By now most readers have a pretty good idea what my views are in regard to the pursuit of greater precision in the Zone System. Namely, that more precision is impossible, unproductive, scientifically unsupportable, and a waste of valuable time — time that could be much better utilized making photographs.

I have pointed out in the past, however, that there is a need in the Zone System for greater precision of understanding, and, toward that end, I feel it might be of help to make some minor changes and additions to Zone System terminology. I therefore humbly suggest the changes spelled out in this short article, and urge you to adopt them in everyday usage.

N ± ?

Though there is certainly no law in force, most of us have fallen into the comfortable habit of using Zone VIII as a pivotal reference point when speaking of expansions and contractions. For example, when we talk about N-1 contraction, we usually mean to say that we wish to contract a Zone IX film exposure to a Zone VIII negative density. Likewise, N+1 usually means that we wish to expand a Zone VII film exposure to a Zone VIII negative density, etc.

However, there are times, not infrequent, when we wish to expand a Zone VI film exposure to a Zone VII negative density, perhaps intending that the final image have no value higher than VII! Unfortunately, using present terminology, this expansion would also be called “N+1,” despite the obvious need for greater development time than that indicated for traditional N+1 (i.e., Zone VII to Zone VIII) expansion. We all know what to do with such a subject. Simply give development about halfway between those times we’ve already calibrated for N+1 and N+2. (Additional calibration isn’t really necessary, as precision beyond an educated guess is not really required.) However, if we only noted N+1 in the field, there exists the possibility that when the time comes to develop this negative we will forget that this was a different N+1 than the traditional one. Similar errors can occur with contraction terminology.

Not only can we forget which N+1 or N-2 we had in mind when we noted it in the field, we can also easily communicate incorrect information to other Zone System photographers when using this terminology. This is further complicated by the fact that not all of us use Zone VIII as our pivotal reference point. There are quite a few who, for reasons that are completely justified, prefer to use Zone VII! And although I don’t know anyone who does so, there is no reason one couldn’t use Zone VI or IX as pivotal points of reference.

So — we need a simple terminology that everyone can immediately understand and put into use, and that works no matter how one chooses to approach the Zone System. The terminology I suggest is as follows:

The only change we need make to our current way of doing things is to add one number to each description of expansion or contraction, which number indicates the original Zone of film exposure! For example, with the old method, expansions of Zone VI to VII, VII to VIII and VIII to IX were all described as N+1, despite the fact that they all obviously required substantially different development schemes. In the new approach I propose, those same expansions would be referred to as follows:

The rest of the approach is equally as simple. A Zone X negative exposure to be contracted to a Zone VII negative density would obviously be described as N10–3, a Zone V negative exposure intended for expansion to a Zone VII negative density would be N5+2, etc.

I hardly need to go on, because the entire method becomes immediately obvious. It has the added advantage that the learning curve is zero. Even someone who has never read this article would probably be able to make perfect sense of the new terminology in short order.

Exposure

This idea does not really follow the theme of this article, but since it is a direct outgrowth of the change recommended above, the logical place to present it is here nonetheless. Slightly modified, the above idea can lend itself well to keeping track of exposure reasoning, as can be seen below.

Most of us make a note of which subject reflectance we placed on what exposure Zone for possible reference later. For example, I might note that I placed subject reflectance 10 from my Pentax digital spot meter on exposure Zone III. (I also note f-stop and shutter speed of course, but this information is really useless by itself.) Later, if I have to alter that exposure due to applying an expansion or contraction, or for any other reason, I will note the exposure change. If giving a half stop of additional exposure to compensate for N-1 contraction, for example, I will usually write something like “N+2 exposure“ on my exposure record.

Lately I’ve started noting it in a new way. Using “E” for exposure to avoid confusion, my note might look something like this: E10/3+2. In other words, subject reflectance 10 was exposed on Zone III with a 2 stop of additional compensating exposure for the planned contraction.

As one gets more involved in the controls available with the Zone System, the frequency, and variety of reasons for making exposure compensations increases. We might, for example, have a 2 stop of decreased exposure due to compensation for expansion and 2 stops added exposure for a filter factor, plus another stop of added exposure to compensate for reciprocity failure. This could be written: E10/3 -2 +2+1. Someone who prefers more detailed information might write something like this instead: E10/3 -2Ex+2F+1R to remind themselves that the -2–stop change was for (Ex)expansion, the +2 stop change for a (F)filter and the +1 stop change for (R)reciprocity.

Everyone works differently and you will no doubt hit upon your own variation of this idea that better fits your personal style, but I thought you might like to see this exposure shorthand and perhaps adapt it to your needs.

“ZONE”

In his last series of books, Ansel Adams proposed changes to Zone System terminology that eliminated the word Zone when referring to everything but exposure placement. For example, where we would traditionally refer to a Zone V exposure producing a Zone V negative density and Zone V print tone, he suggested that for the sake of clarity we refer instead to a Zone V exposure producing a negative density value V, and in turn a print value V. Though I agree with Ansel that the terminology could be more clear, I don’t think the above solution is necessarily the best or the most logical.

No one can deny that the term Zone originated with a description of the print. In fact, whatever we may be referring to when we talk about Zones, we are in reality thinking about those tones in the final print that we call Zone V grays or Zone VI grays, etc. When we refer to a Zone V exposure, what we really mean is an exposure that we intend will produce a gray card tone in the final print. When talking about a negative density Value V, what we really mean is a density that will produce that same gray tone but, again, in the print. And when we put the Zone System into actual practice, we start by visualizing a subject tone as a specific gray tone in the final print. Only then do we begin to think in terms of reflectance, exposure, and development.

Finally, the gray tones of the print with which we associate certain Zones are the only more or less fixed points of reference in the Zone System. Middle gray in the print isn’t likely to change very much and neither are the other Zone print grays. The negative exposures and densities that we refer to as Zone V or Value V however, can vary substantially depending on the type of film, development and type of printing paper, making these Zones very elusive indeed. And lastly, the subject itself has absolutely nothing fixed about it whatsoever, as we can manipulate its representation almost at will — making it an unlikely candidate as a reference point on which to base our terminology.

If the term Zone is to be applied to only one aspect of the chain that starts at the subject and ends at the final print, I feel a very strong argument can be made that Zone applies more correctly to the tones of the final print than to anything else. However, since all levels of the process are in fact linked together like a chain, I see no reason why our terminology cannot be allowed to reflect that fact, yet still be made more clear. I therefore suggest we consider a return to the more traditional terminology with a minor twist or two. (The fact that most of us never stopped using the older terminology should make these small changes even easier.)

Using middle gray as an example, I suggest we speak in terms of a .....

Zone V exposure

producing a .....

Zone V density

so as to result in a .....

Zone V tone!

I feel there is little room for doubt in the above terminology, as we have never referred to the exposure of paper in terms of Zones and will therefore always know we are talking about a negative exposure intended to produce a given value in the final print, and not about paper exposure. Likewise, we have never referred to reflection densities in terms of Zones and will therefore always know that we are talking about negative transmission densities.

The only possible source of confusion is the fact that some may think, when discussing a Zone V tone, that we may be referring to the subject. However, as the subject does not in fact have any static tones and can only be described in Zone terms relative to what we intend to make of it, any possibility for confusion can be removed by referring to the subject in terms of a:

Visualized Zone V

Putting this terminology into use might look something like this:

After careful metering and visualization of my subject, I determined that for me, the grassy hillside was a Visualized Zone VII, to which I gave a Zone V exposure expanded to a Zone VII density by giving N5+2 development, and later printed as a Zone VII tone.

As you can see, there is little room for error in this terminology despite the fact that the word “Zone” is used at all levels. In addition, each term implies what we already know: that no matter at what stage of the process we may be, we are always actually thinking about the final print — the only place where Zones really meaningfully exist.

Contrast

I have one last suggested change in terminology. I’ve made this suggestion before, but I’d like to repeat it here.

It’s been my experience that a great many people get into trouble with the word contrast. It is a word which is commonly misused and misunderstood. In fact, the widespread misapplication of this term often creates difficulties in grasping certain larger concepts and therefore makes life difficult for many.

For example, we commonly refer to the subject reflectance range as its contrast! This is certainly comfortable for all of us, because we all know we really mean reflectance range, but it makes it very difficult for others to learn that subjects do not have contrast. There is no aspect of the range of reflectances from the subject’s darkest to lightest tone that can be described as contrast, and except for what we refer to as local contrast in the subject, the only thing to which the term contrast can be legitimately applied is the slope of the characteristic curve.

Another area in which we mislead others with our abuse of contrast is in referring to a negative having an approximately normal CI, but having been exposed to a subject of long reflectance range, as having high contrast. We must likewise stop referring to a normal CI negative exposed to a short reflectance range subject as having low contrast. We know that these are in fact both normal contrast negatives, but we are thoroughly confusing others, and perhaps ourselves, by not calling them long and short density range negatives as we know them to be. (See Figure 1.)

I will summarize my suggestions for being more precise and helpful to others in our usage of the term contrast. We should say:

• Subjects do not have high or low contrast. They have long or short reflectance (or brightness) ranges.
  
  
• Subjects can have high or low local contrast only. (See "The Primacy of Local Contrast" and "Zone System Contraction — A New Theoretical Approach."
  
  
• A negative(s) given your normal development time and having a normal CI cannot have high or low contrast but instead must by definition have normal contrast, regardless of having a long, normal, or short density range.
  
  
• A negative can have high contrast only if developed to a higher than normal CI, and can have low contrast only if developed to a lower than normal CI.
  
  
• Contrast (with the exception of local contrast) is a term that can be applied only to the slope of the characteristic curve.
  
  
• The difference between a negative’s lowest and highest densities is its density range, and should not be referred to as its contrast. Again, its contrast is the slope of its characteristic curve, not the length of that curve.

In Conclusion

I hope the changes in terminology I have recommended in this article meet with your approval. I believe them to be helpful, and in some cases necessary changes that will allow us to work more easily, communicate better amongst ourselves, and teach others more readily.

David Kachel