Zone III meter or print down.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I just watched a very informative lecture on the ZS. The lecturer brought up an interesting point. He mentioned that metering shadows to zone III often can create a flat print even when properly developed.

His solution or workaround is to meter shadows higher let's say zone V. Which forces the entire exposure up into the characteristic curve. Then he prints the shadows back down into zone III. He states that doing this increases shadow detail and adds depth to the print since at zone III we do not get as much separation as zone V.

I think he makes sense and with an N-2 development you could still retain the highlights. However this is contrary to anything else I have read as well as going against what Ansel himself taught.

What are your opinions on this technique?

[Michael R]

This will all depend on the film, exposure index, how you meter, process, and the amount of flare (which flattens the lower part of the characteristic curve), not to mention how you print. Remember, it is difficult to really say where each "zone" ends up falling on the characteristic curve, so depending on many variables, placing shadows on zone II or III or IV or even V may give you anything ranging from a safety factor to higher shadow contrast. Luckily, most current general purpose medium/high speed films have long scales with significant latitude on the overexposure side (assuming the scene is not excessively contrasty).

I would say try it. Make some duplicate negatives at different exposures and print them. However I would not recommend reducing development time based solely on the higher overall placement. Reduced development does not necessarily result in "retaining" highlight detail. In fact, it can do the opposite. The effects of reduced development on highlights are frequently misunderstood aspects of systems such as the Zone System.

Hope this is of some help.

[Jim Noel]

I taught the Zone System at the college level for over 20 years. There are a lot of people out there professing to teach the Zone System and introducing their modifications who really don't knew how to fully utilize the system. If they knew, they wouldn't have to modify it. Placing shadows on Zone V basically is over-exposing them by two stops, then they are taken back down by over-printing. Maybe it works for him, but it certainly does not produce the best print. My suspicion is that he knows little or nothing about controlling contrast in the negative and places heavy reliance on variable contrast papers.

[cowanw]

see this
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum48/3...s-zone-iv.html

[Drew Wiley]

Everything depends on the specific film, developer, and lighting ratio. In other words, some blanket formula like this is essentially meaningless without specifying the parameters further. One needs to employ the Zone for their own needs and not visa versa. But personally, I never meter shadows on Z III except with Pan F, because this particular film has an exaggerated S-curve with a very brief straight line, which requires shadow placement relatively high (not the best choice of a film for high contrast scenes). Some sheet films will give you good shadow separation way down into the shadows, others so-so. So it all depends. Let me reiterate that the Zone System is not a religion, but simply a tool you tailor to your own typical requirements. But in general, if you overexpose, you risk either blowing out the highlights with normal development, or will have to resort to some kind of reduced development to rein them in, which will compromise midtone texture and microtonality.

[Drew Wiley]

... Let me clarify that - with sheet film film like TMY400 or TMX100, I general meter shadows in contrasty scenes around Zone I because these film have a reliable
steep toe. With films with a gentler toe yet relatively long straight line, like HP5 or FP4, I'll generally use Zone II. Metering shadows for something like Z IV or V
seems ridiculous. Even color transparency film has more latitude than that !!! Methinks someone's light meter doesn't work very well.

[RodinalDuchamp]

I am interested in all of your opinions because I rate and shoot tmy2 at 100. I find that the film generally handles this well but often requires extended development to reach a paper white highlight. For me this theory was interesting because it means additional stops near the shoulder where I am having issues, though I am also experimenting with N+ development and recently acquired a spiratone spii to replace my DSLR spot meter, hopefully it will be more accurate and my exposures can benefit.

Generally I find printing down a tone causes global muddiness in print which is unpleasant.

[Drew Wiley]

TMY @ 100 ?? What on earth developer are you using? Unless you're metering is way off, that seems like horrendous overexposure to begin with.

[ic-racer]

A scene has no zones, it has EV values. You give it zones. 'Metering shadows to zone III..." is an ambiguous statement. What is a "shadow"? If you say "Zone III" that is a tautology. If it is a certain EV value then there is no defined connection to any zone. We know what zone III is in a print but in a scene it can be any value. If you print is flat, you underexposed the negative because you made a mistake determining what value of the scene was the darkest part that needed detail in the negative.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Drew, that is what it would seem like but its actually well within the films latitude. Using D76. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I actually want more of my exposure into the shoulder. I think people have given TMY2 a bad rap about being finicky. Let's say I like really dense negatives.