Hey folks, sorry for the typos and bad grammar. Besides my abominable grammar, I am working out of town away from my office and typing on a smartphone and a tablet. Big fingers- small keyboard on screen! Went to "grammar" school in Brooklyn- I'm lucky that I ain't a functional illiterate. PS25- Google it! Should have taken that creative writing class in college- too busy in the darkroom!

I'm up here in Toronto, shooting a food a beverage layout. While I was working , a tragedy occurred about 2 miles for here- a mentally disturbed person murdered 10 innocent folks with a rented van and injured many more. Can't wait to get home- 5 hour drive tomorrow AM.

The truth about the Zone System- as it stands today.

There has been a number of posts pertaining to the status, the revival and art of black and white photography. Theses are good and interesting questions having to do with pre-visualizing subjects in monochromatic form, converting color images to black and white and the aesthetics of black and white as opposed to color.

Inescapably and logically, in theses conversations, the subject of the Zone System and its inventor, foremost proponent and practitioner Ansel Adams emerges. Undoubtedly, Adams was the grand master of his genre and his work and methodology is something that all serious photographers should study and appreciate. Although the system, in its original form, was entirely dedicated to film based black and white photography, there are aspects that can be applied to certain facets of color photography and modern digital photography as well.

Those of us that know and love the Zone System understand its basis of assigning specific steps of the gray scale to key elements in the scene or subject. Many photographers consider the system as the optimum approach, especially to fine black and white photography and therefore advise others who are seeking advice on the subject to pursue and adopt the method.

The problem I see is that SOME of this advice is based on a peripheral knowledge of the original concept rather than all and all it entails. To help clarify things for those who are interested I am posting this, not as a tutorial on the method but a realistic and perhaps simplified overview of if the original practice and what can be applied to today's technologies. Obviously, the Adams system long predates the advent of digital imaging and it is originally film based. The process entails precise coordination of exposure and darkroom technique. There is quite a bit of sensitometry involved in that understanding of the characteristic curves and other aspects of black and white film emulsions was essential. Serious practitioners would determine through testing, their own A.S.A. or ISO ratings based on their equipment, choice of film and developer combinations. Rather than a film or developer manufacturer's recommendations, each photograph would establish their customized exposure INDEX.

Back in the day, reflected light meters had an analog readout and a separate calculator dial. There reading was transfer to the dial which indicated an exposure value and a series of aperture and shutter speed settings based one the value. There were also other points on the dial that indicated exposure alternatives within the latitude of the film- kind of a dynamic range concept. Besides other customized changes in interpreting theses readings, Adams deigned an overlay for the dial with ZONE indications. The “O” and “U” indicators on the original dial were very significant in that much of the system was based on intentional and carefully measured over or under exposure with compensatory processing procedures.

Perhaps, this is an oversimplification but the basic idea was intentional overexposure and under-development reduces or compresses contrast. Intentional under exposure and extended development will increase contrast. Because “pull” processing could cause uneven development and the resulting streaks and inconsistencies in density, the film had to be immersed in a pre-soak bath prior t development in order to slightly soften the emulsion and slow down the initial activity of the developer. Underexposed and push processed film could lack shadow detail s it was important to use softer working film and developer combinations to provide a long toe, that is, a characteristic curve of the film that would make for better shadow detail . Some photographers used a special Pyro staining developer that left a residual yellow stain in the shadows that would automatically “hold back” some of the light during enlarging. Many enlarging papers were less sensitive to yellow light- built in selective dodging!

Analog printing methods were somewhat complex as well in that there were many contrast grades of enlarge papers and numerous paper developers with both soft and hard working characteristics. As if theses were not enough variables to contend with and standardize, there were three different kinds of enlargers; point source, condenser and diffusion and later on, cold light each with its own contrast and grain rendering characteristics.

Many of the finer finer printing papers had their quirks as well. This “nostalgia” about “watching the image materialize in the developer” wasn't all that much of a thrill- it was hard and precise work. You had to judge the density under a very dim safe-light and the rate at which it came up was an indication of whether or not you exposed the paper correctly. You needed to make certain that all the chemicals were temperature controlled and remember that over immersion in the stop-bath could cause water soak, a breakdown of the paper base, or over immersion in the fixer could cause bleaching of the image. Some papers had a significant degree of “dry down” which meant that a print that looked perfectly exposed in the fixer and wash water would become unacceptably darker when dry. There was allot of good old fashioned eyeballing in the darkroom sink!

I mention much of this because some have suggested that the best black and white work means reverting back to film and the classic Zone System. Unless someone is already experienced and fully equipped for the old process, it is highly unlike that anyone could easily replicate the entire system not would the want to. Even for experienced workers, sadly enough, much of the films, materials and chemicals are no longer in manufacture or easily obtained. It is also notable that original was intended for large format sheet or cut film where by each sheet could be individually or batch processed accordingly.

Over the years, there have been some practical adaptations of the method for roll films, certain color films and of course, digital photography.

As I alluded to earlier, this is not a tutorial on the system. There are many online and published tutorials on the Zone System in digital technology. There is the Chroma-Zone method for color workers.

So...what's my experience and history with the Zone System? Many decades ago I was heavy involved in black and white photography, mostly on a commercial basis. I was doing a good volume of advertising and product work where good reproduction of my prints was an ongoing requirement.- that was my day job. On weekends, I was shooting weddings in black and white- color was not as popular and commonplace as yet. I was dealing with white detailed wedding dresses and black formal-wear and was very interested fine print quality. Black and white portraiture was also one on my “first loves”.

I obtained, studied and attempted to memorize all of the Adams books and began to press some of the techniques into practical use and adopt the methods for other than landscape photography. A few years later, I attended an Adams workshop and among other wonderful experiences, I watched the master producing photo-murals form 8x10 negatives in a horizontally oriented enlarger mounted on tracks. The funny thing is I never wanted to become a landscape or nature photographer nor did I have dreams or delusions that I was gonna be the next Ansel. What I took away from the study and experience is a number of sound workable techniques that I could apply to my own work. For those who are interested in its application to their own work, the best approach is to EXTRACT the theories and techniques that apply to your kind of work.

There are certain theories that only apply to film. In portraiture, my film method was to expose for the shadows and the print down for the highlights. That works well in both black and white and color NEGATIVE work but in transparency and digital work, there is little or no latitude for the degree of overexposure that would be involved and the highlights would likely be blown out.

Colored filters, that were originally intended for black and white film photography, do indeed work well in digital. I have achieved good results in contrast control in panchromatic rendition and in traditional darkening of blue skies, accentuating cloud formations, lightening and darkening skin tones and lighting foliage. Theses effects are immediately observable on the LCD screen if you camera has a monochromatic mode. If this can be done in shooting, it will save time and effort in post processing.

I hope this helps to clarify some aspects of the Zone System.

The truth about the Zone System- as it stands today.

There has been a number of posts pertaining to the status, the revival and art of black and white photography. Theses are good and interesting questions having to do with pre-visualizing subjects in monochromatic form, converting color images to black and white and the aesthetics of black and white as opposed to color.

Inescapably and logically, in theses conversations, the subject of the Zone System and its inventor, foremost proponent and practitioner Ansel Adams emerges. Undoubtedly, Adams was the grand master of his genre and his work and methodology is something that all serious photographers should study and appreciate. Although the system, in its original form, was entirely dedicated to film based black and white photography, there are aspects that can be applied to certain facets of color photography and modern digital photography as well.

Those of us that know and love the Zone System understand its basis of assigning specific steps of the gray scale to key elements in the scene or subject. Many photographers consider the system as the optimum approach, especially to fine black and white photography and therefore advise others who are seeking advice on the subject to pursue and adopt the method.

The problem I see is that SOME of this advice is based on a peripheral knowledge of the original concept rather than all and all it entails. To help clarify things for those who are interested I am posting this, not as a tutorial on the method but a realistic and perhaps simplified overview of if the original practice and what can be applied to today's technologies. Obviously, the Adams system long predates the advent of digital imaging and it is originally film based. The process entails precise coordination of exposure and darkroom technique. There is quite a bit of sensitometry involved in that understanding of the characteristic curves and other aspects of black and white film emulsions was essential. Serious practitioners would determine through testing, their own A.S.A. or ISO ratings based on their equipment, choice of film and developer combinations. Rather than a film or developer manufacturer's recommendations, each photograph would establish their customized exposure INDEX.

Back in the day, reflected light meters had an analog readout and a separate calculator dial. There reading was transfer to the dial which indicated an exposure value and a series of aperture and shutter speed settings based one the value. There were also other points on the dial that indicated exposure alternatives within the latitude of the film- kind of a dynamic range concept. Besides other customized changes in interpreting theses readings, Adams deigned an overlay for the dial with ZONE indications. The “O” and “U” indicators on the original dial were very significant in that much of the system was based on intentional and carefully measured over or under exposure with compensatory processing procedures.

Perhaps, this is an oversimplification but the basic idea was intentional overexposure and under-development reduces or compresses contrast. Intentional under exposure and extended development will increase contrast. Because “pull” processing could cause uneven development and the resulting streaks and inconsistencies in density, the film had to be immersed in a pre-soak bath prior t development in order to slightly soften the emulsion and slow down the initial activity of the developer. Underexposed and push processed film could lack shadow detail s it was important to use softer working film and developer combinations to provide a long toe, that is, a characteristic curve of the film that would make for better shadow detail . Some photographers used a special Pyro staining developer that left a residual yellow stain in the shadows that would automatically “hold back” some of the light during enlarging. Many enlarging papers were less sensitive to yellow light- built in selective dodging!

Analog printing methods were somewhat complex as well in that there were many contrast grades of enlarge papers and numerous paper developers with both soft and hard working characteristics. As if theses were not enough variables to contend with and standardize, there were three different kinds of enlargers; point source, condenser and diffusion and later on, cold light each with its own contrast and grain rendering characteristics.

Many of the finer finer printing papers had their quirks as well. This “nostalgia” about “watching the image materialize in the developer” wasn't all that much of a thrill- it was hard and precise work. You had to judge the density under a very dim safe-light and the rate at which it came up was an indication of whether or not you exposed the paper correctly. You needed to make certain that all the chemicals were temperature controlled and remember that over immersion in the stop-bath could cause water soak, a breakdown of the paper base, or over immersion in the fixer could cause bleaching of the image. Some papers had a significant degree of “dry down” which meant that a print that looked perfectly exposed in the fixer and wash water would become unacceptably darker when dry. There was allot of good old fashioned eyeballing in the darkroom sink!

I mention much of this because some have suggested that the best black and white work means reverting back to film and the classic Zone System. Unless someone is already experienced and fully equipped for the old process, it is highly unlike that anyone could easily replicate the entire system not would the want to. Even for experienced workers, sadly enough, much of the films, materials and chemicals are no longer in manufacture or easily obtained. It is also notable that original was intended for large format sheet or cut film where by each sheet could be individually or batch processed accordingly.

Over the years, there have been some practical adaptations of the method for roll films, certain color films and of course, digital photography.

As I alluded to earlier, this is not a tutorial on the system. There are many online and published tutorials on the Zone System in digital technology. There is the Chroma-Zone method for color workers.

So...what's my experience and history with the Zone System? Many decades ago I was heavy involved in black and white photography, mostly on a commercial basis. I was doing a good volume of advertising and product work where good reproduction of my prints was an ongoing requirement.- that was my day job. On weekends, I was shooting weddings in black and white- color was not as popular and commonplace as yet. I was dealing with white detailed wedding dresses and black formal-wear and was very interested fine print quality. Black and white portraiture was also one on my “first loves”.

I obtained, studied and attempted to memorize all of the Adams books and began to press some of the techniques into practical use and adopt the methods for other than landscape photography. A few years later, I attended an Adams workshop and among other wonderful experiences, I watched the master producing photo-murals form 8x10 negatives in a horizontally oriented enlarger mounted on tracks. The funny thing is I never wanted to become a landscape or nature photographer nor did I have dreams or delusions that I was gonna be the next Ansel. What I took away from the study and experience is a number of sound workable techniques that I could apply to my own work. For those who are interested in its application to their own work, the best approach is to EXTRACT the theories and techniques that apply to your kind of work.

There are certain theories that only apply to film. In portraiture, my film method was to expose for the shadows and the print down for the highlights. That works well in both black and white and color NEGATIVE work but in transparency and digital work, there is little or no latitude for the degree of overexposure that would be involved and the highlights would likely be blown out.

Colored filters, that were originally intended for black and white film photography, do indeed work well in digital. I have achieved good results in contrast control in panchromatic rendition and in traditional darkening of blue skies, accentuating cloud formations, lightening and darkening skin tones and lighting foliage. Theses effects are immediately observable on the LCD screen if you camera has a monochromatic mode. If this can be done in shooting, it will save time and effort in post processing.

I hope this helps to clarify some aspects of the Zone System.