Is there any detail in zones 2 and 9?

[timbo10ca]

Hi all:

I have been slowly trying to teach myself Black and White photography and the use of a view camera for the past 2 years. I have been working with the Zone System, and trying to nail down my exposure and development system. Up until now, I think I've been misinterpreting and incorrectly visualizing zones 3 and 8 in my mind's eye, because my negatives always seem to be flat and lifeless, with no true black or bright paper white. Zone 3 seems to be too light and zone 8 too dark. I am thinking I am overexposing and underdeveloping. Or my perception of what the zones actually are is off and I am placing on zone 3 thinking it will be darker than it actually is, and vice versa for zone 8. When I look at a sample photo illustrating zone placement in John Schafer's Ansel Adams Guide book 1, there seems to be detail in zones 2 and 9, where I imagined zones 3 and 8 should lie.

I can only go by the zone scales I have in my books, but I am seeing that many photos have detail in areas darker than the traditional zone 3 and lighter than the traditional zone 8 according to the scales in my books and am wondering if this is generally the case. I'm simply trying to learn exactly what zones 3 and 8 look like in a print so I can take that back to my learning of the zone system, because so far they've been more theoretical to me than practical, and not what I would interpret them as when looking at the print of a master photographer. A perfect example is Huntington Witherill's "Reflections, Badwater, Death Valley 1979", page 56 of "Orchestrating Icons". I see detail in the upper downsloping hill, but this large triangular area is considerably darker than what the zone 3 tone is on my tonal scale in Schafer's book, and in my contact prints where I have placed the shadows with detail on zone 3. It *is* however, where I would have imagined zone 3 to lie on a tonal scale according to the adage of "darkest area you want to keep detail". Maybe the tonal scale in Schafer's book is inaccurate, and this is just a bunch of blithering.....

Are many people Selenium toning your negatives to achieve this detail beyond the "usable zones" (while placing on zone 3 and developing for zone 8 first)? Or is there actually some slight (but not "important") detail in zones 2 and 9, and I've been visualizing wrong?

Thanks,
Tim

[Walter Calahan]

Zone 3 = black with detail

Zone 7 = white with detail

Zone 9 = ?

[Preston]

I'll amplify on Walter's post a bit-

Zone II-Nearly black with a vestige of detail
Zone III-Deep tonality with good detail
Zone VII-Same as Walter
Zone VIII-There may be a vestige of detail
Zone IX-Approaching 'paper' white' with no detail.

It may be possible to pull detail in very dense areas of a negative but this will require careful exposure and non-standard development. Ansel Adams book The Negative delves into this.

-PB

[timbo10ca]

I'll amplify on Walter's post a bit-

Zone II-Nearly black with a vestige of detail
Zone III-Deep tonality with good detail
Zone VII-Same as Walter
Zone VIII-There may be a vestige of detail
Zone IX-Approaching 'paper' white' with no detail.

It may be possible to pull detail in very dense areas of a negative but this will require careful exposure and non-standard development. Ansel Adams book The Negative delves into this.

-PB

Great- thanks guys.

Tim

[Brian Ellis]

The following is taken from Ansel Adams' book "The Negative:"

Zone II - First suggestion of texture. Deep tonalities representing the darkest part of the image in which some slight detail is required (my emphasis)

Zone III - Average dark materials and low values showing adequate texture.

Zone IX - White without texture approaching pure white.

Personally I find that I'm not able to adequately distinguish between "slight" detail (Zone II) and "adequate" texture (Zone III) so I consider Zone II to be black without meaningful texture or detail. I actually never place anything on Zone II. I place the darkest part of the image in which I want detail or texture on Zone III (or IV). Anything that's darker I figure as going to be black without detail or texture and I don't try to distinguish between Zones 0, I, and II. If you find that your negatives are more or less consistently underexposed, which many people do when they place the darkest area in which they want texture or detail on Zone III, move it up to Zone IV.

[neil poulsen]

How have you been determining your developing times? How have you determined your film's actual film speed?

I determine my ASA just as A.A. described in his books, by determining the speed that gives me a Zone 1 that's 0.1 density units above film-base plus fog using a densitometer.

Once you determine your correct film speed, then look for a "Normal" development time. I do this by trying different development times and printing Zone 8 and Zone 9 patches for each. I look for the development time that gives me a small amount of detail in Zone 8 and VERY slight or no detail in Zone 9. (I like a Zone 9 that's right on the edge. That is, if the development time is lowered by a small amount, like 15 seconds or so, then Zone 9 shows VERY slight detail, where it didn't before.)

I've found that I get the results I like for VC papers, if I make these tests using Ilford Gallery Paper Grade III. Others might prefer to use grade II, especially if they usually print on Ilford Gallery paper.

Once I have a prospective Normal development time, I print and display all the patches side by side from Zone 0 up through Zone 9. If I like the spacing in all the zones, from no detail in Zone 0 to VERY slight or no detail (better) in Zone 9, then I have my Normal development time.

By definition, Zone 3, Zone 7, and Zone 8 (and all the remaining patches) become whatever these patches represent. I think in terms of these patches, when I pre-visualize a print in the field. In fact, sometimes I will mount these patches in order on a card and carry them with me in the field as a reminder.

The beauty of this system is that, YOU decide the Normal development time based on a spacing of the patches that most appeals to YOU! So, you imprint your value system on the zone system that you use.

As a note, bringing this off requires very careful control and consistency in the darkroom, especially during testing. For example, I don't let my development temperature vary more than about 0.3 degrees from start to finish. (I use an electronic thermometer.) I also dip and dunk in the dark, so as to better control development times. Over time, I've been able to arrive at a process that gives me the consistency that I need.

[timbo10ca]

I've been using Bruce Barlow's system- very simple except for me judging 1st black and hint of tone in white. I don't have a densitometer, but I do have a Zonemaster II which can act as a transmission densitometer but I haven't figured that out yet. I'm not sure if it would be accurate enough or how to use it as such (setting enlarger height, light brightness, etc). I haven't used it for a while, but I believe it does read in log scale. I imagine I would set the light source to read a cleared and full exposed neg at both ends of the scale to calibrate the system. I have also been having difficulty getting even test negs across the entire surface.

Tim

[jetcode]

In my opinion detail has nothing to with density except when it relates to materials and processes, if a capturing medium registers detail in the extremes it is possible the detail is present even if it cannot be perceived as detail.

The question is ... how much of the Zone system definitions for detail by density is a function of material limitations and how much is a function of human visual perception?

[jetcode]

Tim, what kind of light are you shooting in? what film are you using? what lens are you using? what film process are you using?

I think you will find that contrast control is a function of these elements and running exposure tests with a multi-zone calibration card will help you. The card i am referring to is this one ...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/493034-REG/QP_Card_GQP102_4_Step_Gray_Scale_Card.html

Note that white here is a zone IX (the white border is X) and the darkest gray zone II, perhaps zone I but not jet black like zone 0.

Shoot this card at least 4 sheets in a given atmospheric and develop each one individually targeting the perfect negative - it works

[timbo10ca]

Tim, what kind of light are you shooting in? what film are you using? what lens are you using? what film process are you using?

I think you will find that contrast control is a function of these elements and running exposure tests with a multi-zone calibration card will help you. The card i am referring to is this one ...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/493034-REG/QP_Card_GQP102_4_Step_Gray_Scale_Card.html

Note that white here is a zone IX (the white border is X) and the darkest gray zone II, perhaps zone I but not jet black like zone 0.

Shoot this card at least 4 sheets in a given atmospheric and develop each one individually targeting the perfect negative - it works

Thanks Joe.

[Ken Lee]

The zones are really tones, or shades of gray. They have no texture per se.

Texture is merely the presence of other zones, within in a region that is fairly uniform.

[jetcode]

The zones are really tones, or shades of gray. They have no texture per se.

Texture is merely the presence of other zones, within in a region that is fairly uniform.

IMO that's not true ... there are 10 conceptual zones, in digital 255 zones in 8 bit and 65k zones in 16 bit. Texture may exist exclusively within the range of a single conceptual zone yet vary significantly within that zone, that is, Zone I may well have texture but it will likely be inperceivable to the human eye.

[Ken Lee]

I see what you mean. Each zone is actually a range of tones.

You are right !

In a system where you divide the scale by 10, then each zone is 10% of the scale. So anything from 40% to 49%, we call Zone IV.

[jetcode]

I see what you mean. Each zone is actually a range of tones.

You are right !

In a system where you divide the scale by 10, then each zone is 10% of the scale. So anything from 40% to 49%, we call Zone IV.

It was good exploration and insight to relate texture to zone because the terms have been used together since Ansel invented the language for the Zone system.

[jetcode]

I see what you mean. Each zone is actually a range of tones.

You are right !

In a system where you divide the scale by 10, then each zone is 10% of the scale. So anything from 40% to 49%, we call Zone IV.

In an analog system like film the "range of zones" is somewhat infinite meaning that the resolution between two consecutive tones may be infintesimal relating directly to the chemistry of the emulsion.

[Brian Ellis]

[QUOTE=neil poulsen;367517]How have you been determining your developing times? How have you determined your film's actual film speed?

I used to do all the usual zone system testing to determine film speed and normal, plus, and minus developing times as you describe. However, more recently I've been using the testing service offered by The View Camera Store. Much much easier and they provide you with considerably more information than you get through traditional zone system testing. Costs about $35 and I sometimes spent almost that much on film when I did it the old Adams/White/Picker way.

[Brian Ellis]

It was good exploration and insight to relate texture to zone because the terms have been used together since Ansel invented the language for the Zone system.

Ansel and Fred Archer.

[Daniel_Buck]

IMO that's not true ... there are 10 conceptual zones, in digital 255 zones in 8 bit and 65k zones in 16 bit. Texture may exist exclusively within the range of a single conceptual zone yet vary significantly within that zone, that is, Zone I may well have texture but it will likely be inperceivable to the human eye.

I don't think calling each individual value from 0-255 as it's own zone makes sense. Each one of those is a possible value. The way I think of it, a zone is a range of particular values.

[jetcode]

I don't think calling each individual value from 0-255 as it's own zone makes sense. Each one of those is a possible value. The way I think of it, a zone is a range of particular values.

it doesn't make sense because I didn't say that ... the entire range for the zone system is 10 zones, for an 8 bit sample it's 256 levels that can be mapped or distributed across 10 zones