Talk:Zone system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Moved "Zone System" content to this "Zone system" page...
... according to my understanding of how the articles should be named, then redirected the former to the latter. --NathanHawking 23:38, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
- Zone System is a proper name and should therefore be capitalized. Maikel 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My rewrite of the Zone system
I revised this page to improve flow and to use more accurate terms. True, terms like "B&W" and "dynamic range" and "previsualization" are often used, and were even used by Adams himself.
But "dynamic range," for example, is not a useful or even accurate term. "Range" itself has the connotation of "dynamic," and the dynamics do not "range" in any event. What "ranges" for photographers is the luminosity of a scene and the sensitivity of materials.
I also removed the external link. While it did give information about the zone system, it was clearly also a commercial website. My understanding is that external references should be only to noncommercial materials.
In addition, I uncapitalized "Zone System" because, while many (though hardly all) choose to capitalize it as a proper name, to the best of my recollection Adams generally used it less formally. I believe he would have felt the incessant capitalization of the term pretentious, but if anyone has any of his old zone system manuals perhaps they can drop a note to my talk page. --NathanHawking 00:31, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
[edit] Dynamic range
I think "dynamic range" is better than "sensitivity range" for this article. "Dynamic range" is in the vernacular of photography; the phrase has a meaning that is slightly different than the sum of its elements. To see what I mean, do a google search for both terms (with the quotes).
It has been twenty years since I've read Ansel Adams' book The Negative, and I don't remember the term he used- but I will try to find it and check.
Duk 21:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. True, "dynamic range" is in the vernacular in many fields, including photography. The problem is that it's a redundant term. In fact, "dynamic range" says nothing more than "range" alone says. It's OK if people want to use it idiomatically, and easily understood if used in a specific context. But in photography it's used in a half-dozen ways. If I say "the dynamic range of film," am I referring to the range its sensitivity to light, or to the range of its opacity to transmitted light?
- In a forthcoming contribution to the zone system article, I plan to list the variables photographers must recognize, including: luminosity range of the scene, sensitivity range of film and paper, opacity range of film, and reflectance range of paper. At various times these have all been called "dynamic range." This use of the term is worth noting in passing, but why not be specific in an encyclopedia article? --NathanHawking 22:09, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)
-
- Dynamic range means something very specific in music, where it refers to range in volume.
- --Dfeuer 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Frederick Scott Archer
This page and the Ansel Adams page each contain a reference to Archer as the co-inventor of the Zone System (although the pages refer to him as 'Fred Archer,' the Adams page links to Frederick Scott Archer). Curiously the Frederick Scott Archer describes his contributions to photography, but does not refer to the Zone System at all. While the Zone page credits Archer with the co-invention, Archer died in 1857, 83 years before the system was devised?
Can someone reconcile these differences? Perhaps the Adams link goes to the wrong Fred Archer, and that Archer deserves the creation of his own page. SteveHopson 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ansel Adams was a master of the black arts. I believe he dug up and re-animated the corpse of Frederick Scott Archer and asked its advice... (*cough*)
- As far as I can (seriously) tell, they are two different people. Note that the 19th century guy wasn't "Mr. Archer"; his surname was "Scott Archer".
- I have looked into this, and have added the information to a newly-created Fred Archer (photographer) article. Perhaps others can add more information to this stub. Fourohfour 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, the article is a good start. SteveHopson 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slide film
A distinction needs to be made between slide and digital. You simply cannot underexpose for slide film, in the same degree as digital...with this in mind I have removed the reference to slide being similar to digital. I feel that it is not.
Slide needs correct exposure, significant underexposure will ruin a photo. Limits of dynamic range over the lattitude of slide are countered best with a ND graduated filter...
I also feel that in certain parts, ie Dynamic range, should also be linked and explained as similar to latitude. Possible that the style is somewhat overbearing and not simple enough to get the message through —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryfitzgerald (talk • contribs)
- I'm not sure I agree with you about underexposing slide film. Just how much underexposure are you referring to? I must admit I'm still quite new to slide film. I slightly overexposed my first roll of Provia because I had become accustomed to using the light meter in my camera for print film. The next few rolls I made sure to purposefully underexpose by a half or a full stop (according to the meter), and the results were much better. Scanning them with a Coolscan V, I found that a lot of detail can be hidden in the dark areas. Using the curves tool in Cinepaint (derived from The GIMP), I could really make quite a lot of hidden detail appear out of the dark.
- Still, the point should be made that you expose print film for the shadows and expose slide/digital for the highlights. Print film can handle being overexposed (sometimes quite a lot) without losing detail in the highlights, whereas slide and digital can't. Slide film goes transparent and digital maxes out. --Imroy 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is one area where Cinepaint (i.e. the 16-bit Film Gimp) should score over the ordinary Gimp, which only has 8-bits. Highlight and shadow detail are compressed into narrow ranges at the ends of the scale, and "stretching" this will exaggerate and (possibly) show up quantisation (i.e. loss of graduation/information). Fourohfour 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The terms "overexposed" and "underexposed" are often misused as they are in a paragraph above. A photographer never over or under-exposes intentionally because those terms indicate incorrect exposure - an error. If someone increases exposure to produce a correct exposure or to produce a special effect (also a "correct" exposure), they should say that they have increased exposure, not overexposed the image. After all, the image is not overexposed if that's how the photographer wanted it. (If you find that a cake you baked is not done enough, you would not over-cook the next one; you would increase the oven temperature or increase the bake time. The result should be a properly cooked cake, not an over-cooked one.) However, if a photographer is describing an incorrect exposure, then the terms underexposed and overexposure are correct. The statement in the above paragraph which says, "The next few rolls [SIC} I made sure to purposefully underexpose by a half or full stop... and the results are much better" is an example of the improper usage of the term "underexpose." It should have said, "For the next few rolls, I made sure to purposefully REDUCE exposure..." The decrease in exposure was used to compensate for a variable with the purpose of correcting bad exposures. If he had actually underexposed the next few rolls, they would not be exposed correctly by definition and they would have been worse than the original rolls. In this case, the photographer originally had an overexposure so he reduced exposure to obtain correct exposures. He did not underexpose at all when he compensated. Misuse of those terms is not conducive to a clear understanding of the principles of exposure. This is especially important in a discussion of the Zone System which depends greatly on such a clear understanding as well as precise and accurate usage of the terminology involved. There is enough confusion about the Zone System without adding to it. - [Tom Johnston]
[edit] Fred Archer's role
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that much information out there about Fred Archer's part in the creation of the zone system. Fred Archer is definitely *not* Frederick Scott Archer; the latter died in the 1850s. I came across one comment that was only available via the Google cache. It suggested that Fred Archer was working at a college in Los Angeles and published a series of articles in U.S. Camera during the late 1930s, these forming the basis of the zone system.
I added it to the Fred Archer article. Perhaps it should go here too? Fourohfour 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There is errant information in this article
According to Ansel Adams' Basic Photography series book 'The Negative' in chapter four, there are eleven zones in the Zone System. This among other facts that I edited on this article in the past are incorrect information. However those who wrote this article will do no research on my edits and simply restore the faulty information. Someone wanting to use wikipedia as a source for learning the Zone System will fail because of the lack of research that goes into the articles that appear on the database. I cannot take part further in misinformation for the sake of self input. Sorry. --== FLASH ON FLASH ==
"Love many, trust few, do harm to no one." - William Shakespeare
VITALS
Birthdate January, 1970
Born in Ohio, U.S.
Male
BIO
Moved to Delaware - 1985
Began Photography - 1987
Graduated High School - 1988
Began selling auto parts - 1992
Married - 2004
[edit] FLASH ON WIKIPEDIA
ARTICLES CREATED:
ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED TO:
[edit] FLASH ON THE WEB
Homepage [1]
Photography Users Group for FILM [2]
Online FILM Photography Magazine [3]
Thank you. Chris 13:27, 2007 Apr 3 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have The Negative here with me at the moment, borrowed from the local library. There are definitely eleven zones - 0 through to X. So not only will the text have to be changed, but the graphics too. I'll see what I can do. --Imroy 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I've gone and made the necessary changes. I made my own gradient graphics in The GIMP and uploaded them. I replaced three images in the article with tables since solid colour boxes can be easily accomplished by setting background colours. The downside is that the tables are not the same size as the images and look a little disjointed. Perhaps they should all be replaced by SVG diagrams. I also fixed up the text to refer to eleven zones, not ten, and some other references to certain zones and ranges. I think it's correct now. --Imroy 10:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Several things still don't seem quite right:
- The introduction seems to imply that the purpose of the Zone System was literal reproduction, which was not the case at all, especially in Adams's own photography. He always has made this quite clear, for example, on pages 21–25 of The Negative (1948 edition) and Chapter 1 of The Negative (1981 edition).
- The use of dynamic range with regard to photographic paper is unusual, to say the least (although, amazingly, it does appear on the back cover of Todd and Zakia's Photographic Sensitometry, 2nd ed., 1974). More important, perhaps, it that is difficult to see the relevance to the Zone System, at least at the level of a WP article. The negative development is adjusted so that density roughly matches the exposure range of the paper; this practice long predated the Zone System, though perhaps it wasn't quite as systematic. More relevant might be the reflectance range of a print, which is roughly 100:1 for ferrotyped glossy paper and much less for matte. Even so, this also really is peripheral.
- The development of the Zone System had little to due with the difference between the luminance range of a typical scene and the reflectance range of a print. The issue was the sometimes haphazard relation between the luminances of individual scene elements and their representations in the print (allowing for compression of the scale, of course) when exposure was determined with integrated-luminance measurements ("averaging meters"). When the luminance distribution matched that of a "typical" outdoor scene, results usually were satisfactory, but in other situations (a black horse or a white horse filling the frame), results were quite unsatisfactory. Adams explains this quite well on pages 28–37 of The Negative (1981 edition).
- Normal development doesn't necessarily make the negative contrast match that of the original scene. Rather, it adjusts the contrast so that the negative will print satisfactorily on the photographer's "normal" paper (usually grade 2 or 3). Here, Fred Picker's approach was more systematic than Adams's, basing development on Zone VIII rather than Zone V.
- I think stating that "As of 2007 most digital SLRs ... have a dynamic range approaching 10 stops" is a bit of a stretch, even with the "citation needed" tag.
There also are a couple of minor points:
- Adams may originally have used "previsualization", but he used "visualization" at least since the 1948 edition of The Negative.
- Adams treated Zone System as a proper noun; I think WP should defer to Adams on the issue, as do most other texts. JeffConrad 07:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to address some of these issues. There's a bit of work involved, so it may take a couple of days. JeffConrad 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edits of 2–4 May 2007
I've edited the article in attempt to address many of the issues I mentioned. A few comments:
- I eliminated the section 'Dynamic range' because I cannot find any relevance to the Zone System. Like NathanHawking, I have trouble seeing the "dynamic" in many contexts in which the term is now used, but in some, especially digital cameras and scanners, the train has left the station ... As it turns out, The Man himself used the term in the 1981 edition of The Negative, but he used it in a sense that probably was unique to him. An therein lies the problem ... More on this later. In general, I have avoided the use of "dynamic range" and used "exposure range" to reduce ambiguity.
- The sections Exposure metering and Exposure zones are key to the basic concept of the Zone System. In essence, I've attempted to say that
- There is no definite relationship between average scene luminance and the rendering of key scene elements.
- Measuring individual scene elements still renders them as medium gray unless exposure is adjusted.
- Accordingly, one must meter individual scene elements and adjust the exposure based on the knowledge of what is being metered.
- Others will need to judge whether I have conveyed this effectively.
- With some reservations, I've avoided mentioning "print values" and used zones to refer to print values as well as exposure. I don't know whether it's more confusing to the beginner to make or avoid using different terms to distinguish. For example, properly, one would use N + 1 development to raise a Zone VII placement to Print Value VIII, though I've stated it as raising a Zone VII placement to Zone VIII.
- I revised the section Zones as Texture and Detail to represent Adams's classifications, including a "dynamic range" comprising Zones I through IX; the previous version had the "dynamic range" comprising Zones II through VIII. The case probably could be made for several other interpretations, especially including Zones X through XII (or even beyond); the greatest problem that I see is that there are so many possible interpretations that the term in this context is almost without meaning. I think this section could be eliminated without great harm to the article.
- I think the paragraph about cinematography in the previous section needs some clarification (I assume it is primarily directed at the limited exposure range of color film). I know nothing of cinematography, so I've done only minor copy editing.
- I added specific sections for roll film, both black and white and color, negative and reversal, because so many people seem convinced that they cannot be used with the Zone System. Because mention of these items under Misconceptions became redundant, I retitled that section.
- I've done some minor copy editing on the section on Digital photography, but I think it still needs work, especially in supporting the claim of a 10-step dynamic range. Perhaps this can be addressed with the Mother of All Footnotes. One issue that I see: even if Roger Clark's contention about the range is borne out by others, the range is very asymmetrical about Zone V, and avoiding such a clarification would seem likely to confuse.
- I've cleaned up the references and added citations in the text; I used the "author-date" system (as it's known in the USA) to avoid conflict with the footnotes. Works not actually cited were moved to Further reading. I've avoided citation templates because the "Harvard" templates have a number of issues with complex references such as some for this article. The reference format conforms to that in the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., Chapters 16 and 17 (except for ISO 6:1993, which follows the practice of ISO and most documents that cite standards.) I don't have Fazad, Johnson, Lav, or the 1995 reprint of The Negative, so I can't be certain they're absolutely correct. I think I have verified all of the ISBNs.
- I've tried to use Adams's terminology (e.g., place, fall, raise, etc.) wherever possible. I noticed both "grey" and "gray" in the previous version; I changed instances of the former to "gray", as Adams would have used. To my knowledge, there isn't any other conflict between American and British English, but then again, my British isn't especially good. Given the subject, I would suggest that we stick with the 'Merkin flavor if an unavoidable conflict does arise. JeffConrad 10:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, good work! Just two comments:
- It might have been better to make the changes as a number of small edits instead of one big edit. That would be easier to follow. But you've described your edit here pretty well so it shouldn't matter.
- The 'The Zone System is not difficult' section might be better titled "Criticisms" or "Misconceptions".
- That's all. --Imroy 00:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I did it in one edit to ensure that the article was at least reasonably self consistent; I'm afraid I've have made quite a mess of things if I'd done it in small steps. With only one remaining misconception, the title seemingly would need to be singular as well. I like the sense of 'Misconception' (implying that the critics were wrong), but it doesn't seem quite right; I've changed to 'Criticism' for now. There must be a better choice, but cannot think of it at present. I suppose 'Criticism' is in better accord with NPOV. JeffConrad 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Back ... by popular demand ... 'Misconceptions'! The Zone-System-as true-religion myth seemed worthy of mention, as did Adams's anticipation of digital imaging. Once again, we can use the plural ...
I've cleaned up the 'Digital photography' section a bit, but it still needs work. JeffConrad 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
This article really neads a chapter about criticizm of the Zone System. I don't feel up to writing it right now, but in my opinion the ZS is a pseudoscientific and quasireligious belief system that is at best worthless and in practice an enormous hindrance to any form of photography. And it is antiquated to boot. To make it in the least practical you have to compromise it so much that it stops being the ZS. As a footnote that is cruel to anyone who has wasted any amount of effort on the ZS, and funny to anyone who hasn't, Adams took his most famous photograph, the Hernandez moonrise, by guessing the exposure. I'm sure that on a quiet day in Carmel you can still hear old Ansel gut-laughing in his grave. Maikel 00:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is this serious or just a troll? --Imroy 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Difficult to say, but whichever, I don't think the suggestion merits further consideration—WP doesn't have an editorial page. There are quite a few Zone System haters, just as there are mesmerized devotees. Although many people have made the Zone System an exercise for its own sake, this approach certainly doesn't derive from any of Adams's books. I think this is adequately addressed in the Misconceptions section.
- As for Ansel guessing the exposure for Moonrise, don't take the description in his later books too literally—see Reece Vogel's post at the end of this thread on photo.net for Adams's contemporaneous description of how the image was made. I have the same book from which Vogel quotes; the quote is accurate. Although this account doesn't use Zone System terminology, the principles are the same, so arguably, Adams did use the Zone System to determine the exposure. JeffConrad 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Does it really matter how Adams came up with the exposure? Did he ever claim that all of his photos or that specific photo use the Zone System for exposure? I doubt it. Photographers sometimes guess the exposure and it's no big deal. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Just because Adams came up with the Zone System does not make his use of another method (even guessing) a disapproval of it. --Imroy 05:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It does not. Adams developed the Zone System as a means to an end; if another means would have accomplished the same end, I'm sure Adams would have been fine with it. As in so many cases, the disciples do not always rise to the level of the master, but in no way does this invalidate the Zone System. I mentioned the original account of Moonrise simply to question yet another photographic myth; it's really peripheral to the issue at hand. JeffConrad 06:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the very interesting link. So it is confirmed that Adams completely bullshitted about how he took the Hernandez Moonrise photograph? Boy, this confirms my worst suspicions about him! Wow, I'm floored!
- But I don't understand what Vogel is saying in the question whether the film is Kodak Panatomic-X or AGfA Isopan: Vogel looked at the negative, counted the code notches, and then what? (Quote: And I checked the code notches and forget what film he used. -- that sentence doesn't make grammatical sense to me: is he saying (about himself) "I forgot which film it is" or (to his readers) "forget about it, it's not important"?)
- And how did he get to look at the negative in the first place? Maikel 21:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Subject Brightness Range
Subject Brightness Range (more properly, Subject Luminance Range, though the acronym is still usually SBR) is an alternative term for “dynamic range” or similar measures of scene luminance, but it is not synonymous with Zone System. JeffConrad 07:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Digital photography
It seems reasonable to remove the dynamic range claim for current digital SLRs, because no one has cited a reliable source despite the long-standing “citation needed” flag. However, the bit depth of digital capture really has little do with the exposure range, so it it doesn't belong in this section. The paragraph about digital dynamic might benefit from additional information about the capabilities of current digital cameras, but any claims should cite reliable sources.
I appreciate the attempt to trim some of the wording, but it is far from established that HDRI is the proper term for a combination of two different exposures to capture a high-contrast scene. The citation of Flickr in the HDRI article is not a reliable source by Wiki standards. The HDRI link was previously removed from the Digital photography section here because of that article’s minimal relevance to the Zone System, and this was apparently acceptable to the major contributors to this article. I don’t think the link should be restored without consensus of at least a few other editors. JeffConrad 00:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link to LightZone
It's an interesting link, but the text added to the article reads like a commercial pitch. Anyone else feel the same way? In any event, it needs a bit of copy editing. JeffConrad (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It does read like a commercial. The software sounds interesting, but it doesn't appear to be notable, and the text is not written in an encyclopaedic style. I also have my doubts about the second paragraph, concerning single-exposure HDRI. --Imroy (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The zone system and Histograms
I would like to add a small section describing how the histogram of a digital image can be used to enable the photographer to work with the zone system, both at the capture and image manipulation stage. The section will be added in late March if there are no objections. Manamarak 00:04, 25 February 2008 (GMT)
- Be aware that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Giving information and general descriptions of techniques is fine - a step-by-step guide is not. And it should have one or more good sources. If your proposed section meets these requirements, I have no objections. --Imroy (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- This also smacks of original research. The proposed addition (or a summary) probably should be discussed here before being added to the article. That said, the same probably should have been done with some other material in the article. JeffConrad (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

