The Zone System

[Petraio Prime]

Please don't feed the troll.

An all-too typical response to someone who is not a sheep.

 

[coreduo]

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.

The Zone system is made up of 10 shades of black, gray and whites. Now, if you cannot appreciate the Zone system you might as well can say that you do not understand what CONTRAST means.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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.

The Zone system is made up of 10 shades of black, gray and whites. Now, if you cannot appreciate the Zone system you might as well can say that you do not understand what CONTRAST means.

1) If you significantly alter the overall gradient in either the negative or printing stage (expansion or contraction), the mid-tone gradient will be significantly altered. This looks unnatural. That's the criticism.

2) You can't preserve 'contrast' when the overall gradient is altered. With compensating development, some compression of the highlights can be accomplished without too severe of an impact on the mid-tones, but this is not part of the zone system 'methodology'. Trying to fit the sun and a coal mine in the same exposure simply isn't possible, if any contrast is to be left.

 

[coreduo]

I just fervently hope that none among us are criticizing Ansel Adam's teaching only because he was subject of witchhunts during the days of McCarthysm or else it would be a violation of his right to associate and freedom of speech. I hope none among us. Just asking..

 

[Mike_E]

It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.

As I recall it was all about exposing a film is such a manner as to actually capture whatever you wanted to illustrate and then to develop that film in accordance with the way it was exposed by use of a nomenclature called the Zone System. A system designed to codify the measure of contrast so that guess work cold be lessened and you could thereby have a better expectation of successfully printing your vision on photographic paper.

This is the reason I asked the OP what he expected from the Zone System. The vast majority of people I hear gripe about the Zone System expect it to do something.

The Zone System DOES NOTHING! You do!

The trick in anything for you to do something in such a fashion that you actually know what you are doing is consistency. To do something consistently you need a process and another word for process is SYSTEM.

And for this, the Zone System works very well thank you.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.

As I recall it was all about exposing a film is such a manner as to actually capture whatever you wanted to illustrate and then to develop that film in accordance with the way it was exposed by use of a nomenclature called the Zone System. A system designed to codify the measure of contrast so that guess work cold be lessened and you could thereby have a better expectation of successfully printing your vision on photographic paper.

This is the reason I asked the OP what he expected from the Zone System. The vast majority of people I hear gripe about the Zone System expect it to do something.

The Zone System DOES NOTHING! You do!

The trick in anything for you to do something in such a fashion that you actually know what you are doing is consistency. To do something consistently you need a process and another word for process is SYSTEM.

And for this, the Zone System works very well thank you.

The whole point of the zone system is to 'fit' the scene to the 'vision' you have, to fill the 10 zones (usually). Believe it or not, if you simply expose and develop 'normally' most scenes need no 'manipulation'. That's the beauty of film.* When you go to N+2, N-2, however, etc., your mid-tones will look like crap. It doesn't matter that it 'works', what matters is what it looks like. You can get something to 'work' but it may not be 'good'.

*When faced with extremely contrasty scenes, simply give more exposure to make sure the shadows register. The natural shouldering that occurs in the highlight region will nicely roll off the highlights and give you a printable negative, provided you are using the right kind of film (Tri-X Pan, for instance). Using compensating development will help more to handle such scenes.

If a scene is kind of flat to begin with...well it should reproduce that way. If you don't like it, shoot something that has more tonal interest. B&W photographs work best with strong directional light...so it's kind of silly to try to 'boost' the contrast of essentially flat scenes...it simply looks like crap. And the reverse is true as well...if your scene is 22 stops in brilliance range...you won't be able to get it to look good.

 

[Mike_E]

It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.

 

[Petraio Prime]

It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.

Hmmmm...film can capture an enormous range of brightness...but the point I'm making is that this is irrelevant, because 1) You may not be able to print it; 2) even if you can, prints will look good within only a narrow range of gradients. If you try to do "too much" you may not exceed the film's capabilities, but you will exceed the bounds of what "looks right".

Here's one by John Sexton that's really crappy:

http://www.alindergallery.com/sexton%20aspen%2072.jpg

Anybody notice it just doesn't look quite right?

The lighting is simply too flat, and it looks like he has expanded it...and perhaps also used a green filter to lighten the grass.

Compare this shot, made with strong sunlight....

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

It was shot 'straight' and no tonal manipulation was used.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Please don't feed the troll.

An all-too typical response to someone who is not a sheep.

Tremendous insight from 5 words. :er: Quite the contrary as you haven't a clue what or who I ascribe to. Simply an observation of your short time here and the posts you've made. Good day.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Please don't feed the troll.

An all-too typical response to someone who is not a sheep.

Tremendous insight from 5 words. :er: Quite the contrary as you haven't a clue what or who I ascribe to. Simply an observation of your short time here and the posts you've made. Good day.

In case you haven't realized it by now, I am opposed to the teaching of the zone system. It is a fraud and a very poor way to make photographs. I have actually studied the Zone System Manual by Minor White (who was a mystic, not a scientist) and found it woefully lacking in scientific rigor. It would be laughed out of a Philosophy of Science class, I assure you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_White

The zone system should not be taught. It should be buried in the scrap-heap of criminally stupid ideas. I invite the original poster to write to me directly, and let me talk to his 'teacher'.

 

[epatsellis]

An all-too typical response to someone who is not a sheep.

Tremendous insight from 5 words. :er: Quite the contrary as you haven't a clue what or who I ascribe to. Simply an observation of your short time here and the posts you've made. Good day.

In case you haven't realized it by now, I am opposed to the teaching of the zone system. It is a fraud and a very poor way to make photographs. I have actually studied the Zone System Manual by Minor White (who was a mystic, not a scientist) and found it woefully lacking in scientific rigor. It would be laughed out of a Philosophy of Science class, I assure you.

Minor White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The zone system should not be taught. It should be buried in the scrap-heap of criminally stupid ideas. I invite the original poster to write to me directly, and let me talk to his 'teacher'.

Interestingly, I have found the ones that complain the most about the Zone System are the ones whose artistic vision is vapid, lacking any creative impulse whatsoever. Personally, John S. and I have vastly dissimilar aesthetics, I wouldn't call the particular print you displayed crap, perhaps not to your liking, but crap, really???? Perhaps your opinion of the Mona Lisa, if you would, or Duchamp, Pollack, Piet Mondrian??? Or is R. Emmett Kelley or Kinkade's banal, simplistic work more to your taste? Much as in music, there are varying levels of maturity and sophistication, say what you will, but a careful deconstruction of Thornton's, John's or AA's images, encompassing both composition, exposure, development and printing would yield an amazing sophistication, much like comparing pop music to Miles Davis, Mozart or Handel. There is a craft aspect to photography that today's photographers have missed totally unless they actively pursue analog photography as an art form, not just a hobby. Live, eat and breath the art of creative image making for a year, the reasses what's been written in this thread and ask yourself which opinions correspond with your experiences.

In your example exposure you recommend TXP??? I'm curious as to why?? it's designed to render low contrast and tungsten illuminated subjects, with a short linear area and strong heel and shoulder in the H&D curve. My experiences "in the wild" have been ok, but it is a film very, very critical of perfect exposure (as well as having been dicontinued) Have you looked at the curves for TMX or TMY???? I used to shoot Super-XX when I first started shooting LF 30+ years ago, and the zone system was created for films such as this, as well as TMX and TMY, with a long linear response that seemingly goes on forever. By placing your exposure where you desire on that curve, and compressing (or expanding) through development, you can accurately and realistically portray far more brightness than a simple, incident metered scene reading will allow. As an artistic tool, The Zone System is a way for people to understand sensiometry, in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your delusions of adequacy and superiority cloud your ability to realize not everybody can look at a sensiometric curve and "get it", by separating exposure and development, you can manipulate the curves to suit your artistic vision.

PHotography is not just creating a realistic representation of the scene, there are times when, for artisitic purposes, we may wish to manipulate reality, the Zone System allows you to do it in a predictable, repeatable way. Were we all shooting 5-7 stop brightness range subjects, with film processed to ISO guidelines, the world would be a very boring place. You strike me as a "color within the lines" and "roses are red" kind of person, time to get over your own self importance and realize that out of 100 photographers, there will be 150 different interpretations of the same scene, giving students the tools to make that a reality makes good educational sense.

You claim to have studied the manual by Minor White, but have you actually established your personal EI for your film using a densitometer? Have you put aside any preconceived notions and tried it? Do you previsualize your image and then work towards that visualisation through filtration, exposure and darkroom work? Adam's original work is based on sound sensiometric data, distilled to it's essence, do you think that the .1 above fb+fog was pulled out of thin air? It's typically the point on the H&D curve where linearity begins using most developers. (though I typically use Zone III for my deepest shadows, primariily with TMY, as it's linear portion is insanely long)

Establishing a CI is just as silly, right? I mean really, who cares about fine tuning your film processing for consistency and repeatability if you can just dial up the contrast on the paper (or down). This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses VC paper. I know it may seem odd, but some of us may print in Platinum/Palladium, Carbon Transfer, Gum Bichromate, albumen, Azo and and even some Dye Transfer printers. Yet, regardless of what printing method we use, I can assure you that you can establish a consistent CI tuned to your process, that will make the entire exposure/development/printing process repeatable and consistent. Kodak's interest are first and foremost their shareholders, ergo increasing sales and profitability. As a working commercial photographer for the last quarter century, I can assure you that when shooting products (typically with E6 films), contrast ratio, proper exposure and accurate rendering of the product is critical, and I have in fact, on occaision, had to tweak my E6line to lower contrast (hence giving N- development essentially) through ph adjustments. An offset printing press will only hold 4-5 stops of information, max and any more gets clipped, printing presses expand the contrast range of flim negatives, fact of life, if you shoot without that knowledge, and characterize your medium accordingly, you would last a few jobs at most in the field. Today, digital capture is pre-eminent, and the few photographers that get it right tend to be.....the very same ones that shot film and understand the importance of contrast range, subject brightness and how exposure influences and modifies them.

Most of my work these days is duplicating glass plate negatives for historical societies and conservationists, random metering and "letting the exposure fall where it may" doesn't work, the dupes have to be identical to the originals, without the ability to expand and contract, the likelyhood of success would be less than zero.

With regard to your gray card comment, no gray card will blankly give you the correct reading, it is only through intellegent use of those tools that you can interpret the readings and your your judgement to determine exposure. No gray card is inherently right or wrong (and that 18% figure isn't quite right either, every major meter manufacturer uses a different reference, from 12% to 18%, so they are all wrong, and all right at the same time)

I find it odd that most people wouldn't hesitate to say that they profile their capture devices, monitor and printer to have a "calibrated" work flow, yet the same people will scoff at the idea of doing the same in an analog process.

To the OP, I can recommend a book by an acquiantance, the late Barry Thornton, "Edge of Darkness, the art, craft and power of the high definition monochrome photograph" This book may answer some of the questions you have, as well as put to rest alot of the crap slung around on these internet message boards by "experts".

 

[Petraio Prime]

Tremendous insight from 5 words. :er: Quite the contrary as you haven't a clue what or who I ascribe to. Simply an observation of your short time here and the posts you've made. Good day.

In case you haven't realized it by now, I am opposed to the teaching of the zone system. It is a fraud and a very poor way to make photographs. I have actually studied the Zone System Manual by Minor White (who was a mystic, not a scientist) and found it woefully lacking in scientific rigor. It would be laughed out of a Philosophy of Science class, I assure you.

Minor White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The zone system should not be taught. It should be buried in the scrap-heap of criminally stupid ideas. I invite the original poster to write to me directly, and let me talk to his 'teacher'.

Interestingly, I have found the ones that complain the most about the Zone System are the ones whose artistic vision is vapid, lacking any creative impulse whatsoever. Personally, John S. and I have vastly dissimilar aesthetics, I wouldn't call the particular print you displayed crap, perhaps not to your liking, but crap, really????

Yes, really. Utter crap. Light is all flat, no center of attention, no nothing. Total crap.

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

Perhaps your opinion of the Mona Lisa, if you would, or Duchamp, Pollack, Piet Mondrian??? Or is R. Emmett Kelley or Kinkade's banal, simplistic work more to your taste? Much as in music, there are varying levels of maturity and sophistication, say what you will, but a careful deconstruction of Thornton's, John's or AA's images, encompassing both composition, exposure, development and printing would yield an amazing sophistication, much like comparing pop music to Miles Davis, Mozart or Handel. There is a craft aspect to photography that today's photographers have missed totally unless they actively pursue analog photography as an art form, not just a hobby. Live, eat and breath the art of creative image making for a year, the reassess what's been written in this thread and ask yourself which opinions correspond with your experiences.

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.

In your example exposure you recommend TXP??? I'm curious as to why??
it's designed to render low contrast and tungsten illuminated subjects, with a short linear area and strong heel and shoulder in the H&D curve. My experiences "in the wild" have been ok, but it is a film very, very critical of perfect exposure (as well as having been dicontinued) Have you looked at the curves for TMX or TMY???? I used to shoot Super-XX when I first started shooting LF 30+ years ago, and the zone system was created for films such as this, as well as TMX and TMY, with a long linear response that seemingly goes on forever. By placing your exposure where you desire on that curve, and compressing (or expanding) through development, you can accurately and realistically portray far more brightness than a simple, incident metered scene reading will allow. As an artistic tool, The Zone System is a way for people to understand sensiometry, in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your delusions of adequacy and superiority cloud your ability to realize not everybody can look at a sensiometric curve and "get it", by separating exposure and development, you can manipulate the curves to suit your artistic vision.

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

Photography is not just creating a realistic representation of the scene, there are times when, for artisitic purposes, we may wish to manipulate reality, the Zone System allows you to do it in a predictable, repeatable way.

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

Were we all shooting 5-7 stop brightness range subjects, with film processed to ISO guidelines, the world would be a very boring place.

Nonsense.

You strike me as a "color within the lines" and "roses are red" kind of person, time to get over your own self importance and realize that out of 100 photographers, there will be 150 different interpretations of the same scene, giving students the tools to make that a reality makes good educational sense.

Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. 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.

You claim to have studied the manual by Minor White, but have you actually established your personal EI for your film using a densitometer?

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.

Have you put aside any preconceived notions and tried it? Do you previsualize your image and then work towards that visualisation through filtration, exposure and darkroom work?

No, I reject all of that mysticism.

Adam's original work is based on sound sensiometric data, distilled to it's essence, do you think that the .1 above fb+fog was pulled out of thin air? It's typically the point on the H&D curve where linearity begins using most developers. (though I typically use Zone III for my deepest shadows, primariily with TMY, as it's linear portion is insanely long)

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

Establishing a CI is just as silly, right? I mean really, who cares about fine tuning your film processing for consistency and repeatability if you can just dial up the contrast on the paper (or down). This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses VC paper.

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.

I know it may seem odd, but some of us may print in Platinum/Palladium, Carbon Transfer, Gum Bichromate, albumen, Azo and and even some Dye Transfer printers.

That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.

Yet, regardless of what printing method we use, I can assure you that you can establish a consistent CI tuned to your process, that will make the entire exposure/development/printing process repeatable and consistent. Kodak's interest are first and foremost their shareholders, ergo increasing sales and profitability. As a working commercial photographer for the last quarter century, I can assure you that when shooting products (typically with E6 films), contrast ratio, proper exposure and accurate rendering of the product is critical, and I have in fact, on occasion, had to tweak my E6line to lower contrast (hence giving N- development essentially) through ph adjustments. An offset printing press will only hold 4-5 stops of information, max and any more gets clipped, printing presses expand the contrast range of film negatives, fact of life, if you shoot without that knowledge, and characterize your medium accordingly, you would last a few jobs at most in the field. Today, digital capture is pre-eminent, and the few photographers that get it right tend to be.....the very same ones that shot film and understand the importance of contrast range, subject brightness and how exposure influences and modifies them.

Most of my work these days is duplicating glass plate negatives for historical societies and conservationists, random metering and "letting the exposure fall where it may" doesn't work, the dupes have to be identical to the originals, without the ability to expand and contract, the likelihood of success would be less than zero.

That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.

With regard to your gray card comment, no gray card will blankly give you the correct reading, it is only through intelligent use of those tools that you can interpret the readings and your your judgement to determine exposure. No gray card is inherently right or wrong (and that 18% figure isn't quite right either, every major meter manufacturer uses a different reference, from 12% to 18%, so they are all wrong, and all right at the same time)

The card is wrong for its intended use.

I find it odd that most people wouldn't hesitate to say that they profile their capture devices, monitor and printer to have a "calibrated" work flow, yet the same people will scoff at the idea of doing the same in an analog process.

I don't reject 'calibration'; I reject zone system manipulations of contrast.

To the OP, I can recommend a book by an acquiantance, the late Barry Thornton, "Edge of Darkness, the art, craft and power of the high definition monochrome photograph" This book may answer some of the questions you have, as well as put to rest alot of the crap slung around on these internet message boards by "experts".

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

 

[Petraio Prime]

Tremendous insight from 5 words. :er: Quite the contrary as you haven't a clue what or who I ascribe to. Simply an observation of your short time here and the posts you've made. Good day.

In case you haven't realized it by now, I am opposed to the teaching of the zone system. It is a fraud and a very poor way to make photographs. I have actually studied the Zone System Manual by Minor White (who was a mystic, not a scientist) and found it woefully lacking in scientific rigor. It would be laughed out of a Philosophy of Science class, I assure you.

Minor White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The zone system should not be taught. It should be buried in the scrap-heap of criminally stupid ideas. I invite the original poster to write to me directly, and let me talk to his 'teacher'.

Interestingly, I have found the ones that complain the most about the Zone System are the ones whose artistic vision is vapid, lacking any creative impulse whatsoever. Personally, John S. and I have vastly dissimilar aesthetics, I wouldn't call the particular print you displayed crap, perhaps not to your liking, but crap, really????

Yes, really. Utter crap. Light is all flat, no center of attention, no nothing. Total crap.

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

Perhaps your opinion of the Mona Lisa, if you would, or Duchamp, Pollack, Piet Mondrian??? Or is R. Emmett Kelley or Kinkade's banal, simplistic work more to your taste? Much as in music, there are varying levels of maturity and sophistication, say what you will, but a careful deconstruction of Thornton's, John's or AA's images, encompassing both composition, exposure, development and printing would yield an amazing sophistication, much like comparing pop music to Miles Davis, Mozart or Handel. There is a craft aspect to photography that today's photographers have missed totally unless they actively pursue analog photography as an art form, not just a hobby. Live, eat and breath the art of creative image making for a year, the reassess what's been written in this thread and ask yourself which opinions correspond with your experiences.

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.

In your example exposure you recommend TXP??? I'm curious as to why??
it's designed to render low contrast and tungsten illuminated subjects, with a short linear area and strong heel and shoulder in the H&D curve. My experiences "in the wild" have been ok, but it is a film very, very critical of perfect exposure (as well as having been dicontinued) Have you looked at the curves for TMX or TMY???? I used to shoot Super-XX when I first started shooting LF 30+ years ago, and the zone system was created for films such as this, as well as TMX and TMY, with a long linear response that seemingly goes on forever. By placing your exposure where you desire on that curve, and compressing (or expanding) through development, you can accurately and realistically portray far more brightness than a simple, incident metered scene reading will allow. As an artistic tool, The Zone System is a way for people to understand sensiometry, in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your delusions of adequacy and superiority cloud your ability to realize not everybody can look at a sensiometric curve and "get it", by separating exposure and development, you can manipulate the curves to suit your artistic vision.

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

Photography is not just creating a realistic representation of the scene, there are times when, for artisitic purposes, we may wish to manipulate reality, the Zone System allows you to do it in a predictable, repeatable way.

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

Were we all shooting 5-7 stop brightness range subjects, with film processed to ISO guidelines, the world would be a very boring place.

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.

You strike me as a "color within the lines" and "roses are red" kind of person, time to get over your own self importance and realize that out of 100 photographers, there will be 150 different interpretations of the same scene, giving students the tools to make that a reality makes good educational sense.

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.

You claim to have studied the manual by Minor White, but have you actually established your personal EI for your film using a densitometer?

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.

Have you put aside any preconceived notions and tried it? Do you previsualize your image and then work towards that visualisation through filtration, exposure and darkroom work?

No, I reject all of that mysticism.

Adam's original work is based on sound sensiometric data, distilled to it's essence, do you think that the .1 above fb+fog was pulled out of thin air? It's typically the point on the H&D curve where linearity begins using most developers. (though I typically use Zone III for my deepest shadows, primariily with TMY, as it's linear portion is insanely long)

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

Establishing a CI is just as silly, right? I mean really, who cares about fine tuning your film processing for consistency and repeatability if you can just dial up the contrast on the paper (or down). This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses VC paper.

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.

I know it may seem odd, but some of us may print in Platinum/Palladium, Carbon Transfer, Gum Bichromate, albumen, Azo and and even some Dye Transfer printers.

That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.

Yet, regardless of what printing method we use, I can assure you that you can establish a consistent CI tuned to your process, that will make the entire exposure/development/printing process repeatable and consistent. Kodak's interest are first and foremost their shareholders, ergo increasing sales and profitability. As a working commercial photographer for the last quarter century, I can assure you that when shooting products (typically with E6 films), contrast ratio, proper exposure and accurate rendering of the product is critical, and I have in fact, on occasion, had to tweak my E6line to lower contrast (hence giving N- development essentially) through ph adjustments. An offset printing press will only hold 4-5 stops of information, max and any more gets clipped, printing presses expand the contrast range of film negatives, fact of life, if you shoot without that knowledge, and characterize your medium accordingly, you would last a few jobs at most in the field. Today, digital capture is pre-eminent, and the few photographers that get it right tend to be.....the very same ones that shot film and understand the importance of contrast range, subject brightness and how exposure influences and modifies them.

Most of my work these days is duplicating glass plate negatives for historical societies and conservationists, random metering and "letting the exposure fall where it may" doesn't work, the dupes have to be identical to the originals, without the ability to expand and contract, the likelihood of success would be less than zero.

That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.

With regard to your gray card comment, no gray card will blankly give you the correct reading, it is only through intelligent use of those tools that you can interpret the readings and your your judgement to determine exposure. No gray card is inherently right or wrong (and that 18% figure isn't quite right either, every major meter manufacturer uses a different reference, from 12% to 18%, so they are all wrong, and all right at the same time)

The card is wrong for its intended use.

I find it odd that most people wouldn't hesitate to say that they profile their capture devices, monitor and printer to have a "calibrated" work flow, yet the same people will scoff at the idea of doing the same in an analog process.

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.

To the OP, I can recommend a book by an acquiantance, the late Barry Thornton, "Edge of Darkness, the art, craft and power of the high definition monochrome photograph" This book may answer some of the questions you have, as well as put to rest alot of the crap slung around on these internet message boards by "experts".

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

 

[Mike_E]

Yo, Pet, your site is really a hoot. The part where it says:

"Charkra says
Have to ask, what ISO and speed was the picture taken at? The background gives the impression that it may have been early in the morning or after dusk. I am learning to take macro shots and find this info helpful when I attempt to capture macro images, and see how the background can enhance the subject of the focused area.

flemming says
Thank you charka, I take picture with automatic digital camera. Best regards flemming."

Really says it all. :lmao:

 

[Petraio Prime]

Yo, Pet, your site is really a hoot. The part where it says:

"Charkra says
Have to ask, what ISO and speed was the picture taken at? The background gives the impression that it may have been early in the morning or after dusk. I am learning to take macro shots and find this info helpful when I attempt to capture macro images, and see how the background can enhance the subject of the focused area.

flemming says
Thank you charka, I take picture with automatic digital camera. Best regards flemming."

Really says it all. :lmao:

What are you talking about?

I use Leicaflex manual cameras. I just put some photos there. Is there a good site you recommend to show photos?