Amateur to the Zone System

[J.sand]

hi,

I'm a beginner in LF photography and am planning to experiment with the Zone system and do my own developing. I scan and print digitally and I don't have much space for a darkroom. I'm just looking for an outline of what kind of stuff and how much room it'll take for a basic Zone developing system in my apartment. Any tips from others who have had this problem would be appreciated as well.

Thanks!

[Bob._3483]

It really depends on what method you intend to use to develop. Using a Jobo or similar daylight system, you only need somewhere dark to load the film (or a changing tent) and a yard of kitchen worktop for the processor.

Using dishes you will need to be able to work in complete darkness, so a blacked out bathroom becomes favorite with enough room for three or four 8"x10" dishes. A board over the bath is the "traditional" method (if a bit hard on the ol' back muscles).

Check out the www.largeformatphotography.info main page for links to different developing methods.

A different point is that as you will be scanning, it may be best to develop with that in mind. It is likely from what I have read that the traditional uses of the Zone system are modified in the digital world. As I do not scan B&W (and have only just started scanning colour), I can't really help there, but I'm sure others can.

Cheers,

[steve simmons]

You might want to consider using the Polaroid Type 55 Positive/Negative film in your situation. This material produces both a print and a negativeYou don't really have to develop the film, just clear it in a 10% bath of Sodium Sulfite. You would need a relatively new Polaroid holder (545) and the film. To use the film try an EI of 32-40 to get a good negative and about 80 to get a good print. The film scans very nicely and has a long scale which helps protect the high values.

steve simmons www.viewcamera.com

[Ed Pierce]

I've been thinking about this since I started scanning 4x5 negatives for publication on the web and promotional materials on paper. I normally use the zone system in the usual way and print in the darkroom (does this qualify yet as an 'alternative process'?).

I've found that negatives tailored to print on regular paper work fine when scanned. The range of available controls in photoshop makes it possible to print just about anything. Could they be better if tailored for digital printing? It's worth finding out if that's what you intend to do.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't calibrate your negs for a digital print. I don't know of anyone who's done it. It's a whole new world and sounds very interesting.

[Jon_2416]

First thing I would do is read this:

Ansel Adam's book 'The Negative'

And this:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

As for processing, I really like this method:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/

and my last Unidrum set-up cost $15 on ePay.

As for digital zone system, a Google seach will give you a lot to look at. Here is one I like:

http://www.sentex.net/~sfinlay/Zone1.htm

I shoot HP5+, process it one shot with HC-110 in my Unidrum, scan on my Epson 3200* and print gorgeous 12x15's on my Epson 2200 (which uses MIS's UltraTone ink and the Inkjet Control software RIP).

*When I want to print bigger I get drum scans.

As for specific 'zone system digital', just learn how to expose and process your film accurately. Just like in analog printing, a well exposed, correctly processed negative is a pleasure to work with.

Ask a lot of questions on this board--these guys know a wealth of information.

[Leonard Evens]

There is a problem using the Zone System if you scan, but there is also a solution.

The Zone System relies at its base on sensitometry, which means the ability to read or estimate densities in the negative. The RGB values you normally see displayed in your scanning software or in a photoeditor are typically chosen to optimize the scan. What you need are the actual raw densities. The relation between the actual densities and the RGB values is complex and usually quite different for different images. So for use with the Zone System, the RGB values you get in the scan are not too useful in dealing with the negative, unless you use raw scans and do some work to relate them to densities.

Fortunately, Vuescan allows you to read the raw densities quite easily. The RGB values at the cursor position are normally on display below the image. If you press the Ctrl key first and then move the cursor, you will see instead three values which are the actual raw RGB densities. One of the color modes gives you three equal values. I haven't checked the densities that Vuescan gives with a densitometer, but they seem to be in the right ball park, and in any case they are consistent from image to image. You can use them first of all to determine proper development and film speed by examining the densities of Zones I-III. You can also use them to determine contrast and placement of other values in the negative, using the densities above base that Adams recommends for those zones.

For normally developed negatives, the typical density range is 0 to 1.5 or so, and the highest density is seldom over 2.0. Since your 'enlarger' is your scanner plus your inkjet printer, in principle you could easily depart from Adams recommendations and perhaps use a wide density range. So you might want to develop for higher contrast than would be appropriate for an enlarger. But in practice, it does seem possible to use the same density ranges that work with an enlarger when scanning.

The digital approach, of course, gives you the ultimate in 'variable contrast paper' since you can adjust the contrast of the image to your heart's content. In the Zone System, one can adjust exposure and development so as to produce a negative which prints on normal paper, or, one can expose and develop the same way but use variable contrast paper in printing to deal with placement of values in the print. It would seem that for the digital approach, something closer to the second approach would be more appropriate. The important thing is that you have so much more control that you needn't worry too much about it. The actual placement of values in the print will be controlled by the RGB values, and you can adjust those by use of the curves control in a photoeditor. You should calibrate this process by deciding how the RGB values (which should be the same for BW negatives) relate to tones in the print. Then make a chart of such values and which Zones you feel they correspond to.

[Angelo Micheletti]

Try http://www.btzs.org/Forums/forum/default.asp

I have found that the use of the ExpoDev software makes taking a negative properly very simple. The software also calculates the development time to use. Check it out.

angelo

[neil poulsen]

I like Steve's suggestion. A Type 55 gives a nice usable negative under a variety of circumstances. Check out Ansel Adams book "Polaroid Land Photography". He gives suggestions for contrast control using Type 55.

I think of the zone system as applying more to enlarged versus scanned negatives. Although, I can see where a particular negative contrast level would give the best scanned results. But, optimum use of the zone system requires a lot of study and practice. I'm wondering if all that is really necessary for a scanned negative. One has a lot of contrast control in Photoshop.

I would suggest a good spot meter for proper placement of high values. (e.g. Pentax.)

Something to consider for the future is using Photoshop to recreate a larger negative (11x14?) printed on mylar that could be contact printed on regular photographic paper. It doesn't require an enlarger, and one could use the Jobo to develop the print.

[Bob._3483]

It has been pointed out that digital manipulation of a scanned negative gives great scope for contrast control within software, and this is of course true. However, does this not introduce degradation of the image?

Looking at a histogram before and after a contrast shift in Photoshop shows the creation of a rather jagged histogram, indicating that many discrete pixel values have been lost or greatly reduced during the process. This, I would have thought, will result in less smooth graduation in the resultant print.

If the resultant loss of quality is noticeable in the finished print, then it would suggest that exposing and developing so as to reduce the amount of contrast manipulation (in this case, in software rather than in the selection of paper grades) is still a valid requirement and the Zone system is still of use in the digital world. Precisely how you calibrate your system to get the best from your scanner+software+printer combination I will leave to others....

Cheers,

[Darin Cozine]

If you decide to try sheet film, I highly reccomend the unicolor print drum method of developing. I've tried a few different inexpensive methods and this works great.