Adams/Archer Zone System

Sorry, I didn't quite get that - unless the previous dial image is included and it's 37.5 ASA setting is accounted for.

Maybe I missed something ...

Ok, this is odd and we both need to synchronize, as this can be confusing simply because we have a different base assumption. So:

The meter reading is the actual intensity of light reflected from whatever you point the meter at, so if you point it at the palm of your hand then as the palm of your hand is a Zone VI subject then that reading represents the Zone VI reading and is then placed on Zone VI. The average (Zone V) reading if you made it should be one stop lower. If you want to place light intensities in actua; zones then you take an absolute reading of reflected light and assign (line it up with) an absolute Zone on your dial.

Remember that it is an assumption that an average reading of an average landscape represents 18% grey (or whatever bias the film manufacturer uses for their own advantage,,,) and you meter dial may be calibrated to that assumption, but the meter readings are still measurements of absolute reflectance.

What you say in the post makes no sense as you don't use a meter in that sense. If I use my spot meter and point it at the white cloud then I get a highlight reading of say "16" and if I then point it at the shadows and get a reading of "9" then those represent the absolute light intensities of those areas. If I place my dial so Zone 1 aligns with "9" then "16" aligns with Zone VIII on the scale and my mid tone will fall around a meter reading of "13", or if I meter off the palm of my hand I expect the meter to read around "14" and I know that the skin tones will be about right as well. I have a fair idea of what the tones in the image should turn out like.

I am duly saddened that my post makes no sense and I am confused by the sudden introduction of your spotmeter, the which my Weston Master 6 is not. Also I would like us not to refer to various values on the 1-21 scale thereby cutting down on obfuscation.

So, starting over with the palm of your hand on a 7200 fc sunny day, let's say the meter reads 800 candles/sq-ft.

So then, if you just align Zone VI with the 800 candles/sq-ft needle value, all should be well, should it not?

I'm not trying to do a "Danno" on you. May I ask if the above in bold is technically correct or not? If not, why not?

LOL, no worries at all, your comment made no sense to me, I'm sure it did with you. I still remember when I was learning, we just need to synchronize, nothing else. Yes, if you decide that you want the grey tone of the palm of your hand to be the tone represented by Zone VI (which it is on the scale) then align the meter reading you get when pointing the meter at the palm of your hand with Zone VI. I used my palm as a portable grey card, just that it was calibrated to one stop above middle grey. So when you take a reading off it it will read one stop brighter than middle grey and so you need to align the reading with the mark that is one stop above middle grey.
But to be honest, though it's cool to have the zone system on your meter it is not much practical use unless you can measure specific values from specific luminance in the image. If you're reading cloud values you need a 1 degree spot meter, not an average meter. The zone system just doesn't work with average readings. I have a Gossen Lunasix that's a null meter, in that it has a scale of 0 in the middle moving to 1-2-3 on either side being one stop differences. If I measure from an 18% grey card I move the dial (which is actually connected to the meter rather than being a passive external calculator) it moves the needle and when the needle aligns with zero it give me the shutter/aperture combinations that should render the card I metered off of as 18% grey. If I measure off my palm I align the dial so the needle sits at +1 and the 18% grey card should again reproduce as middle grey. But you literally have to hold the meter 6" from your hand without producing a shadow for the reading to be any good. So I have my palm reading, what zone will the clouds sit on? You don't know unless you can take an accurate reading off an area of cloud. Something you can't do with a 30 degree average meter.

OK, thanks!

Out of interest as regards selenium sensor aging, I just compared the Weston with a Sekonic L-398M ... 250 fc versus 160 fc respectively - almost 2/3 EV difference.

Didn't bother to put the flat thing on the Sekonic, it wasn't handy, so the difference might have been more or less.

Been thinking about that. By aligning the palm of your hand successfully with VI, as you say, you have 'placed' the gray card in Zone V. But clouds can vary considerably in luminance and therefore if you have already placed your palm in Zone VI then the clouds will fall where they may and not necessarily in the right Zone - assuming no dodging or burning in post.

On the other hand, if one spot meters the clouds instead and places them somewhere by turning the Weston dial, stuff that should 'land' in Zone VI might not now do so.

Thus metering two or more different luminosity areas in a scene immediately complicates matters which my Gossen solved by averaging spot readings, not the finest method, IMHO.

Not intended as a rebuttal, more like synchronization ...

Not sure what you mean by solved as the Zone system is not a method of control, it is a system of visualisation. The luminosity of a scene is absolute and fixed by the level of reflected light. With film you have a limited "window of opportunity" to record that range of luminosity as density on your exposed negative. There are real limits, and more often than not that scene doesn't translate into a final print. Your guide to visualisation is the Zone System, and you need a 1 degree spot so you can measure areas of the cloud rather than an average.

So I find something that I want to photograph and I measure the light. I usually take a highlight and shadow reading along with a known mid tone and see where they fall on the scale of my meter (like yours it has zones marked). This tells me if it's possible to achieve something worthwhile on film. With film it's pointless to shoot and correct with digital processing, you might as well start with a digital capture if the process ends with a distinctly digital look. I then look at the very limited range of options I have to optimise the film's performance and match it to the luminosity range, and how I can balance the loss of shadows against highlight detail, and what effect that has on the mid tones. Again if you're just gong to shift them back to Zone V in post then you're better off starting with a digital capture. If I have something I think is going to work then I set up the camera, frame the shot and take accurate readings through the filter I'm going to use on the lens, work out my exposure and usually shoot two plates. I then develop one and assess making adjustments for the second if necessary, but it rarely is as the system is robust as long as you recognise it's limits.

So for the shot above my notes indicate that the shadow on the rocks was place on Zone II which meant that the sunlit clouds fell on Zone VII, dark areas of cloud on Zone IV, and blue sky ranged from Zone IV-V through an orange filter indicating a shutter aperture combination of 1/30 @ f32 with my 150mm lens. Development would be N+1 so pushing the highlights towards Zone VIII. Digitally scanned and printed with processing as close to the traditional dodge and burn as PS will allow, with slight curves adjustments on hand shaded masks, + dust removal. Notes also say, "v bright scene, shooting into sun"

Pardon the big snip.

By "solved", I meant that the Gossen could save the metering results from various scenic areas, and then provide their average value as an exposure recommendation for the whole scene. Their "solution" is not the best of methods for several reasons, which I'm sure you could tell us.

Since the Zone system includes the use of human intelligence as shown at great length by your good self, it is the better solution. However, for the purpose of understanding the optional Weston Adams dial, I only needed to understand the very basis of it's operation as a tool and, with your help, I think I've got it, thank you.

How long before exposure meters or cameras come with AI that spot-meters everything, takes several shots, aligns them and produces the perfect merge.

Nice indeed - not unlike that Nikon AE system which measures a few hundred parts of a scene and then sets the camera exposure based on a big data-base of previously-captured images - I forget what they called it but somebody here will know.

My HDR combos in Capture One seem to work like this, as I never see ghosting.

So I guess it it is quite possible for a camera to do the same, with a special mode. Just needs a lot of computational power.