Film development according to Kodak

[lenicolas]

I don’t know of any commercial photographers using LF black and white these days, so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here.
Is there a way to get perfect midtones fidelity with B&W film? Maybe.
Is it a make-or-break point for todays LF photographers? I doubt it.

Interesting images exist in the extremes, not in the comfy middle.
There’s still a bunch of people on this forum who, when lens coatings are discussed, say things like “I don’t mind, I never shoot into the light source anyway”. Yet most of my best pictures were made doing exactly that.

I also see a lot of posts from people who have convinced themselves that classic photographic scenes have 17 stops of dynamic range and that everything outside the studio is out of the range of B&W film.

Let’s be a little more bold! The photographers who inspired us to pick up cameras certainly were…

[Gary L. Quay]

3) Archer and Adams simply assumed that expanding and contracting negatives was good. They had no idea that such practices produce tonal distortions that are all too obvious, even to non-experts.

Actually, Adams did extensive film testing. I don't think that he just assumed it.

That said, modern films don't respond to Zone System controls very well. I use a standard developer for most things, and I use a compensating developer to tone down highlights when necessary.

[Michael R]

One of the differences is that the huge amount of work people like Jones did on the subjects of tone reproduction (including film speed/exposure theory) began with empirical, psychophysical studies on the nature of print quality. What defines print quality? Given different subjects, luminance ranges etc. what differentiates a subjectively excellent print from an acceptable or bad print? What do observers consciously or subconsciously "look" at/for? Are there common characteristics? Then, can objective correlates be found, which can then be used to usefully standardize the parameters involved (film speeds and contrast aims, for example). In other words, the idea here was to start with excellent prints, and then in essence work backwards, considering the entire photographic system (see tone reproduction diagrams) to figure out the average negative characteristics most likely to lead to excellent prints.

The Zone System, by contrast, was developed in essentially the opposite way. That is, determine contrast aims and exposure indexes such that the negative density range "fits" into the log exposure range of a normal contrast, fixed grade paper. From a systematic point of view, strictly speaking it was not based on print quality.

Of course, this is not at all to imply or say Zone System practitioners make lousy prints. There are Zone System workers who make superb prints. But, there are also non-Zone workers who make superb prints. Likewise, most Zone System and non-Zone photographers make crap prints, or just decent prints. The only real common denominators are that people who make excellent prints are generally concerned with print quality, have well developed skills, and are willing to work (sometimes hard) on their prints.

I don't want to give the impression the Zone System is out in left field. Barring extreme procedures, it ends up basically overlapping with ISO, Sunny 16, etc., which is why people doing things different ways can get to the same endpoint, even if they need to use different controls at the printing stage. There is no free lunch, so to speak.

This is all evident if one reads Adams carefully.

Actually, Adams did extensive film testing. I don't think that he just assumed it.

That said, modern films don't respond to Zone System controls very well. I use a standard developer for most things, and I use a compensating developer to tone down highlights when necessary.

[neil poulsen]

Since when has 'boring' anything to do with it? Read and understand. If the scene is 'boring', contrast manipulation won't save it!

It wasn't 'assumed':

"It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

I take it you have not done the research that Kodak did.

Are you kidding? Phooey with Kodak and their "research" on making photographs!

In my opinion, they were a profit making organization concerned with selling products that appealed to the broadest populations. Consider what they put forward as their "Kodak Moment" examples of good photography.

YUK!

You may be correct in suggesting that, "if the scene is 'boring,' contrast manipulation won't save it!" But at the same time, a scene capable of being rendered as a a really fine black and white image can be cut off at the knees with poor contrast control. (I've seen this so many times.)

Look what we got from Kodak with all their "research" and methodologies: mediocre, forgettable photographs.

Look what we got from Ansel Adams with his research and methodologies: absolutely outstanding, beautiful photographs that will live into the future. Moreover, his generous teachings have enabled other photographers to learn the skills needed to make their own excellent photographs.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd have to disagree with Gary on one point. Nearly all films today respond well to Zone Theory. No, you don't have a realistic candidate for water bath treatment anymore, or other tweaks needing a thick emulsion; but that was an outlier. TMax films are nearly as malleable as Super-XX was; more in some ways, a bit less in others.

But I use whatever tools I need. I don't feel obligated to feel loyal to one camp versus the other. Sometimes Kodak hired exceptional photographers and printmakers, which sometimes followed their own "rules" and sometimes didn't. Some people have employed one kind of zone system tweak or another very eloquently; some have not. I learned it, put it in the toolbox somewhere, and moved on. But cumulatively, we have inherited a lot of tool options, a few which we can thank people like AA for teaching, and others which he either never heard of, or never tried even if they were available in his time.

Papers have changed a lot, especially with respect to the general demise or graded papers, and the rise of really good VC papers. That has been a sea change. Films have largely changed; but the quality control of the major brands is excellent, and the selection quite good, despite occasional blips in the supply chain like during this pandemic. Prices? .... well, not so optimistic. But we've still got everything we need to make images as good as any ever. The human variable will always the primary variable.

[Gary L. Quay]

I'd have to disagree with Gary on one point. Nearly all films today respond well to Zone Theory. No, you don't have a realistic candidate for water bath treatment anymore, or other tweaks needing a thick emulsion; but that was an outlier. TMax films are nearly as malleable as Super-XX was; more in some ways, a bit less in others.

Hmmm. I may have to give it a try again. I have been hearing for years that manufacturers have tried to tame the extremes of their films, and that made it harder to control development through the Zone System. That said, I still occasionally do a N-1 or N=1 when necessary, but I haven't done the film testing to know what kind of effect that actually has.

[jnantz]

It's difficult to fathom how enamored people are about their zone system religion. Kodak's data is more recent. I'm not being belligerent, just presenting the truth.

People do what they like to do, nothing wrong with that. Not sure what anything has to do with truth, its just picture making.

Can you post a link to your Flickr portfolio again ?

[Michael R]

Unfortunately OP seems to have gone silent.

People do what they like to do, nothing wrong with that. Not sure what anything has to do with truth, its just picture making.

Can you post a link to your Flickr portfolio again ?

[jnantz]

Unfortunately OP seems to have gone silent.

That's too bad, his Flickr portfolio really exemplifies everything that he talks about.

[Tin Can]

Well said!

I don’t know of any commercial photographers using LF black and white these days, so I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here.
Is there a way to get perfect midtones fidelity with B&W film? Maybe.
Is it a make-or-break point for todays LF photographers? I doubt it.

Interesting images exist in the extremes, not in the comfy middle.
There’s still a bunch of people on this forum who, when lens coatings are discussed, say things like “I don’t mind, I never shoot into the light source anyway”. Yet most of my best pictures were made doing exactly that.

I also see a lot of posts from people who have convinced themselves that classic photographic scenes have 17 stops of dynamic range and that everything outside the studio is out of the range of B&W film.

Let’s be a little more bold! The photographers who inspired us to pick up cameras certainly were…