Talk:Zone System

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)

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)

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)

Dynamic range is used often in audio, and I suspect that will influence the google hit counts. (Not that they are necessarily right.) I suspect that Dynamic range is used more in digital photography, and less in analog (film) photography, partly because of fundamental physics differences. I don't know any reason to argue one way or the other for film photography, the subject here. Gah4 (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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]

I (just slightly) disagree. Maybe you are right for cake, but for brownies, some like them chewy, and some cake-like, and the directions often give times for both. You could call one overcooked, or undercooked, if you like the other. Correct exposure, like cooking, is more an art than a science. In photography, one is sometimes compensating for the exposure meter being fooled, or otherwise not reading properly, in which case one is not over or underexposing, as Tom Johnston notes. Also, if one intentionally exposes for shadows or highlights through appropriate metering, again one is not over or underexposing. But as with the brownies, one might intentionally change the exposure. Pulling and pushing are systems for intentionally over or underexposing, and changing development appropriately. You might argue over those not being over/under exposing. In the case of Tri-X, Kodak recommends no development time change for EI 800. That is, you are allowed to underexpose one stop! Gah4 (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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. --Don't bother. They will ruin any help you try to render. Save yourselves the grief and write your own book. Please do a search for Monochrome Photography. Look at the half page. Then check the history and check out the article as it was in March of 2008. Then you will understand why I am thoroughly convinced that Wikipedia sucks and is a complete waste of time and effort unless you know somebody or spend every living breath defending your work. Not really worth it.

User: Me 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:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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)

JPEG is eight bit, but most DSLR cameras can store in RAW or TIFF form with 12 bits. But even so, it seems wrong to call it 10 stops. On the low end, you run into thermal (electrical) noise, even if there are enough bits. On the both, unlike the smooth transitions in film, you have a short cutoff. You need to be able to sense the darker parts of shadows, and the brighter part of highlights. Gah4 (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

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

1. There is no definite relationship between average scene luminance and the rendering of key scene elements.
2. Measuring individual scene elements still renders them as medium gray unless exposure is adjusted.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Zone system → Zone System — Ansel Adams (to the extent of my research) capitalized both words in his publications referring to this system—"Zone System", not "Zone system" as the page is currently titled. WP:CAPS says that "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." "Zone System" is a proper noun, and as such, when appearing in the middle of a sentence (as it does many times in this article) always appears with both words capitalized. The current page name was moved from "Zone System" in 2004, but I think it is correct to capitalize both words. —Mono·nomic 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. What's to debate? It's a proper name, per Adams (the best authority). The page should be renamed accordingly. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Various photography reference books can be used to argue either way, but the ones that capitalize Zone System, ones by authors Ernst Wildi, Chris Johnson, Michael Freeman, Robert Hirsch, Carson Graves and Glenn Rand, prove to me the lasting legacy of the original Adams use of caps. Any lower case version would be a later development, by authors distancing the system from its originators. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. For the reasons stated above. In addition, it makes no sense lower case because the phrase isn't really descriptive; what exactly is a “zone system”?. It's much like a trademark except that it's a noun rather than an adjective. Like Hertz1888, I think Adams's treatment alone would suffice to justify the move. Add Fred Picker to the list of others who treat it as a proper noun. JeffConrad (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert of edits by Lik-photo

I reverted two edits by Lik-photo because, although I think they were well intended, they seemed capricious, and as nearly as I could tell, added nothing to the article. I'll certainly go along with consensus if some of the changes are thought worthwhile, but to me

• We can't make statements like “We will omit zone 0 from the remainder of this tutorial; zone 1 will be considered pure black” because

1. Wikipedia is not a how to guide.
2. The decision to omit Zone 0 is arbitrary, unsupported, and in conflict with the rest of the article.

• Comments like “Looks pretty good on my PC monitor, but may look very different on monitors and printers with different brightness curves (gammas)” are clearly inappropriate; I think the wording was fine as we had it.
• Reformatting the tables seems utterly capricious, and to my eye, serves more to clutter than to clarify. The cell borders, which we went to some effort to avoid, also seem distracting.
• The use of Arabic rather than Roman numerals seems contraindicated. I certainly think of zones that way when I use the Zone System, but in this article I think we should defer to Adams, if for no other reason than we have it sourced.
• I think the paragraphs that begin “Any shined object ...” and “Division of a voice-frequency gradient ...” reflect a non–native English speaker (or a translation engine?). Even with cleanup, though, I'm not sure what they add, and in any event, they're unsourced. JeffConrad (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Any of the three, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:OR, or sub-standard English, would seemingly be sufficient policy-based grounds individually for reverting the edits; in combination all the more so. I see nothing for which to apologize. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation into Russian. The book "the Theory and photo practice" 1978г. Michael Langford http://www.foto-art.land.ru/040-exp.html http://www.foto-art.land.ru/041-zon.html

This is the English Wikipedia. Given the number of solid sources we have, I see no need to cite a non-English source. And in any event, material added should be in reasonable English. JeffConrad (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

2 in degree 8( jpeg,tiff,psd,bmp,gif) = 0step_2^0=1_Istep_2^1=2_IIstep_2^2=4_IIIstep_2^3=8_IVstep_ 2^3=16_Vstep_2^5=32_VIstep_2^5=64_VIIstep_2^6=128_VIIIstep_2^7=267_IXstep_ ===_10step_

It is a photo basis, and a geometrical progression - the elementary mathematics.

I think most of us are familiar with the progression—what we're less convinced of is the appropriateness of the material. JeffConrad (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

11-??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lik-photo (talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly written article not an occasion to alter Adams's theory !!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lik-photo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - the English is nearly incomprehensible. Even with better translation the material may not be suitable for inclusion. Please respect the WP:BRD policy and do not reintroduce this edit without first obtaining consensus here on the talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of us are quite familiar with Adams, and frequently cite him directly. If you think the article is incorrect, please indicate why you think so rather than simply making statements like this, which are essentially meaningless. Additionally, I mentioned several items that directly violate Wikipedia policy—please discuss them if you disagree. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) JeffConrad (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

http://narod.ru/disk/25792574000/01.jpg.html book of Tom Ang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lik-photo (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Lik-photo (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)I have given the reference to the printing edition and have calculated mathematics of zones of Adams. In article Adams's zonal theory is deformed.

11 zones contradict a graphic file 2^8 = 256 is 8 zones both completely black and completely white is 2 more zones. Only 10 zones. At increase in light exposure of each step in 2 times - an exposition basis.

Values of zones

1 from 1 to 2 11 from 2 to 4 111 from 4 to 8 1V from 8 to 16 V from 16 to 32 V1 From 32 to 64 V11 From 64 to 128 V111 From 128 to 256

Total 8 zones have width 1-256 is added 2 zones

0 - it is less 1 1X more than 256 Total 10

The zonal system is shifted under the digital technics on 1 unit that is not 1-256, but 0-255. It is a format of ALL graphic files.

Now try paint value of a graphic file 0-255 on 11 steps.....)))))

At you not editors, instead of competent people...)))) Which didn't read Adams's zonal theory.

http://ru.wiki.x.io/wiki/Зонная_теория_Адамса Lik-photo (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's important to remember that Adams distinguished between exposure zones and print values (which roughly correspond to digital values), as this article clearly points out. Within reason, a photographer can have any number of exposure zones between pure black and pure white. With film, the development is varied; with digital capture, the manipulation is done in software. So the advent of digital technology did nothing to alter Adams's system; if anything, it has made it even more applicable. Those familiar with the Zone System usually have little difficulty mastering curves.

If you have specific ideas for improving the article, they're more than open to discussion. But insulting other editors won't accomplish anything but eventually getting you blocked. I can only speak for myself, but I've read ten of Adams's technical books, and at least as many of his other works. I've used the Zone System for over 30 years, so I think I understand the principles quite well. The same is probably true for many of the others who have contributed to this article. JeffConrad (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamma

In the article: Use of the Zone System with color film is similar to that with black-and-white roll film, except that the exposure range is somewhat less, so that there are fewer zones between black and white. As well as I know it, color negative films have a lower gamma (contrast) such that they have more latitude (exposure range) than black and white films. Printing papers have the opposite, but this requires accurate exposure at print time. The mask on C41 films reduces the range somewhat, but I believe that there is still more than B&W film. The sensitivity charts for Kodak film are on their web site. Gah4 (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

worked out by Fred Archer and myself at the Art Center School in Los Angeles,

worked out by Fred Archer and myself at the Art Center School in Los Angeles, It seems that the school change name in 1965, so the quote is correct. Would it be useful to Wikilink to the school's page? Gah4 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the shades are wrong

The shades of grey used in the article don't look right to me.

What you point at with the light meter → what the meter will give you according to the article:
Scene area in zone V → exposure stops to use
Scene area in zone III → exposure stops to use + 2

This makes sense. If you point the meter to an area that's darker than the meter expects, it will give you a higher exposure than you should use.

Let y = Y / Y₀ for some reference grey Y₀; m(y_V) is what the meter needs to give you for consistent results.

yV	yd~	N~	m(yV)
1	1	f	m₀
2	1/2	f/1.4	m₀–1
4	1/4	f/2	m₀–2
8	1/8	f/2.8	m₀–3

If the scene emits 8 times as much, the diaphragm area needs to be 8 times smaller, the diametre about 2.8 times and this is 3 stops.

So m(y_V) = m₀ – ²log y_V where m₀ depends on exposure time, film and optics.

Combining this with our starting point and substituting, we get:

m(y_III) = m₀ – ²log y_V + 2
but also = m₀ – ²log y_III
m₀ – ²log y_III = m₀ – ²log y_V + 2
²log y_III = ²log(y_V / 4)
y_III = y_V / 4

So the zone number Z(y) should be ²log(y) + Z₀ where Z₀ is the zone number of the reference grey. For example, if the reference grey is in the middle of zone V (Y_V = Y₀) you'd get ²log(Y₀/Y₀) + 5 = ²log 1 + 5 = 5. If Y_V = 2Y₀ you'd get Z(Y_V) = ²log 2 + 4 = 5 and of course Z(Y_VI) = ²log 4 + 4 = 6 and so on.

If we assume that all the tones in zone X are completely blown out but those in zone IX are not, it would follow that:

Z(Y_w / Y₀) = 9½
²log(Y_w / Y₀) + Z₀ = 9½
Z₀ = 9½ – ²log(Y_w / Y₀)
Z(ȳ Y_w / Y₀) = ²log(ȳ Y_w / Y₀) + 9½ – ²log(Y_w / Y₀) = ²log(ȳ) + 9½
ȳ = 2^{Z(ȳ Y_w / Y₀) - 9½}

So the geometric mean shades in each zone should be:

　0　　I　　II　　III　　IV　　V　　VI　　VII　　VIII　　IX　　X　

You might consider these tones quite dark, especially if you thought the tones presently used in the article were correct, but consider that VIII and IX are bright as snow. Snow is quite bright. Have a look as this skier: https://etsy.com/listing/573318057/snow-skier-skiing-vintage-photo-print Using a colour picker, avoiding the highlights on the right of his face and the dark shadows on the left, I get an sRGB brightness value of 110 or thereabouts: 　　 That falls somewhere between shades VI and VII on the scale above, right where the article says it should.

Of course, when developing a picture you can opt to make it brighter if it doesn't contain snow. But the fact remains that the luminance ratio between the zones should still be 2 and this isn't remotely true for the shades presented in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Creating new graphics for the article

Test background to make checking for colour bleed easier.

Full Tonal Gradation

Eleven-Step Gradation

Eleven Symbolic Tones

The Zone Scale

0

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

The Zone Scale (on dark background)

0

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

End test background. 77.61.180.106 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Remark: it might be useful to put these graphics on a darker background, because Wikipedia's default background is bright white. Note also that a few of the darkest shades are technically wrong, but because of the bright background you can't really tell. For reference, the linear onset thresholds are approximately at sRGB 23.5 for LAB and at 10.3 for sRGB itself (0.00885645 and 0.00313080 in linear light, zone III and I). 77.61.180.106 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the benefits of using a dark background are obvious, but then the gradients would have to be checked to see how bad the deviations are. 77.61.180.106 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that there is a problem with the last two pictures. At least on my computer and when downloading the article as a PDF, the graphics are not rendered and the rendering commands are displayed instead. 78.116.155.233 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

How to account for the logarithmic nature of film and the toe and shoulder of the response curve

The article glosses over this, saying that when using normal development, tonal relations will remain the same. But I think there should be some justification for this, because it isn't at all obvious to me that this should necessarily be the case.

Black and white film is often said to be roughly logarithmic for a wide range of tones, with a bit of an onset, or toe, in the black part of its range and a plateau, or shoulder, at the white end, where the film gets saturated.

Now, my intuitive answer to this would be that the response curve for the negative bulges up a bit, so the curve for the light shining through the negative when creating a print bulges down a bit and this is compensated for by the response curve of the print bulging up a bit. But is this really so?

And then there's the issue that if you want paper-white specular highlights, you either have to accept the shoulder of the negative (to make the negative as black as possible) or the toe of the print (to avoid leaking light affecting the print) or a bit of both.

I have developed pictures in the past using chemical baths in a dark room, but that was in the nineties, and back then I had no real understanding beyond ‘light goes in, picture forms, cool’.

Inverse square law error

In The Negative, I found a glaring error in the application of the inverse square law. In the passage where he talks about the appearance of sheets of paper in a dark room with a window, Adams takes the distance in the law to be the distance to the window whereas in reality the relevant distance is the distance to the sun. This means that the inverse square law is going to yield essentially a constant. It's fairly easy to replicate Adams' setup and experimentally verify this and I encourage you to do so. Adams either was imagining the situation – wrongly! – or he used a small light source such as a light bulb, but in that case I don't know why he would have felt the need to change the light source in the text, as windows don't behave like light point lights in the slightest. I don't think Vermeer would have slipped up like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If Adams was referring to a sheet of paper illuminated by direct sunshine through a window then you would be correct. I have not read the source, but it seems likely that Adams was referring to diffuse light reflected from the surroundings outside the window. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Even then he would not have been correct, because in that case the average distance to the diffusely reflecting surroundings in question and the apparent size of the window as seen from the sheet of paper would be the important factors. The more I read that paragraph, the less sense it makes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)