The Zone System

[venturachristina]

OK probably a dumb question but I just got done going through the video called Perfect Exposure for digital photographers the zone system of metering adn shooting by Tim cooper. I understood what he was talking about, but when I applied it to my Nikon D40x I was completely lost on how to expose it still. I only have a kit lens is this why? It stops down to 3.5 and thats it. Can someone explain how to use the zone system with a nikon d40x please.

[pauld]

My idea: the zone system was invented by A.A. for B&W "chemical" developers who have oceans of free time and are hyper-perfectionists.

On digicams, make sure you have exposed "to the right" (highlights) rather than "to the left".

IMHO one will improve his/her pics a 100 times more by going out there and shooting stuff than figuring out how the zone system works.

Paul.

[jerryph]

OK probably a dumb question but I just got done going through the video called Perfect Exposure for digital photographers the zone system of metering adn shooting by Tim cooper. I understood what he was talking about, but when I applied it to my Nikon D40x I was completely lost on how to expose it still. I only have a kit lens is this why? It stops down to 3.5 and thats it. Can someone explain how to use the zone system with a nikon d40x please.

If you were lost, then you did not understand the concepts well enough to apply them. :)

The zone system works not just on a Nikon camera, but ANY camera that has manual control.

To tell you how to use it with a Nikon D40 would just be repeating the whole thing. Can you give me a specific example of what exactly it did not work? I highly doubt your having a kit lens has much to do with this.

Paul:
"exposing to the right"... I've had some incredible discussions with many people, and though that has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question, I will comment on it a little. Did you know where this concept came from? Film. You see, film has a dynamic range of around 12 stops where as some of the best digital cameras on the market have only about 9 (The Nikon D7000/D3 are confirmed as having 9 stops of dynamic range).

The concept of lightly overexposing a film photograph and then in the development process purposely under developing, so that the shadow areas are better exposed and the "overexposed" areas, sections that would look blown out if left as is when normally developed, are brought back. In this manner, you are exposing for the shadow or darker areas and using film's increased dynamic range to not lose detail in the highlights. The film people are betting on the higher dynamic range of their medium to not blow out the highlights.

People do not understand that digital is NOT film, we do NOT have that dynamic range and if we push to expose for the shadows, once we blow out the highlights, they are unrecoverable in the digital world.

A modern dSLR camera is made to meter for 18% grey, thats it, thats all (though some companies hint that they play wth this 18% value. Nikon, for example, on some cameras have let slip that they "may" be metering for 16% grey so that it results in better skin tones)... for all the complexity of this technology, it is still incredibly simple in how it works. It takes a scene and meters for 18% grey... a camera doesn't see colours, it sees only shades from black to white and adjusts the exposure for the mid-tones.

Because we know this, we can make more intelligent decisions in the metering area than even the camera, because we know what our main subject is (the camera doesn't), we know what part of the frame we want properly exposed (the camera can only give us a best guess).

Digital photographers are really confused sometimes when mixing old terms and squeezing that square peg into the round hole with new methodologies.

What the film people are doing is "exposing to the right" to overexpose a shot and bring it back in development. They are taking advantage of film's 12-stop dynamic range. Digital people cannot do that, because we DON'T have that range... nowhere near, as a matter of fact.

What digital people are doing is lightly brightening a scene more than what the camera is telling them that it should be set at becuase they know (or are following what someone told them to do without understanding), that is the PROPER EXPOSURE for what you want, we later do NOT remove or lower the highlights like the film people do.

I could start writing a book about this, but, well maybe we can start another thread about this in another location and leave this one to see what part of the zone system the OP is having issues with.

Understanding the Zone system is *way* more valuable than simply "oh let's expose to the right". One is doing something without understanding. The zone system, in conjunction to understanding digital cameras is invaluable. My picture quality SHOT up once I understood this and how it applies to digital cameras. Yes, there is a variant for film, but as we discussed, its nowhere near the same as for the digital world. One we expose for the shadows... the other, we expose for the mid-tones.

[pauld]

Hi,

I'm sorry but my "exposure to the right" idea does not come from film.

You might want to read the concerned article in Luminuous-landscape.com by M.Reichmann and I quote:

"...This realization carries with it a number of important lessons, the most important of them being that if you do not use the right-hand fifth of the histogram for recording some of your image you are in fact wasting fully half of the available encoding levels of your camera...."

(I am not diminishing the importance of the zone system, but there are simpler things that work well also)

Paul.

[jerryph]

I'm sorry but my "exposure to the right" idea does not come from film.
I did not say yours did... the concept of exposing to the right has been around for decades, and yes this came from the film era.


You might want to read the concerned article in Luminuous-landscape.com by M.Reichmann
I have, and many times. Again, not saying it is wrong, but just saying to do it without understanding WHY... well, that is not helping me know how to use that information to best advantage.


(I am not diminishing the importance of the zone system, but there are simpler things that work well also)
Paul, I am a very firm believer of asking "why" a lot. When someone tells me "this works" and cannot tell me why, well then I do one of three things... start looking for why and then also start looking for why not, or dismiss it. Knowledge more than any piece of hardware or "mystery tip" is more important.

I think that if I was a lemming, I would have been thrown out of that society way early in life (lol). I make a terrible blind follower because I need to understand precisely why something works or doesn't work. You ever see that 3 year old that with no matter what answer you gave it, they replied with "why?"... at that age, that was me... lol.

Because of this attitude, at least in photography, I know why "expose to the right" works for film and why "lightly pushing the histogram to the right" (which is not technically the same technique in principal as "exposing to the right"), does and doesn't work in all circumstances in the same way in the digital realm, and I can then make an educated choice that will help me get better exposures more consistently.

A little something extra to read:
http://www.libraw.org/node/46

Also, while "exposing to the right" relies on pushing the histogram so that the emphasis is on the right by about 1-2 stops. What about the RGB histograms? You could be well below blowing out highlights, be pushing the histogram to the right nicely and be TOTALLY blowing out the reds, greens or blues, tones NOT taken into consideration when looking at *just* your luminance histogram. One *should* be looking at *all 4* histograms when doing this. This is something that M.Reichmann completely (and conveniently) forgot to discuss.

Just a little food for thought. ;)

[pauld]

Ok,

Wanting to know why makes 2 of us.

a) Histograms on my cam are all 3 RGB colors, so no danger of overexposing any of them.

b) The reason that M.Reimann gives for "expose to the right" is that because of the coding system, a lot more information is recorded in that area. For the computer person in me that is where the money is.

c) I believe that my old film friends say "expose for the highlights, print for the shadows". You must be able to see detail in the lightest part AND in the darkest part. I try to achieve that in my prints. (And they look far better than anything you could see on a -non calibrated- monitor).

As everybody knows, it is easier (in digital) to darken a picture than to lighten it, because the shadows start to pick up noise after only 1 stop.

d)All this said and done one should always strive to get the exposure right when you take the picture. Any time spent in Lightroom (etc..) "to recover the errors" is lost time. I think we agree on that.

As a conclusion: Richard Feinmann, Nobel prize winning physicist, always wanted to know "why", as a scientist. He was also a gifted artist (drawing pictures of models). His drawing teacher said in an interview: Richard F. was analysing the situation so much that he wasn't getting anywhere as an artist. I explained to him that a scene is much more than the sum of the parts. That is what you want to capture.

Paul.

[jerryph]

a) Histograms on my cam are all 3 RGB colors, so no danger of overexposing any of them.

In this kind of a discussion this part is as important becuase Reimann talks about doing this only with the luminance histogram, and people who don't know better, blindly follow along and then never even stop to wonder why their photos are not as good as they could be. To be accurate, one MUST look at all histograms and that is not something that was said initially by you, nor anywhere by Reimann. It is a very important piece of the puzzle in that discussion.


b) The reason that M.Reimann gives for "expose to the right" is that because of the coding system, a lot more information is recorded in that area. For the computer person in me that is where the money is.

"in that area"... I will get back to that in a second. :)

If you are getting paid for your work, then you are also using the format that permits you to get the most data in a picture. Shooting in RAW gives you a lot more leeway and if you happen to be shooting in 14-bit RAW, your leeway jumps incredibly. Values for 8-bit jpg are 255 vs 12-bit data at 4096 vs 14-bit values of 16383. Your ability to recover detail from shadow areas without noise increases dramatically using high quality RAW over JPG. Camera make and model also make an incredible difference in how much noise is introduced into a picture, which should also be a factor. A Nikon D40 or Rebel XSi will have much less ability to recover shadows compared to something like a Nikon D700 or D3.

Coming back to "in that area"... very ambiguous. What area? Highligts? Shadow details? I suppose it is all about balance. We want to try to get as much detail into the main subject area of the picture without blowing out the highlights and at the same time, we want detail in the shadows. However, if you are in a situation where the dynamic range of the scene exceeds the capabilities of the equipment, you will get compromise, whether you want it or not. Our cameras are basically pretty simple with what they are trying to meter for and we can easily out-think them 90% of the time, but we are limited to what they can capture within their limited dynamic range.


c) I believe that my old film friends say "expose for the highlights, print for the shadows".

...which works well for them in their world as they are analog based and they have INCREDIBLE latitude in the darkroom to dodge and burn in ways that digital won't be able to do for years, maybe decades yet. 12 stops of dynamic range is a HUGE difference compared to the average 7 stop range of most midrange dSLR cameras or the 9-stop range of top of the line cameras like a Nikon D3x. Digital has long a way to go yet, and people who try to treat digital like film, are banging their heads into a wall, giving themselves big headaches. :p

Also, film had no electronics to meter for them, but for us in the digital world, and as I have said before, we have our cameras metering for nothing else but 18% grey. That is all they see, nothing else. So, instead of expose for the highlights, DEVELOP for the shadows, we have to expose for the mid-tones and develop for the details... a camera meter sees nothing else. If getting a proper exposure with the mid-tones means sometimes needing to push the exposure "to the right", so be it, but it is not the global answer in all cases. That is why, if left to it's own, a camera will meter snow to 18% grey, or it will meter a black wall to 18% grey. This aspect alone makes that old film adage pretty much useless to digital camera users.

Each photo should be evaluated and exposed based on content and saying that to globally "expose to the right" will help you as often as it will hurt you. If your picture has many darker areas, it will help you, if your scene is brighter, it will hurt you. So, using that method to meter, you have a 50% chance of getting a good exposure, but using a more comprehensive system like the zone system, we understand how the digital camera works, know what to meter against and when it is to your advantage, can choose to push to the right when it is to the benefit of the final result.


You must be able to see detail in the lightest part AND in the darkest part. I try to achieve that in my prints. (And they look far better than anything you could see on a -non calibrated- monitor).

You are missing what I feel is a crucial aspect in that statement:
"You must be able to see detail in the lightest part AND in the darkest part within the dynamic range of the medium used and the demands of the current lighting situation."

No medium has infinite dynamic range, and digital has drastically less range than film.

Now, complete details in light and dark areas simultaneously is the scenario we are all wishing for, of course but if the range of the scene is greater than the capabilities of the media, we will have no choice but to accept a compromise on one side or the other... blown highlights or black areas (monitor calibration is not something we are talking about here, but I will cede that at the topmost level of professionalism, nothing less than a calibrated $8-10,000 LaCie monitor will show you all the details of your pic on screen).

Another issue that you are forgetting, is that for the vast majority, prints come from an 8-bit source. Almost all labs print not a 14-bit adjusted RAW file, but a simple, VERY limiting highly compressed 8-bit JPG. A file that has a dynamic range in comparison to a RAW or TIFF file of that between Mount Everest and a mole hill. The few labs that do accept TIFFs, you can see the differences, especially in the shadow details, with the naked eye. Remember, values for 8-bit jpg are 255 vs 12-bit data at 4096 vs 14-bit values of 16383. Though TIFFs are 16-bit values, cameras that shoot in 14-bit are using the "top" 14-bits and dropping the bottom 2 bits. Again, becuase I am most familiar with the Nikon D700, this is the way Nikon does it in their system.

Film people face no such issue. They take a picture at a 12 stop dynamic range, and they can print out a picture with a dynamic range of 12 stops. Thats something that *all* digital photographers can only dream of.


As everybody knows, it is easier (in digital) to darken a picture than to lighten it, because the shadows start to pick up noise after only 1 stop.

Not in every case. This, again, depends on many factors... camera make and model, file format, bit depth and others. To again, globally say that all photos start to pic up visible noise in as little as one stop, is not true.

Saying that raising the exposure 1-stop on a JPG picture taken from a 3mp Kodak DX4330 will introduce visible noise will be true. Saying that raising exposure 1 stop will introduce visible noise on a 12-bit or even better, a 14-bit RAW image is false. One could go as much as 2, possibly 3 stops before seeing artifacts, but only if pixel peeping at 200% or higher. At that point, if someone really needed to raise the exposure 2-3 stops, I don't think anyone will argue that the photographer really missed his exposure mark on that particular picture...lol.


d)All this said and done one should always strive to get the exposure right when you take the picture. Any time spent in Lightroom (etc..) "to recover the errors" is lost time. I think we agree on that.

Definitely! We always want to get exposure as close to perfect in camera as is possible and as conditions permit. Anything that saves me even 10 seconds is worth it.

I will counter though, that Ansel Adams, as an example, was very well known to re-print many of his exposures... some hundreds of times over, often spending many hours working on a single print to get what later became an acknowledged masterpiece in the photographic world. Developing the picture, either in the physical or digital darkroom, is an important part of the process. Some come out fast, others take time to attain levels that the photographer is satisfied with. Exposure adjustments in various parts of the picture are sometimes a large part of this.


I explained to him that a scene is much more than the sum of the parts. That is what you want to capture.
Agreed, but I will add that if one of those small parts negatively impacts a portion of the scene, the photo, as a whole, suffers.

Nice discussion, Paul... thank-you. :)