposed and printed with 'normal' contrast. (Under exceptional conditions, such as very heavy fog, which tends to lower contrast significantly, you may need to depart from this practice.)

From Kodak:

[FONT=&quot]"As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."[/FONT]

"[FONT=&quot]In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade."

[/FONT]The zone system completely ignores this. It is not scientific; it does not reflect a basic understanding of human perception, namely that extremely high or low gradient (contrast) looks 'unnatural'. Trying to squeeze 14 stops into 7 stops just results in a crappy print. I can always tell when I see a zone-system manipulated print. It just doesn't look 'right'.

The zone system does not reflect scientific research (the Kodak statement above does), but unscientific dogmatism. It is total BS.

 

[guitstik]

To be honest, I think you are simply missing the point. Kodak produces photographic equipment, the majority of people that write these instruction sheets are chemist that do not think as most photographers do. It's like reading the instructions on a pack of tooth picks, rather pointless.

Ansel Adams was a Photographer/Artist and he wrote for other artist at a time when photography was really in it's infancy so some of the things he wrote about may not apply today. Who's to say, not me.

I tell my son all the time that his instructor is in charge of the curriculum. He may not agree with him/her but that is irrelevant, who assigns the grade? Telling stone_family3 to disregard the instructor is counter to a successful grade for the assignment. I suspect that the advanced B&W class is more geared towards the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography.

You and I have been on this forum for about the same amount of time but in all that time, the only posts that I have found from you have all been caustic. It was not my intention to offend you but to give gentle correction on how to play well with others.

 

[Petraio Prime]

To be honest, I think you are simply missing the point. Kodak produces photographic equipment, the majority of people that write these instruction sheets are chemist that do not think as most photographers do. It's like reading the instructions on a pack of tooth picks, rather pointless.

Ansel Adams was a Photographer/Artist and he wrote for other artist at a time when photography was really in it's infancy so some of the things he wrote about may not apply today. Who's to say, not me.

I tell my son all the time that his instructor is in charge of the curriculum. He may not agree with him/her but that is irrelevant, who assigns the grade? Telling stone_family3 to disregard the instructor is counter to a successful grade for the assignment. I suspect that the advanced B&W class is more geared towards the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography.

You and I have been on this forum for about the same amount of time but in all that time, the only posts that I have found from you have all been caustic. It was not my intention to offend you but to give gentle correction on how to play well with others.

Missing the point? Hardly! Just as anything else in life, there are bound to be mistakes made. The zone system is a mistake. A huge one. It's fundamentally wrong, and I am pointing out how and why. Just because something is 'taught' doesn't mean it's 'right' or sound. And I mean to tell people about this fact. I have been talking about this zone system nonsense for quite some time.

It is also perfectly legitimate to tell the teacher he's wrong, that what is being taught is mistaken and absurd. What makes you think otherwise? They are simply teaching what they were taught...and it's wrong. The power of "the grade"? Nonsense! I have in the past (in my college days) vehemently disagreed with what I have been taught in the classroom, and refused to follow what was taught, and was not penalized by bad grades. Any teacher with integrity will act the same way if you can support your position with strong evidence and good arguments. And in this case, there's more than enough support for the contrary position. The reason the OP doesn't 'get it' is because it's 'ungettable'.

The Kodak quote represents the summary of extensive testing performed back about the same time Ansel Adams was working, so the research is well-founded. Read the text carefully. If you "read between the lines" you will see that the part "[FONT=&quot]This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate" refers obliquely to Adams and his cronies such as Minor White. Kodak had to be careful in what they said so as not to offend them. Also remember that Adams was a commercial photographer primarily.

I have read Minor White's Zone System Manual and found it utter hogwash. It could be used as a particularly bad example of pseudo-scientific nonsense. It would be laughed out of any Philosophy of Science class.

Also, be aware that the Kodak 'grey card' is not right, and gives a bad reading. It was made to be the wrong reflectivity (18% instead of 12%) because Ansel Adams demanded it and Kodak caved in:

http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000eWN

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~schneidw/vico222/gray_card_musings.html

[/FONT]"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
[FONT=&quot]
Almost everything Ansel Adams ever said [/FONT]just ain't so[FONT=&quot]...
[/FONT]

 

[Mike_E]

Any system will work in a vacuum.

The trick is to not mix systems. To only view the world through the lens of the system that you are using if you like.

The Zone System does work when I use it to map out a composition's exposure. Especially when I intend adding light to a central subject yet wish to still retain shadow definition.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Any system will work in a vacuum.

The trick is to not mix systems. To only view the world through the lens of the system that you are using if you like.

The Zone System does work when I use it to map out a composition's exposure. Especially when I intend adding light to a central subject yet wish to still retain shadow definition.

I think you missed the point of my response altogether.

 

[guitstik]

I think that we may have hijacked this post and I apologize to any and all who have taken offense.

I am not saying that dis-agreeing with the instructor is ill advised just the way that it is broached. A class room without debate is not a class room at all. Obviously the instructor has a curriculum in mind and that may include teaching one practice and then pointing out other thoughts on which that practice differs. Or as I stated earlier, it may be based more on the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography, and in art, who is to say what is right and wrong?

It may just be me but you seem to "attack" rather than "inform". The "Greater Masses" are not into photography as an art but just as a way to keep family memories and so your argument may fall on deaf ears. How important is this anyways? I mean most avid photographers learn the "basics", right or wrong and then continue on to raise the bar for the rest of us with their own style. You may be one of those. Have you ever heard the saying "You get more flies with honey than vinegar"? (Who wants flies anyways) The point being, you may want to start your own post and bring your points out in a more friendly manner.

The science of gravity and aerodynamics have been pretty much set in stone but yet the humble bumble bee has been cited by scientist "not suitable for flight" still it, the bee, refuses to follow the precepts of science. Why should we as "artists" follow the precepts of science. Ansel Adams may have been wrong according to you and Kodak but does that diminish his brilliance as a photographer? As long as we don't try to drastically rearrange the fundamental mechanics of photography, what or who is hurt?

 

[Petraio Prime]

I think that we may have hijacked this post and I apologize to any and all who have taken offense.

I am not saying that dis-agreeing with the instructor is ill advised just the way that it is broached. A class room without debate is not a class room at all. Obviously the instructor has a curriculum in mind and that may include teaching one practice and then pointing out other thoughts on which that practice differs. Or as I stated earlier, it may be based more on the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography, and in art, who is to say what is right and wrong?

It may just be me but you seem to "attack" rather than "inform". The "Greater Masses" are not into photography as an art but just as a way to keep family memories and so your argument may fall on deaf ears. How important is this anyways? I mean most avid photographers learn the "basics", right or wrong and then continue on to raise the bar for the rest of us with their own style. You may be one of those. Have you ever heard the saying "You get more flies with honey than vinegar"? (Who wants flies anyways) The point being, you may want to start your own post and bring your points out in a more friendly manner.

The science of gravity and aerodynamics have been pretty much set in stone but yet the humble bumble bee has been cited by scientist "not suitable for flight" still it, the bee, refuses to follow the precepts of science. Why should we as "artists" follow the precepts of science. Ansel Adams may have been wrong according to you and Kodak but does that diminish his brilliance as a photographer? As long as we don't try to drastically rearrange the fundamental mechanics of photography, what or who is hurt?

'Brilliance'? I think we are much farther apart than you suspect. I consider Adams a hack. But one is not supposed to say that, so I will quote Bob Schwalberg's remark on AA:

"It's definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you've seen them all.

But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."

 

[Mike_E]

Any system will work in a vacuum.

The trick is to not mix systems. To only view the world through the lens of the system that you are using if you like.

The Zone System does work when I use it to map out a composition's exposure. Especially when I intend adding light to a central subject yet wish to still retain shadow definition.

I think you missed the point of my response altogether.

No, I was simply trying to redirect to the original point of the thread.

I think that we may have hijacked this post and I apologize to any and all who have taken offense.

I am not saying that dis-agreeing with the instructor is ill advised just the way that it is broached. A class room without debate is not a class room at all. Obviously the instructor has a curriculum in mind and that may include teaching one practice and then pointing out other thoughts on which that practice differs. Or as I stated earlier, it may be based more on the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography, and in art, who is to say what is right and wrong?

It may just be me but you seem to "attack" rather than "inform". The "Greater Masses" are not into photography as an art but just as a way to keep family memories and so your argument may fall on deaf ears. How important is this anyways? I mean most avid photographers learn the "basics", right or wrong and then continue on to raise the bar for the rest of us with their own style. You may be one of those. Have you ever heard the saying "You get more flies with honey than vinegar"? (Who wants flies anyways) The point being, you may want to start your own post and bring your points out in a more friendly manner.

The science of gravity and aerodynamics have been pretty much set in stone but yet the humble bumble bee has been cited by scientist "not suitable for flight" still it, the bee, refuses to follow the precepts of science. Why should we as "artists" follow the precepts of science. Ansel Adams may have been wrong according to you and Kodak but does that diminish his brilliance as a photographer? As long as we don't try to drastically rearrange the fundamental mechanics of photography, what or who is hurt?

'Brilliance'? I think we are much farther apart than you suspect. I consider Adams a hack. But one is not supposed to say that, so I will quote Bob Schwalberg's remark on AA:

"It's definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you've seen them all.

But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."

I wish you many years of happiness with your brilliance. I hope it keeps you company always.

 

[guitstik]

I have exhausted my 0.02 on this one.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I have exhausted my 0.02 on this one.

Here it is in a nutshell:

1. You can divide the darkest to the lightest values a paper can produce into 10 zones. (Yeah, so?)

2. 'Normally' developed negatives of 'normal' (typical) scenes will fill these 10 zones.

3. If the scene doesn't, i.e., if the scene is too contrasty or too flat, you can alter development of the negative to fill the 10 zones. The former is called contraction; the latter is expansion.

There's more to it than that, but that's basically it.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Please don't feed the troll.