PDA

View Full Version : Was wondering who is still using the Zone System?



Greg
3-Jun-2016, 17:38
In the 1970s and again around 2000 did the whole Zone system calibration. Films were Super XX and later Bergger 200. Developers Edwal FG-7 in a 9% Sodium Sulfite solution and Rodinal. Paper Dupont Varigram and Varilour and later Galerie and Zone VI. Use basically a combination of George DeWolfe (studied under him) system using an Attenuator and Minor White's very classic practical tests. Plotted H&D curves and more (Hey I went to RIT and these were second nature to do). A SEI my meter of choice. Strayed away from B&W into color and Cibachromes. Now about 4 years ago got back into using LF and ULF film.

Well today almost all of the products that I had done my Zone testing are no longer available. Past few years have been processing in Diafine, and scanning and making digital negs to print Pt/Pl. I am able to read Zone II or Zone III and then by processing in Diafine, get negatives that scan beautifully.

So now wish to do some traditional film/paper darkroom work. My negatives developed in Diafine, while ideal for scanning, I have found to be quite inferior to the negatives I shot before using the Zone System. Considered making digital negatives for conventional paper printing, but prefer the hands on darkroom printing experience directly from the original negatives.

Am now considering doing the Zone System testing once more. Film of FP4 PLUS cause I participated last year in Ilford's Ultra Large Format (ULF) Film Program and now have boxes of it in the freezer. Fortunately kept and still have my MacBeth transmission Densitometer and a couple of attenuators (calibrated film step wedges). Would rather be out there shooting instead of spending many evenings doing the Zone System Calibration tests but realize just have to do it.

Would appreciate any advice on current developers and papers to run the Zone System Calibration tests with.

neil poulsen
3-Jun-2016, 18:06
I'm using the Zone System for HP5 4x5 developed in D76, and I'm very pleased with the results that I'm getting. I'm printing on Ilford warmtone fiber, which was part of my testing. I did this testing about a year or so ago. I'll soon be conducting calibrations on medium format HP5, which I believe has a different sensitometric response.

It's worth mentioning that "The Zone System," in essence, is Ansel Adam's application of William Mortensen's precept to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights that Mortensen spoke about in his writings. It's based on the fundamentals of how film behaves.

Peter De Smidt
3-Jun-2016, 18:10
Except that Mortensen's precept was "Expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows," according to Mortensen on the Negative.

jp
3-Jun-2016, 18:31
You may wish to try pyrocat hd or hdc. The proportional stain adds density for the ultraviolet based alt process print purposes while remaining fairly normal looking under normal light for scanning or silver printing. FP4+ is a good film.

Tim Meisburger
3-Jun-2016, 18:38
Except that Mortensen's precept was "Expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows," according to Mortensen on the Negative.

Well, yes and no. Mortensen understood and described the effects of varying development and exposure, and in that sense was a precursor of the zone system, which created a systematic and quantifiable approach to achieving Mortensen's vision.Mortensen focused on highlights because he was interested in portraits, and wanted to squeeze as much tonal variation as possible in zones five to seven, while avoiding blown highlights at all costs. Adam's challenge was to capture the texture of a landscape from the brightest highlights to the deepest shadows, in ten or eleven zones. They were both doing the same thing, they just had different artistic objectives.

Kirk Gittings
3-Jun-2016, 19:06
I can see primarily exposing for the highlights in that case but how does one develop for the shadows when development mainly affects the highlights? Makes little sense to me. I fail to see how they were doing the same thing. As I remember it Mortensen worked in the studio a lot using lighting? I may remember that wrong. If he did that was probably a major part of his contrast control equation.

Tim Meisburger
3-Jun-2016, 20:41
Well, I'm not expert, but my understanding from his book was that he didn't care about the shadows. He would sacrifice detail in the shadows to get more tones in the few zones he was interested in (the face and clothing). Also, I guess he lit the subjects so there were no deep shadows.

I think the quote above: "Expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows," is a misunderstanding. He was actually saying "expose for the highlights, and don't worry about the shadows".

Bill Burk
3-Jun-2016, 20:42
I use a sensitometer to make test exposures, develop and graph the family of curves and derive a Time/CI chart. I use those graphs to determine developing time for a chosen Contrast Index.

To use these with Zone System, I call 7 stops subject luminance range "Normal" and work from there. Lately, I've been troubled that Ansel Adams worked so hard to keep "gamma" and "CI" out of the Zone System, because I find them very easy to work in.

To use with William Mortensen, its a little trickier. He was absolutely NOT on-board with the Zone System. He thought aiming for the "bulls-eye" was risky and leads to boring negatives. He considered the most exciting negatives to be the "underexposed-overdeveloped" and "overexposed-underdeveloped" frames of the "ring around" and he taught that you should try to achieve one of those interesting negatives on purpose... because it would be a waste of time trying to hit the "bulls-eye"... miss... and make a boring negative because you missed the mark.

Peter De Smidt
3-Jun-2016, 21:46
Yes, Mortensen understood negative exposure and development, which even Ansel admitted in his The Making of 40 Photographs book. Mortensen coined his phrase clearly in opposition to Adams's maxim. Mortensen's "Basic Light" for portraiture was a light right by the lens, as well as one on the background. As a result, there were no important shadows. He advocated exposing such that development to completion would not shoulder the brighter values in the image. The idea was to maximize the number of distinct tones in the tonal area he was interested in. Thus, he gave less exposure and more development than standard Zone practice.

Back on topic, I agree that Pyrocat in its various versions is terrific for silver printing, as well as alternative process printing due to the UV blocking stain. It's good stuff, and it lasts a long while, especially the glycol versions.

Jim Noel
3-Jun-2016, 23:05
If a negative is appropriately exposed for total development the shadows will be open, and the highlights will not block up if the procedure is done correctly with the correct developer.. I have a lot of experience with this method. For over 20 years I went to Death Valley for 10-20 days just after Christmas. The heavy clouds which were present most of the time, made it necessary to use total development to obtain a pleasing range in the negative. I also use it at other special times.

neil poulsen
4-Jun-2016, 00:36
Except that Mortensen's precept was "Expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows," according to Mortensen on the Negative.

I stand corrected on this. (Thanks.) I remember reading this and thinking that he was referring to the "shadows" and "highlights" on the negative. But a more thorough reading shows that this is not the case.

I do think that Mortensen was concerned about both shadows and highlights, from his first two axioms:

Axiom 1: "There is never any interest in a completely black area."

Axiom 2: "There is never any interest in a completely light area without gradations."

But, he was more concerned about highlights.

I see that his new rule of thumb, "Expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows," was his alternative to the old adage, "expose for the shadows and let the highlights take care of themselves."

But, he missed that development had a much greater effect on highlights than on shadows, and that this would have enabled him to control both.

Well . . . I'm sure glad that Ansel Adams got it right.

Argentum
4-Jun-2016, 01:03
All I would say is to use fresh/new paper to do any tests and not some old stuff you've had lying around for years. Paper loses contrast over time and will skew your results towards over film development if paper is not fresh. Of course that can work for against you depending on your actual image neg contrast but best to set your calibration against paper which is giving the most it can rather than some undefined amount of paper contrast.

Which paper is a matter of personal taste and depends on your planned usage. Whether you want neutral tones or warm tones etc and whether you intend to do toning of various types. So what one person uses as their standard paper may not be the paper you choose to use as your standard paper. So you will need to test several papers to decide which will be your standard and calibrate your neg development to suit that one. These days VC paper is so good that neg development isn't as critical as it used to be but that isn't a reason to be lax. It just measn if neg isn't optimal for G2 or G3 then its easier to get to where you want to be than with some older fixed grade papers or older VC papers with limited adjustable contrast range.
Persoanlly I like neutral to slightly warm tone so stick with Ilford MGIV or now MG Classic. But many people prefer the warmer tones of Ilford MG Warmtone.
I'm sure everyone will tell you their favourite paper which will only re-inforce the need for you to find your own favourite.

Doremus Scudder
4-Jun-2016, 07:35
... Am now considering doing the Zone System testing once more. Film of FP4 PLUS cause I participated last year in Ilford's Ultra Large Format (ULF) Film Program and now have boxes of it in the freezer. Fortunately kept and still have my MacBeth transmission Densitometer and a couple of attenuators (calibrated film step wedges). Would rather be out there shooting instead of spending many evenings doing the Zone System Calibration tests but realize just have to do it.

Would appreciate any advice on current developers and papers to run the Zone System Calibration tests with.

Greg,

There are a lot of us Zone System users out there as well as people that use some technically more refined methods (BTZS, etc.). There are a lot of discussions here about modifying the Zone System so that it more closely matches modern film-speed determination methods and so that it takes into account (at least approximately) camera flare and other tone-reproduction considerations. If you're interested, do a search on the names of the primary leaders of these discussions, Bill Burk, Stephen Benskin and Michael R among others.

These days, many do not calibrate a complete range of development options ranging from N-4 through N+4; they instead have only one or two contractions and expansions and rely more on changing paper grade to compensate for contrast differences. Personally, I don't like to develop more than N+2 and avoid that when possible, often indicating a higher contrast-grade paper instead of expanded development (e.g., N+1 and grade 4 paper for this one!). For contractions I rarely use more than N-1, preferring to use print manipulations rather than sacrifice local contrast. That said, in very contrasty situations I'll employ SLIMT to get negatives with reduced contrast (there's a thread here on the topic somwhere, just search SLIMT if you're interested).

I did my first Zone System calibrations when I had no access to a densitometer and did them visually in accordance with the instructions in "The New Zone System Manual" by Minor White, Richard Zakia and Peter Lorenz. It served me so well that I have never seen the need to purchase a densitometer. My adaptation of their method uses real-life subjects shot in average lighting and then enlarged (not contact printed) from the negative to attempt to take camera and enlarger flare into consideration. My effective E.I.s are usually 1/3-2/3-stop slower than ISO speed.

I use PMK as my primary film developer now. If I were to try a new non-staining developer, I think Xtol would be my first choice. I like cold-tone papers with a clean white base, and, of the current offerings, am using Adox MC110, Ilford Galerie, Foma 111, both graded and VC. A lot of people swear by the Ilford MG papers (now called Classic and Warm-tone). I haven't tried the new offerings yet, but they are certainly standards in the industry.

Despite all the criticisms of the Zone System, ranging from, "it's unnecessary," to "it's inherently inaccurate and based on faulty assumptions," I still find it the only system that at least attempts to incorporate a simple method of visualization of the final print with exposing and developing the negative. For that reason alone, I find it indispensable for my way of working.

Hope this helps.


If a negative is appropriately exposed for total development the shadows will be open, and the highlights will not block up if the procedure is done correctly with the correct developer.. I have a lot of experience with this method. For over 20 years I went to Death Valley for 10-20 days just after Christmas. The heavy clouds which were present most of the time, made it necessary to use total development to obtain a pleasing range in the negative. I also use it at other special times.

------ Hijack Alert -------

Jim,

I'd be very interested in learning more about the technique of developing negatives to completion and how that affects E.I., metering, contrast controls etc. Maybe you can elaborate a bit here or PM me if you think it's too off-topic for this thread.

Best,

Doremus

neil poulsen
4-Jun-2016, 10:32
The reason I use the zone system, is because, to my experience, no amount of paper contrast control will make up the difference that can result from an "incorrectly" exposed or developed negative.

Once one has a good negative, paper contrast control can be used to optimize the final print.

Mark Sawyer
4-Jun-2016, 10:57
Just a note that Mortensen had some wild techniques, like developing film overnight in the refrigerator. He also printed through textured screens, which put detail into blank areas of highlights and shadows. But he had consistency, control, and achieved the results he wanted.

Kirk Gittings
4-Jun-2016, 11:02
If not "incorrectly" exposed or developed then certain less than "optimally" exposed and developed. Quality multi-grade papers can cut you a some slack from optimum, but optimum is always preferable.

Bruce Watson
4-Jun-2016, 11:51
So now wish to do some traditional film/paper darkroom work. My negatives developed in Diafine, while ideal for scanning, I have found to be quite inferior to the negatives I shot before using the Zone System.

Yep. Negatives optimized for scanning are often difficult to darkroom print, but negatives optimized for the darkroom usually scan just fine.

Scanning let me go from "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" to "expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may" which is substantially easier IMHO. This worked for me if my "N" development gave me a Zone VIII density of around 1.0. I'm not saying that this is a standard that will work for everyone, I'm saying this is what worked for my workflow and my equipment. IOW, YMMV!

When darkroom printing once can't be nearly as "free" as it were, because one has to nail both ends of the negatives density scale down. It might help to remember that the negative is nothing more or less than an intermediary. It's purpose is to help you fit the range of tones in the scene you capture, to the range of tones the print can reproduce. For example, if your paper can give you six stops, and your scene is showing you eight stops, with a proper exposure and N-2 developing you should have an easy time printing.

For that to work, you have to find two things. Your personal EI, so you can expose for the shadows.

Second, your personal "N" development time. That is, the time that gives you a zone VIII film density that lets you easily make prints on your favorite paper. Then you'll have to test around this, to find your N-2, N-1, N+1, etc. development times.

You'll need something else though -- good record keeping, because you'll need to know which negatives have to be developed which way, and you'll have to make that decision in the field (usually), so you can match which exposures get which development time.

That, the record keeping, was always the hardest part for me. And getting out from under that requirement was one of the reasons I loved scanning and inkjet printing so much.

Good luck with it. Darkroom printing has it's own rewards, for sure. Enjoy!

Greg
4-Jun-2016, 15:52
Thanks to all who posted advice. Have decided to do the following:

Evening 1: I have a stack of mostly unopened Zone VI, Galerie, and Multigrade papers. Expose a sheet from each box using a calibrated step wedge. New bottle of Moersch ECO 4812 paper developer just arrived.This will tell me if the paper is still good or not. Good paper for enlarging, bad paper for Photograms. I have a few bottles of very old HC-110 which should be great to experiment with (Using Kodak HC-110 for that grand gesture at: http://nonfigurativephoto.blogspot.com/2016/04/using-kodak-hc-110-for-that-grand.html). This will give me each paper's density range from white to black.

Evening 2: Expose 12 4x5 sheets of FP4 PLUS under the enlarger with a step wedge atop each sheet. In Rodinal, HC-110 and maybe another developer or different dilution develop each batch of 4 sheets for 5', 10', 15', and 20'. I use a JPBO 3010 drum to process my 4x5 film which doesn't exactly make it easy for different processing times for each batch of film so will just hand process in a tray.

Evening 3: Take density readings and plot density curves of Zones. Have always used the method as described in the Handbook for Contemporary Photography by Arnold Gassan. Book from 1977 so I guess that really dates me.

Evening 4: Sit down and determine normal, plus, and minus development for one or two developers and two or three papers.

Then just go out and shoot using the test results as starting points.

Michael wrote me "skip the EI test. There are simple reasons why the Zone System EI comes out a predictable 1/2 to 1 stop lower than ISO speed, so you can just use the theory and skip the test - which reveals nothing." I totally agree.

Come next weekend plan on visiting some old photo sites and rephotograph the changes.

Michael R
4-Jun-2016, 16:21
Just to caveat/clarify my advice about personal EIs, really it comes down to how you meter a scene and how you visually evaluate subject "Zones". What I mean when I say the typical Zone System EI test itself doesn't reveal anything substantial is that barring the use of extreme processing procedures or specialized developers, all it really does is confirm the differences in methodology. It doesn't tell you about film speed or personal film speed or whatever we choose to call it. There is a logical reason why most ZS testers find an EI 1/2 to 1 stop lower than ISO speed (but it doesn't relate to print quality). Further, since the ZS EI test is flare-free, an average flare factor under actual shooting conditions cancels out the EI/ISO speed difference under ZS criteria. This doesn't mean personal EIs are wrong. It's just about knowing how to interpret test results. Understanding the ZS EI test test allows you to short-cut it by simply subtracting 2/3 stop from the ISO speed.

With respect to contrast/development (N-, N, N+), I'll just reiterate my advice not to get too caught up in densitometry, especially if one is using a staining developer. Density ranges are ok as starting points, but be sure to print test negatives for evaluation.

Finally, focus most on printing. It's probably obvious, but printing is where we really have the control.

Will Frostmill
4-Jun-2016, 18:15
Thanks to all who posted advice. Have decided to do the following:

Evening 1: I have a stack of mostly unopened Zone VI, Galerie, and Multigrade papers. Expose a sheet from each box using a calibrated step wedge. New bottle of Moersch ECO 4812 paper developer just arrived.This will tell me if the paper is still good or not. Good paper for enlarging, bad paper for Photograms. I have a few bottles of very old HC-110 which should be great to experiment with (Using Kodak HC-110 for that grand gesture at: http://nonfigurativephoto.blogspot.com/2016/04/using-kodak-hc-110-for-that-grand.html). This will give me each paper's density range from white to black.

Evening 2: Expose 12 4x5 sheets of FP4 PLUS under the enlarger with a step wedge atop each sheet. In Rodinal, HC-110 and maybe another developer or different dilution develop each batch of 4 sheets for 5', 10', 15', and 20'. I use a JPBO 3010 drum to process my 4x5 film which doesn't exactly make it easy for different processing times for each batch of film so will just hand process in a tray.

Evening 3: Take density readings and plot density curves of Zones. Have always used the method as described in the Handbook for Contemporary Photography by Arnold Gassan. Book from 1977 so I guess that really dates me.

Evening 4: Sit down and determine normal, plus, and minus development for one or two developers and two or three papers.

Then just go out and shoot using the test results as starting points.

Michael wrote me "skip the EI test. There are simple reasons why the Zone System EI comes out a predictable 1/2 to 1 stop lower than ISO speed, so you can just use the theory and skip the test - which reveals nothing." I totally agree.

Come next weekend plan on visiting some old photo sites and rephotograph the changes.

I'm thinking you could expose one sheet, by projecting a step wedge, slice it to ribbons, and tray develop for each of your times. (Put all of the ribbons in at once, pull one out at 5 minutes, the next at ten, the next at fifteen, and the next at twenty.) Maybe economizing on film is not significant for you, and this thought experiment is irrelevant.

Argentum
4-Jun-2016, 18:28
Further, since the ZS EI test is flare-free, an average flare factor under actual shooting conditions cancels out the EI/ISO speed difference under ZS criteria.


Is it flare free? I think it depends on where and how you do your EI test. And a modern lens with a good lens hood on it may exhibit very little flare in taking conditions when out and about in the field. The flare nonsense is over exagerated IMO. Sure if you are taking images looking into bright light then you will get flare. But then so do your eyes and your spot meter and camera lens. So you will see things lighter than they really are but so will your camera lens and light meter so you'll get more or less what you saw.

Michael R
4-Jun-2016, 18:47
Shooting a uniform target is a no-flare test (there could be camera/bellows flare but that's another story). Even with modern lenses there will be some amount of veiling flare under actual shooting conditions, which will vary depending on the scene etc. Interestingly, flare would be the reason why Adams's target density ranges work even though the Zone System tests don't explicitly address flare. Even a small flare factor compresses contrast to some degree, and means the low values will not fall exactly where we think they will (or where we place them), which is why trying to nail things down to 1/3 stop or less is false precision.

Again, I'm not saying EIs are wrong, and there are different ways of getting to the same endpoint. I'm just pointing out some things about ZS calibrations which may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding certain variables in the process.

Bill Burk
4-Jun-2016, 20:15
Is it flare free? I think it depends on where and how you do your EI test. And a modern lens with a good lens hood on it may exhibit very little flare in taking conditions when out and about in the field. The flare nonsense is over exagerated IMO. Sure if you are taking images looking into bright light then you will get flare. But then so do your eyes and your spot meter and camera lens. So you will see things lighter than they really are but so will your camera lens and light meter so you'll get more or less what you saw.

I think these examples might help you visualize Flare. Think of the ratios of light to dark in the test images.

A camera-formed image of a flat tone target has a ratio of 1:1 and when you reduce the exposure reaching the film by changing f/stop and shutter speed, the entire sheet of film receives much the same amount of light. This is the traditional Zone System test which may be considered flare free.

A step wedge that covers the range 3.0 to 0.0 in contact with film can easily provide a test image that has a ratio of light to dark of 1000:1 and thus is flare-free

But a projected image or a camera-formed image of the same step wedge will not easily reach over 100:1 because of flare light. Some, for instance, reflects off the film during exposure and reaches bellows or camera interior and falls back onto the entire surface of film as veiling fog. This is the kind of test where flare distorts the shadow exposures. You might improve the quality of this kind of test by making an additional shot with exposure reduced by a factor of ten. Then the two shots together might give you test exposures that cover a 1000:1 ratio.

But other than this camera test of a step wedge taped to a piece of glass... most Zone System tests are flare-free.

LabRat
4-Jun-2016, 21:54
Finally, focus most on printing. It's probably obvious, but printing is where we really have the control.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but if one has a good, easy to print neg, it is chimp simple to make a good print without alterations, and have room for other controls to alter the look...

But if someone is fighting a difficult neg, all of that latitude will be used up just trying to pull a usable image from it, hair will be pulled out, and having to settle for what one gets...

Putting effort into getting a good neg (rather than just shooting anything so/so close to the basic Zone V exposure, and sending the film to some lab backroom with over-replenished deep tank old developer), and learning the "sweet spots" of the film + exp + dev will make printing (or scanning) routine and easy... (No waste/drama/fuss, and one can print what they saw/felt while shooting... And be surprised with the improvements it gives!!! (Helps build confidence while shooting under questionable conditions...)

Garbage in/Garbage out...

Steve K

Bill Burk
5-Jun-2016, 10:52
Last night I got out the graphic arts tools and made Zone dials for three more meters.

The Pentax Spotmeter V served me well a couple weeks ago in Yosemite even though I had to mentally count Zones... finally got it stickered.

151487

Hans Berkhout
5-Jun-2016, 20:05
Use of the Zone System facilitates discussion about problems, results etc. with other photographers. That is a good reason for me to use it.

LabRat
5-Jun-2016, 21:08
Use of the Zone System facilitates discussion about problems, results etc. with other photographers. That is a good reason for me to use it.

I agree...

I think that any system that provides a baseline/calibration and a way to integrate this into the process (and other photo people), is a good thing...

I have met photogs that will run from the room screaming with the mere mention of the term "zone system", but their bias probably comes from thinking that there are other photographers that obsessively spend countless hours shooting grey scales and test targets and not out shooting real subjects... (Can be true sometimes, but not always...)

I think that anything that can bring the science to the table, apply it to process and produce results is logical (time after time)... (But don't get lost in the process, either...)

Going through some sort of calibration process is never a waste of time... The ZS has brought together the most important elements...

Steve K

Argentum
6-Jun-2016, 09:12
you have calibration built onto the film by the fim manufacturer. You know it will produce a slope which will print 7 stops of range at grade 2 near as damn it. And you know that an incident is calibrated to work with this.

So infact there is no need of any calibration. Its just that zs workers like to delude themselves that there is. :D

By using a spot meter you introduce a level of difficulty which a very large number of people never overcome. And you also generate the largest topic of photography web forum discussion. My observation over time is that the topics which get discussed and argued about the most are the ones that people just can't understand. Even the people who think they understand, don't.

Andy Eads
6-Jun-2016, 10:00
Check this out on our own forum. It's a big file ~65mb. Good shooting! Andy

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/VIDEC.pdf

Pixelmartyr
6-Jun-2016, 10:33
I still use the zone system. I even use it with digital when shooting high dynamic range. I don't like to struggle maintaining highlight and shadow detail so I use it to tell me what to do If I need it. Since Kodak's bankruptcy I don't shoot reversal film much any more and more so digital. But I won't let go of my sekonic.

Drew Wiley
6-Jun-2016, 10:51
Argentum - it is you who are deluded, especially if you think you film manufacturers "standardize" on grade 2 paper, as if all papers are sloped the same, or as
if graded paper weren't almost extinct anyway! Nor are all films engineered with the same kind of curve or same usable range. Far from it. That's why the Zone System was thought up in the first place! One size of shoes simply doesn't fit every foot! As far as I'm concerned, the ZS is simply a kind of shorthand way of
sorting different shots for different amounts of development once you've already figured out how a particular film behaves. That is something I largely do
subconsciously at this stage of the game, though learning the ZS early on was indeed a help moving forward. I still label odd shots N+1 or N-1, whatever, to keep these pieces of film segregated from the Normal development ones. Otherwise, I gave away my AA Basic Series books long ago; and Minor White's kooky
religion about the Zone System might as well be ejected into space like Timothy Leary's ashes. All kinds of models for exposure and development exist. Take you pick. But there is nothing manufacturer "standardized" to any of this comparable to color film development, except for the necessity of quality control in manufacture.

neil poulsen
6-Jun-2016, 10:58
you have calibration built onto the film by the fim manufacturer. . .

Lighting and contrast vary dramatically from one scene to another. Proper application of the science behind negatives, their exposure, and their development (the zone system being one such strategy), enables one to tailor the negative to the scene at hand to achieve a predictable result. This typically results in a much improved photograph.

Given the variables involved, the manufacturer is limited to providing a single exposure index and a single development time (adjusted for temperature) that works OK for the large majority of scenes encountered. It's an averaged strategy that can be relied upon to produce an average result.

But with a little effort to understand and apply the science involved, one can do better than that.

Argentum
6-Jun-2016, 16:36
Sounds very much to me that the implication of what the two of you are saying is that an incident meter is no good for B&W photography. I happen to think you're wrong about that and I rekon an awful lot of other people would agree with me.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. ZS zealots just don't know any better.

Pixelmartyr
6-Jun-2016, 18:01
I think most of you are reading way too deep into the use of the zone zystem. The way books explain it is overkill. It is the only fool proof way of maximizing exposure. Incident meters, reflective meters just don't give you the predictability. The zone system is so easy it's unreal. You meter for you mid tone. Check the shadows and highlights. Make sure they don't fall off ťhe scale. If they do plug up or burn out then adjust your exposure so that they dont. If you are forced to sacrifice one or the other. You compensate in the processing where you have numerous choices to do so. Aggetation , temerature, processing times etc. Depending on what materials you are using. Then when you capture the full range on film, you beat it into submission in the lab when you go to print. My experience has been that lab consumables are never very consistent. And the lot numbers change all the time. And even a given lot number will prove to shift over time. Even when within the expiration period. So. Just accept it's not a perfect world and make the most of what is given to you at the moment.. it's not rocket science. Accept that and you will find that it's not such an uphill battle. People consume themselves with Complexities they shouldnt. Just remember. It's the final print that matters. Not the preliminary crap because no one sees that anyway. Its caled making the most of what you have.

williaty
6-Jun-2016, 19:10
Sounds very much to me that the implication of what the two of you are saying is that an incident meter is no good for B&W photography. I happen to think you're wrong about that and I rekon an awful lot of other people would agree with me.
There's more than one way to skin a cat. ZS zealots just don't know any better.
It's certainly not "no good". However, it's not as good as it could be in some situations. The most obvious time when a reflected light meter and a framework for thinking about the readings like the Zone System are vastly superior to an incident meter is when your subject is in very different light than where you are (or where you can get to). There's a LOT of photography that falls into this category! The second is when you need a significantly non-literal rendering of the scene in order to get the effect you want. The third is when you're trying to figure out if the various lighting sources you've got are going to work together with your subject to form a result that will be well recorded on film. In all those circumstances, a reflected spot meter is going to give you more information than an incident meter. Once you're using a reflected meter, you have to have some framework to relate the readings from the meter into how the final print will look.

Really, that's the important thing about the Zone System: it provides a framework for thinking about how to turn the scene in front of you into the print you want to show other people. Yes, a lot of people make it more complicated, or more religious, than that and they really shouldn't. However, pretty much every photographer would benefit from understanding the basics of Zone System metering and how that metering process relates to the final result because those are fundamental skills for getting what you see in your brain into the final print. Whether you choose to go beyond that and use all the nit-picky tools the ZS offers you is another step entirely and there's only some kinds of photography that will benefit from it.

Cor
7-Jun-2016, 01:40
For what it is worth and my cent to this discussion:

Got this from my first teacher who said:I understand the Zone System, but I do no practice it religiously. What he meant, and what I do: read about the Zone system, try to understand the theory, but do not be a slave.

My approach: I use a spot meter, measure the shadow parts in the scene which I want to have full detail in, call it Zone III, open up 2 stops from there, and let the highlights land were they want. The vast majority of my negatives print fine on VC Grade 2.5 (that's my bench mark), if I need consistently a higher Grade I develop longer, if my shadows are consistently to weak I lower my personal EI.

The error margin in shutter speed, perhaps f stop, spot metering, processing off sets the obtainable precision of the Zone System in my hands ( I am well aware that this precision is reached by more meticulous workers than me, but I rather shoot and print).

Good luck,

Cor

Cor
7-Jun-2016, 06:18
Somebody PMed me and correctly pointed at a mistake I made:

.

My approach: I use a spot meter, measure the shadow parts in the scene which I want to have full detail in, call it Zone III, open up 2 stops from there,

Should off course read stop down 2 stops..sorry for the confusion,

best,

Cor

bob carnie
7-Jun-2016, 06:40
I think this pdf can illustrate how I feel about this discussion

I started to read through what I perceive to be an excellent article. I started to lose my mental cabbage about page 30.

With the right ghost writer many here could write a great manual on ZS . Even myself .
After 40 years of looking at negative and positive, processing hundreds of thousands of images I think I understand the process intuitively.

I was encouraged very early to study lighting ratio and how it applies to final print. Basically getting the exposure correct was practice, a lot of ring around's and
of course printing the negatives. So I do use a version of the ZSystem just I think mine is more of a practical experience workflow.
The garbage bin got filled many , many times.

I believe there are two camps, one as the pdf shows where the photographer is quite enthralled with the technical aspect of photography, and the other (mine) where a spot meter is a useless
piece of equipment. And and incident meter is only used to read lighting ratios if ever required, mostly I look at my hand and understand the ratio by seeing how dark one side is compared to the other.

Which method is best ,, I believe both. Most of the greatest photographers of all time never used a meter. Brassai use the time it took to smoke a cigarette to figure his exposure.
Then again there are many who use spot meters , plot graphs and make incredible work.





Check this out on our own forum. It's a big file ~65mb. Good shooting! Andy

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/VIDEC.pdf

Bruce Watson
7-Jun-2016, 07:24
ZS zealots just don't know any better.

There is that. I've tried a lot of methods, and none of them are better than the Zone System. Usually, they weren't just worse, they were a lot worse. If they were better, I'd be using them.

So you're correct, I just don't know any better.

Bill Burk
7-Jun-2016, 17:58
Last night I followed my notes regarding spotmeter readings and Zone placements for a couple of negatives.

I decided to pull out my two N-1 shots and develop them to 0.50 Contrast Index. Expecting the negatives will fit between Grade 2 and Grade 3. I was going to say that I don't really need to hit 0.50 to get a good print from the negative... because if it falls above or below, I'll be in the ballpark and it will just be more appropriate for one paper or the other. But darn' it. I hit 0.50 CI exactly. Now I've got a negative that is smack between and I have to make up my mind.

Of course I made a mistake about sheet order. When a Grafmatic is sitting on frame 5, then two top sheets are fresh. Got a fresh sheet out for sensitometry OK. And Frame 1 that holder would be third septum down... Got that one right. Whew.

But darn it messed up on the next holder... Shot 6 is the one I wanted and it would be the last septum in the stack of a Grafmatic having finished the 6. But I grabbed the top by mistake.

Got my first of two alternate compositions of "pounding rock" by mistake and developed it to N-2 when I wanted to develop it N. At least I didn't grab the second "pounding rock" for which I've ordered N+2 for graphic arts effect.

This straight negative of pounding rock will be just fine...

Pixelmartyr
7-Jun-2016, 22:26
No. You misunderstand us. I use an incident meter all the time. But only in the studio. Not in the field. Spot meters are best for field use. Incident meters are best for studio. I used reflective in film school but I haven't since then.

LabRat
7-Jun-2016, 23:00
An incident meter reads the light in space before it reflects off something (or a reflector, etc)... Which is OK for many subjects, but objects reflect what they do, and there might be a dark mud hole or coal pile in the scene or maybe ice, metal, glass, or water surfaces that can "lens" brightness to the camera... Or the overall key of the subject/scene might be higher or lower that might be chosen for effect... Can one at least measure what will fit into the film's range!?!!

I use incident, reflected, and spotmeters... All have their uses at different times... Different point spot metering tends to be the most useful for me, as I'm trying to meter to fit into the film's range...

Mastering metering is probably the most important tool that can be learned from at least running through the ZS procedure... But running an abridged system for oneself has benefits, as one uses what is needed (once calibrated)...

Steve K

Willie
8-Jun-2016, 06:38
http://www.viewcamerastore.com/

If you want to shortcut a bit you might check with Fred Newman at The View Camera Store. I know he used to offer zone tests for those not set up for it or who wanted someone else to do some of the work.

Drew Wiley
8-Jun-2016, 08:35
I get a kick out of reading personal exposure stereotypes that might indeed be valid under certain conditions, but hardly flexible enough for unanticipated circumstances. For example, someone over on APUG was arguing the redundancy of light meters because Atget got such wonderful images without one. Well, he
was habitually working in the "gray light" of Paris year after year, and simply knew from experience what to do. I have accidentally dunked my spotmeter into icy mountain streams and successfully worked from memory with the extreme contrasts in the mountains between snow and dark rock, glacial polish and direct light, even with chrome film. But let's see YOU do that without either a meter of legacy of sheer experience with a given film. With a spot meter and flexible exposure and development model, I can go into almost any terrestrial daylight situation and know exactly how to expose it, even if it's completely new setting to me. Getting a usable neg in a controlled light studio or moderate contrast setting is one thing; try it with twelve stops of contrast range like circumstances I frequently encounter, without sacrificing either shadow or highlight detail, or scrunching delicate midtone gradation. No, I don't go around thinking "Zone System"; that was back in kindergarten as far as I'm concerned. And I really don't care how someone else does it. But whenever someone has a flip attitude
about exposure, their prints tend to already exhibit that deficiency.

Kirk Gittings
8-Jun-2016, 08:48
The ZS is not a religion but a fairly simple (yes simple) workflow for determining accurate exposure and development. The really nice thing about it is that it actually works. I need it. The structure helps me keep on track. Does one need to use it? There are other methods that work too. No shit. I've actually seen people do it.

bob carnie
8-Jun-2016, 09:09
Drew I would love to hear some stories on how you would expose for the dark side of the moon.


I get a kick out of reading personal exposure stereotypes that might indeed be valid under certain conditions, but hardly flexible enough for unanticipated circumstances. For example, someone over on APUG was arguing the redundancy of light meters because Atget got such wonderful images without one. Well, he
was habitually working in the "gray light" of Paris year after year, and simply knew from experience what to do. I have accidentally dunked my spotmeter into icy mountain streams and successfully worked from memory with the extreme contrasts in the mountains between snow and dark rock, glacial polish and direct light, even with chrome film. But let's see YOU do that without either a meter of legacy of sheer experience with a given film. With a spot meter and flexible exposure and development model, I can go into almost any terrestrial daylight situation and know exactly how to expose it, even if it's completely new setting to me. Getting a usable neg in a controlled light studio or moderate contrast setting is one thing; try it with twelve stops of contrast range like circumstances I frequently encounter, without sacrificing either shadow or highlight detail, or scrunching delicate midtone gradation. No, I don't go around thinking "Zone System"; that was back in kindergarten as far as I'm concerned. And I really don't care how someone else does it. But whenever someone has a flip attitude
about exposure, their prints tend to already exhibit that deficiency.

Bruce Barlow
8-Jun-2016, 09:18
I always guess the exposure before I meter. I have even been known to wander around and find things, guess the exposure, and meter without having a camera with me. Getting to have a working knowledge of light has proven to be useful.

I no longer test for film speed, a la Picker. I just use 1/2 the rated speed. Close enough for photography. I do test for development time - that feels important. As a result, my negatives are rich with shadow detail and not blocked up in the highlights. They print like warm butter. Good enough for photography.

Kirk Gittings
8-Jun-2016, 09:32
I no longer test for film speed, a la Picker. I just use 1/2 the rated speed. Close enough for photography. I do test for development time - that feels important. As a result, my negatives are rich with shadow detail and not blocked up in the highlights. They print like warm butter. Good enough for photography.

ditto and warm butter ditto :)

Drew Wiley
8-Jun-2016, 11:58
Bob - when my nephew was still living with me and had a temp job at Lawrence Lab at UCB, he was the one stitching NASA shots of the back side of the moon.
I realize that you have a nice lab, but not digital imaging gear worth many billions of dollars. Just the insane screen he worked with was about ten feet across.
What you might more directly relate to was the utterly immaculate museum presentation of the stitched high-resolution digital prints themselves, maybe up to
forty or fifty feet wide. I don't know who actually pulled that off. It was simply attributed to NASA. I'm still working on my 8x10 flyby of some distant planet,
but am having trouble turning my Ries tripod into a launch catapult.

bob carnie
8-Jun-2016, 12:14
Ok - Drew your pretty hard to stump, how about telling us how you would spot meter Yoda sitting in his cave? His skin is a bit green so would you compensate?

seezee
8-Jun-2016, 12:14
I'm still working on my 8x10 flyby of some distant planet,
but am having trouble turning my Ries tripod into a launch catapult.

It's all in how your grip it as you swing your arm, and how you time the release.

barnacle
8-Jun-2016, 12:24
To be honest, I'm often tempted to read the bit on the back of the box: Keep the sun behind you. For bright sun, F16 at 1/125; if cloudy, F11.

Neil

bob carnie
8-Jun-2016, 12:31
It was good enough for our parents. I use this all the time


To be honest, I'm often tempted to read the bit on the back of the box: Keep the sun behind you. For bright sun, F16 at 1/125; if cloudy, F11.

Neil

Drew Wiley
8-Jun-2016, 12:44
I drive right past Yoda most weekends this time of year. He's a bronze sculpture near the entrance of George Lucas' Ranch on Lucas Valley Rd in Marin. But other than trespassing, I'd need to use a rather long lens or telephoto lens, which of course is best complemented by spot metering, which is my normal method anyway. As far as Yoda's complexion, it's hard to say how much this pertains to normal oxidation in salt air climates, and how much on any given day is due to seagull poop. I'd never ask Yoda an embarrassing questions like that anyway. He does have his own take on the dark side of the force being a certain number of zones lower than the dark side of the moon.

Andrew O'Neill
8-Jun-2016, 13:06
Argentum, I use the zone system, but I do not consider myself a zealot. I don't give a crap how you or other people expose/develop your film, nor do I try to convert them. You do what works for you and get on with it. You come across as a zealot. :)

Drew Wiley
8-Jun-2016, 15:50
"It was good enough for our parents"?? Out of the thousands of shots my mother took with her box Brownie, I don't think a single one was correctly exposed or
even level for that matter.

williaty
8-Jun-2016, 19:09
No. You misunderstand us. I use an incident meter all the time. But only in the studio. Not in the field. Spot meters are best for field use. Incident meters are best for studio. I used reflective in film school but I haven't since then.
I think an incident meter is still considerably less useful in the studio than a reflected spot meter. I have a Sekonic L-508 that allows me to switch between incident and spot in half a second. I went through a long period of using both to see which worked better for me. Reflected won, even in the studio. In studio, the primary advantage the reflected has is being able to tell me with great accuracy if there's a particular object or area of a setup that is brighter or darker than I want it to be and allow me to correct it via the lighting setup.

There's one and only one situation I've found where an incident meter is easier. Not better, just easier. When I'm trying to light a large area perfectly evenly for copy work or some other very literal repro work, I can check the evenness of the lighting faster. All I have to do is to put it in incident mode, hold down the measure button, and waive it around the space to see if the reading changes. I can achieve the same measurement by pointing the reflected meter at my hand and waiving my hand around, but it's faster to do it in incident mode.

bob carnie
9-Jun-2016, 05:47
But you still have them and treasure them I bet...

"It was good enough for our parents"?? Out of the thousands of shots my mother took with her box Brownie, I don't think a single one was correctly exposed or
even level for that matter.

Jerry Bodine
9-Jun-2016, 07:14
Argentum, I use the zone system, but I do not consider myself a zealot. I don't give a crap how you or other people expose/develop your film, nor do I try to convert them. You do what works for you and get on with it. You come across as a zealot. :)

Well said, Andrew. I tried but my diplomacy skills are very lacking. That's not my strong suit.

Drew Wiley
9-Jun-2016, 09:12
Bob, most of our immediate family stuff, along with 90% of the antique photos and memorabilia are with my sister, since her multilingual husband is now the one carrying the flame of genealogy interest, now tracing our lineages clear back to the Middle Ages. Lots of other stuff has been given to historical societies, especially since my mother's childhood home now houses the Oregon State Historical Society printing press and museum. I technically own Oregon's oldest cemetery there, though they maintain it. I've kept some very interesting albumen prints, cyanotypes, and old silver images - things suitable for framing or otherwise protecting in my personal collection, as if I didn't have enough damn prints already. Another huge task once I retire - getting a showroom back together, endless drymounting. I don't think I'll ever find time to publish any historical or archaeological lore like people want me to. Other priorities, and obviously limited time. But the lab itself is in fighting shape.

denverjims
13-Jun-2016, 07:01
IMHO: when posts turn to ad hominem attacks on posters; references to the nonexistent 'dark side' of the moon (you can look it up); and criticism of our sainted mothers' loving and caring photography methods - perhaps it is time to consider the thread complete? :)

denverjims
13-Jun-2016, 07:16
For the record, as a physics degree holder, I did consider the discussion on methods of achieving escape velocity with a wood tripod as being totally relevant and worthy of further detailed input.

Drew Wiley
13-Jun-2016, 09:18
Like I said, it's still in the early stages of testing. The Ries did manage enough velocity this past weekend to whack some nettles out of the way so I could get to
some exceptionally juicy wild blackberries. But sorry if referencing the dark side of the moon disturbs someone's disdain for popular expressions. Time to burn another famous music album, I guess. ... not that I'm wholly against Medieval solutions - that's what the spikes on the Ries are for !

premortho
8-Jan-2017, 19:43
I guess I must be the oldest, most backward guy on here. For 70 years, I've only used two different developers more than once. Rodinal and D-72. I've bought several different light meters, but only really only used one make, in three different models. Weston. For where I shoot, the Eastern US, the simple zone system works well for me. I've had to change films several times, because they went out of style. E.G. they stopped being manufactured. 99% of my shots are in natural light, which is why I only use one make of flash bulbs. Sylvania Press 25's. I 90% shoot ortho film, 10% Arista pan 100. I too explore scenes even without a camera and guess exposures, then compare to my Weston light meter. I guess I want to say that by simplifying all of that stuff lets me concentrate on the picture I'm looking for. I use back movements much more than front movements, because when I started, front movements were not very sophisticated. A good tripod is a plus. I have never developed in anything other than a tray. It all works for me.

neil poulsen
10-Jan-2017, 12:32
. . . I no longer test for film speed, a la Picker. I just use 1/2 the rated speed. Close enough for photography. . . .

I don't do calibrations all that often, maybe once in some multiple of years. But, if I did what Bruce suggests above, I wouldn't be off by any more than a third of a stop. :)

cowanw
10-Jan-2017, 14:50
Re: Was wondering who is still using the Zone System?

I am still waiting for the kinks to be ironed out; I am not an early adopter of new technology.:)

Bruce Barlow
10-Jan-2017, 15:28
I don't do calibrations all that often, maybe once in some multiple of years. But, if I did what Bruce suggests above, I wouldn't be off by any more than a third of a stop. :)

Which, as Picker used to say, "is close enough for photography."

ic-racer
10-Jan-2017, 15:48
I suspect almost all the film users here use some form of sensitometric method for exposure and development. The "Zone System" is a subset of a much larger body of information on film processing and exposure. In terms of specifics, I stopped "N+" and "N-" development in the 1970s when I started printing on multigrade paper. From the posts I read, I suspect I'm not the only one.

Maris Rusis
10-Jan-2017, 20:57
....In terms of specifics, I stopped "N+" and "N-" development in the 1970s when I started printing on multigrade paper.....

Me too, no Zone System. Multigrade paper means I can fit the paper to the negative to achieve a particular visualisation. The Zone System bends a negative to fit a fixed paper characteristic. My ideal negative is now one that has received maximum useable exposure (no, not maximum possible exposure) and has been developed to normal contrast. This negative contains the most photometric and spatial information about subject matter it can contain. And it permits the greatest variety of alternative visualisations if I change my mind later.

Rich dense negatives are no problem in large format work. It's the miniature camera users who have to worry about tone, gradation, minimal grain, and sharpness. These things are a given with big film.

Dan O'Farrell
12-Jan-2017, 20:45
Re: Was wondering who is still using the Zone System?

I am still waiting for the kinks to be ironed out; I am not an early adopter of new technology.:)

Reminds me of Chou-en-Lai, when asked about his opinion of the French revolution (1789) :
".....Too early to tell......"

Kirk Gittings
12-Jan-2017, 20:54
Hilarious. I'd forgotten that quote.

FWIW I now use a watered down version of the ZS. I think learning the Full Monty ZS still has its merit but once it's learned use what you need. But even a watered down version is still the ZS IMHO with Zone placements, some custom development, visualization etc.

Otherwise it's like saying getting drunk on mixed drinks is not really getting drunk. Only getting drunk on straight shots is really getting drunk. :)

Willie
13-Jan-2017, 07:55
On testing you might see if Fred Newman at The View Camera Store in Arizona still does zone testing and development. I know he used to offer the service and it made for easier testing for many who did not like all the tedium of it in their own darkroom.

jvo
21-Jan-2017, 08:53
i've used the zone system for 20 years... it's a simple method for me to measure the tones i want and re-create in the final print. there may be betters ways, it's a methodology that works for me.