The zone system...... and filters

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Gene Smith figured it out. He used supplementary lighting quite effectively and was a master in the darkroom.

 

Obsessive would be a good term for Eugene Smith. He posed very may of his best images, and faked image details as he wished, even to the extent of sandwiching negatives. Today with the ease of digital manipulation, the journalistic integrity of his work would be seriously questioned

[AlanG]

Obsessive would be a good term for Eugene Smith. He posed very may of his best images, and faked image details as he wished, even to the extent of sandwiching negatives. Today with the ease of digital manipulation, the journalistic integrity of his work would be seriously questioned

 

He worked as both a journalist and an illustrator. National Geographic shooters and many others often set up their shots. Of course he didn't just wander into the bath in Minamata where the woman was bathing her daughter. But it is true to the story. The same with the Spanish Village, Country Doctor, Nurse/midwife and other stories where even if he set up a shot it was appropriate and just to make the point more graphically. During WWII I guess he was just shooting on the fly.

 

My point being that he still was aware of what he wanted vis a vis exposure and scene contrast.

[Jeff S]

My observation is simply to warn persons who think that adjusting exposure and development will solve all their problems and they will get AA-like outcomes in any situation. Further, 'pre-visualization' does not mean that one can imagine what he really wants and expose/develop to make that happen. In fact, as you noted, 'pre-visualization' means that one must adjust the subject to the workflow, often not making a picture at all.

 

At the risk of repeating myself from earlier threads, just a couple of points about Adams.

 

First, he used the term 'visualization,' not 'pre-visualization,' which was Minor White's later term that Adams thought redundant. (White also used the term 'post visualization,' which related to the PP actions to match the pre-visualized image.)

 

More importantly, Adams was a practical guy and despite his theories on visualization, he self-admittedly reinterpreted his images over time to suit his changed preferences. A clear example is this Moonrise series, which shows how Adams continually refined his print rendering from 1941 to 1975, darkening the skies and adding contrast. He was no marketing dope either, as the public loved his more contrasty interpretations of this and other images. (I prefer the early renderings, but that's another discussion).

 

The point is that one should be careful not to characterize Adams as rigid with a fixed approach and idea set, be it Zone-based or otherwise. He was a photographer and printer who embraced new and changing thoughts and technologies (he looked forward, for instance, to digital innovations, which he foresaw).

 

Jeff

[allamande]

Look at the very many pictures of Half Dome for examples. He would shoot and process over and over until he was happy.

 

I do not agree with this assertion. Very many images of Half Dome that he produced are just that, every encounter with it was a different experience. Not because he was searching for the "perfect" image of Half Dome. He extensively wrote about how he saw and felt at the time he made some his well known images. For example, he made Monolith, the Face of Half Dome when he was 25. This was during the time when he was developing his visualization technique which eventually led to the Zone System. Over 30+ years, he made several prints from this same negative (I've seen them at his archive at Tucson) which reveal an entirely different emotional landscape.

 

I agree that no individual should think that using visualization and the Zone system are going to lead to fabulous images, no matter what the conditions (if only it were that easy). Ansel Adams, most likely, would be the first to balk at that.

 

Ece

[pico]

This has been a valuable dialog. Thanks to all for your views, clarifications, knowledge.

 

I'm off to hang some new curtains. (What to do on a rainy Winter day?)

[Olimatt]

IMHO most reactions are not an answer to Olivier's question but an opinion about the Zone-system.

I think it's very important Olivier what you are going to do with your film: scan or process it in the darkroom to a classical print. If your purpose is scanning and printing digital the value of the Zonesystem becomes very relative because in digital postprocessing you can work with local brightness and contrast. So in that case I would just use the red filter, develop according to instructions at

B&W Film Developing Times | The Massive Dev Chart

and lighten up the shadows in Photoshop.

 

Well I aim at scanning and printig digital... but... if some negative turns out to be very nice, I might order a real enlargment once in a while(I do not own an enlarger).

 

Nevetheless nobody seems to be answering my question completely

I have just got my 2 filters for my trip (orange 16 and green 11) and wonder how to meter and set the zone and the exposure compensation for the filter.

 

Example with an orange filter and a non-TTL camera:

I would meter the darkest zone (lets say some foreground rocks) of my landscape and put it in zone III. (-2).

The orange filter requires a +2 compensation... but! +2 would be wrong if the rocks are red since an orange filter blocks blue light but not red light (correct) ?

So what would be the overall compensation for : -2 or +0 (no compensation -2+2=0) ?

If anybody can answer this question I would be pleased.

 

Thank you!

 

Olivier

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nearly impossible to estimate that without sensitometric data of the film you use + the color characteritic of that specific rock.

So I would advise an incident light metering with +2 compensation for the orange filter

[allamande]

Oliver,

 

Check out this link, scroll down for table that gives transmittance values for BW and further down, see the color filter circle.

 

Olympus Microscopy Resource Center | Photomicrography - Filters for Black and White Photomicrography

 

It might be helpful to you if you get your hands on The Negative by Ansel Adams. Chapter 5 is Filters and Pre-exposure, with extensive discussion (he reproduces a copy of the color filter circle by Kodak) and examples.

 

Ece

[AlanG]

No one can give you a one size fits all answer. Filter factors are just the recommended starting point. Use the filter factor and see if it is providing the results you want. Adjust exposure from there depending on your taste.

[dave_d]

So what would be the overall compensation for : -2 or +0 (no compensation -2+2=0) ?

 

-2. You are compensating for the amount of light reduced by the density of the filter not the tones that the filter may change in the scene.

[sector99]

The correct answer to Olivier's original query:

 

"Dark shadow metered as zone III = -2"

 

"Use of orange filter to darken the sky" = +3 (filter factor)

 

To deliver sufficient exposure to the shadowed area with the filter a +1 exposure to the spot meter reading will do that.

 

OTHER un-metered items may fall away from expectations and...

 

The higher reflectance items may also fall away from expectations due to the fact that development cannot realistically be "Pulled" lower or "Pushed" to higher levels and the filter will change them.

 

The above assumes negative film where shadow detail is crucial.

_____________

 

With Zone System and 35MM cameras the weakness is individual processing (As others here point out).

 

Zone System With Transparencies (Velvia, Provia, etc.)...

 

However, almost all simple average metered cameras can benefit from the ZS... especially when using transparencies where a careful Zone 7.5––8 can be used for important near-white highlights. Caucasian skin falls on Zone 6 to 6.5 and "The Negative" from AA is supurb––You will need to read it several times as you practice.

 

Invest in a separate good spot meter. Pentax on Ebay for example. They aren't cheap.

[Olimatt]

The correct answer to Olivier's original query:

 

"Dark shadow metered as zone III = -2"

 

"Use of orange filter to darken the sky" = +3 (filter factor)

 

To deliver sufficient exposure to the shadowed area with the filter a +1 exposure to the spot meter reading will do that.

 

OTHER un-metered items may fall away from expectations and...

 

The higher reflectance items may also fall away from expectations due to the fact that development cannot realistically be "Pulled" lower or "Pushed" to higher levels and the filter will change them.

 

The above assumes negative film where shadow detail is crucial.

_____________

 

With Zone System and 35MM cameras the weakness is individual processing (As others here point out).

 

Zone System With Transparencies (Velvia, Provia, etc.)...

 

However, almost all simple average metered cameras can benefit from the ZS... especially when using transparencies where a careful Zone 7.5––8 can be used for important near-white highlights. Caucasian skin falls on Zone 6 to 6.5 and "The Negative" from AA is supurb––You will need to read it several times as you practice.

 

Invest in a separate good spot meter. Pentax on Ebay for example. They aren't cheap.

 

thank you !

[fotohuis]

When doing medium format and zone system you will need a camera with exchangeble film-backs. N=0, N-1 and N+1, or at least two.

Further an exposure meter with spott measuring.

 

Because you can not change any film during the run in a Bessa III (W) and it has a non-TTL measuring and no spott it is even not possible to go to any zone system in this configuration.

 

To adapt your exposure for any B&W filter, use the compensating dial on the Bessa III camera. For (a regular) Red filter and most (panchromatic) B&W films you have to compensate +2F. Superpanchromatic films + 1 1/2 F.

[dave_d]

-2. You are compensating for the amount of light reduced by the density of the filter not the tones that the filter may change in the scene.

 

I just noticed I errored in my earlier reply. Sometimes I wonder where my head was at. If you add a #25 red filter (filter factor 4), the filter will decrease light transmission by 2 stops so you need to add 2 stops onto your meter reading to compensate. You are compensating for the amount of light reduced by the density of the filter not the tones that the filter may change in the scene.

 

As fotohuis mentioned, the zone system is not as usefull with roll film unless you expose the entire roll in the same lighting contrast. Although, understanding the Zone System of exposure and developement is a good thing to know.

[Michael Hiles]

Compensating for the contrast of the scene by developing N1 or –N1 is not really practical with roll or 35mm film. The practical approach is to assume and stick with normal development.

 

The value of the Zone system for roll and 35mm is in getting your personal film speed determined (a very simple test) and getting “normal” development determined (also quite simple). DOn't rely on the box or some table. Once you understand how to place an element of a scene on any zone you decide, it gives you outstanding control. There are two easy approaches:

 

1 – Meter so that your shadow needing detail is on zone 3. Let everything else fall where it will. I like this for Ilford XP2, where it is unlikely that you will blow out the highlights.

 

2 – Meter the brightest part of the scene and put it on Zone 8. Let the rest fall where it may. Good for slower silver films where highlights can be blown out easily.

 

Then develop normally (as per your test), and concentrate on the picture. The point, I assume, is making pictures, and not playing amateur chemist.

 

As for filters, if the manufacturer says the factor is 2 – believe them. If the results are off, do the film speed test again with the filter (unlikely this is necessary). Don’t change the development time.

[otto.f]

You can't put parts in the scene in Zone 3 and Zone 8 by just metering and exposing, that is the whole point of the Zone system. Whether something falls in Zone 8, starting from a shadow in Zone 3, depends on your development.

[Michael Hiles]

You can't put parts in the scene in Zone 3 and Zone 8 by just metering and exposing, that is the whole point of the Zone system. Whether something falls in Zone 8, starting from a shadow in Zone 3, depends on your development.

 

Clearly.

 

The basic principals of knowing your personal film speed and normal development means you can at least precisely control the element of exposure that is most important in the situation. That is very useful to me.