# Would this work? (Zone system on a DLSR & in the field)



## cathexis (Nov 5, 2017)

Hey Folks,


My goal with this thread is to ask the group if my understanding of the Zone System, when practiced in the field and with a DSLR is correct or not. I understand there’s a lot more to Zone system than just field work but that’s not what I’m asking about. The camera I have is a D600 and this scenario is predicated on how it would work using the Spot Meter function in lieu of a separate spot meter device. We can imagine the shot in question is a landscape on a sunny day where the most important subjects are all within the Zone II to Zone VIII range and no more than 10% of the picture falls outside the “Dynamic Range” and can be disregarded. In that case I would:

Set the D6oo to M mode (my preference) and set metering to Spot.

Read spot values as best I could of those areas falling in the upper zones that are most important to me.

Read the most important areas of the lower end as well.

Decide if shifting exposure of upper areas down by 2-3 stops will still render lower zones workable in PP.

If OK, underexpose the whole shot such that important highlighted areas are minus 2-3 stops where a step could be aperture or shutter speed as long as the same relation is maintained between the two. Done.

Obviously, there are other decisions such as focus and shot alignment and even shifting light values, etc.

But the D600 will use center area for spot metering even in Auto-AF although it is possible to fudge that depending on your focus settings. In my camera it doesn’t actually read a number as such; you have to twiddle the command and sub-command dials to adjust the f/stop and/or shutter speed but basically if you have an “OK” balance than you can extrapolate what the spot meter is reading a selected area as. The same process seems to work even if you zoom in on an area that may be too far to spot meter otherwise. So this dial twiddling seems rather tedious but I think it works.

However, it seems to me that this method doesn’t actually let me say, for example, “Those rocks are a Zone VI.” Instead, it just allows me to establish a “virtual zone” based on the readings comparisons of the various metered areas. That is, the major important areas cover an exposure range of “x” stops and I can assign virtual values from that. So, I’m left wondering if this is really an example of the Zone System in practice or something else? And once I put that shot into a histogram isn’t it going to show all kinds of clipping? I thought that was a bad thing but perhaps that’s a job for PP? What do you all think?


As always, thank you all very much,

Andrew


----------



## fmw (Nov 5, 2017)

If you feel your camera metering system isn't working well for you, just buy a handheld incident meter.  They never miss because they don't have to deal with reflectivity.  The zone system was good in its day but it still deals with the reflectivity of elements of the subject.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 5, 2017)

The main issue is that your camera's "spot meter" is reads a much larger spot than a traditional 1 degree spot meter, thus preventing you from measuring specific areas.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2017)

The D600 has a VERY wide dynamic range....you can set the highlight exposure and "protect" the highs from burning out, and then in software can "lift" the lower tonal values up, without much of an issue. There is not much need for the Zone System, which was for B&W film and Plus-Normal-Minus development, rather crude tools compared against modern post-processing with computers.

Secondly: the NIKON metering system measures RGB COLOR, and reflectivity...it's not the same old "dumb" spot metering Ansel and Minor used...it's much smarter...it itself is determining not JUST reflective value, but can literally SEE and analyze the colors of objects...you trying to tinker with the metering will in some cases, lead to worse results than allowing the meter to determine the best exposure.

Look into the subject of ISO invariance; you've now got one of the most-capable tools ever invented for exposure and image manipulation, and you're thinking about using a 1940's B&W film exposure and film development technique on a medium that has an entirely different method of exposing and "developing", and you're also comparing a method meant for *negatives* and *film* against_ positive_ color and _all_-_electronic_ imaging


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

cathexis said:


> However, it seems to me that this method doesn’t actually let me say, for example, “Those rocks are a Zone VI.” Instead, it just allows me to establish a “virtual zone” based on the readings comparisons of the various metered areas. That is, the major important areas cover an exposure range of “x” stops and I can assign virtual values from that. So, I’m left wondering if this is really an example of the Zone System in practice or something else? And once I put that shot into a histogram isn’t it going to show all kinds of clipping? I thought that was a bad thing but perhaps that’s a job for PP? What do you all think?
> 
> 
> As always, thank you all very much,
> ...



The Zone System does not apply to digital. The foundation upon which the zone system is built is the characteristic of negative films such that film density increase over time during development is disproportional over the film exposure range. Remove that foundation and you're flailing around without purpose. The SD card from your camera doesn't take well to immersion in a solution of HC-110.

Are you shooting and saving CR2 (raw) files or are you shooting to save camera JPEGs? That will determine how your should proceed with an exposure methodology.

Joe


----------



## cathexis (Nov 5, 2017)

To All,

My goal is B&W - I hope this doesn't mess you up as far as your replies. I've learned that B&W digital is best (in fact only) produced in PP. I am shooting and saving all as raw files and I'm going to be working in Darktable to produce such B&W, at least initially. I am aware from you guys the many other progs out there but it is going to be Darktable good or bad, at least while I learn more. But I still need files to work on. Message received on the subject of iso invariance - need to smart up on that.

I'm interested in natural light landscape or outdoor B&W photography. No interest in anything to do with flash or studio settings at this time. I want to begin with my D600 rather than film. Perhaps better questions to have asked might be: What should I be studying to max out my camera's abilities in the field to take photos that will give me the most creative possibilities in B&W once I'm in PP? And what are the smartest choices for chasing or acquiring such knowledge? I thought the Zone System was one way of doing that since the camera always gives neutral results if it can.

I have my camera's manual and the David Bush Guide, both of which are helpful but not on the level I seem to be looking for, it seems. I see I'm kind of stumbling around. Anecdote: I spent 32 years as a hospital RN, most in ICU. We used to joke about hospitals as an "un-system." You know, like 7-UP had the old ad as the Un-Cola. We'd say there's the way the system says it works  and then there's the way it REALLY works and what you have to know to get it to do what you want- that's the Un-System. That's what I'm looking for; The REAL way to stroke your digital camera to get what you want out of it. In this case, best possible material for digital PP B&W final results.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

cathexis said:


> To All,
> 
> My goal is B&W - I hope this doesn't mess you up as far as your replies. I've learned that B&W digital is best (in fact only) produced in PP. I am shooting and saving all as raw files and I'm going to be working in Darktable to produce such B&W, at least initially. I am aware from you guys the many other progs out there but it is going to be Darktable good or bad, at least while I learn more. But I still need files to work on. Message received on the subject of iso invariance - need to smart up on that.
> 
> ...



B&W versus color as far as digital is concerned there's no real difference managing exposure. I missed your camera brand earlier, I thought you had a Canon but I see it's a Nikon. You're NEF (raw) files will be captured in color. Converting to B&W -- there are myriad options.

There are various ways to approach the task of setting a camera exposure. Most photogs rely on the camera's built-in exposure system and then chimp the camera JPEG on the camera LCD. I get students every semester who just use the camera LCD as a meter and adjust exposure till they think the JPEGs on the LCD look good -- I bang my head on the desk and mumble noooooo over and over but to no avail.

Join the crowd:
option 1) Trust the camera's exposure system. Engage the matrix meter mode on your D600, zero the meter and shoot. Under most lighting conditions you'll get a good usable exposure -- don't worry be happy. The camera meter will have trouble with extreme contrast and backlight and you might benefit in those situations to intervene but generally it's going to get you a photo. Chimp the JPEG and keep shooting.
option 2) Matrix metering is running a software algorithm designed to analyze the lighting condition and make adjustments based on that analysis. "Thinking machines" that can't read your mind or intentions are going to perform erratically at times. If that starts to bug you then switch to center-weighted average metering. Now you have a measuring tool that isn't trying to second guess you. The job of analyzing the lighting condition and making adjustments is entirely on you. Can you do better than the matrix metering in analyzing and accommodating the lighting? Most can not. Chimp the JPEG and keep shooting.

Nikon has done a very good job with the camera meter system and you can trust it to work quite well. Derrel has that right.

option 3) Join the nut job crowd: RawDigger is an exposure analysis tool that will allow you to examine and fine-tune your raw exposures. But seriously those of us that get involved in this kind of stuff tend toward over-the-top obsessive compulsiveness.

Joe


----------



## cathexis (Nov 5, 2017)

BIG thanks, Joe. (Although I had to google "chimp" ha, ha ). I hear what you're saying.
BTW, I'd like to say thanks to Darrel as well for his suggestion to look up iso invariance.
I went to this site's discussion of it here:

ISO Invariance Explained

It was fascinating and I think very relevant to this thread. I was especially impressed by
the before/after photos of the pony shown on that site. Amazing possibilities!

But right now half-time is almost over so Go Skins! & Have a Good one,

Andrew


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 5, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> The Zone System does not apply to digital. The foundation upon which the zone system is built is the characteristic of negative films such that film density increase over time during development is disproportional over the film exposure range. Remove that foundation and you're flailing around without purpose...........



False.  The Zone System was designed to make sure the film was capable of recording the dynamic range of the scene.  Same applies to digital.  A given film stock had a maximum dynamic range, and knowing what that range is helped the photographer set the exposure for a scene to render details in the shadows without blowing out the highlights.

Same applies to digital.  One can still use a spot meter to check the luminosity of the deepest shadows and the brightest highlights and set our exposure accordingly.

We do it every day when we look at the histograms on our camera's monitors.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The Zone System does not apply to digital. The foundation upon which the zone system is built is the characteristic of negative films such that film density increase over time during development is disproportional over the film exposure range. Remove that foundation and you're flailing around without purpose...........
> ...



When the Zone System photographer spot measured the shadow detail she wanted to render with detail and set the exposure and then spot metered the highlights and discovered they would blow out with normal development what did she do?

Joe



480sparky said:


> Same applies to digital.  One can still use a spot meter to check the luminosity of the deepest shadows and the brightest highlights and set our exposure accordingly.
> 
> We do it every day when we look at the histograms on our camera's monitors.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2017)

The D600 and D610 have a very amazing degree of post-exposure image manipulation if shot in either 12-bit or 14-bit NEF (raw) modes. For the absolute most, possible post-exposure image manipulation, use the 14-bit .NEF mode. Use center-weighted metering, and set the *center circle area* (it's a bit different than the 'old" 12-mm diameter circle, but you can see it if you use a modicum of imagination) so that it has the most emphasis to be "tight".

See page 226 of the D600 User Manual here http://www.nikonsupport.eu/europe/Manuals/d600/d600_en_01.pdf

where it shows you that you can set the center-weighted circle size to one of four


 sizes, or to measure over the entire frame, (which I tend to think of as being the old Nikon 60/40 centerweighted metering). The spot metering measurement area on the D600 is a 4mm circle, covering 1.5% of the frame. (see page 109).

I would generally not use Matrix metering when shooting in a Manual, match-diode mode, but rather center-weighted metering. The issue with "spot" metering is that it's more-prone to exposure variability, demanding absolutely exact, precise placement of the metering area; in spot mode, a very,very slight mis-aiming of the metering area can result in a HUGE swing or error in the exposure recommended. By using a somewhat larger area, but NOT the old 60/40 entire area of the frame method, you get a tight, yet controllable heavily center-weighted metering area; I like the 12mm circle size, since it works with both my AF lenses AND the several manual-focusing lenses I use with my Nikons.

Keep in mind that when using a wide-angle lens, it can cover a lot of real estate, even with the circle diameter set to 8mm or 12mm, so close-in readings might be better than long-distance readings when wide-angle lenses are being used.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 5, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> When the Zone System photographer spot measured the shadow detail she wanted to render with detail and set the exposure and then spot metered the highlights and discovered they would blow out with normal development what did she do?
> 
> Joe



Decide which will not have detail.... shadows or highlights.  Film or digital, take your pick.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > When the Zone System photographer spot measured the shadow detail she wanted to render with detail and set the exposure and then spot metered the highlights and discovered they would blow out with normal development what did she do?
> ...



Nope. She used her N- or N-- film back to make the exposure. Later in the darkroom that film got modified processing that would allow her to retain the shadow detail placement while reposition the highlight placement on the film within a manageable printing range. Altering the development time brought into play the unique characteristic of film such that the shadow detail placement is basically unaffected while the highlight placement is pulled down -- highlight and shadow detail are disproportionately effected by changes in development time. But you're right about digital, it can't do that.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 5, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



You certainly CAN do it with digital.  You use a sensor that is capable of capturing the dynamic range of the scene.

Just like you change film (yes, different films have different dynamic ranges) and development, one can learn about the dynamic range of sensors.  If a D40 is up to the task, you can use a D40.  If you need a D850, then you use a D850.

N+1 and N-1, etc, are the same as using Exposure Compensation.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Using a digital camera with DR capable of capturing the scene is not the Zone System. If you have that then you don't need the Zone System. The whole point of the Zone System was to be able to manipulate film via processing to adapt to the lighting contrast variances that occur in uncontrollable ambient light conditions.

Dividing up the tonal range into 1 stop "zones" taking spot measurements and doing a little counting is not the Zone System -- that's just a piece of the process that's necessary to calculate the required film processing adjustments. You can't cut off the critical piece that makes it go and say you still have it.

N+ and N- are not at all the same as exposure compensation. They are applied to film during development after exposure and do not alter exposure. Exposure compensation alters exposure. The effect that N+ or N- has on film is disproportional shadows/highlights. The effect of exposure compensation is proportional shadows/highlights.

Measure the shadow in which you wish to retain detail and set that exposure. Measure the highlight. If your highlight measurement indicates that the highlight will exceed the sensor DR and clip, let's say by 1 stop, then as you noted you are screwed -- as you said; decide which one you won't get. Digital sensor DR is fixed and can not be expanded via any kind of manipulation.

In that same scenario using film, N- development (not changing film) (and not an EC change in exposure) will allow you to retain the exposure and shadow detail while pulling the highlight through development down into a successfully printable range. With the digital camera you remain screwed.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 5, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



So how does the Zone System magically work when your film, exposure and development.... _at best_........ can record, say 9 stops of dynamic range and the scene contains 11 stops?

There are limits to both digital and film in terms of recording dynamic range.  Pre-flashing, using N+a billion or N-a trillion plus stand developing isn't going to be a magic bullet.  Eventually, the limit of the technology will be reached.

DR in film is fixed, just like digital.


----------



## cathexis (Nov 5, 2017)

Yes Darrel,

I'm aware of those pages in the manual, they're also explained in the David Bush book as well.
Before posting I spent part of yesterday in my living room with intermittent bright sunlight
horsing around with spot metering settings. My much lighter sofa would get crazy meter swings
as the sun came and went. It obviously confirmed your spot meter pitfalls comments repeatedly
since only a slight movements across the bright sofa towards sofa-in-shadows could make huge changes.
And yes, I shoot 14bit .NEF always. I don't shoot lots of images anyway and would never fill the 16GB
card in a day but have the 2nd set to overflow just in case.

You're also right about the center-weight min. size of 8mm. But note it always falls back  to 12mm
for a non-cpu lens. Since my 135mm f/2.8 D AI-S is a  great piece of glass - IMHO - and is non-cpu,
I just leave it set on 12mm so there's one less thing to have to twiddle with when swapping lenses.
Sometimes my AF lens focus sharper than I do but the 135mm at times makes really nice images that
just seem somehow better - dunno why, but nice.

Andrew


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Everything has ultimate limits of course and the Zone System isn't magic. Using a modern digital sensor I can record more data and do more with tonal range manipulation than any Zone System photographer was/is capable of doing. I don't shoot film any more and I don't do that Zone System stuff any more for that reason. Digital is more capable.

The original point was and remains that the heart of what makes the Zone System work does not have an analogous digital process that does the same thing. Digital is better and duuh -- *doesn't need to have an analogous process*. I sure wouldn't want to give up the ability I have now using digital and hobble it into only be able to mimic what the Zone System was capable of doing. That would really suck.

The foundation science that Adams exploited going back to the work of Hurter & Driffield that makes the Zone System manipulations possible is that the density increase in film over time during development occurs disproportionately in the highlights versus shadows. That's the key that makes it all work: N+ and N- are development process manipulations and they are unique to film. We could create software emulators of those processes if we wanted to but the exposure process would have to be altered to accommodate a digital sensor. I'm not aware that anyone has done that yet. Why not? The failed product LightZone maybe? I wouldn't buy it. I remember looking at LightZone when it was first introduced: My reaction was, well that's dumb. Then when it went belly up a couple years later my reaction was, yep figures. Too bad (it was a decent raw converter).

It's become very common to take the camera measurement component of the Zone System and just call that the Zone System leaving off the part that makes it meaningful. The one stop zones, spot measurements and counting are not the Zone System. Those zones and measurements don't get you anything without the engine that makes them go; now that you've taken those measurements will you N++, N+, N, N-, or N-- your film. With a digital sensor I don't have to worry about that. It's much more cut and dry; I have the sensor DR or I don't. If I don't I'm screwed (not buying a new camera). If I do then I capture the data. You can take measurements of the scene tonal range while working with a digital camera and determine in advance if your sensor DR is adequate. That's not the Zone System, that's measuring the scene lighting contrast -- you have the sensor DR or you don't, you don't have to worry about N+ or N--, and frankly you're better off.

Joe



480sparky said:


> There are limits to both digital and film in terms of recording dynamic range.  Pre-flashing, using N+a billion or N-a trillion plus stand developing isn't going to be a magic bullet.  Eventually, the limit of the technology will be reached.
> 
> DR in film is fixed, just like digital.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 5, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> ..........the heart of what makes the Zone System work does not have an analogous digital process that does the same thing.............



It absolutely does.  TZS is designed to_ make sure as much information is recorded_.  The medium is not relevant.

At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  If you want to toss out TZS, by all means, you're free to do so.  But don't demand the rest of use do the same.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 5, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > ..........the heart of what makes the Zone System work does not have an analogous digital process that does the same thing.............
> ...



No, that's not what it was designed to do. The Zone System was designed to allow film photographers to better control the overall tonal response of film to compensate for uncontrollable variance in the lighting contrast of ambient lit subjects.



480sparky said:


> The medium is not relevant.
> 
> At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  If you want to toss out TZS, by all means, you're free to do so.  But don't demand the rest of use do the same.



I don't want to toss out the Zone System. I'm very fond of it, it helped me pay the bills and put food on the table for many years.

Joe


----------



## chuasam (Nov 6, 2017)

Get a tripod, bracket and simply do an HDR


----------



## cathexis (Nov 6, 2017)

Got a good tripod, know how to bracket. What would an HDR do for a final B&W product?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 6, 2017)

cathexis said:


> Got a good tripod, know how to bracket. What would an HDR do for a final B&W product?



You could have a simply __massive__ range of tonal value information, which could then be tone-mapped to a fare-thee-well...

But still, I just have to say this: get a modern and highly-capable digital camera, like one of the several Nikons that have 14-stop-plus dynamic range. With such a camera, a SINGLE exposuret can capture so much information that in normal use, all you need to do is to make sure you do not blow the highlight information due to over-exposure, and then bring the .NEF file into your raw developer software, and you can have plenty of data to make splendid B&W images.

You are way,way over-thinking this. And the Zone System, is NOT needed with digital capture. We have no film! We have no film development! We are shooting in *a color positive* system, not a B&W negative system!


----------



## cathexis (Nov 7, 2017)

I did look up HDR after I posted that reply and answered my own question.
You're probably right about over-thinking things: definitely a character trait<wink>.
Hope I haven't frustrated you! Do you know how I can find out what my camera's
actual dynamic range is? It's a Nikon D600.

As for the Zone System, until something teaches me otherwise I've come to see that as a tool one
can elect to try out but one that's not a "must-have" just to produce better B&W final product. It
seems to me the must-haves are knowledge & experience of your camera, your PP software, and
the choices you make in the field. Doh!

TIA,

Andrew


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 7, 2017)

cathexis said:


> I did look up HDR after I posted that reply and answered my own question.
> You're probably right about over-thinking things: definitely a character trait<wink>.
> Hope I haven't frustrated you! Do you know how I can find out what my camera's
> actual dynamic range is? It's a Nikon D600.



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Joe



cathexis said:


> As for the Zone System, until something teaches me otherwise I've come to see that as a tool one
> can elect to try out but one that's not a "must-have" just to produce better B&W final product. It
> seems to me the must-haves are knowledge & experience of your camera, your PP software, and
> the choices you make in the field. Doh!
> ...


----------



## cathexis (Nov 7, 2017)

Nice link, thanks! I see why you stated the D600 had good max PDR. Not one Canon even comes close.


----------



## flyinglentris (Dec 15, 2017)

480sparky said:


> False. The Zone System was designed to make sure the film was capable of recording the dynamic range of the scene. Same applies to digital. A given film stock had a maximum dynamic range, and knowing what that range is helped the photographer set the exposure for a scene to render details in the shadows without blowing out the highlights.


h
This quote comes from a dated post (2011) and I agree with the member who replied to a post that stated that the Zone System does not apply to dSLR photography.   

First, I'm new to this Forum, so it shouldn't be surprising that I do searches to see if a topic has already been explored. 

I do have my 2 cents.   I think like Ansel himself did, that automation should not be over-relied upon.  A lot of advancements have been made in digital camera technology, but I think all photographers, beginners and old hands alike need to keep tabs on these techniques as they not only work, but ingrain a better internal knowledge and understanding of one of the fundamentals of photography  - light. 

I'm going to spin off  a new thread to explore how many members still apply the Zone System.


----------



## cathexis (Dec 15, 2017)

Thanks for replying! I tend to believe that the fundamental "truths" of light, i.e. it's physical properties, are not affected by newer technology.
They are timeless - at least until new discoveries prove otherwise.<wink>.  Perhaps some of the disputes that arise in the digital age are more
the desire of craftsman to conflate film and digital photography into a kind of unified theory and practice instead of accepting their obvious
differences. For example, you can take a cab to Times Square or you can take a bus but that doesn't make a cab and a bus the same thing even
if your destination is the same.

FWIW,

Andrew


----------

