Expansion

[Michael Lloyd]

I was out with the 4x5 late this afternoon. I was on a mission to find a scene where the exposure range was fairly narrow. In The Negative Ansel Adams talks about expansion of the range of a black and white by extending the developing time. He used a term N+1 but I can't seem to find what N is and I'm not sure what the units are. Does N = minutes? Am I supposed to add 1 minute to the developing time?

The range of exposure in the scene was about 5 stops. Do I even need to worry about expansion?

The "book value" for Delta Pro 100, developed in Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) is 12 minutes.

Maybe I'm trying to go too fast? IDK. There's enough to learn without stepping into this territory I guess but (A) the film is about 4 years old and was stored without refrigeration and (B) I learn best by doing. Honestly, the first sheets of film came out ok. A little over exposed but they scanned ok and I was able to get a nice print out of it (digital). It's kind of funny to me that in addition to shooting 2 sheets of film I shot a 5 shot HDR with my DSLR and a 15mm Zeiss lens. I enjoyed the 4x5 orders of magnitude more than I did the DSLR. It's much more fun to open a present if you don't know what it is beforehand.

All information is appreciated

[lenser]

I believe that is Normal development plus one minute.

[Michael Lloyd]

That seems logical but I'm in uncharted territory for me. Onward through the fog :)

[Light Guru]

N means Normal development time. Adding or subtracting development times is usually done in 20% time increments.

However to understand when to add or subtract development times you must understand the zone system. When shooting with the zone system you place your shadows on zone 3 and your highlights on zone 7. You use the difference between these two meter readings to determine your development.

Here is a nice article that talks about it.
http://people.goshen.edu/~marvinpb/zone.html

With some spot meters you can add a sticker to the dial to make this even easier. Like this.
http://www.apug.org/forums/attachments/classifieds-sale/18097d1271465430-fs-pentax-spotmeter-v-dsc01043.jpg.att

[Light Guru]

When using the zone system it is really important to take notes. With each sheet of film I expose I fill out a 3x5 card that I designed to keep the notes. On the card I included the zone scale and a spot to record the EV readings I get from my spot meter. With those filled out I then make note of if I need to use N development, N-1 development etc.

Here is a photo of to cards from a recent trip to glacier national park. The card on the right shows N development time and the card on the left shows N+1 development time.

99229

Hope this helps.

[Michael Lloyd]

Yessir, I put the shadows in zone 3 and highlights were in zone 7. I was doing the math in my head so I'm no 100% sure I got it right. Exposure was 1/8s @ f16 ISO 100

[Light Guru]

Yessir, I put the shadows in zone 3 and highlights were in zone 7. I was doing the math in my head so I'm no 100% sure I got it right. Exposure was 1/8s @ f16 ISO 100

And what what the difference in your readings for zone 3 and zone 7? This is what is needed to know if your development needs to be adjusted.

[Michael Lloyd]

I was just reading the article. I had a total of 6 stops difference if I did my math right

[Light Guru]

I was just reading the article. I had a total of 6 stops difference if I did my math right

And based on that how should you adjust your development.

[Tim Meisburger]

Wow!

[Michael Lloyd]

N-2 or 12 minutes turns into 7 minutes. i was about to mess up...

[Michael Lloyd]

This is the second time I've ever developed film... not counting a couple of times when I was 8. That didn't go well :)

[Light Guru]

I was just reading the article. I had a total of 6 stops difference if I did my math right


N-2 or 12 minutes turns into 7 minutes. i was about to mess up...

That should be a N+2. A N-2 would be if you only had 2 stops difference.

[Michael Lloyd]

Well... I'm glad that you gave me a link to that article. I've learned something which is the goal. A few somethings.

(1) I don't keep records and that's not a good thing.
(2) I thought that I understood the zone system but I actually only understand the concept not the mechanics of using it.

The good news is that however the negatives turn out will be fine. If I screw them up I learned something. If i don't, I got lucky. BTW- that means that they are in the drum. Have been all this time. I'm washing them now. Lord only knows what's going to come out of that drum :)

Either way... thanks a ton for your help. It been valuable

[Michael Lloyd]

Well H E double toothpicks... the one thing that I didn't count on was loading the drum wrong, again. The two sheets of film ended up on top of one another. I knew something felt wrong when I was loading them but I couldn't tell what it was. I use a Harrison tent and it's a little clunky. I can load holders in a short time but the tank is still a struggle. But I know what I did wrong so maybe I'll get it right the next time I try. The sheets developed enough to see the image but there's no way they are useable.

Good... now I can go back and do it right.

[Light Guru]

Well... I'm glad that you gave me a link to that article. I've learned something which is the goal. A few somethings.

(1) I don't keep records and that's not a good thing.
(2) I thought that I understood the zone system but I actually only understand the concept not the mechanics of using it.

The good news is that however the negatives turn out will be fine. If I screw them up I learned something. If i don't, I got lucky. BTW- that means that they are in the drum. Have been all this time. I'm washing them now. Lord only knows what's going to come out of that drum :)

Either way... thanks a ton for your help. It been valuable

No problem I love talking zone system and helping others understand how to use it. I highly encourage you to keep notes. I just print my exposure record onto blank 3x5 cards. Once scanned in you can add the info on the cards to the metadata of the file and then the 3x5 card gets stored with the negative.

After a few times using the zone system when shooting it will be super easy. Even easier if your spot meter is compatible with a zone system sticker.

[Light Guru]

Well H E double toothpicks... the one thing that I didn't count on was loading the drum wrong, again. The two sheets of film ended up on top of one another. I knew something felt wrong when I was loading them but I couldn't tell what it was. I use a Harrison tent and it's a little clunky. I can load holders in a short time but the tank is still a struggle. But I know what I did wrong so maybe I'll get it right the next time I try. The sheets developed enough to see the image but there's no way they are useable.

Good... now I can go back and do it right.

Yea I tried several daylight options. With the mod54 I always got film coming out of place, the unidrum worked better but you can still get sheets on top of each other occasionally. I ended up steeling on tray development. I keep my developer (D76) stock instead of watering down to 1:1 thus giving me shorter development times and les time in the dark. If I have an N-2 (which I rarely get) and my adjusted development time is to short with the stock solution then i will water down to 1:1 to make my N-2 time longer.

[Michael Lloyd]

I have two spot meters. They differ from each other by 1 stop. The old school Pentax meter is the one that reads one stop less. I like the L758DR because I can swap between exposure and EV but on the other hand I start to get lost. Having something to record the exposure reading on is going to cut down on the confusion.

I use the zone system and spot meter in my DSLR but it's still not intuitive. For instance, on the way home from shooting the negs that I just screwed up I stopped at an old Catholic Church. It was 255,255,255 white in the setting sun (actually not quite). I hopped out, metered with the DSLR, completely forgetting that it was on spot meter, centered the needle and bam... I got a gray church. Here's something interesting that came from that. That should've been Zone 5 right? So I rolled the exposure up to Zone 8 (+3 stops) and the whites were blown. Went down to +2 and I had a good exposure. If I would have been shooting film I would've been ok at +3 right? Assuming that there were no deep shadows? 90% of the scene was a big white church and the rest was blue sky

[Michael Lloyd]

Yea I tried several daylight options. With the mod54 I always got film coming out of place, the unidrum worked better but you can still get sheets on top of each other occasionally. I ended up steeling on tray development. I keep my developer (D76) stock instead of watering down to 1:1 thus giving me shorter development times and les time in the dark. If I have an N-2 (which I rarely get) and my adjusted development time is to short with the stock solution then i will water down to 1:1 to make my N-2 time longer.

Unfortunately I don't have the option for a darkroom. My best choice has a window, no door, just an opening, and two skylights.

If I would've loaded the Unidrum right I would've been fine. I put the film in 90 degrees off.

[Light Guru]

Unfortunately I don't have the option for a darkroom. My best choice has a window, no door, just an opening, and two skylights.

If I would've loaded the Unidrum right I would've been fine. I put the film in 90 degrees off.

What are you using as a separator in the unidrum. I had the best luck with these. In fact not one problem from when I started using the clamps to when I moved and had a laundry room that had no windows.
http://www.harborfreight.com/6-piece-78-spring-clamp-set-69375.html

Load the first 2 sheets put in the clamp spacer and then load the next two. The clamp heads move and thus will conform to the v shaped plastic holding the film.

[Light Guru]

Another reason I switched to trays is because I think it would be fun to try and shoot some X-ray film. From what I have read X-ray film is extremely easy to scratch and it has emulsion on both sides. The unidrum would just scratch X-ray film like crazy.

[Michael Lloyd]

Perfect! The first time I used the drum I loaded 4 sheets and separated with little clamps that I bought from the local hardware store. The problem was that the sheets slipped under the clamps because they were too short and didn't conform to the V. So the next time I only loaded two sheets and I did it right. This time I forgot about the orientation and put the two sheets in wrong. Next time I should get it right. I typically screw up in new and unique ways every time rather than repeat the same mistake over and over.

[Michael Lloyd]

Xray film. That would be interesting. How do you determine exposure?

[Light Guru]

Perfect! The first time I used the drum I loaded 4 sheets and separated with little clamps that I bought from the local hardware store. The problem was that the sheets slipped under the clamps because they were too short and didn't conform to the V. So the next time I only loaded two sheets and I did it right. This time I forgot about the orientation and put the two sheets in wrong. Next time I should get it right. I typically screw up in new and unique ways every time rather than repeat the same mistake over and over.

The more you shoot and develop the easier it gets.

If you want a copy of the exposure record card I use let me know.

[Light Guru]

Once you figure out what ISO the X-ray film you are using it should be the same. X-ray film however is not sensitive to all wavelengths of light like regular film is. So from what I have read its kinda like always shooting with a colored filter on.

However because it is not sensitive to all wavelengths of light you can use a certain type of colored light bulb and develop the negatives by sight.

[Michael Lloyd]

Once you figure out what ISO the X-ray film you are using it should be the same. X-ray film however is not sensitive to all wavelengths of light like regular film is. So from what I have read its kinda like always shooting with a colored filter on.

However because it is not sensitive to all wavelengths of light you can use a certain type of colored light bulb and develop the negatives by sight.

I like the develop by sight part. Sounds interesting. I think I'll try to figure out regular film first. It's getting better every time. Ok so I screwed it up 2 out of 3 times but I learned something so it's all good.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Michael, before you venture out with your camera, if you are happy with your EI (ISO that works for you), then you need to find your N times. Set up a simple scene in your home. Eliminate as many variables as possible, such as bellows extension and reciprocity effect. Have a dark shadow with texture/detail and a highlight tone with texture. I play around with mine until I have 5 stops between the shadow and highlight (zone III to VIII). Have other objects that fall on zone VI and IX. Take a reading of the shadow, place it on zone III. Expose a few sheets of film. Develop them at different times. Print them, scan them whatever is your preference. You should find one of them is good (detail in both zone III and VIII). If not, do it again. Once you've nailed it, expose a few more sheets and try N-1 and N+1. If you have an object that falls on zone IX in your scene, the ideal negative will print like it's zone VIII. An object that falls on zone VII will print with a zone VIII tonality for the N+1 test.
Once you have these N times nailed down, go out into the field and look for subjects/compositions to photograph. Later on you can test for reciprocity, or just use the manufacturer's suggested factors (which I find to be a bit on the excessive side).
Slow down. It'll come to you.

[Michael Lloyd]

I did something like what you suggested this morning Andrew. Rather than waste anymore film I used my archaic, overly complicated, digital capture device (AOCDCD) to record the scene and I metered it with a Sekonic L758 set to spot with the exception of the average scene brightness reading that I took with the lumisphere out. I also recorded EV just for fun. I quickly did a B&W conversion in SEP 2 and then I added my little zone chart to the bottom of the image.

I metered my desired Zone 3 point at 1/10s @ f16 with my spot meter. Highlights were 1/60s @f16. ISO 100. That's not even 4 stops. The EV readings indicate 4.4 stops.

The DSLR recorded the scene but I had to push it up 1/2 stop in LR and pull the whites back a little so they weren't blown out before i opened it in CS. I have my white point limited to 253,253,253 in CS. One thing to remember, every time an image is saved Raw to TIF then TIF to JPG the info gets scrunched up. Something that is close to clipped on either end in the RAW file will be clipped in the JPG and might be clipped in the TIF

While I was in Photoshop I added the RGB values to the image as well as other data. They aren't exact because there is a lot of subtle gradation in the image.

So here's the result of the test. It's not valid for film due the the lack of dynamic range of the DSLR but the metering is the same regardless. Let the analysis begin. (PS- I know... it's soft. It's handheld)

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s9/v86/p1878965240-6.jpg

[ic-racer]

You could try printing on multigrade paper and forgo the Other N permutations. In terms of X-ray film exposure index you could probably use a method like you use for your panchromatic film.

[Michael Lloyd]

I'm afraid that I may never get to print in the darkroom. I can see a film developing darkroom in my future but after that it's probably going to be scan and print via computer. But, you never know. Printing is a whole new adventure.

[Tim Meisburger]

Never say never. It starts with a few contact prints in the closet, and pretty soon you are not sure if you would rather shoot, or print. Its really addictive...

[Michael Lloyd]

Never say never. It starts with a few contact prints in the closet, and pretty soon you are not sure if you would rather shoot, or print. Its really addictive...

Absolutely true!

[ic-racer]

It seems to me that controlled manipulation of negative contrast would only be needed when scanning and ink printing with a "no touch" technique where one scans and prints without mathematic manipulation of the digital information obtained from scanning.

[Michael Lloyd]

I can't think of a time where I would not do "mathematic manipulation of the digital information obtained from scanning". It takes time and effort to get a digital print ready. Maybe not the same as a wet print but I don't know anyone at any level that just sends an image to the printer with no tweaks.

[ic-racer]

I can't think of a time where I would not do "mathematic manipulation of the digital information obtained from scanning". It takes time and effort to get a digital print ready. Maybe not the same as a wet print but I don't know anyone at any level that just sends an image to the printer with no tweaks.
So in that case you can develop to your N for everything and adjust pixels' values mathematically using the software tools in just about any image manipulation software.

[Michael Lloyd]

So shoot any old way and fix it in post? None for me thanks. I see so much of that garbage on the web these days... People blow the highlights and then expect some magic slider in software to recover data that's gone forever. The photographer is giving way to the picture maker.

When I shoot digital I strive to get it right in the camera. With film I would think that creating the best negative possible makes sense. If I have the best negative that I can, then do the best job that I can when I scan the negative, then I can do what I want to with the file in post processing not what I have to in order to get a file ready for print. One is a creative process... one is hacking away at pixels.

[ic-racer]

Alterations in N development were to match a scene to the printing range of a paper or group of papers. There would be no role if scanning unless the scanner only had a limited logd range.

[Bill Burk]

I believe that is Normal development plus one minute.

No that's not it. Not MINUTES. Plus and Minus are how much time in the developer to deal with subject brightness changes in STOPS.

Think of N being 7 stops of subject range (Zone I to VIII).

N development time is the "right" amount of development to make a great negative with that.

You have to develop a certain amount LONGER to make a great negative when you have 1 stop LESS subject range than Normal.
N+1 is the right amount of time to make a good negative from 6 stops of subject.

You have to develop SHORTER TIME when the subject has 1 stop MORE subject range than Normal.
N-1 is the right amount of time to make a good negative from 8 stops of subject.

You figure out these times by doing testing, manufacturers don't often provide these times, even other photographers are hesitant to share their N times - maybe because one person's tests don't work for everybody.

Some people will say 20% more or less, because it often works out close enough for all intents and purposes (good enough to get you there)... But no way is it one minute.

[Michael Lloyd]

Alterations in N development were to match a scene to the printing range of a paper or group of papers. There would be no role if scanning unless the scanner only had a limited logd range.

Then for negatives that are going to be scanned we only need one developer and one film. Carry that a step further and we should just shoot color film and convert to black and white in the computer. In fact, why not just do it all with a computer and forget all of this film stuff?

"Our discussion of Zone System so far has related the different subject luminance ranges to a scale of image values that we have considered fixed, based on normal development of the negative. By departing from standard development, however, we can adjust the negative scale, within limits, to achieve a range of densities that compensates for long or short luminance scales." Ansel Adams, The Negative

Once the negative is developed I cant go back and redevelop it to work the best with paper and wet chemistry. I can't say that I'll never use wet chemistry to create a print. If I am diligent about how I photograph a scene and the parameters for that scene dictate that expansion or contraction would be helpful for producing the best negative possible I fail to see the error in doing so. The key word in your first sentence is were. Past tense. That's the reason that it was done in times past. That doesn't make it irrelevant for today.

[Michael Lloyd]

No that's not it. Not MINUTES. Plus and Minus are how much time in the developer to deal with subject brightness changes in STOPS.

Think of N being 7 stops of subject range (Zone I to VIII).

N development time is the "right" amount of development to make a great negative with that.

You have to develop a certain amount LONGER to make a great negative when you have 1 stop LESS subject range than Normal.
N+1 is the right amount of time to make a good negative from 6 stops of subject.

You have to develop SHORTER TIME when the subject has 1 stop MORE subject range than Normal.
N-1 is the right amount of time to make a good negative from 8 stops of subject.

You figure out these times by doing testing, manufacturers don't often provide these times, even other photographers are hesitant to share their N times - maybe because one person's tests don't work for everybody.

Some people will say 20% more or less, because it often works out close enough for all intents and purposes (good enough to get you there)... But no way is it one minute.


Awesome. Thanks for the clarification.

[ROL]

Holy cow! I'd say the OP definitely owes Light Guru a few drinks (maybe dinner as well, who knows where it could lead :D) for this degree of tutelage.

[Light Guru]

I did something like what you suggested this morning Andrew. Rather than waste anymore film I used my archaic, overly complicated, digital capture device (AOCDCD) to record the scene and I metered it with a Sekonic L758 set to spot with the exception of the average scene brightness reading that I took with the lumisphere out. I also recorded EV just for fun. I quickly did a B&W conversion in SEP 2 and then I added my little zone chart to the bottom of the image.

I metered my desired Zone 3 point at 1/10s @ f16 with my spot meter. Highlights were 1/60s @f16. ISO 100. That's not even 4 stops. The EV readings indicate 4.4 stops.

The DSLR recorded the scene but I had to push it up 1/2 stop in LR and pull the whites back a little so they weren't blown out before i opened it in CS. I have my white point limited to 253,253,253 in CS. One thing to remember, every time an image is saved Raw to TIF then TIF to JPG the info gets scrunched up. Something that is close to clipped on either end in the RAW file will be clipped in the JPG and might be clipped in the TIF

While I was in Photoshop I added the RGB values to the image as well as other data. They aren't exact because there is a lot of subtle gradation in the image.

So here's the result of the test. It's not valid for film due the the lack of dynamic range of the DSLR but the metering is the same regardless. Let the analysis begin. (PS- I know... it's soft. It's handheld)

http://wildlightimagingstudio.com/img/s9/v86/p1878965240-6.jpg

I'm not really sure where you are going with this and you have added quite a bit of things that are unneeded and add confusion. I don't see how this accomplishes what Andrew suggested.

[Michael Lloyd]

I'm not really sure where you are going with this and you have added quite a bit of things that are unneeded and add confusion. I don't see how this accomplishes what Andrew suggested.

Yeah... now that I go back and read it this didn't achieve his goal (or even come close actually).
The intent of the red numbers was to show the range of tonality across the scene, which, I suppose, is irrelevant.
Ev range just confirmed that there was 5 stops from shadow to highlight.
Average brightness is irrelevant.

Here's the relevant part- Zone 3 Shadow exposure was 1/10s @f16 and highlights were 1/60s @f16. 2-2/3 stops. My take away was that if that had been film I would have developed it normally. (I corrected this per Jerry's post. Some days it doesn't pay for me to try to do f stops in my head. Especially when they are in 1/3 stop increments)

I don't have the luxury of being able to shoot and develop film during the week otherwise I would have taken most of the morning and followed through with his suggestion. It takes a while to develop when its 2 sheets at a time. I liked his advice and I saved it for future reference.

[Jerry Bodine]

Here's the relevant part- Zone 3 Shadow exposure was 1/10s @f16 and highlights were 1/60s @f16. 5 stops.

Not so. If Zone III is 1/10s, then 5 stops would be 1/320s, e.g., 1/10 > 1/20 > 1/40 > 1/80 > 1/160 > 1/320.

[Michael Lloyd]

Not so. If Zone III is 1/10s, then 5 stops would be 1/320s.

True. I corrected my post and noted that it was per your post.

[Jerry Bodine]

And you made your correction while I was editing mine for further clarity. Heh, heh.

[Bill Burk]

True. I corrected my post and noted that it was per your post.

OK but if I understand where you aimed the spotmeter and saw 1/10s @ f/16 (near magenta 180) - that may be shade, literally "shadow" - but it's not what you call a "shadow" and place on Zone III.

Where you indicated with magenta 11 or 30 - the dark bark of the shaded side of the trees... That is what is meant by shadow reading.

[welly]

When using the zone system it is really important to take notes. With each sheet of film I expose I fill out a 3x5 card that I designed to keep the notes. On the card I included the zone scale and a spot to record the EV readings I get from my spot meter. With those filled out I then make note of if I need to use N development, N-1 development etc.

Here is a photo of to cards from a recent trip to glacier national park. The card on the right shows N development time and the card on the left shows N+1 development time.

99229

Hope this helps.

Can I get a copy of your film exposure records? They look brilliant.

[Jim Noel]

For traditional film N=normal time of development arrived at by testing.
N+1 is normal time plus 40%.
N-1 is normal time -25%
In other words if N=10 minutes, N+1 = 14 minutes and N-1 = 7.5 minutes.

For T-Max films N+1 = normal +20%

Everything depends on accurate measurement of light reflected, and testing.

[ic-racer]

Then for negatives that are going to be scanned we only need one developer and one film. Carry that a step further and we should just shoot color film and convert to black and white in the computer. In fact, why not just do it all with a computer and forget all of this film.

All true.

[Brian Ellis]

I haven't read the entire thread. If this is repetitive my apologies. The Adams book, starting on page 47, will answer all your questions and tell you all you need to know in order to use the zone system of exposure and development. But to summarize, and hopefully clarify what I think is some misleading information in this thread:

N means your normal development time, preferably determined by testing but otherwise based on the film manufacturer's recommended time. N +1 means enough additional development time (assuming you keep developer temperature and agitation method constant as you should do) over and above your normal time to increase density of the most important highlight (i.e. the brightest area in the scene that you want to show texture or detail as opposed to being pure white) by one stop, e.g. moving what would be Zone VI to Zone VII.

When using the zone system as I think most people use it, you first decide on the exposure needed to place the darkest important shadow area on the zone you want (see above) then meter the brightest important highlight to see on what zone that highlight would fall if you used that exposure. E.g. if such an exposure would result in the brightest important highlight being on say Zone IX and you wanted it on Zone VII you'd use that exposure but reduce development time by a sufficient amount to bring Zone IX to Zone VII (i.e. N minus 2) (or VIII, i.e. N minus 1 as some people do), again determined preferably by testing. As others have mentioned, if you use a zone system sticker this is very easy to do and eliminates the need to do math in your head.

Some people take notes, others don't. I used to until I found that for me it was more trouble than it was worth because the notes didn't help me figure out what I did wrong - wrong exposure? wrong development time? something else (e.g.misread the meter?). In theory there's a way to figure out whether it was the exposure or development time or both that were wrong but it's hard to apply that theory in practice.

You don't necessarily place the darkest shadows in which you want detail on Zone III. You place them where you want them based on what you want the print to look like, which could be Zone IV or higher or lower, depending again on what you want the print to look like. Some people (I'm one) have found that using Zone III for the darkest important shadow area often results in an underexposed negative so to be sure they capture texture or detail in the darkest important shadow area they use Zone IV rather than III. Or maybe you want a high-key print so you might place the darkest important shadow area on Zone V. Or maybe you want a darker, moody sort of feeling to the print, so you place that area on Zone II and develop so that the brightest important highlight falls on Zone V. It's all a question of what you want the print to look like and what exposure and negative development time will help you produce that print as easily as possible.

I think it's important to understand that all you can control by exposure and development is the appearance of the shadows (exposure) and highlights (development time). Everything in between will just fall on whatever zones they fall based on those two factors.

And finally, I think it's also important to understand that the zone system is a creative tool. It isn't something used only to make a printable negative. You could do that much of the time just by using the Sunny 16 rule. It's a system designed to help you make the print you want to make as easily as possible.

[ic-racer]

Changes in development time/temp alter the gamma/slope/contrast only. Any 'loss' or 'gain' of usable zones is an artifact of the tonal range ones enlarger and printing paper will reproduce. No information is lost from the negative and printing with a different enlarger or printing paper (or scanning) can show all the zones irrespective of intentional gamma-altering perturbations.

[Drew Wiley]

Remember that all this is based upon a personal standard of how you want the final image to look. It will vary with every different film and developer combination you
choose, and it is difficult to fine-tune unless you actually print the negatives. There are no diecast rules to any of this. You make up your own rules as you go along.

[jb7]

When using the zone system it is really important to take notes. With each sheet of film I expose I fill out a 3x5 card that I designed to keep the notes. On the card I included the zone scale and a spot to record the EV readings I get from my spot meter. With those filled out I then make note of if I need to use N development, N-1 development etc.

Here is a photo of to cards from a recent trip to glacier national park. The card on the right shows N development time and the card on the left shows N+1 development time.

99229

Hope this helps.

That's a good label, I think I'm going to base my own one on it, thank you-
However, although this might make it easier to take notes, I doubt whether I'll do it 100% of the time, unfortunately-

Thanks also for your contributions to this thread in general...

[rcmartins]

Based on LightGuru's I made one for myself which can be downloaded here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12493426/FilmExpRec.pages). It is in "pages" format (Mac) and has a 4x5 size so that I can sleeve it with each film. Hope it helps anyone trying to make their own film record template.
I noticed that on LightGuru's left record a 5 EV difference gives rise to a N+1 development. I guess the reasoning for this is: "The development should be reduced to account for a N+1 exposure". My reasoning is different. For a 5 EV range between III and VII I would have written N-1 reasoning: "I have to reduce or compress the density range so that a 5 EV exposure fits a 4 EV density range". Depending on the developer, temperature and agitation this could imply 20% reduction or some other value. It needs testing and calibration. As for the two approaches, I guess it is just looking at the same problem from two different angles, which in this case are 180º apart.
raul

[Light Guru]

Based on LightGuru's I made one for myself which can be downloaded here (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12493426/FilmExpRec.pages). It is in "pages" format (Mac) and has a 4x5 size so that I can sleeve it with each film. Hope it helps anyone trying to make their own film record template.
I noticed that on LightGuru's left record a 5 EV difference gives rise to a N+1 development. I guess the reasoning for this is: "The development should be reduced to account for a N+1 exposure". My reasoning is different. For a 5 EV range between III and VII I would have written N-1 reasoning: "I have to reduce or compress the density range so that a 5 EV exposure fits a 4 EV density range". Depending on the developer, temperature and agitation this could imply 20% reduction or some other value. It needs testing and calibration. As for the two approaches, I guess it is just looking at the same problem from two different angles, which in this case are 180º apart.
raul

Your right it should be N-1 on that one. If I remember correctly there were some people just standing there watching me so I probably left rushed and circled the wrong one.

The reason I picked 3x5 cards over the 4x5 size of he film is because they don't sell precut 4x5 cards, and I didn't want to have to deal with cutting the cards myself. You can also buy pocketable 3x5 card holders and a 3x5 card still fits in the sleeve with you processed negative.

[rcmartins]

Ah, Ok, Zak. I wasn't trying to correct you but as I was a bit puzzled I thought less experient photographers here might be confused and just tried to achieve coherence in the information on your card. Thank you for your cards which are wonderfull and could actually help a lot (they already served as inspiration for mines). I have been using a book in the past where I write down information regarding each film holder and to which I append information related to the photo - a random variation of this card. Random because depending on the stress with which I take photos, more or less gets written and sometimes critical information is lost. Besides, I have different annotation books with information regarding development and enlarging/printing. Since I store film sheets in individual jackets I thought of making two sided cards that fold like a leaflet and within which I store my "dressed" (with jacket) film sheet.
In my previous post I published only the first page which is related to photo shooting. The second page has development and enlarging/printing information.
raul

[Michael Lloyd]

Ditto thank you for the cards. I've been using them. Since I started this thread I pushed the rewind button and have been focusing (pun intended) on the fundamentals. Im making steady progress. I've gone from destroying film 90% of the time to developing film about 85% of the time. I'm still working on getting the exposure right. No matter how many times I look at the back of the 4x5 the histogram never pops up... onward thru the fog