From: bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton)
Subject: Re: Zone system with 35mm?
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:38:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.204651.11414@noao.edu>, lytle@noao.edu (Dyer Lytle  writes...
>In article <1992Aug28.181744.6053@pony.Ingres.COM> bbarton@Ingres.COM (Brian Barton) writes:
>>Stand in the exact same kind of light as your subject and parallel to it.
>>
>>Using your hand, fill your viewfinder with the palm of your hand and take a 
>>meter reading off of it.  _DO NOT_ shade your camera with your hand, you're
>>just taking a light "reading" off the palm of your hand.
>>
>>Let's assume it's f.16 @ 1/250th with Tri-x. (Bright sun.)
>>
>>Open up your camera one-stop (to f.11 @ 1/250th) and take the picture.
>>Voila!  It's the Zone System.
> 
>Hrumph!  Lets call this the Zone-6 system or the exposure meter system
>or something.  This has very little to do with the Zone system.  I do
>something like this myself, frequently, but I don't call it the Zone system.
> 
>I think you really have to look at more than one zone and spend some time
>worrying about placing and falls, expansion or contraction, etc. to call
>it the Zone system.  And then of course there is sensiometry...

That's the bottom line with doing things this way..._not_ worrying.  It's great
'cause you can spend time doing the fun stuff like composing, changing focal 
lengths experimenting with different angles, etc...If you like to "worry,"
definitely do it the other way.

No...seriously...you're right.  I'm sure the old-fashioned way is better. :)

>>p.s. Apologies to purists who will cringe at hearing this, but I've used
>>it for years and it works perfectly.
> 
>Well, I don't think you have to be a purist.  I'm certainly not any kind
>of purist and I am cringing (notice this followup article).  I've used your
>method and I've used the Zone system.  They are quite different.
> 
>This is not intended to be a flame.  I just wanted to make a point about
>terminology.  I recommend the second volume of Ansel Adams most recent
>series of three books, called "The Negative", as a place to learn about
>the Zone system.

Unquestionably, Ansel's "The Negative" is a fantastic book for those interested
in the Zone System.

The bottom line is that the method I've outlined works perfectly and _does_
re-create the Zone System.  Granted, Ansel Adams would turn in his grave
had he heard me advocate this "short cut," but I didn't invent it.  Someone
else did and I'm very grateful for it.

>To do the Zone system with 35mm in changing light conditions, I think it
>would be best to use three or four camera bodies.  

Three or four camera bodies?  Yikes!  I thought I had too much equipment
already!  The Zone System isn't worth a messed-up back in my opinion. :)

Brian

>This shouldn't be too expensive if the camera bodies are something like old 
>Nikkormats or
>Canon AE-1s.  The problem with this is that you have to shoot 24 pictures
>before you develop your film (or waste film) and that adds up to 72
>photos in three camera bodies.  Myself, if I am being very careful and
>using the Zone system, I often will only shoot 4 or 5 photographs in an
>entire day.
> 
> -Dyer            
> 
> 
>-- 
>Dyer Lytle, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-323-4136
>Internet: lytle@noao.edu        SPAN: NOAO::LYTLE (NOAO=5355) 
Newsgroups: rec.photo