Your Thoughts On The Zone System For A Scanning Workflow

[IanBarber]

With large format, I arrived late to the party, I have only been using it for a couple of years now and the majority of that time has been spent reading books and watching videos. I know I should have probably been out there making photographs and mistakes but I like to try and have a basic understanding on what I am doing rather than just fumbling my way through, its just the way I am made.

After reading lot's of material and watching tons of videos about the Zone System, they all relate to the tone in the final print.

What has got me wondering is, how the Zone System pans out to a scanning workflow rather than a wet darkroom workflow. For example, does an Epson V series scanner have a wider latitude than photographic papers. Is placing low values on Zone III and developing for Zone VIII high values still a good idea for scanners.

Interested in your thoughts on this.

[bob carnie]

Hi Ian

If you Dabble with LAB numbers you can use a colour meter set to LAB to start measuring the L channel which is 0 black - 100 white. So I use this information when setting my scans up as well use this information in PS as well when editing my files.

Once you figure out where your out put paper clips or goes to white or black, you can then start placing significant details Highlight and Shadow within these clipping points..

For example I have found that with inkjet any L value above 94 will go to pure white on paper and any value below 6 will go to black.
but with silver output these values change to 96/7 and 4/5 respectively.

Matt paper and gloss paper have different values..

there fore I would argue this is somewhat like the Zone System where you know your endpoints and within those endpoints you can curve shape to produce any look you desire.

Bob

[neil poulsen]

It makes sense to me.

I would set a film speed that ensures proper detail in the shadows. The typical test is to choose the film speed that renders a Zone I exposure at 0.1 density units above film base plus fog. Using this standard works to achieve proper shadow detail when developing using an enlarger.

Versus "0.1" necessarily, I would experiment with values that achieve proper detail in the shadows when scanning.

For me, using whatever film speed I've determined with the 0.1 threshold, developing in a way that renders a Zone VIII at 1.35 density units gives me the detail in the highlights that I like. But again, that's assuming that I'm enlarging.

Using whatever film speed yields the best results for scanning, versus 1.35, I would determine a value for Zone VIII that best renders proper detail in the highlights when scanning. Or, perhaps one should pivot on Zone VII instead of Zone VIII?

The zone system helps to render nice results with traditional photography. I don't see why the same general methodology couldn't be used to render nice results when scanning.

[neil poulsen]

Bob makes a good point. Matt digital paper may require different testing values than glossy digital papers.

[Pere Casals]

Zone System (and equivalents) is less needed for scanner workflow, darkroom optic prints need a suitable negative to obtain what you want without excessive effort.

With Photoshop it is really pronographic how easy it is manipulating a tonal scale if one is an advanced Ps user, and later lambda prints on FB are just perfect.

Also you can use blended monochrome inkjet inks: https://piezography.com/piezography-pro#overview

Silver photo paper (that can be used in a Lambda or in the darkroom) can deliver until 1:125 contrast (DMax 2.1D) if toned, inkjets may deliver some 1:65 contrast (DMax 1.8D) with good ink sets (several "black" inks for a BW print).

So with digital workflow you still may use ZS to obtain a suitable negative but this is not as critical as with darkroom prints. High densities may be difficult to print in the darkroom , and manipulating tonality is also a burden.

I come from manipulating everything in Ps... but now I find amazing obtaining a sound print in the darkroom, perhaps with some digital help: http://phototechmag.com/selective-masking-part-iii-computer-techniques-for-the-traditional-darkroom/

[bob carnie]

If you are uncomfortable with LAB you can set your info Pallete on the colour meter to read K values which once again read 0-100 tailor made for someone use to thinking in 10 zones... basically you just need to find out where pixel drop off point is.
Just because you can see detail on the monitor and you read pixel differencess ( I am talking above 95 and below 5) the proof is in the pudding or your paper you are going to print on and different papers can handle different pixel levels.

[chassis]

Ian, good topic.

I notice that several of the early replies address paper/hardcopy output. What is the output medium as it relates to your question? Digital only (monitor/tablet/mobile phone) or does it also include hardcopy/paper print?

[IanBarber]

From what I have been doing, I have been using the method Bob mentions which so far is proving good for the prints.

After watching Fred Picker's videos where he prints a series of patches to show him the limits of the paper, I am wondering if doing the same with a scanner would be beneficial, what I mean is knowing what the upper and lower limits of the scanner is when it comes to tonal separation.

[IanBarber]

Ian, good topic.

I notice that several of the early replies address paper/hardcopy output. What is the output medium as it relates to your question? Digital only (monitor/tablet/mobile phone) or does it also include hardcopy/paper print?

Although I do display some of my work on the internet, I always edit them with a digital print in mind. As Bob mentions, I also try to edit with the paper which I shall be printing on in mind also, whether this be Baryta or Matte.

[bob carnie]

From what I have been doing, I have been using the method Bob mentions which so far is proving good for the prints.

After watching Fred Picker's videos where he prints a series of patches to show him the limits of the paper, I am wondering if doing the same with a scanner would be beneficial, what I mean is knowing what the upper and lower limits of the scanner is when it comes to tonal separation.

Ian I always scan outside the end points, in other words make sure its flatter, never make the scan look acceptable you chance loosing end information, also with scanning I always turn off the sharpening, much better vehicles to sharpen post scan..

So I want as much as the scanner can physically give me at both ends and then work in PS.
Bob

[IanBarber]

Bob, out of interest, have you ever scanned a step wedge to see where the tones lose separation

[ic-racer]

how the Zone System pans out to a scanning workflow

It doesn't. There is no relationship to scanning.

[bob carnie]

Yes Ian

this is how Ron Reeders method of making digital negatives is based on.. Many people use step wedges for this purpose.

In my world I send a profile maker file to all my output devices and then bring in an expert with auto spectrometer to read and provide profiles, I use to own a Eye 1 spectrometer but frankly
I prefer to give this side of the work to people who enjoy doing it and are technically better than me, applying the profiles to the print drivers or into rip programs.

I do include an 21 step wedge that I create in PS to my workflow when testing pigments for gum printing, strip the wedge beside a common known image that I know prints well and I see where the pigments fail.

Bob

[Bruce Watson]

What has got me wondering is, how the Zone System pans out to a scanning workflow rather than a wet darkroom workflow. For example, does an Epson V series scanner have a wider latitude than photographic papers. Is placing low values on Zone III and developing for Zone VIII high values still a good idea for scanners.

I played with this long and hard, and posted quite a bit of what I learned on this website. Posts going back to the early 2000s. Search around and see what you find.

The bottom line, for me anyway, is that scanning in general and drum scanning in particular, reacts to silver gelatin negatives in much the same way that optical enlargers do. That is, both experience Callier Effect, or light scattering due to the metallic silver (light can't go through it, so it bounces off it resulting in light scatter).

Callier Effect increases with density, so it has a far greater effect on your highlights than it does on your shadows, or mid-tones. The visual effect is that your image isn't linear -- you get decreased contrast in your highlights, and some compression of tones. You can of course correct this (usually) with an image editor like photoshop. But it's an extra step you have to take, and it can be interestingly fiddly because it's not linear.

What this leads up to then is that the old rule still applies: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Since this is that Adams and Archer used as the basis for the Zone System, I'd say that the Zone System certainly still applies if you want to use it.

As I've said many times on this forum, if you're *ever* going to print your negatives in a wet darkroom, then optimize for that. Your negatives will scan just fine. If, however, you are *only* going to scan, you can may be able to tweak a bit more performance from your negatives by optimizing your development for scanning. What that usually means is developing for a bit lower Dmax for scanning than you would for darkroom.

In my particular case, with my particular scanner (an old Optronix ColorGetter 3Pro drum scanner), I found that my optimum was a zone VIII density of around 1.0. With negatives like this, I could often go without any Callier Effect corrections, the highlights were much improved.

That said, there are limits. If you reduce your highlight density too much, the compression of tones starts turning ugly and is quite difficult to correct (the few times I tried on experimental negatives). So you still have to actually do the work -- you've still got to figure out what works for you, your photographs, your development workflow, your scanning workflow, your printing workflow. Your optimal is unlikely to be the same as mine. Exceedingly unlikely. All I'm doing here is giving you an idea of where to start. Clearly, YMMV.

What I ended up with was a complete heresay around these parts. I found that I could expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may. Makes "real photographers" cringe when I say stuff like that. Yet, it works beautifully for me. In Zone System terms, I set my "N" development time so that I can reliably hit a Zone VIII density of around 1.0 with my highest contrast scenes. Then I develop everything, and I mean every sheet of film, with my N development time. So my highlight densities vary a lot, but typically hover around 1.0. The film so treated scans really easily for me and the resulting image files are very easy to work with. Hey, I'm not the resident heretic for nothing. :rolleyes:

Oh, and read this paper by Tim Vitale (http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf), especially the bits around page 19. Quite the valuable resource, this paper. Explains all kinds of things. Just the photomicrographs explain all kinds of things. Enjoy!

[neil poulsen]

. . . you can may be able to tweak a bit more performance from your negatives by optimizing your development for scanning. What that usually means is developing for a bit lower Dmax for scanning than you would for darkroom. . .

Is it development, or is it highlight values in the negative? Bear in mind, development depends on the scene. So, there's no single development time to be optimized.

I tend to stick with Zone VIII, because it's just about the lightest value in the highlights that still has some density to it, all be it, a very slight density. In terms of scanning, what Zone VIII density can render (after being scanned) that same kind or feeling of highlight on digital paper? That takes some testing, and Bob's comments in the second post become quite relevant in determine that Zone VIII density.

The zone system can then be used in the field to render Zone VIII values in the scene at that density. More contrasty scenes may require pulled development; less contrasty scenes may require pushed development.

Of course, some scenes may not have Zone VIII values. So, develop to place Zone VII values instead.

As I understand prosumer scanners, they scan the same way every time. (It's only high-end professional drum scanners that enable one to adjust the gain, or perhaps some other attributes, at the time of the scan.) So, it's the negative that needs to be tailored to the scanner for different kinds of scenes. That's what the zone system is all about; providing a methodology by which this can be achieved.

[Doremus Scudder]

At the risk of being flippant, I think you are all missing the point; or at least not mentioning it.

The Zone System is a visualization tool. It helps you better predict your results and therefore allows better creative decision-making at the negative exposure stage.

While the calibration between exposure/development of the negative to final tones/tonal separation in the print is undoubtedly different to some extent between analog and digital workflows, the value of the tool remains: it helps you visualize the final result.

Those who only use the Zone System to cram high and low values between the goalposts of Zone III and Zone VIII are simply not understanding the essence of the system nor reaping the full benefits thereof. It really doesn't take that much skill to make negatives that aren't over/under exposed or over/underdeveloped. However, there are a whole lot of negatives with "correct" contrast ranges that just won't make an expressive print. And, there are a whole lot of creative opportunities lost because people don't use the Zone System as intended to deviate from "normal" in order to achieve results better fitting their creative purpose (not to mention those that simply don't have a creative purpose!).

If there is any correlation between negative exposure and development and final output, one can use the Zone System. It's that simple. While the original system related to making silver-gelatin prints, there's absolutely no reason why adapting the system to use with scanning and digital workflow won't yield the same advantages.

Whether one is aware enough of the potentials of visualization to make use of those advantages is another issue.

Best,

Doremus

[IanBarber]

Those who only use the Zone System to cram high and low values between the goalposts of Zone III and Zone VIII are simply not understanding the essence of the system nor reaping the full benefits thereof

Isn't the idea to get everything to fit properly between the goal posts at the time of exposure/development and then make the creative decision at the print stage ?

[Pere Casals]

My view is that all debate about exposure systems is due to not considering what a sensitometric curve is.

IMHO all exposure systems have the same goal, my view is that we need no exposure system if we have an spot meter an a chart with the familily of curves, then we can know what particular density will have every spot of the scene depending on any development we may use, and also we know if an scene spot is in the toe/shoulder compresion, or even if it is in the TXP bump in the mids...

At the end ZS tells how to set the minimum exposure for shadow areas in order to conserve detail, and then it tells what development we need to have highlights with a particular density, so we can print that easily and also conserving highlight detail. What else ZS says ?

Exposure systems are practical conceptual simplifications to take decisions, but by knowing how sensitometry works all mistery and debate about exposure systems disapear.

IMHO something changed in the early 1980s. As Variable Contrast papers got popular additional printing control was possible, as it was possible to burn particular areas with different contrast filters. This delivers local contrast control, beyond local exposure control.

Before that a photographer had to use more film toe and/or shoulder as control parameters for the tonal scale. With Variable Contrast papers it was possible to take more linear captures (TMX/Y) and later controling the print better with VC paper. This is IMHO...

IMHO, the single "failure" of ZS is considering behaviour of all films "equal", and this is a simplification. It happens than some films have a shoulder for Z-VIII while other (like TMX) still are linear there, and regarding toe, it can be long, medium or short... so Z-II may be different depending on the film.

[Pere Casals]

Isn't the idea to get everything to fit properly between the goal posts at the time of exposure/development and then make the creative decision at the print stage ?

It depends, you can use film/toe shoulder of film to obtain a look, Karsh was using toe with a lot of wisdom. You can shot to obtain an straight print with what you want.

Since Variable Contrast paper got popular some may prefer to control tonal scale more in the printing process, for flexibility, IMHO this is the way John Sexton would prefer, at least it is what I "understood" by listening what he says in some videos, also this is suggested by his involvement in TMX, a very linear film, still I can be wrong, this is just my interpretation.

[Greg]

I preface this with in the 1970s I first learned to use the Zone System as per the ZONE SYSTEM MANUAL by Minor White. Super XX and Edwal FG-7 with a 9% Sodium Sulfite solution... served me well for years until my stash of Super-XX was used up. Later using an attenuator as per George E. DeWolfe. Then calibrating per Arnold Gassan in his handbook for Contemporary Photography. Then Bergger 200 with various developers. Fast forward to the July/August 2008 issue of View Camera magazine and an article by Sandy King on "Two-Bath Development: Exposure and Development Strategy for Scanning". Kept the article on file and a few years ago tried it. Quote from the article: "A scanning to print digitally workflow essentially means that there is no compelling reason to continue to expose and develop with Zone or BTZS type controls. Excellent results can be obtained by simply exposing in the field for sufficient shadow detail, developing in a two-bath solution, scanning the negatives, and adjusting tonal values in Photoshop." So come to the present. If I'm going to print Platinum/Palladium, I just expose for the shadows and process in Diafine A & B and make digital negatives as described in The New Inkjet Negative Companion by Dan Burkholder. By including a Step Tablet in each of my digital negatives, the high cost of Platinum/Palladium chemistry for me has become very affordable. For some of my work (almost always roll film), that is still going with the traditional wet darkroom route, I do still use the Zone System and print with split filtration. More and more (from fall to spring here in New England) I've been shooting RAW digitally and making digital negatives for Platinum/Palladium, but come late spring through the fall almost exclusively shoot LF and ULF film. So I still use the Zone System today but just greatly modified from how I used it back in the 1970s. I do really miss Super-XX and Bergger 200. I do still have a box of 11x14 Bergger 200 in the freezer, and look forward to shooting with it next summer using the Zone System, but in the end will scan the negatives and make digital negatives for Platinum/Palladium.

[Pere Casals]

I preface this with in...

Very interesting record...

Really digital negatives are very flexible, allowing total control, and it allows customizing printing size. Still a direct contact print has very valuable authenticity...

[Bruce Watson]

Isn't the idea to get everything to fit properly between the goal posts at the time of exposure/development and then make the creative decision at the print stage?

Almost. My interpretation of the Zone System is that it uses the film as an intermediary between the scene being photographed and the final print. That is, the film is used to "shoe horn" the range of tones in the scene into the range of tones that a final print can show. An added benefit if done correctly is that using the negative to print in the darkroom becomes significantly easier.

So, the way Mr. Adams described it, he visualized what he wanted the final print to look like before exposing the film, and used that visualization to make decisions about how to expose the film in the field, and how to process the film in the darkroom. All so that it would be easier to make that final print that he visualized in the field. And it works, beautifully, as described.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you're talking about scanning, you don't have the same constraints. In the darkroom print workflow, you expose the film, processes the film to get the highlight density you want, then print the film in the darkroom. In the scanning workflow, you expose the film, process the film, scan the film, then print. That extra step of scanning can change things markedly.

Scanning means that the film no longer has to act as the intermediary step by itself. All it has to do is record the range of tones you want to capture. It does not have to confine that range of tones to a set of densities to make it easy print on photopaper any more.

What scanning does is convert the range of tones from the negative, into a range of digital numbers. It's really easy to place the negative's Dmin on some low number in the full digital range (like zero if you want), and Dmax on some high number in the full digital range (like 1024 [10 bit], 4096 [12 bit], etc. if you want) and let the scanner place the inbetween densities on the inbetween numbers in a linear fashion.

So instead of the negative being an approximate fit between the scene and the print, when you add the scanning step, the negative + scanning can become an exact fit between the scene and the final print. But to get that, you have to stop thinking about the Zone System as solely about darkroom printing (which is difficult since scanning didn't really exist when Adams and Archer created the Zone System, so they never mention anything about a digital process in any of their writings), and start thinking about what it means to add scanning into the workflow.

But if you can't let that go, you can always use the Zone System as Adams and Archer described it, while still printing digitally. As I've said many times before, if you optimize your negatives for modern darkroom printing, they will scan just fine.

[bob carnie]

The negative for me has always been a intermediate to the final print... I think of scans the same way.. In both cases they are raw information for me to play with.

I am no expert as some on this forum about the Zone System, but I always think about finding a location for highlight detail and shadow detail and then either with filter or PS I place the contrast or look of the print.
I felt the translation to digital was easy for me since I understood film to print , I just replaced the film with a scanned file or now supplied digital file.

So in my world I find them both similar and I use the same thinking when making prints via an enlarger as I do when making prints via scans.

[Doremus Scudder]

Isn't the idea to get everything to fit properly between the goal posts [between Zones III and VIII*] at the time of exposure/development and then make the creative decision at the print stage ?

*My original statement

If that is what you want. Not every subject is best rendered with shadows on Zone III and detailed highlights on Zone VIII. What if you want jet-black shadows, deep mid-tones and a brilliant, almost paper-white highlight from a boringly-lit normal scene? How do you place and develop then? Or what if you want a feeling of luminescence and airiness is a scene that would print heavy and muddy if you just place shadows in Zone III?

The point is, one has to have an idea of how the tone-reproduction system works, then have an idea of the myriad of different ways that manipulating it renders a scene. And finally, you have to have a vision of how you want a print of a particular scene to look, i.e., you have to have an artistic, or at least, a technical goal. Knowing how to use the Zone System helps achieve that goal.

Too many have no goals, no vision, no purpose. And too many think creativity only happens at the printing stage.

Best,

Doremus

[Pere Casals]

Just I'd like to add that ZS exposure for scanners can be of higher importance with MF and 35mm than with LF.

Grain structure can be very important in smaller formats, and it happens that grain structure of an area varies depending on if it is in a Zone level or other. For example HP5 has more grain in the mids while TX has more in the darker greys, so if we modify exposure then the relationship between grain structures of different areas will vary. This effect is way less seen with LF for obvious reasons, but it may be critical in MF.

[Greg]

Very interesting record...

Really digital negatives are very flexible, allowing total control, and it allows customizing printing size. Still a direct contact print has very valuable authenticity...

And also markably sharper. Just look at a photographic postcard made 100 years ago through a Agfa Loupe.

[neil poulsen]

Ian, good topic.

I notice that several of the early replies address paper/hardcopy output. What is the output medium as it relates to your question? Digital only (monitor/tablet/mobile phone) or does it also include hardcopy/paper print?

I've not done testing for scanning. Bot, the above sounds lik a good idea.

[Will Frostmill]

For example HP5 has more grain in the mids while TX has more in the darker greys, so if we modify exposure then the relationship between grain structures of different areas will vary. This effect is way less seen with LF for obvious reasons, but it may be critical in MF.

I never knew that! That's actually really amazingly useful.

[Pere Casals]

I never knew that! That's actually really amazingly useful.

I discovered it, long ago, while playing with film emulation software.

In those curves you see the "amount of grain" depending on the gray level, in reality it is linked to density in the negative:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28286548926_09750c7cc0_o.jpg

Here there is also a an image of a car (TX) in the comments, in on car you see different grain depending on the shade...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28286548926/in/dateposted-public/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139392054@N04/28114869295/

Regards,

Pere

[online]

What that usually means is developing for a bit lower Dmax for scanning than you would for darkroom.