Question about Zone

[macandal]

In chapter 10 of The Negative, Ansel Adams gives densities for some of the zones (II and VIII come to mind). I have a couple of questions:


Are the densities shown here for the negative or for the print?
Are the densities for all the zones (0 to X) posted somewhere I can see them?


Thanks.

[Old-N-Feeble]

Negative Zone densities may vary depending on the contrast of paper you use and your printing techniques. This is especially true of highlight densities. I used the ZS as a guide rather than an absolute way of working. One reason for this is I liked my shadows to have more density to lift details off the toe so, according to the ZS, I overexposed. But then I underdeveloped to avoid pushing the highlights into the shoulder. In fact, I underdeveloped a lot so I could adjust contrast and highlight density with selenium toner. It may seem like an odd process but it worked well for me.

[Regular Rod]

In chapter 10 of The Negative, Ansel Adams gives densities for some of the zones (II and VIII come to mind). I have a couple of questions:


Are the densities shown here for the negative or for the print?
Are the densities for all the zones (0 to X) posted somewhere I can see them?


Thanks.

The Zones are based on the final print values.

You should really do the work and find out the values as far as you feel they should be but this is a very good guide to get you started.

http://omotayodaramolayr3.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ansel_adams_zones_system.jpg

RR

[bob carnie]

In Lab values Zone 10 would be any thing above L-96 value and Zone 0 would be anything below L- 4 value
This is the main reason I never use RGB number but I use LAB and this chart is a very good guide.


The Zones are based on the final print values.

You should really do the work and find out the values as far as you feel they should be but this is a very good guide to get you started.

http://omotayodaramolayr3.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ansel_adams_zones_system.jpg

RR

[macandal]

In Lab values Zone 10 would be any thing above L-96 value and Zone 0 would be anything below L- 4 value
This is the main reason I never use RGB number but I use LAB and this chart is a very good guide.Bob, what are these "L" values you mention? Is there a way to transfer RGB numbers into "L" numbers?

[macandal]

The Zones are based on the final print values.

RRRod, I understand what you're saying, but my question was about the densities he gives in the book (CH 10).

[Stephen Benskin]

In chapter 10 of The Negative, Ansel Adams gives densities for some of the zones (II and VIII come to mind). I have a couple of questions:


Are the densities shown here for the negative or for the print?
Are the densities for all the zones (0 to X) posted somewhere I can see them?


Thanks.

They are negative densities. The range has to do with matching the negative density range (NDR) to the print log exposure range (LER). Without knowing the paper's LER, you can't determine the film's aim NDR. Adams' numbers should be considered only as an example. It's always best to test for your specific conditions.

127664

[Bill Burk]

In chapter 10 of The Negative, Ansel Adams gives densities for some of the zones (II and VIII come to mind). I have a couple of questions:


Are the densities shown here for the negative or for the print?
Are the densities for all the zones (0 to X) posted somewhere I can see them?


Thanks.

Hi macandal


They are for the negative.
Since you have "The Negative" Look at Figure 4-27 for an example graph with all the Zones and then look at Figure 4-28 for an illustration of the "problem" that makes it difficult to give a straight answer. The curves of different films vary. Ansel Adams gave some density ranges in Chapter 10 for Zones I, IV and VIII for Normal development for both Diffusion and Condenser enlargers. Since they are in his book, I guess you could say they are "Standards." But I think they were not meant to be standards. I think he gave numbers in the spirit of helpfulness - instead of giving the snarky answer "you are supposed to figure that out yourself." Ansel Adams gave you some numbers you can use to check your work.

[macandal]

They are negative densities.

They are for the negative.
So, if this is true, why is he bringing the "enlarger" part of this process if we're not there yet? We're still trying to get the negative right before we move on to printing. Or is he saying, "if you're going to print using a condenser enlarger, then your zones in your negative must read X for this zone, Y for this zone, and Z for this zone." If is the latter, then this just goes to prove that Ansel was not a writer AT ALL and that his books are in serious need of a major editing job by a professional.

Thanks guys.

(Still having problems determining my EI and N times, in case you're wondering.)

[Stephen Benskin]

So, if this is true, why is he bringing the "enlarger" part of this process if we're not there yet? We're still trying to get the negative right before we move on to printing. Or is he saying, "if you're going to print using a condenser enlarger, then your zones in your negative must read X for this zone, Y for this zone, and Z for this zone." If is the latter, then this just goes to prove that Ansel was not a writer AT ALL and that his books are in serious need of a major editing job by a professional.

Thanks guys.

(Still having problems determining my EI and N times, in case you're wondering.)

Do not just rely on The Negative to explain sensitometry and tone reproduction. There are a number of books that are more focused on that topic. The Zone System uses a simplified form of tone reproduction. Contrary to popular belief, Adams wasn't that interested or knowledgeable on the subject.

Please see the example in my previous post. The printing conditions and the subject luminance range determine the aim NDR. I've written a paper I've written titled "What is Normal?" It may be a little advanced especially concerning flare. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. It's too large to upload here, but you can find it in the Differences in Grades of Paper thread in the B&W Film, Chemistry folder over at APUG.

[Jim Noel]

The Zones are based on the final print values.

You should really do the work and find out the values as far as you feel they should be but this is a very good guide to get you started.

http://omotayodaramolayr3.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ansel_adams_zones_system.jpg

RR

Ansel promoted 10 Zones, not 11. I don't know the exact date when his books were revised to show 11 zones, but all of mine, as well as early magazine articles, discuss only 10.

[Jim Noel]

So, if this is true, why is he bringing the "enlarger" part of this process if we're not there yet? We're still trying to get the negative right before we move on to printing. Or is he saying, "if you're going to print using a condenser enlarger, then your zones in your negative must read X for this zone, Y for this zone, and Z for this zone." If is the latter, then this just goes to prove that Ansel was not a writer AT ALL and that his books are in serious need of a major editing job by a professional.

Thanks guys.

(Still having problems determining my EI and N times, in case you're wondering.)

Editing by "Professionals" who may know how to write, but little about photographic sensitometry is responsible for incorrectly talking about 11 zones. If you want to see the best discussion of the Zone system which is easy to understand, read "On Portraiture" by Fred Archer. Fred and Ansel worked together to define the system.

[macandal]

...is responsible for incorrectly talking about 11 zones.Bruce Barnbaum talks about 12 and more zones!

[Bill Burk]

...Ansel Adams gave some density ranges in Chapter 10 for Zones I, IV and VIII for Normal development for both Diffusion and Condenser enlargers....

Hi macandal,

To answer your question: Why bring the enlarger into it when measuring the negative, I re-quoted the important phrase. The enlarger is one of the "ifs."

If you want to print on a condenser enlarger, you want to aim for slightly less density in your highlights than if you print on a diffusion enlarger.

So the type of enlarger is one of the things that determines what kind of negative you want to make.

[macandal]

Hi macandal,

If you want to print on a condenser enlarger, you want to aim for slightly less density in your highlights than if you print on a diffusion enlarger.

So the type of enlarger is one of the things that determines what kind of negative you want to make.Bill, then you and I agree. You're just saying what I said in my earlier post (only, you're saying it better).

As you know, Bill, I've struggled with getting my EI and N times right, for some reason I keep getting inconsistent results. I just want to know what those (EI, N) are, after that, I never want to touch a densitometer ever again.

[Lenny Eiger]

None of the numbers mean anything. Ignore them.

You have to do two things:

1) Identify the kind of print you want. Look at other photographers work. Someone will likely have made a print in the last 199 years that you like, or better yet, really like.
You may have even done so yourself.

2) Expose and develop until you can make that print. The Zone System has you pointing at Zone 3 for the shadows. EI is just a matter of where you point the light meter, how dark you think shadows should be.

Development is not a fixed time. While we all take out as many variables as possible, by using the same thermometer, agitating exactly the same, using the same developer, etc., there is still some variability. Our tastes in printing may change over time. For this reason I have a chart for each of the times N+2 to N-3. Every once in a while I make an adjustment to these times. After a few years, they don't change much. However, they do change...

There are a lot of extra variables in determining what N light is. The best is to develop a sense of it, and be able to see it when you come across it. However, realize that it is quite arbitrary (unless one is in a studio) and different from one person to the next.

If you don't have enough detail in the shadows you didn't expose enough. Learn to see what that looks like on your negatives. If your highlights are blown out, develop less. It's that simple. You can put away the densitometer now if you like...

Lenny

[Stephen Benskin]

Hi macandal,

To answer your question: Why bring the enlarger into it when measuring the negative, I re-quoted the important phrase. The enlarger is one of the "ifs."

If you want to print on a condenser enlarger, you want to aim for slightly less density in your highlights than if you print on a diffusion enlarger.

So the type of enlarger is one of the things that determines what kind of negative you want to make.

What causes the difference between different types of enlargers is called the Callier Effect. It has to do with how parable the light is as it strikes and passes through the negative. Condensers create more parallel light than diffusion. Some of the light hits grains and bounces back producing a print with higher contrast than with the same negative printed on a diffusion enlarger. Here's a break down of the different NDR for a diffusion and condenser enlarger.

127715

And if you want to know how to determine what to develop your negatives to, it's: Desire Negative Density Range / (Log Subject Luminance range - Flare) = Contrast Index

[Richard Wasserman]

I concur with Lenny—simple is good. Densitometers are only one way to get where you want to go. Expose enough that your shadows look like you want and develop long enough to have good contrast. It is pretty easy to do by trial and error, and while you are at it you can make some photographs and not spend time with machines and numbers.

All the densitometer folk will disagree....


None of the numbers mean anything. Ignore them.

You have to do two things:

1) Identify the kind of print you want. Look at other photographers work. Someone will likely have made a print in the last 199 years that you like, or better yet, really like.
You may have even done so yourself.

2) Expose and develop until you can make that print. The Zone System has you pointing at Zone 3 for the shadows. EI is just a matter of where you point the light meter, how dark you think shadows should be.

Development is not a fixed time. While we all take out as many variables as possible, by using the same thermometer, agitating exactly the same, using the same developer, etc., there is still some variability. Our tastes in printing may change over time. For this reason I have a chart for each of the times N+2 to N-3. Every once in a while I make an adjustment to these times. After a few years, they don't change much. However, they do change...

There are a lot of extra variables in determining what N light is. The best is to develop a sense of it, and be able to see it when you come across it. However, realize that it is quite arbitrary (unless one is in a studio) and different from one person to the next.

If you don't have enough detail in the shadows you didn't expose enough. Learn to see what that looks like on your negatives. If your highlights are blown out, develop less. It's that simple. You can put away the densitometer now if you like...

Lenny

[Stephen Benskin]

The paper LER is the log exposure range between the points of 90% of the paper D-Max and a paper density of 0.04 over paper base plus fog. This range can be considered Zone I to Zone VIII. As you can see in the three quad example, the is still room on the paper above and below these two points. These are for your accent blacks and specular whites that make up your 10 Zones. I've also included a graph from Theory of the Photographic Process that may help illustrate the two ranges even though it uses a transparency.

127723

127724

[Bill Burk]

The paper LER is the log exposure range between the points of 90% of the paper D-Max and a paper density of 0.04 over paper base plus fog. This range can be considered Zone I to Zone VIII.

Thanks for posting these diagrams.

Macandal, these are the Zones related to Density you were looking for - Stephen is the only one I know who has diagrammed it this clearly.

[Bill Burk]

macandal,

I know you have been working at this diligently for a long time and I bet you want closure.

Whether your variations come from shutter speed errors or the developing tank, it's not your technique that varies! I know you have good technique.

I agree with Lenny and Richard simple is good.

But even though the phrase "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" is simple and accurate, it never became simple for me to implement until I collected the graphs and charts that meant something to me. I got the negative testing down (as I am sure you already have) and then the last step was to find how to relate the negative to paper... And I think this is where you are at right now.

I found a very simple way to relate negatives to paper. I was looking at graphs and charts and also printing in the darkroom. After finishing a very satisfying print on Grade 3 from a very thin negative... I suddenly realized that I never wanted to make a negative thinner than that. That soon led me to find a negative that made a very satisfying print on Grade 2 (I never wanted to make a negative with important highlights denser than that negative).

I just measured the shadows and highlights of those two negatives, and that gave me the upper and lower boundaries (in terms of negative density ranges).

So just look in your collection for a thin negative that you got an excellent print from... and likewise a negative with highlights that were difficult to hold but which came out perfect... Those will be good benchmarks for you.

[Stephen Benskin]

Here are the numbers from the four quad example.

127792

[macandal]

As I've said on repeated occasions, I've struggled with getting my EI and N times right, and I'm not too technically inclined; that said, if I've understood anything out of this post is that just because for some people the densities are dead on with what Ansel Adams proposed in The Negative, for others, and I include myself here, that may not be the case. So, with that under consideration, can I safely assume, given my film/developer combination and my technique for developing film, that my zones II, III, and VIII (I mention these because these are the zones for which I have readings that I consider acceptable) will be different than most others?

Zone II (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 0.42 and 0.51
Zone III (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 0.53 and 0.59
Zone VIII (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 1.5 and 1.68

Zone II (developed for 7 min): between 0.42 and 0.54
Zone III (developed for 7 min): between 0.61 and 0.69
Zone VIII (developed for 7 min): between 1.85 and 1.66

I realize that some of these ranges may be too wide. I will need to scrutinize these negatives to only consider those readings that I consider acceptable. These are the readings I have on hand at this moment from my notes. I will need to go back to the densitometer again to remove "unacceptable" results.

Am I right in my assessment?

[Jim Noel]

As I've said on repeated occasions, I've struggled with getting my EI and N times right, and I'm not too technically inclined; that said, if I've understood anything out of this post is that just because for some people the densities are dead on with what Ansel Adams proposed in The Negative, for others, and I include myself here, that may not be the case. So, with that under consideration, can I safely assume, given my film/developer combination and my technique for developing film, that my zones II, III, and VIII (I mention these because these are the zones for which I have readings that I consider acceptable) will be different than most others?

Zone II (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 0.42 and 0.51
Zone III (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 0.53 and 0.59
Zone VIII (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 1.5 and 1.68

Zone II (developed for 7 min): between 0.42 and 0.54
Zone III (developed for 7 min): between 0.61 and 0.69
Zone VIII (developed for 7 min): between 1.85 and 1.66

I realize that some of these ranges may be too wide. I will need to scrutinize these negatives to only consider those readings that I consider acceptable. These are the readings I have on hand at this moment from my notes. I will need to go back to the densitometer again to remove "unacceptable" results.

Am I right in my assessment?

Your densities could be right on, or way off depending onhpw you print your negatives. For instance, if you are doing salt prints they will be extremely flat because the highlights in the negatives are too thin.

[Bill Burk]

Hi macandal,

I assume you gave numbers respectively for four different negatives at two different development times. Here's the graph of the different curves given those assumptions.

http://www.beefalobill.com/images/macandal.jpg

From your curves, I calculated the contrast that I estimate you achieved.

Then I got some numbers...

I used a three factor lookup table Stephen Benskin provided me that cross-references enlarger type, paper grade and subject brightness range. The lookup result is the appropriate contrast index that you should develop the film to.

I used the lookup table backwards. Taking the contrast you already developed the film to, I tried to find out what subject brightness range that negative would be good for... On a diffusion enlarger, on paper grade 2.

Taking 7 stops subject brightness to be "N," 6 stops subject brighness would need "N+1" and 8 stops subject brightness would translate to "N-1."

Here are the contrasts and the "N" numbers which you might consider you have achieved:

7:20 a = 0.65 = N+ 1/3
7:20 b = 0.73 = N+1
7:00 a = 0.83 = N+1 1/3
7:00 b = 0.65 = N+ 1/3

I see what you mean by inconsistency, you have an "N" spread of 1 stop. But Black and White negative processing can tolerate 1 stop of error. That typically means you just need a higher or lower grade of paper than you aimed for.

It would be better if you had more consistency... But looking at the graph, visually, you can see it's a pretty tight grouping.

Your development time (7 minutes and 7:20) is short for my taste. It may help you get more consistent results if you chose a more dilute developer concentration which takes longer to develop.

Also you should test some wider spreads of development times, so that you can better predict your contrast for development time.

[Lenny Eiger]

Zone II (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 0.42 and 0.51
Zone III (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 0.53 and 0.59
Zone VIII (developed for 7 min 20 sec): between 1.5 and 1.68

Zone II (developed for 7 min): between 0.42 and 0.54
Zone III (developed for 7 min): between 0.61 and 0.69
Zone VIII (developed for 7 min): between 1.85 and 1.66

Am I right in my assessment?


These numbers are way too contrasty, this would definitely be overdeveloping. If you are targeting a Micheal Kenna type print you won't get anywhere near it, unless you are printing in platinum. (You could call Michael Kenna and ask him what his top end density is.)

My assessment of the top end (the only number I care about) is that for silver you're looking at .8-1.1, for drum scanning its 1.5-1.6 and for alt process its 1.8-1.9.

I will reiterate, however, that the best way to quantify this is to measure your best negative, that one that just "prints itself".

Lenny

[Stephen Benskin]

These numbers are way too contrasty, this would definitely be overdeveloping. If you are targeting a Micheal Kenna type print you won't get anywhere near it, unless you are printing in platinum. (You could call Michael Kenna and ask him what his top end density is.)

My assessment of the top end (the only number I care about) is that for silver you're looking at .8-1.1, for drum scanning its 1.5-1.6 and for alt process its 1.8-1.9.

I will reiterate, however, that the best way to quantify this is to measure your best negative, that one that just "prints itself".

Lenny

There isn't enough information for me to make any judgements based on density. Mario doesn't give precise values but ranges, and he doesn't mention if the values include Fb+f or not. In general, I don't like to make conclusions strictly from density. Density out of context can be misleading and as Jones has stated it's the gradient that determines quality. From Mario's numbers, it is possible to guesstimate a couple possible average gradients. My advice is to try to be meticulous in the testing and presentation of the results.

[macandal]

doesn't give precise values but ranges, and he doesn't mention if the values include Fb+f or not.Net values (ranges).

[macandal]

What I don't understand is how you guys can say I'm over/under-developing.

[macandal]

FYI: for my film/developer combo (Delta 100 & DDX, 4:1), Ilford recommends a 12-minute dev process at 20C.

[macandal]

My advice is to try to be meticulous in the testing and presentation of the results.I have been.

[macandal]

These numbers are way too contrasty, this would definitely be overdeveloping.

LennyHow can you tell?

[Stephen Benskin]

What I don't understand is how you guys can say I'm over/under-developing.

If you are looking for an accurate interpretation and if you are using a step tablet, post the resulting densities for each step. Indicate if they include Fb+f and if they do provide the Fb+f value. Also, include type of light source for the printer. Remember the equation for determining the degree of development is: Desired NDR (determined by the paper LER) / (log Subject Luminance Range - Flare) = Contrast Index

[macandal]

If you are looking for an accurate interpretation and if you are using a step tablet...I'm not using a step tablet.

[Bill Burk]

macandal,

Can you tell us the density per step, for specific test negatives instead of giving a range. My difficulty is knowing which reading is which. I assumed you presented the densities in order. Maybe you didn't give the numbers in any order.

Here are the facts which I graphed... Are my numbers mixed up? If you gave numbers in no particular sequence, we might find out you are getting negative contrasts of approximately 0.65 all the time. Since I consider that N+ 1/3, there may be no reason to worry about excessive contrast at this time.

Time: 7:20
Developer: DDX 1+4
Temperature: 20C
Film: Delta 100
Density Zone II: 0.42
Density Zone III: 0.53
Density Zone VIII: 1.50
Calculated Gradient Zone III to VIII: 0.65

Time: 7:20
Developer: DDX 1+4
Temperature: 20C
Film: Delta 100
Density Zone II: 0.51
Density Zone III: 0.59
Density Zone VIII: 1.68
Calculated Gradient Zone III to VIII: 0.73

Time: 7:00
Developer: DDX 1+4
Temperature: 20C
Film: Delta 100
Density Zone II: 0.42
Density Zone III: 0.61
Density Zone VIII: 1.85
Calculated Gradient Zone III to VIII: 0.83

Time: 7:00
Developer: DDX 1+4
Temperature: 20C
Film: Delta 100
Density Zone II: 0.54
Density Zone III: 0.69
Density Zone VIII: 1.66
Calculated Gradient Zone III to VIII: 0.65

[Sirius Glass]

Given that photography is based on base 2, wouldn't in retrospect been better if Ansel Adams has made his Zone System in Octal or Hexadecimal rather than Uni-decimal [0 to 10 is eleven levels]?

[Stephen Benskin]

if I've understood anything out of this post is that just because for some people the densities are dead on with what Ansel Adams proposed in The Negative, for others, and I include myself here, that may not be the case.

Interestingly enough the apparent difference in aim density ranges between Adam's Zone System and the ISO standard's is mostly an illusion. It's a matter of how the data is presented and whether or not certain variables incorporated into the testing results.

The first example represents the conditions and results as presented in The Negative. Zone 1 to Zone VIII is a seven stop range. Placing Zone I on 0.10 over Fb+f, Zone VIII falls at a density of 1.34 for a NDR of 1.24.

127875

The second example has the exact same conditions, including the exact same film curve. The difference is the addition of one stop of flare to the camera image. This reduces the apparent subject luminance range of 7 stops to a 6 stop camera image. Placing Zone I on 0.10 over Fb+f, Zone VIII falls at a density of 1.16 (where Zone VII falls in the first example) for a NDR of 1.06.

127880

Zone System is an in camera test using a single toned card and two aim negative densities. The Zone I and Zone VIII exposures are seven stops apart. It is just like the top of the camera image quadrant. The testing conditions can be considered almost flare free as is represented in the camera image curve. A contacted step tablet is also free of flare, so the data directly from the film curve for a Δlog-H 2.10 (7 stops) will produce the same results as the in camera Zone test. But these are tests made under non flare conditions (which is important to understand the film's characteristics), but flare exists in practice. In order to correctly interpret what the NDR will be for the negative you will be making a print from, you need to factor in a flare factor into the non flare test. That's why a negative resulting from the 1.25 NDR aim of the Zone System testing will fit onto a grade 2 paper with a LER of 1.06.

[Sirius Glass]

Clarification:
The Zone System is from 0 to 10. That is eleven levels, hence Uni-decimal system [base 11]. Photography is based on base 2, shutter speed and apertures are half or double. An even power of 2 is 8 [23 = 8] called Octal or 16 [24= 16] called Hexadecimal.

Ansel Adams should have used an Octal or Hexadecimal rather than Uni-decimal.

[Stephen Benskin]

I've put together a spreadsheet that determines the aim contrast index from the subject luminance range and paper LER for a diffusion enlarger. This is based on my practical development model as described in my paper "What is Normal?" The resolution is poor. The file is the largest this site will allow.

127897

[Lenny Eiger]

How can you tell?

When I look at my negs I can easily tell whether I have shadow detail in there or not. It's fairly easy to point a light meter somewhere, be consistent about the tone you are looking for and get shadow detail by closing down the two stops to make the exposure. I don't worry too much about the shadows, and in the rare cases that I do I can take a second exposure.

All I have to do is look at the density you list for zone 7 or 8, that top end density. That tells me how "far" you are away from your shadow detail. That is called contrast. When you have numbers that exceed what I have suggested, then you have too much of a range.

From my prior post: "My assessment of the top end (the only number I care about) is that for silver you're looking at .8-1.1, for drum scanning its 1.5-1.6 and for alt process its 1.8-1.9." Some people will disagree with these numbers, they either want to make a different kind of print or have a different way of working. You should disagree as well, and tune it to your ultimate print. My ultimate print is one that "prints itself'. It holds the entire range with no burning and dodging. It has a beautiful range that is soft enough to invite the viewer to step into it and enough contrast to hold interest. In the best examples its luminescent. I don't burn in skies or make them black, or burn in whole areas to bring attention in, or whatever. That's not my style. Others do it differently, everyone gets to choose what they like.

However, back to the point, it isn't optimal to overexpose and get more density in the shadows. If you expose so that zone 1 or 2 looks like zone 3 there are other effects that come into play that you wouldn't like. It's better to have a fairly clear (base + fog) area in your neg for zone 1. To overexpose them, then move the range higher does not yield a better result. Not in my opinion. I've seen plenty of overexposed negs where they tried to do this and it won't produce what you are after.

I say this with the caveat that manufacturers like Kodak had an idea of what shadow detail ought to be, they had the "Kodak moment" look they were after and there wasn't much shadow detail. As a result, many of the landscape folks would shoot a film at half its stated ISO. I find that its no longer the case, for whatever reason, and I shoot Delta at 100 and TMax at 80-100.

I don't do this with step tablets. I go outside and shoot a few pieces of film and develop them. There is a lot of potential for variability in where you point the light meter for zone 3. Do you point it at the base of the tree, or in the light dirt, or the dark dirt, or in that almost black area? This is the part of exposing you have to get consistent with. What is reasonable to do for zone 3? Then you point it at the zone 7 or 8, for whichever numbering system you are using. (The numbering system doesn't matter if you have 9, 10, or 11 stops between the zones. The only thing that matters is the development chart you have on your wall.)

There is also the issue of when the zone system doesn't work. Sometimes the luminance range is too high. First year photo students are always shooting inside and including the bright window. It doesn't work. If you develop for the range including the window, the inside will be flat and dead. At the end of the zone calculations you have to look around you and ask yourself , "what kind of light is this?" Am I in N light even tho here is some area over there that's brighter, that is a very small part of the image? You have to be smarter than your light meter....

These exercises are good for understanding what is going on, and how exposure and development work. They aren't very useful for making a great print. My point is that making a great negative is as much of an art form as making a great print. You wouldn't make a print based on luminance ranges alone. I printed something last year where I could tell that the light on this set of rocks was winter light vs summer light. (Unfortunately, it was a boring image.) However, as a result, that became my new "perfect negative" (for me). It's expressive all by itself, it looks like a print.

There is a process that comes after the one you are in, where it gets interesting.

Lenny

[Bill Burk]

I've put together a spreadsheet that determines the aim contrast index from the subject luminance range and paper LER for a diffusion enlarger. This is based on my practical development model as described in my paper "What is Normal?" The resolution is poor. The file is the largest this site will allow.

127897

Thanks Stephen,

I will adopt this chart, and will refer to it often when giving advice to develop to contrast. It's a refinement of the chart you gave me last year which served well... this one's even better.

[Stephen Benskin]

Not sure if anybody has had the chance to look over the spreadsheet, but by you can also see what grade of paper a "normally" developed negative will need to print on depending on the subject luminance range. Pick a CI for normal conditions. I use the statistical normal LSLR 2.20 - CI 0.58. Next look where 0.58 occurs under different LSLRs. For example, there's a 0.58 at a LSLR of 4 2/3. For this subject, the matching LER is grade 4 1/2. This, of course, doesn't account for aesthetic decisions.

[kintatsu]

Ansel Adams himself said that The Zone System wasn't set in stone. He explained it as an aid in visualizing and achieving your desired image.

Using his recommendation for a Z I density of .1 and a Z VIII density of 1.3, I've been quite satisfied. My testing wasn't thorough enough, as I used my meter as opposed to a densitometer, and only tested those 2 zones.

Again, though, I'm happy to use it as a great guide to getting what I see onto the film and then the paper the way I want.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm probably as proficient as anyone when it comes to Zone theory, and I never even think about it anymore, either when shooting or in the darkroom. After awhile you just get a feel for what you're doing. In any event, every single combination of film, developer, and subject is a little different problem, then this all gets replicated in the darkroom when in comes to potential variables. And I work with all kinds of combinations. You can go crazy thinking about this stuff, or you can just do it and not get hung up. Therefore I regard the Zone System as a nice introductory learning tool, with a lot of nice literature behind it, but otherwise, consider that making a religion out of it is absurd. Like many other things, you can make it either as simple or as complicated as you choose. But change one variable, and everything else has to be altered too if you draw out this kind of concept to its logical end. ... And I do know how to use a densitometer, but haven't needed it for general photography ever, just for fussy lab projects like color masking and color separations.

[Robert Bowring]

Mr.Wiley is correct. Could not have said it any better. Do not drive yourself crazy about this stuff. It sounds like you have done enough testing to determine your approximate EI and development time. Go out and take some pictures and make some prints. Then you can fine tune your technique. The zone system is just a guide. It is not written in stone. The important thing is to get the results that work for you.

[Argentum]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and with that in mind forget about all the numbers and do some eating by way of reproducing the zone patches in Chapter 4, figure 4-3.

When you can photograph a piece of hardboard (without the light changing) so that you have 11 negatives which when all printed using the same time, produce that series of patches with nicely spaced print values then you know you have nailed your film speed and standard development time.

The only thing I would suggest is that when finding the time to use to print them all, is to work it out using the zone 1 negative (NOT zone 5 negative) to produce a test strip and find the first strip which is just perceptibly lighter than max black(which is never as black as the paper can go if you over print it). And print on paper without any filtration.

Then when you've achieved that you will have learnt a lot of practical procedures and if you must, you can measure the densities of each zone negative and have your answer. What you'll do with the numbers I have no idea except maybe waste some time making graphs instead of prints.

Things you should know:

ISO standard is designed for approx 8 stops from black to white. When you calibrate for 10 stops from black to white that will require approx 1 stop slower film speed than ISO speed (extra exposure) and approx 30% to 50% less development than manufacturers recommended times. These things are very varibale depending on film, dev, paper, paper dev and your working procedures in general so its important that you use consistent process for repeatable results.

And finally a kodak 18% reflectance gray card is NOT the middle of a 10 stop range when measured with a light meter but thats another story.