Tony-S wrote:
Zone system for film: Expose for the shadows, process for the highlights.

Zone system for digital: Expose for the highlights, pray for the shadows.

That's only kind of true.  It's true in the sense that, if you simplify it to a single fragmented sentence, then that's what you would do.

For starters, actual use of the Zone system using a digital camera is impossible.  It works with BW film, because the ISO of the film can be effectively changed after exposure by using different developing times.  While you can increase or decrease contrast with a digital image, the sensitivity remains the same; the way that film responds to high or low contrast developing (by essentially 'changing its speed') gives you much more leeway to bring out shadow detail or save highlights.

Your metering is not just 'exposing for the shadows.'  You meter everything in the scene, pick an exposure somewhere in the middle, and write down how many stops above and below the middle exposure your highlights and shadows fall.  If your highlights and shadows are only a couple stops off from your exposure, you develop for extra contrast.  If they're several stops off, you develop for less contrast.  The idea is not to 'expand contrast', so much as to provide the "optimum" balance of contrast and tonal range in each and every image, regardless of lighting situations.

And shooting far to the right on your histogram is a form of exposing for the shadows, yes.  If you were truly exposing for highlights, you would place your spot meter on the brightest part of the image, and use that exposure.  Instead, you're relying on the histogram to tell you how much you can expose for shadow detail before your highlights go all blank.  You're actually exposing for the mid-shadows.

Tony-S wrote:
Zone system for film: Expose for the shadows, process for the highlights.

Zone system for digital: Expose for the highlights, pray for the shadows.

Zack Zoll wrote:
That's only kind of true.  It's true in the sense that, if you simplify it to a single fragmented sentence, then that's what you would do.

Which sentence? If the first, then you'll have to take it up with Ansel Adams since he stated it. The second is all mine, though.

For starters, actual use of the Zone system using a digital camera is impossible.

That's exactly my point.

It works with BW film, because...

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know 30 years ago.

Tony-S wrote:
Zone system for film: Expose for the shadows, process for the highlights.

Zone system for digital: Expose for the highlights, pray for the shadows.

Zack Zoll wrote:
That's only kind of true.  It's true in the sense that, if you simplify it to a single fragmented sentence, then that's what you would do.

Tony-S wrote:
Which sentence? If the first, then you'll have to take it up with Ansel Adams since he stated it. The second is all mine, though.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure Ansel went on to say a few other things too.  That's pretty much the literary equivalent of a sound byte on a political talk show, since it's totally correct in context, and borderline incorrect out of context.

Zack Zoll wrote:
It works with BW film, because...

Tony-S wrote:
You're not telling me anything I didn't already know 30 years ago.

Oh, sorry.  I forgot to Google you and study your history before I responded.  Please, forgive my rudeness.  But if it's that important that everyone knows how experienced you are, maybe you ought to put that in your bio?  Just a suggestion.

Photosam wrote:
Hmm, maybe I should put my compact flash card into my Jobo, and try an N-1 time with D-76? 

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Expose for the highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves.... sounds like metering for transparency.

You're basically exposing for transparency as if you were going to scan or print it, rather than project it.  So you do overexpose, but not as much as you might with reversal film.

Daxxx wrote:
no it's about where to place your zones...and develop THEN accordingly...

IF it would only be about as much as possible information, then you need to develop only with the lowest contrast possible, so one type of development,...no matter what, that's total opposite of zone-system..

Herman Surkis wrote:
Somebody knows the Zone System.

Kind of... 

But there's still a point of confusion that getting bandied about in this thread.  One has to wonder if anyone's every read any of Adam's books...

Yes, Daxx, is right in that the Zone system allows you to place your tones where you want them, but it certainly is about keeping detail - just not doing it via low contrast. 

The zone system was developed as a form of optical compression and expansion so that you could compress or expand the dynamic range of scene (natural light, no control) through the negative and onto grade 2 paper (when it was developed you had fixed contrast paper grades, not variable contrast paper).  The printing aspect often gets left out of these conversations, but that's the entire point of the system!  To make a gorgeous print with a full range of tones from the deepest shadows through the most sparkling of highlights.

Tone placement, by itself, is not "the zone system, " it is just one aspect of it.  So the posters who are also saying that the purpose is to provide as much data in the print as possible are also correct.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Oh, sorry.  I forgot to Google you and study your history before I responded.  Please, forgive my rudeness.  But if it's that important that everyone knows how experienced you are, maybe you ought to put that in your bio?  Just a suggestion.

It's pretty simple. Don't assume you know more than those to whom you are lecturing.

Tony-S wrote:

It's pretty simple. Don't assume you know more than those to whom you are lecturing.

I was actually writing to the forum at large - not to you specifically.

You see, the downside to responding in short, easily memorable snippets as you did is that you get to be the one that is singled out when someone else goes to make a response.  Sure I may have been 'lecturing' to others more than to you, but it was your response that made an easier starting point.

I'm sorry if you felt that I was implying or assuming anything about you.  But I still think that if you're going to get offended by anyone responding in a way that makes you feel like a Photo 101 student, you ought to START with the "I have 30 years of experience, yadda yadda yadda," bit, because the fact is that people don't do research on other posters when they're responding on a forum.  It's not as if I singled you out and called you a newbie or anything - clearly I can't be the first one to have offended you in such a way.

Kaouthia wrote:
It's not even exposing to the right.  Sometimes making sure you retain the highlights can mean everything else is actually underexposed by a stop or two.

But, like I said, with 14Bit RAW, I don't worry about it.  Bringing back that shadow detail and bumping the midtones in post isn't a problem.

Exposing to the right only works with low contrast scenes, whereby you can overexpose the shadows and midtones without blowing highlight detail.

+1

Zack Zoll wrote:
I'm sorry...

You keep saying that for some reason. It's really not necessary.

...if you felt that I was implying or assuming anything about you.

Well, you did say it while quoting me.

But I still think that if you're going to get offended ...

I'm not, nor was I ever, offended. Just pointing  out that in your post to me you didn't say anything I didn't already know. Moreover, if you wanted your post to be thorough, you should have talked about other things about the zone system, including densitometry and printing.

Zack Zoll wrote:
shooting far to the right on your histogram is a form of exposing for the shadows

+1

I've found that in most studio situations (except where the model is wearing something pure white in which I want to retain detail, for instance) I can usually get away with exposing at least one full stop and usually 1.5 stops over what the meter tells me.

That puts highlights on Cucasian skin into roughly the equivalent of zone 8/9 on Adams' scale without blowing any of the channels on the skin.

When developing the RAW file I will then reduce the overall "exposure" in LR to bring down the midtones and will often further pull down the highlights too, effectively "compressing" the sensor data back into a range that's acceptable for output to monitors and print (ie. an 8 bit file).  This technique effectively gives me an extra 1 to 1.5 stops of detail in the shadows that I can preserve in the RAW development without introducing any extra noise.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Zack Zoll wrote:
"I have 30 years of experience, yadda yadda yadda," bit, because the fact is that people don't do research on other posters when they're responding on a forum.

That can mean very little 30 years experience and it doesn't always go with the work on their ports.

-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
+1

I've found that in most studio situations (except where the model is wearing something pure white in which I want to retain detail, for instance) I can usually get away with exposing at least one full stop and usually 1.5 stops over what the meter tells me.

That puts highlights on Cucasian skin into roughly the equivalent of zone 8/9 on Adams' scale without blowing any of the channels on the skin.

When developing the RAW file I will then reduce the overall "exposure" in LR to bring down the midtones and will often further pull down the highlights too, effectively "compressing" the sensor data back into a range that's acceptable for output to monitors and print (ie. an 8 bit file).  This technique effectively gives me an extra 1 to 1.5 stops of detail in the shadows that I can preserve in the RAW development without introducing any extra noise.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

It's ok for b/w but blowing out skin tones in colour look dreadful as they tends to go a horrid red.

Have you thought of using 2 lights ! one as a fill in ?

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Have you thought of using 2 lights ! one as a fill in ?

LOL

I must try that sometime....





Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
Expose for the highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves.... sounds like metering for transparency.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as letting the shadows take care of themselves...

If you're doing HDR as a zone system, you're controlling the shadows with a separate exposure.

If you're trying to recreate a zone system on a single frame, you're going to have to employ in-camera  DRO  (dynamic range optimization), let the highlights go slightly lighter, and then post process to get the long dynamic range with some kind of tonal contrast control in the software.

If you're shooting an artificially lightable subject, you expose for the ambient highlights, and then bring the shadows up via  you're lighting. (fill or main).


But either way, letting the shadows take care of themselves isn't the idea of the Zone System.... you have to control them.

Kaouthia wrote:

Exactly.  Exposing for digital is more like exposing for slide film.

End of discussion.

Paramour Productions wrote:

Daxxx wrote:
no it's about where to place your zones...and develop THEN accordingly...

IF it would only be about as much as possible information, then you need to develop only with the lowest contrast possible, so one type of development,...no matter what, that's total opposite of zone-system..

Kind of... 

But there's still a point of confusion that getting bandied about in this thread.  One has to wonder if anyone's every read any of Adam's books...

Yes, Daxx, is right in that the Zone system allows you to place your tones where you want them, but it certainly is about keeping detail - just not doing it via low contrast. 

The zone system was developed as a form of optical compression and expansion so that you could compress or expand the dynamic range of scene (natural light, no control) through the negative and onto grade 2 paper (when it was developed you had fixed contrast paper grades, not variable contrast paper).  The printing aspect often gets left out of these conversations, but that's the entire point of the system!  To make a gorgeous print with a full range of tones from the deepest shadows through the most sparkling of highlights.

Tone placement, by itself, is not "the zone system, " it is just one aspect of it.  So the posters who are also saying that the purpose is to provide as much data in the print as possible are also correct.

Like the way you put that.
And I am not digging up his books, which are somewhere, and I have gotten into this back in the day with Zone System fanatics.
As pointed out it was developed:
Correct Exposure X Film X Development X Printing X Paper selection = prints with highlights and shadows with detail, and as many tones in-between to tell the story.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
It's a old saying by photographers.

Rule number 7.

http://www.freephotoresources.com/twelv … hic-rules/

I thought the rule was, "When in doubt, shoot at f/8 and 1/125?"

Zack Zoll wrote:

I thought the rule was, "When in doubt, shoot at f/8 and 1/125?"

Rule 13 for the enlightened.

Daxxx wrote:
euhm HDR has nothing to do with digital zone system, that's just about expanding the dynamic range...
exposing to the right also doesn't have to do anything with zonesystem, that's about capturing as much information as possible..

in the analogue way was just to get your highlights, shadows and midgray exactly where you want  them, and finetuning the best development times according to film and exposure and correct certain contrasts already in development.....

most above all it was about previsualisation of where to place your exposure, where would your highlights and shadows loose their structure, and where will be your midgrays be more or less..this is the only way of using it in a digital way ..so previsualisation...a concept lost on most photographers nowadays...

I think of the zone system correlates to exposure compensation, which is how I interpret what you're saying in the last paragraph.

The zone system at the exposure stage isn't about exposing for highlights or shadows, it's about choosing what part of the image you want to expose for and gives you a reference for how to do it.

Jim Lafferty wrote:
I just have to say...

Ansel Adams shot a certain way because his *subject* dictated that. Any good photographer lets their subject dictate their style to a degree.

Does Terry Richardson give a damn about his highlights clipping or where on the histogram his shadows fall? No. Because his *subject* is not just celebrity or debauchery, but *spontaneity*. And using technical concerns as the mold to which he conforms his subject would be the death of his work. He inverts the typical photographer's anxiety over technical form and instead puts his energies elsewhere.

Adams on the other hand would sit at the base of a mountain for eternity. His subject was sweeping, transcendent beauty as manifest by *nature*. He had the impetus and, eventually, the luxury of something like The Zone system.

Again: did Bruce Davidson give a shit about The Zone when shooting on the subway in the 80's? Probably not in the literal sense, probably yes in a very distant, theoretical sense. But for him it was instinctual, not labored over.

If we're talking fashion or beauty, I would say the most compelling aspects of that (to me) are narrative and abstraction.

Narrative: Helmut Newton had narrative down cold - women weren't just pretty, they were playing the role Newton wanted them to with relation to a larger context ("you're the lonely wife of a wealthy man who is cheating on you"). Doesn't benefit by the Zone system.

Abstraction: Txema Yeste and Camilla Akrans do this very well - they reduce the image of a face or whole body to an abstraction of shapes. On the one hand, you could say this requires an understanding of the Zone system, on the other hand... in practice, I think the condition of allowing technical concerns to dictate method is anathema for this caliber of work. It's really about developing a sense for throwing out or compressing a lot of detail, and in that sense the idea of "pre-visualization" becomes key... but The Zone is probably the last place these photographers acquire this sense from. Here's some of their work to show what I mean: http://imgur.com/a/db9xM#0

This post has a lot of great insights starting with the idea that spontaneity is one of Richardson's subjects.

I can also see arguing that spontaneity comes from ID and that's the subject, which explains all sorts of elements of his work, but I really like the idea of spontaneity as the subject.

There's a bunch of other great things, but listing them all is going to take it too far OT.

Zack Zoll wrote:

That's only kind of true.  It's true in the sense that, if you simplify it to a single fragmented sentence, then that's what you would do.

For starters, actual use of the Zone system using a digital camera is impossible.  It works with BW film, because the ISO of the film can be effectively changed after exposure by using different developing times.  While you can increase or decrease contrast with a digital image, the sensitivity remains the same; the way that film responds to high or low contrast developing (by essentially 'changing its speed') gives you much more leeway to bring out shadow detail or save highlights.

Your metering is not just 'exposing for the shadows.'  You meter everything in the scene, pick an exposure somewhere in the middle, and write down how many stops above and below the middle exposure your highlights and shadows fall.  If your highlights and shadows are only a couple stops off from your exposure, you develop for extra contrast.  If they're several stops off, you develop for less contrast.  The idea is not to 'expand contrast', so much as to provide the "optimum" balance of contrast and tonal range in each and every image, regardless of lighting situations.

And shooting far to the right on your histogram is a form of exposing for the shadows, yes.  If you were truly exposing for highlights, you would place your spot meter on the brightest part of the image, and use that exposure.  Instead, you're relying on the histogram to tell you how much you can expose for shadow detail before your highlights go all blank.  You're actually exposing for the mid-shadows.

That's exactly what I did when I read about zone exposure. Spot metered highlights and out them at +2. I've found other reference points since, but at this point I think exposure is pretty much handled in post unless you choose not to make any adjustments.

Really, I find post more about shaping the contrast than anything else. Exposure ends up being set by how you map that out and the exposure control is just one way to bend the contrast.