[Leica] zone system

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 9/23/04 2:27 PM, "Philippe Orlent" <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> typed:

> I worked with in in 35mm, but it just wasn't practical because of the
> development corrections that would differ for different shots on a roll.
> 
> Maybe this is just bad thinking but with digital, where you can develop 
> RAWs
> shot per shot, doesn't it become interesting to use the old Zone system
> again for landscape f.i?
> 
> I did some tests today with parts of the images put on different zones, 
> with
> a "N+2 development" and it worked out very good, compared to the center
> weighted or plain metering mode of the D2.
> 
> Pushing it 2 stops or more tends to give "a bit of" grain, or noise as most
> call it. But below this, the image stays very sharp and crisp.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this?
> 
Philippe As far as film goes "The" Zone system in any of it's many forms has
never insisted upon development corrections. That end of it is zone system
201 and you didn't have to take that class.
And even if it did insist upon development corrections you could have a N-1
and N+1 body just like you have an N-1 and N+1 medium format back or an N-1
and N+1 stack of large format holders. Backs, bodies or stacks of holders
all take up roughly same space in a camera bag.
Unless you're shooting with larger than 4x5 holders or Leica R8 or 9's.
Or Contarex bull's-eyes although you can get backs for those come to think
of it.
But plenty or I'd even say MOST of the zone system practitioners I've ever
been aware of in medium or large format don't even do that.
They've found they  can develop all or certainly by far most of they're film
all at the same time regardless of low or high contrast conditions.
Instead of controlling contrast through development for decades people have
been doing more than ok doing that by using different grades of papers. Even
Ansel.
Or the even more current Multigrade or Polycontrast papers which have also
be around for many decades.
It would certainly behoove someone to bone up on the zone system even if
they had no intension of developing their films at various N plus or minus
categories. Its mostly an issue of understanding your thresholds which you
expose for. If your two under and two over zones are 3 and not 4 steps away
from each other like they should be you just know you'll be using one grade
higher contrast paper or filter. The results you get will still be top Ansel
Adams quality.
You don't have to develop longer to make sure you always use the same filter
or paper grade. It even for plenty of  things works out better that way.
I've specifically gotten BETTER results in the example above by using a
higher paper grade for shooting in the shadows then by developing the negs
longer to make for printing all of a days take on the same paper grade. IT
actually works out better that way for me and plenty others. It pays it
seems to be less compulsive.

To me its unclear just how "out the window" shooting digital in raw mode
makes for zone system semantics or mind sets. Raw shooting would seem to
forgo bracketing and make for plenty of getting by with darn sloppy
technique.
It's either a dream come true or a nightmare. I'm up in the air about it.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/