The Practical Zone System for Film and Digital Photography

I learned, as well as most, what the zone system was many years ago. Not saying I ever mastered it, but that isn't really the point. The zone system is somewhat like the stick shift on a car. Useful, but not for everyone. Film is still out there, but even though I spent 5 decades with film and only 1 decade with digital, I cannot argue that one is better than the other as it is like apples and oranges. I think the crossover, using the zone system concept, with digital is a challenge in itself because of the terms and icons used on cameras, such as pictures of mountains, etc.

The other point is the hostility and crassness shown such as the post by By Mrrowe8 (1 day ago). Sorry, but I really cannot see how language and comments such as that can further the cause of a site that should be about photography and photographers. It should be flagged. Are there any moderators on this site?

I've been applying my knowledge of the zone system to digital tools as long as I've been shooting digital so I'm not sure this book is right for me, but it never hurts to review. I still reread Ansel Adams "The Negative" every few years because it's still applicable.

Most darkroom photographers didn't use the complete zone system because it all but required an MS in chemistry- not to mention an expensive spot meter in many cases- but understanding the zone system lead to better negatives and ultimately better prints. For many of us, the zone system could be reduced to "Expose for the shadows, and develop for the highlights."

Now there's no reason not to use the zone system in post because there's no chemistry required, and one can more easily hit the exact zones one wants especially with all the latitude that a RAW image provides. Just knowing how to identify the zones and how to "speak the language" of the zone system will make one's work better.

If you’re concerned about the cost of film and darkroom processing, or want to argue about whether or not to learn Zone System principals don’t get in the wet-film, fine arts market. Join the amateurs running around with D7000’s hooked to kit lenses, handing out business cards identifying themselves as professional photographers, producing images that are little more than snapshots. I meet a lot of folks calling themselves professional photographers in my business. Maybe one in 10 has a few basic skills in place, one in 100 might be approaching competent, one in a 1,000 reaches a level worthy of being called a professional, and out of that bunch there’s a slim few whose images will be remembered. Real pro’s would not argue about the Zone System or film versus digital; they are all tools in their kits. Also, with a real pro, cost never enters the conversation.

The LightZone photo editor I use has this ZoneMapper feature. It is in a way similar to Curves but much better and gives you much better control too. Such a pity that the owner stopped his project and went to work for Apple. The zonemapper is a brilliant tool. Here is more about the Zone Mapper. Other photo editors should pick up on it. To see what it is and how it functions and how versatile it is check out this article describing how it works and how to use the functions. In one word...brilliant.

http://doonster.blogspot.nl/2008/01/lightzone-zonemapper-primer-for-curves.html

who needs digital. Expensive pile of obsolete junk. Grab a $10 slr camera and you got a "full frame" camera. Read how the zone system works and you know exactly what you're doing with more good pictures then the guy that makes 50 shots of every subject.

It seems like a great tool to understand photography.

Most, if not all, comments here are supposition from people who have not read the new edition of the book. Just ordered mine.

Would not a good understanding of Zone principles help any photographer using spot metering rather than evaluative or average? Or in post processing? Or in merging HDR?

I doubt that most people using digital cameras have any idea about tonal range, EV, histograms — even aperture. The mere existence of a proven and well regarded system for visualizing this has to have a place in digital photography. The light is the same, even if the tools have changed.

I got the first edition from a used book store. Excelent tool and most of it still applies to digital. Not sure why this system needs a digital translation except to make more money from sales. Even the new cover is an obvious sales push.

Lots of old school rules in the book that most people have not heard about. Like how to get a propor exposure range for people shots outside by metering the back of your hand in direct sun and then in shade. The auto settings on your camera will take everything into account. But only you know that the skin tones need to be in the middle of he exposure range. Or you can just AE bracket like a clueless idiot and cross your fingers and resist learing anything useful and still get something and spend more time later on the computer and not be any wiser.

all this talk of film technique, makes me wonder why nobody ever talks about reciprocity, or reciprocity failure.. i know that it isn't really something we worry about with imaging sensors.. but it was REALLY important with film..

zone, and reciprocity.. two topics RARELY mentioned by photographers (under the age of 35) =\

i'm not trying to be nostalgic, but understanding how different types of film reacts to different colors/light helped me a lot when i was younger, and now with digital, i still think about these things..

I learned zone system in college from a protege' who learned directly under Adams. Zone system was a means to and ends, not the other way around as Ansel worshippers here are trying to tell us. It was also practiced by the commercial printing industry in different form and merely applied to chemical photography by Adams. Adam's didn't invent the discipline from ground zero if you ask any retired pre-press tech. The end goal of Zone System was to produce a print with aethestically linear values that were under control by the photographer from the exposure stage, to the printing stage. The problem is that the majority of photogs don't print anymore and don't process film. What's left is some relevant disciplines towards tonal control, but if you really need to understand this from a zone system perspective, which is print orientated you likely don't get it anyways. However, it might give you confidence to make insulting comments about digital photography not being as good as film, etc.

Lugging an 8x10 around Yosemite will keep you in shape! One can only image what Ansel would think of the Sigma D2 Merrill, with high res in a pocket camera? Would he auto bracket? Why not.

One aspect that is often overlooked is that Ansel Adams worked mostly with large format view cameras – I think up to 11 x 14 inches. This probably limited the amount of film he could take with him and the Zone System enabled him to get every exposure spot-on. Exposure bracketing would not only have been impractical, but also very expensive. Such limitations hardly apply to 35 mm photography and digital imaging. Whilst it is always good to have a sound understanding of the theory, the practical relevance of the Zone System nowadays seems to be limited. The only benefit I can see is that it trains the photographer’s eye and mind. Or am I missing something here?

I am a zone system user from darkroom-chemical days, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the provision of real-time histograms on the rear LCD of the DSLR or high-end premium compact gets me there most of the time, in terms of not over-exposing the highlights, or not under-exposing the shadows excessively. Whilst it may not be precise in terms of getting Zone VI precisely on Zone VI, the histograms serve the same end goal of giving me a tool for not blowing out highlight or shadow detail. Also, the histogram, plus the ability to roughly check exposure on the LCD act as two tools that make the Zone system procedure only really useful in ultra-precise photos where you have time to go through the mental steps, as opposed to a fast-changing situation that requires fast shooting.

I have Ansel Adams' "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print". Does the book offer anything "The Negative" doesn't cover? I spent most of my photographic life shooting positive slide film. I'm really not a post-processing digital expert so I'm not sure if this sort of work is really helpful today. Personally, I regularly get properly exposed shots right out of the camera, or have a good sense what needs correction/adjustment. But I'm not sure if that's from reading about Adam's zone-system, or years of experience shooting slides and their tight range.

I think it would have to an exceptional book to convince me to pay $28.76 for an ebook edition. That's less than $8.00 cheaper than the paperback edition. This may be one of those times I wait for the movie to come out.

I have used Chris' earlier edition to teach the Zone system for film. It is one of the easiest understood texts about Ansel Adams seminal work. I am sure his extension into the digital world is equally valuable.

Now, is the Zone System still valid? Yes. One real value of the zone system is to teach pre-visualization and the careful control of exposure. The use of a spot meter with film or understanding histograms in digital can help a photographer carefully place scene tones. It's true we no longer control film contrast through development but we do use contrast curves in post processing to do the same job.

Ansel Adams knew as well as anyone that the tools of photography will constantly change but the concepts of proper exposure and careful image post processing will always matter to many photographers.

Some posters says this is important and some says its irrelevant. Like both of those poster categories, I have not either read the book. Which of course make opinions somewhat uncertain.

I have used the zone system for B&W film. There it works fine. But - later I started to use multi grade papers and a color head and I could compensate in the post processing, and the zone system became less important. But - of course - understanding zones makes it easier to visualize the result.

Using digital is more like using multi grade paper. Its not necessary to expose and develop the "negative" correctly any more. You can fix it in post processing. Its still important to understand zones though.

It helps you to see what images are worth taking. A mish mash of tones will probably not look good. Pure and nice areas of simple constant zones is probably going to look better.

sure you can get the exposure right in camera ... and nothing wrong with that.
but since i do post anyway on all my stuff, a little raw or hdr processing is much easier than all that zone business...
having said that, i would say that ANYONE should know how the zone system works. they will then understand how light in a scene is captured. it may help to determine wether or not to lift the camera up your eyes in the first place..

All those who say the Zone System is irrelevant today must be those same people whose idea of photography is to "spray and pray" with their 10fps DSLRs set to Matrix/Evaluative metering, and then "tweak and salvage" whatever sheer chance presented them with (at least exposure-wise) in post-processing.
BUT for those who instead wish to MAKE pictures and approach photography as a more slowed-down and deliberate art akin to painting, the Zone System is actually as relevant today as it ever was.
Marco

Good luck to the success of the book.

Every author who produce well meaning books must be encouraged.

But to be honest, the subject is irrelevant and out of date, and there are other more easier and practical methods and techniques.

It is a good hobby to study typesetting and mimeograph procedures, but it is much better to use MS Office® or InDesign®.

Must be a good book but needs sometime to learn well. Good article.

The Zone System is about adjusting exposure and film development time for individual plates to precisely place the brightness range of a scene within the linear part of the particular film sensitometry curve, for the maximum tonal range. Ansel Adams was a techical and artistic master of the first order. But the Zone System is completely irrelevant for contemporary digital work. If it gives one a better understanding of exposure that's all very well, but in terms of image devlopment, it just does not apply. Hence the reason for the lack of books on this topic nowadays.

high dynamic range sensors + exposure bracketing + powerful RAW software have made the zone system a superfluous art.
Today it is much more important to understand how your camera works and where are the limits of hardware & software.

if you are interested ...
http://photo.tutsplus.com/articles/theory/understanding-using-ansel-adams-zone-system/

I've read Adams book about it, but with digital, live view, exposure simulation, SLT, LCD playback, instant histogram, post processing, and with experience, I never really think about zone system.

This is what every photographer that wants to control exposure and results should learn. It's interesting that digital is more like positive than negative film, meaning that the problematic area are the HLs, as were the shadows in negative film. Transparent negative film is the analog of saturated sensor photosites. The great advantage of digital is that one can see immediatley, via the histogram, if the used exposure is adequate for the ends intended.

Thanks for reviewing. We need more discussion of metering and exposure for digital photography.