N+1 and N-1 Developing Process

[cmcdarris]

I have been reading about N+ and N- development and would like to try it. I typically shoot HP5 and develop with HC-110. From my reading I understand “N+1” or “N-1” mean 1 stop change in the highlights either plus or minus, “N+2” or “N-2” means 2 stops, etc. I cannot find any charts online or on the Massive Dev Chart to give times to develop. Can someone help? Thanks. Charlie

[IanBarber]

Find your normal development time and call this N
For N+1 try developing about 20% longer.
For N-1 try developing 20% shorter.

Use these times as a starting point and adjust from there

[Luis-F-S]

You have to determine these developing times for yourself. For a Zone VII Normal (N) exposure you want to develop the film to have a density reading of 1.15 over film base plus fog. That is your Normal developing time. To get N+1, you make a Zone VI exposure and develop it longer to increast the Zone VI density to give a Zone VII, density reading of 1.15. To get N-1, you make a Zone VIII exposure and develop it for a shorter time to lower the Zone VIII density to give a Zone VII density of 1.15. For N+2, you would make a Zone V exposure and develop it longer to a Zone VII density. N-2 would be a Zone IX exposure with decreased development to a Zone VII density of 1.15. Simple isn't it? Now you have to figure out you development times by trial and error using your meter, your shutter and your development sequence. We did this in an Oliver Gagliani workshop some 30 or so years ago. Spent a week determining this, so it will take some effort. It's hard to determine developing times without a transmission densitometer. Buy one, borrow one, or send the film to someone who has a densitometer. You can PM me if you need me to read them for you.

No chart, or other photographer's numbers will likely work for you. You might want to buy the Zone VI workshop by Fred Picker (around $5 used at the auction site) and read it several times until it sinks in. The Negative by Adams is also good, but a bit more technical. Good luck.

[Doremus Scudder]

Luis' answer is right on, but rather technically complicated, especially for a beginner that may not have easy access to a densitometer. Allow me to offer a more practical and simple approach.

First, learn how to make a proper proof. It's simple; it is merely the minimum exposure time needed to produce a good black from the clearest part of your negative on a grade 2 paper, or equivalent contrast setting on variable contrast paper. Use an unexposed but developed negative or the clear rebate around the image as your clear portion. Make a test strip of the negative (contact printing a proof is easiest) and find the minimum time needed to match the black of a clear part of the neg with the black not covered by the negative at all. Use good, but not too bright light for this.

Now that you've got that exposure time/aperture, proof a good negative taken in normal contrast lighting developed at N on the same paper and contrast. You should have good shadow detail and the highlights should not be too blown out (i.e., to white and lacking detail) nor too dull and gray. (Note: if you don't have this nailed down yet, you'll need to adjust your N developing time till you do.)

Next step: Make a few negatives in flat lighting where the highlights fall a stop too low to be rendered correctly. Increase your N development time about 20% for one of these, develop the neg and make a proper proof (same paper and contrast, of course). If the highlights are good, you've found your N+1 developing time. If not, tweak the time till it's right using the remaining negatives you have. It's not rocket science and variable contrast paper will make up for small inaccuracies.

For N-1 do the same; make some negs in a contrasty situation and reduce your N time about 20%. Develop one, make a proper proof on your paper and contrast and go from there.

Keep in mind that even if you miss by a bit, you can still make good prints by simply using a different paper grade/contrast setting.

FWIW, I rarely use N+2 or larger expansions since I can simply develop N+1 and then use a higher paper contrast to make up for the rest.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

If HP5 is involved, minus development might need a little more shadow exposure (lower ASA rating) than for normal or plus development. I personally wouldn't even bother with a bunch of "grade this, grade that" trying to figure out things in advance. Just start somewhere with "normal" development (like the Massive Chart), take some typical shots according to your personal interest, and see whether or not they're easy to print on your favorite paper. Modern papers are likely to be VC; so in that case, try to aim for a
mid range - plain light without either added magenta for higher contrast, or added yellow for lower contrast. Of course, if you need to tweak using such controls to get an acceptable print, do it; but aim for around the middle of the contrast range for learning purposes. Once you have a good idea of what "normal" means, then you can more realistically experiment with plus or minus option (where 20% up or down is a good starting point).

[cmcdarris]

Thank you for the comments. All the comments really help!!!

From reading further, N-__ and N+__ are really just pulling and pushing film. The best I can tell, the terminology of N+1 and N-1 are Ansel Adams’ lingo for moving up a Zone(s) or down a Zone(s) using his Zone system (measured with a densotimoter, which I don’t own). Whereas, pushing and pulling film is referring to altering development times to increase/decrease per light Stops.

So bottom line, in high contrast situations like light coming through a window into a room with a dark interior, you can Pull the film a Stop or two to make the scene less contrasty or in a flat light situation (ex - morning fog over a field) you can Push the film to make it more contrasty. In Ansel’s terminology, he would use the lingo of N+ or N- development.....but both essentially do the same thing, just different measurements - one measured by Stops and the other measured by Zones. (No different than some of us measuring in inches and others in centimeters.)

Am I correct????

[Pere Casals]

Am I correct????

Let me make it simple. (and a bit long :))

ZS is an exposure system that will help to depict your "visualization" in a print.

Each "Zone" is a density range (gray level) in the print. Your "visualization" consists in your decision to place each area in the scene in a certain zone (gray level) in the print.

ZS tells you what Exposure and Development should you use for that.

In practice: you meter your shadows and then you expose to have those shadows in the zone you want, for example you set exposure to have your deep shadows underexposed 2 stops, so in zone III, as for Zone V the meter would read +/-0

OK you expose for your shadows to be in Z-III!!!

Then it can happen that with that exposure your highlights (with texture desired) are overexposed by say +5 stops (Z-X), so you won't have the texture you want, solution: shorten development N-2 so your highlights will move from Z-X to Z-VIII.

By shortening development your shadows won't be much modified but your highlights won't build excessive density, this is because development of the shadows are less influenced by shorter development time.

So you have exposed to have the shadows in the zone you want and but later you have developed to place the highlights in the Zone you want: Expose for the shadows (no care about highlights) and later develop for the highlights (no care for the shadows, that will develop much the same anyway).

How you get the development time of the N-2 for say TMX and Xtol: This is underdeveloping "by 2 stops", so from nominal ISO 100, 1 stop is 50 and 2 stops (N-2) is ISO 25, so see the MDC : https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=%25Kodak+TMax+100%25&Developer=%25Xtol%25&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C&TimeUnits=D

Take time/dilution/temp in your case, say tmx/Xtol/ISO 25 for TMX, N-2 (ISO 25), Stock, sheets and 20ºC: this is 6.25min , so 6min 15".


ZS its quite simple, with a simple calculation you decide what density in the negative will have your shadows and also your highligths. You need spot metering for that, because you need to know how the local exposures in the scenes are. Expose for the shadows and write down on the film holder (adhesive label) the +/- development to later place the highlights in density zone you want !!! Done !!!

Some critics of the ZS are not using spot meters... so it's difficult to understand what they are criticizing :)

Wanting to understand the sensitometry behind it ? Read the extraordinary Beyond The Zone System book, used it's near for free.

[Drew Wiley]

Zones do not necessarily equate to discrete gray values in the print. That possibility would be worse than the web and its repro limitations, if you could only paint your picture using eight specific shades of gray. Under the kooky dogma of Minor White, some people might have been infected with the mystical religion that a specific exposure value at the time of the shot has to be reproduced as a specific gray value in the print; but that rule is basically nonsense. We can print in whatever manner we please if enough information is on the negative in the first place. Therefore what most of us think of as the Zone System is really just a shorthand system of classifying the scene in so many EV steps, then exposing and developing according to how we need to fit that scale on the negative sufficient to make it versatile. "Previsualization" is a relative concept at best. Even AA constantly tinkered around printing a given neg in different renditions. But the second misleading stereotype I would like to point out is how this does not necessarily mean working with just eight zones. That is why, if the contrast range demands it, I would far rather work with a film with a longer straight line going way down into the shadows, take advantage of that characteristic, than compress things from the top down using minus development. In large format work, the degree of magnification in the print is less, so we can concentrate more on tonality and other characteristics than being obsessed with grain etc. But I work on the same premise even in 35mm photography, and just make the prints smaller. Basically, you can take or leave behind whatever you want from the Zone System, or adapt it any way you please. God did not created the world in eight zones. It's all a rich intricate tapestry of infinite variables. So don't let this kind of methodology put you behind eight bars in a tiny jailhouse window, with just a tiny view of the real world. It's just another set of tools.

[Drew Wiley]

cmcdarris - "Zones" refers to EV values in the scene. Each zone is one stop (or one full shutter speed change) apart from another. We express this as an EV (exposure value) setting rather than as a stop or speed change, since we have the option of doing either, or of using them in combination. And some of our favorite spotmeters read in EV values, and include scales giving various speed/f-stop combinations. But N, N minus, N plus, etc, refers to length of development afterwards, relative to the amount of density contrast we want in the developed negative, per our personal printing standards. "Pushing" and "pulling" are equivalent terms, except among the older generation, where that terminology was generally associated with the development of color film in commercial labs using automated equipment. So your basic assumption is correct; but there is more than one way to get there, so I hope that the usual kind of banter on this forum (like my own explanation of optional technique) has not confused you. You can make all this as simple or as complex as you please. Some people settle into a single standardized way of doing things the same way for decades, or at least as long as their favorite film and paper remain around, while others of us like to experiment with many different avenues.

[Doremus Scudder]

Thank you for the comments. All the comments really help!!!

From reading further, N-__ and N+__ are really just pulling and pushing film. The best I can tell, the terminology of N+1 and N-1 are Ansel Adams’ lingo for moving up a Zone(s) or down a Zone(s) using his Zone system (measured with a densotimoter, which I don’t own). Whereas, pushing and pulling film is referring to altering development times to increase/decrease per light Stops.

So bottom line, in high contrast situations like light coming through a window into a room with a dark interior, you can Pull the film a Stop or two to make the scene less contrasty or in a flat light situation (ex - morning fog over a field) you can Push the film to make it more contrasty. In Ansel’s terminology, he would use the lingo of N+ or N- development.....but both essentially do the same thing, just different measurements - one measured by Stops and the other measured by Zones. (No different than some of us measuring in inches and others in centimeters.)

Am I correct????

cmcdarris,

Yes, you are basically correct, but let me throw one more distinction into the conversation. Most people who "push" film are doing so to compensate for underexposure, usually intentional underexposure due to a low-light situation, etc. In this case, shadow details (and maybe some of the mid-tones) are simply lost. Pushing stretches out what's left on the negative to cover a reasonable contrast range and enable one to make a decent print.

What AA and other Zone System, etc. practitioners do is stretch or shrink the contrast range on the negative to match the range of tones in the original scene; they aren't compensating for underexposure. In fact, many give extra exposure for N- developments just to ensure that shadow detail is present in the negative.

Bottom line: you don't have to use the Zone System to take advantage of plus or minus developing (or pushing/pulling). Low contrast scenes need more development; high contrast scenes need less. You can be as precise as you need to with this.

Best,

Doremus

[Alan9940]

Since someone mentioned Fred Picker, you may want to think about a technique that he taught and used; that is, if you think you might need plus development, shoot two negs in the field and develop one N and the other N + 1 1/2. If you print on graded paper, the N neg falls naturally with the standard grade spacing and the N+ will fall in between. VC paper might mitigate this a bit. I suppose you could do the same with minus development, but I can't remember the last time I ever did an N- development. All of this assumes you've tested your film for personal EI and proper Zone VIII film development, and you have your Proper Proof locked in.

[Pere Casals]

Zones do not necessarily equate to discrete gray values in the print.

Of course, the print is an score of the partiture (the negative), said in romantic words...

But IMHO Zone System simply allows to easily calculate expansion or compression to fit scene dynamic range in the film dynamic range, and to know where we sacrifice detail.

IMHO ZS has to be explained to new practitioners in the print visualization terms to get first good results.

Later as one advances what counts is the capability to predict what "on negative" density we will have for any scene spot, then the particular film and processing character will have to be considered.

...but, IMHO again, original straight rule, thinking in print visualization terms for the N+/- determination is what delivers impressing and consistent results, that of course we may vary (often only slightly) to fit our taste.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm glad I did learn the Zone System even though it's largely in the rear view mirror now. It can be an excellent learning tool, and valuable for a common dialect of communication on forums like this one. But it's just a tool, one among many.

[Pere Casals]

I agree, it's not the tool, but the way we use it.

ZS doesn't tell how the photograph should be, just it tells what to do if wanting our shadows and highlights in certain Zones, this is in certain density ranges...

[Bill Burk]

From reading further, N-__ and N+__ are really just pulling and pushing film.

You adjust development time yes, but it's different reasoning. You push film to try to get a higher shutter speed when trying to handhold in the dark. You pull film when you find out you had accidentally selected the wrong ASA on your camera and were shooting slides. In both these cases push and pull are trying to salvage something out of a bad situation.

When talking about N- and N+ you are trying to match development time to the scenery that you encountered. Even though you develop less (pull) or more (push), you aren't trying to make up for a deficiency. Instead you are trying to develop for the perfect time. The idea is you want to make the best possible negative where you did everything just right.


So bottom line, in high contrast situations like light coming through a window into a room with a dark interior, you can Pull the film a Stop or two to make the scene less contrasty or in a flat light situation (ex - morning fog over a field) you can Push the film to make it more contrasty. In Ansel’s terminology, he would use the lingo of N+ or N- development.....but both essentially do the same thing...

Am I correct????

In terms of how development time affects contrast, yes.

[Luis-F-S]

Thank you for the comments. All the comments really help!!!

From reading further, N-__ and N+__ are really just pulling and pushing film. The best I can tell, the terminology of N+1 and N-1 are Ansel Adams’ lingo for moving up a Zone(s) or down a Zone(s) using his Zone system (measured with a densotimoter, which I don’t own). Whereas, pushing and pulling film is referring to altering development times to increase/decrease per light Stops.

So bottom line, in high contrast situations like light coming through a window into a room with a dark interior, you can Pull the film a Stop or two to make the scene less contrasty or in a flat light situation (ex - morning fog over a field) you can Push the film to make it more contrasty. In Ansel’s terminology, he would use the lingo of N+ or N- development.....but both essentially do the same thing, just different measurements - one measured by Stops and the other measured by Zones. (No different than some of us measuring in inches and others in centimeters.)

Am I correct????

Kinda sort of. The hard part is coming up with accurate development times. Can you get a printable negative by pushing and pulling? Probably so. Will it be the best negative you could produce? Probably not without first testing and determining times. Without a spot meter and a densitometer, you're taking stabs in the dark.

[Pere Casals]

I'm glad I did learn the Zone System even though it's largely in the rear view mirror now. It can be an excellent learning tool, and valuable for a common dialect of communication on forums like this one. But it's just a tool, one among many.

Drew, not using ZS, how do you determine exposure/development for a regular scene having a wide dynamic range?

[Neal Chaves]

Try this. It will put you in the ball park.



Years ago I learned an excellent method to find the correct developing time and EI for any film. I source was an article by William Mortensen. Mortensen wrote some excellent books and articles about basic sensitometry. The last time I did this test was when I abandoned Tri-X and switched to HP5+ due to cost about five years ago. I proceed as follows.

I set up my trays with my favorite developer HC110B (1:31), now Ilfotec HC (1:31). I pull out a sheet from the package in the dark. and then when the package is sealed again I turn on the room lights. This part of the test is done under the lights. I cut the sheet into five strips and mark them 1-5 by punching holes with a paper punch. Lets say the recommended time is 5:00. I want to see 3:00, 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 and 7:00, so I throw all the strips into the developer and agitate as usual until 3:00 when I move the No.1 strip over to the stop bath. Then I pull No.2 at 4:00, No.3 at 5:00, etc. I fix, wash and dry the strips as usual. What we are looking for is the best usable film DMax value. Obviously the film has been fully exposed! When strips dry lay down a page of news print on a table in good light. Find the strip through which the news print is barely visible. That's your developing time. Now to find the film speed.

Go outside in unchanging light conditions and expose five sheets and expose one at the manufacturers rating and then the other four at one half a stop and one stop less and one half a stop and one stop more. In the dark, develop them all together for your newly derived time. Contact print them together exposing and developing the paper for maximum usable paper DMax value through the film base plus fog negative rebate area. Pick out the best-looking contact print and you have your film speed.

Because my 7:00 negative looked the best on the first test, I did the test again with 7:00 as the central developing time and found that 8:00 was indeed too dense. This HP5+ time was the same as the as the developing time I had been using for Tri-X and film speed was also the same, EI400. I have also switched to Ilfotec HC developer due to cost and availability and find it to be a clone of HC110.

Many of the last generation of B&W gurus favored a development time of 5:00 for Tri-X and suggested an EI of 64-100. You can do the above test backwards, developing for 5:00 minutes and finding the film speed. I like 100. The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle. Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives. The 100 negative has slightly greater shadow and highlight detail that only a careful, knowledgeable viewer could detect. This slight improvement might not be worthwhile trading for two stops in the field. I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

From here, if you are still with me, you can derive expansion and contraction schemes for both the 100 and 400 "normal negs". I do this by changing dilution rather than time. Make sure you have at least 1 oz. of the concentrated sauce for each 8X10 sheet or equivalent. For contractions I found that 3/4 oz. concentrate to 31 1/4 ozs. H20 yields an N-1 neg at a one stop loss in film speed and 1/2 oz. concentrate to 31 1/2 ozs. H20 yields an N-2 neg at a two stop loss in film speed. For expensions, 1 1/4 oz. of concentrate to 30 3/4 ozs. H20 yields an N+1 neg at a one stop gain in speed and 1 1/2 ozs. concentrate to 30 1/2 ozs. H20 produces an N+2 negative with a two stop gain in speed.

If you look at the chart of Tri-X film speed in Phil Davis' BTZS book you can easily pick out the film speed in HC110B 5:00 as EI 64.

Don't apply reciprosity exposure and development corrections for long exposures (1/2 sec. +) based on published data. Test for yourself and you may be surprised. I wasted a lot of time and effort producing long exposure negatives that were thick and flat. When I finally tested, I found no compensation was required for TXP or now HP5+ out to one minute.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - I sometimes do plus or minus development, but rarely. And I never take the route of overexposing and underdeveloping film, with the exception of Pan F. Rather, I select specific films with the anticipated dynamic range of the scene in mind. Films with a long straight line, like either TMax or the late Bergger 200, are more versatile than those with a pronounced toe because they can accommodate the widest range of contrast. But in modest contrast scenes, sometimes a different kind of film has a preferable look. I might therefore carry more than one kind of film; but after so many years of doing this, I pretty much know what to expect. It becomes intuitive. I still use a Pentax spotmeter ala ZS technique. But due to my background in color photography, I pretty much have settled on Zone 5 as equivalent to a gray card or "middle gray", but how I meter the shadows differs, as I might very well place the deepest shadow values far below Z 3 or even Z 2, as far down as the film will handle if the scene contrast warrants it. That's what I was referring to as not wasting a lot of valuable real estate at the bottom of the curve. If the film will handle shadow separation down to Zone 0, and the subject contrast is severe enough to warrant it, that's what I'll do. On any summer day around here, the lighting in the redwoods might be very soft in the morning, then comprise over twelve stops of range when the sun comes up. Similar situations arise in desert and above timberline in the mountains. Film with a decent but not overtly long straight line like FP4 or ACROS often can't handle that kind of range elegantly, and can't do it well even with compression via overexposure/underdevelopment. I use all kinds of films, but I target them to the subject matter as well as the format. I might employ a little bit of Zone System leverage like a crowbar once in awhile, but I'd rather just bag the shot. My success rate is very high. The negatives tend to print wonderfully. Once in awhile I'll tweak them even a bit more with unsharp masking, but that again depends on the subject. This whole topic can get a bit contentious. I don't mind. The important thing is to do what works for you.

[Pere Casals]

The difference between negatives exposed at 100 and developed for 5:00 and those exposed at 400 and developed for 7:00 is quite subtle.

Neal, please see HP5+ datasheet, page 7, graph 6.1: http://monochrome.me.uk/upload/HP5_Plus.pdf

You will find this plot for HP5+, Ilfotec HC 1+31, 5 min and 7 min:

185804

Negatives may be similar in a certain point, but contrast will change a lot from 5 to 7 min, really a lot.



I do routinely rate HP5+ at 100 under powerful strobe light in the studio and it produces beautiful skin tones.

...but this recipe depends on how you meter, you can meter for the fill or for the key or even for the glares, with flashmeter pointing to flash, to subject or in the middle, and eventual filter compensation is "elastic" depending on some factors including subject's color...



Both could be considered "normal" or N negatives

Sensitometric curves are different, 5min is a clear compression and 7min is a mild expansion. None is N because N is 6:30 min at 1+31.


No doubt that you obtain nice results with your process, but technical data is technical data.

Film is rated under ISO rules, and we know that from the meter +/-0 reading (with N development) film toe (as defined by ISO) starts at 3.3 stops underexposure. Any personal ISO may work perfectly, but using "standard" ISO, as defined by ISO norms, is also possible.

[Pere Casals]

If the film will handle shadow separation down to Zone 0,

Drew, if you review how nominal film speed is determined you will find that toe always starts at 3.3 stops underexposure, all films, always, with N development so with normal contrast. So Z-I is always compressed, per definition of ISO speed.



Films with a long straight line, like either TMax or the late Bergger 200, are more versatile than those with a pronounced toe because they can accommodate the widest range of contrast

Yes, but it depends on the Max density you want to allow, a linear film easily builds extreme densities in the highlights that later may require a remarkable effort to get a nice wet print.

A film having a shoulder partially avoids that problem...

Personally I love the straight line because flexibility, but I also find that if one knows how to use the shoulder... that also has some advantages !!

[Drew Wiley]

No kiddin' Pere. Recently I've been going through my early LF negs and reprinting some promising images which were either too daunting at first, when I was just learning the ZS, or else bellyflopped and got put in the bottom of a box. The usual culprit was overdevelopment. But even some of the worst ones are now printing rather easily using current premium VC papers (but not MGIV). Many of those early negs were taken in remote places I'll never be able to get to again. But the best way to learn a lesson you'll never forget is to learn it in the school of hard knocks. But I went through that stage of exposure clumsiness long ago. The first version of TMax 100 had a rather abrupt shoulder. Pan F hardly has a straight line at all. But I utterly ignore "3.3 under, all films", because all films aren't the same with respect to specific toe geometry. Such conventions aren't the same thing as the actual curve; they merely interpolate between points for sake of a generic ISO formula. And we can even significantly tweak the toe shape via developer choice and dilution, which is an option independent of overall gamma. HC-110 is a wonderful tool for doing that, because it works well over a long range of dilutions. Lots of options. I find them fun. Obviously others prefer something more cut and dried.

[IanBarber]

I have a question for those that do N- and N+ development.

If you place the important shadow information on say Zone 3, where would they end up when doing say N-1 or N-2?

If you place the important shadow information on say Zone 3, where would they end up when doing say N+1 or N+2?

[interneg]

I'm glad I did learn the Zone System even though it's largely in the rear view mirror now. It can be an excellent learning tool, and valuable for a common dialect of communication on forums like this one. But it's just a tool, one among many.

The biggest problem is the way it gets misused as a tool of 'absolute' representation rather than as a means of interpretation of the scene with a specific kind of print already in mind (which of course is what pre-visualisation is!) - and that a small amount of applied sensitometric knowledge should land most negatives in easily printable range on modern papers if interpretation at the printing stage is preferred. I much prefer the latter.

[Pere Casals]

I have a question for those that do N- and N+ development.

If you place the important shadow information on say Zone 3, where would they end up when doing say N-1 or N-2?

If you place the important shadow information on say Zone 3, where would they end up when doing say N+1 or N+2?

In theory a N-2 development won't "move" much Z-III shadows, it will move only the Highlights to a lower Zone, say what's in Z-X to Z-VIII.

This is because development time has a higher effect in the highlights.

If you exposed enough for the shadows you will have texture there even if you shorten development, but with that shortened development you prevent the highlights reaching excessive density or even saturation with detail loss.


This is a simple and effective trick: ensure your exposure for your detailed shadows, and if that provocates overexposure in the highlights just shorten development to not blow it.

Of course if you don't ensure exposure for the shadows that will be lost, so you need that, but a side effect of capturing well shadows is blowing highligths, you solve that in the development.

[Pere Casals]

But I utterly ignore "3.3 under, all films", because all films aren't the same with respect to specific toe geometry. Such conventions aren't the same thing as the actual curve;

Drew, of course if you develop Normal and you don't underexpose under -2 then you can ignore the -3.3 toe start.

With a normal development, this is standard contrast, at -3.3 stops we are always in the "m" point, per definition, so IMHO it's a very good and clear reference to be kept in mind. No doubt you know that...
(If we under/overdevelop to have a not Normal contrast then the "m" point changes its exposure level more or less.)

185820


...but let me sat that if one uses a long toe to compress shadows and to allow a maximum range for the rest then one has to know where his film's toe is, this is at -3.3 with Normal development.

Not everyone needs to know where toe starts, of course, depending on personal crafting way.

[Bill Burk]

Neal, please see HP5+ datasheet, page 7, graph 6.1: http://monochrome.me.uk/upload/HP5_Plus.pdf

You will find this plot for HP5+, Ilfotec HC 1+31, 5 min and 7 min:

185804



Ilford has given us a graph with an interesting twist to it.

The graph tells you the change in development time when you want to aim for a higher or lower multigrade paper filter number when you print.

It's not the same as zone system, where you call for N+ or N- development for each sheet individually based on subject luminance range metering.

But it gives you something you can do without a densitometer to find N developing time.

Here are the steps you can follow to find N that with this graph.

Assumptions: As with zone system, you want to print on grade 2 paper. Trust manufacturer's film speed and use exposure index -2/3 stop from rated (box speed) - so EI 250

1. Take a photo of a normal scene (main subject in sun with something interesting in open shade).
2. Develop according to Massive Dev chart (Example 6 1/2 minutes in Ilfotec HC 1+31).
3. Make best print you can from that negative trying different multigrade filters on a multigrade paper.
4. Note filter number that you used for that best print. (Example: Maybe you used multigrade filter 2 1/2).
5. Follow Ilford's chart and see where 6 1/2 minutes falls on that curve. (Pretty close to 0 contrast change because Massive Dev chart gave normal time).

Since you want to aim for multigrade filter number 2 and your best print was on filter grade 2 1/2, you would want development time for -1/2 filter grade.

Looking at that graph, the curve was just across 6 minutes at 0 contrast and is just less than 8 minutes at -1/2 contrast so you might settle on your personal N developing time as 7 3/4 minutes.

[Neal Chaves]

Sensitometric curves are different, 5min is a clear compression and 7min is a mild expansion. None is N because N is 6:30 min at 1+31.


No doubt that you obtain nice results with your process, but technical data is technical data.

Film is rated under ISO rules, and we know that from the meter +/-0 reading (with N development) film toe (as defined by ISO) starts at 3.3 stops underexposure. Any personal ISO may work perfectly, but using "standard" ISO, as defined by ISO norms, is also possible.[/QUOTE]

Pere,
At least it is MY technical data that I derived myself through my own experimentation in my own lab. I wasted a lot of time, effort and money blindly following the manufacturer's data sheets.

[cowanw]

cmcdarris - "Zones" refers to EV values in the scene. Each zone is one stop (or one full shutter speed change) apart from another. We express this as an EV (exposure value) setting rather than as a stop or speed change, since we have the option of doing either, or of using them in combination. And some of our favorite spotmeters read in EV values, and include scales giving various speed/f-stop combinations. But N, N minus, N plus, etc, refers to length of development afterwards, relative to the amount of density contrast we want in the developed negative, per our personal printing standards. "Pushing" and "pulling" are equivalent terms, except among the older generation, where that terminology was generally associated with the development of color film in commercial labs using automated equipment. So your basic assumption is correct; but there is more than one way to get there, so I hope that the usual kind of banter on this forum (like my own explanation of optional technique) has not confused you. You can make all this as simple or as complex as you please. Some people settle into a single standardized way of doing things the same way for decades, or at least as long as their favorite film and paper remain around, while others of us like to experiment with many different avenues.

May I gently suggest that you may have misstated the idea that Zones refer to EV values in a scene. Zones solely pertain to prints and the tones that are on the print. In addition, Zones cannot be a stop apart as paper can only express, at the very best, about 7 doublings of light, compared to 9 or 10 doublings that would be required to make up 9 or 10 changes in Zone. And nature provides us with ambient light that is capable of many more doublings of light than we can ever hope to capture in one exposure. Lastly, Zones are not measured with light meters before development, as you imply. They are measured with a densitometer on the print. N,N plus, and N minus refer to placing a EV reading in the scene so that it is represented as a specific tone on the print.
I realize that may will refer to zones in a scene or even on a negative but language matters and I think it is important to be specific and precise about meaning and therefore communication.
And besides this is a pet peeve of mine.:o

[Pere Casals]

at -1/2 contrast so

Bill, thanks for your explanation, I learned that the scale at right is in paper grade terms, I was not aware...




Pere,
At least it is MY technical data that I derived myself through my own experimentation in my own lab. I wasted a lot of time, effort and money blindly following the manufacturer's data sheets.

Neal, I've always found that techincal data in a Kodak datasheets is usually really accurate, but of course we may meter/process in many ways, so no doubt that one may need custom tests to refine the own crafting, but that custom ISO may not work for others because differences on metering/processing...

Kodak shows absolute Lux·second in the H axis, with specified developer, processing and time, this technical graph that has no flaw beyond film batch to batch diferences or film aging.

This is the way to tell how a film works, sadly not all manufacturers show absolute H values in the graphs.

[Jerry Bodine]

I have a question for those that do N- and N+ development.

If you place the important shadow information on say Zone 3, where would they end up when doing say N-1 or N-2?

If you place the important shadow information on say Zone 3, where would they end up when doing say N+1 or N+2?

Ian, given that contraction development has only minor effect on negative density at Zone III, and expansion development has somewhat greater effect on Zone III, I can attempt to tell you my test results of HP5+ in HC-110. My agitation technique likely has some influence on these results; I shuffled a stack of six sheets in a tray, going through the stack every 30 seconds. First, testing for film speed arrived at EI = 200 to produce a density of 0.1 above fb+fog; this EI was applied in all expansion & contraction tests, which were done by placing a 31-step Stouffer wedge in contact with the film in camera and exposed each film to Zone X. There are enough steps in the wedge to create a series of densities extending to below Zone I in increments of .10 (1/3-stop). I plotted the results as Net Density vs Zone 0-X, where Net Density (ND) is the density above fb+fog. The curve plots show the Net Densities at Zone III for tests at N, N+1, N+2, N-1 and N-2. Note, HC-110 dilutions were 1+31 from concentrate, except 1+15 for N+2 (which could not be achieved with 1+31).
The results:
N: ND=.35

N+1: ND=.42 (.42-.35)/0.3 is approx plus 1/4-stop

N+2: ND=.56 (.56-.35)/0.3 is approx plus 2/3-stop

N-1: Film speed loss amounts to 1/3-stop, added in the field (so the curve was corrected so as to pass through 0.10 at Zone I)
ND= .30 (.30-.35)/0.3 is approx minus 1/6-stop

N-2: Film speed loss amounts to 1/3-stop, added in the field (so the curve was corrected so as to pass through 0.10 at Zone I)
ND=.28 (.28-.35)/0.3 is approx minus 1/4-stop

[Bill Burk]

May I gently suggest that you may have misstated the idea that Zones refer to EV values in a scene. Zones solely pertain to prints and the tones that are on the print.
.:o

That's not canon.

Ansel Adams, in The Negative, page 48 Chapter 4, The Zone System, under THE EXPOSURE SCALE directly contradicts your claim.

"Note that we use the term zone to refer only to the exposure scale, and value for the other concepts..."

(Now I think everyone failed to pay attention to him because I know I've been guilty of calling everything a zone).

[Drew Wiley]

I have the same understanding as Bill. No doubt about it. That's why Fred Picker sold stick-on Zone labels for Pentax and certain other meters with Zone markings directly equivalent to EV spacing on the dial. How much more apparent can this possibly be ?? "Zones" are simply shorthand for discrete EV pigeonholes, and do not in fact correspond to specific gray values in the print, with the exception of Minor White's mystagogue-like school of thought, which was still dependent upon a direct correlation between EV's in the scene and Zones at the time of exposure. However, "value" is a standard term pertaining to perceptible visual gray scale, and not just in Zone theory, and
thus more correctly pertains to the print itself, except in four-axis CIE color mapping, where "tone" vs "tint" are the two opposite poles of the light to dark gray scale vector. But I'm certain neither Ansel or Minor ever heard of that,
because four-axis mapping basically pertains to computerized analysis, while the terms tone and tint would have been confused with toning and tinting in a completely different darkroom sense. Of course, all kinds of people have
invented new tweaks to the Zone System. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that the how-to books of AA, particularly "The Negative", have been the most influential in establishing the precedent of terminology.

[Bill Burk]

I have the same understanding as Bill.

You'll have to be more specific about which Bill, haaaa.

Bill Cowan talks about an interesting point though, I find a print only gives you about 5 stops of densitometer reading differences to work with. I enjoy discussions of how the S-curve of print material distorts the shadows and highlights... And I enjoy how a little sticker on a light meter can help you see the compression.

[cowanw]

HMMM. Yes I see I am wrong. And yet in the list, on page 60, he specifically refers to tonality on the print, eg. Zone 2; first step above complete black in print, with slight tonality but no texture.
And at other times, page 92 for example, he writes of Zone values on the negative after development.
So much for my pet peeve. :(

[Drew Wiley]

AA was implying that Zone 2, being the lowest zone in the NEGATIVE having printable density above fbf, should, for hypothetical calibration purposes, be the lowest value or textural evidence above solid black in the print itself. What we actually do when printing is of course an esthetic personal choice. We can make black anything we wish. But with reference to teaching his Zone system, this would naturally be the way Ansel explained it. I think his whole Z2 to Z8 sandwich is a bit unrealistic because it does not duly take in account substantial differences in the films of even his time. It's a generalization. But I do admire it as a basic teaching model.

[IanBarber]

Ian, given that contraction development has only minor effect on negative density at Zone III, and expansion development has somewhat greater effect on Zone III, I can attempt to tell you my test results of HP5+ in HC-110. My agitation technique likely has some influence on these results; I shuffled a stack of six sheets in a tray, going through the stack every 30 seconds. First, testing for film speed arrived at EI = 200 to produce a density of 0.1 above fb+fog; this EI was applied in all expansion & contraction tests, which were done by placing a 31-step Stouffer wedge in contact with the film in camera and exposed each film to Zone X. There are enough steps in the wedge to create a series of densities extending to below Zone I in increments of .10 (1/3-stop). I plotted the results as Net Density vs Zone 0-X, where Net Density (ND) is the density above fb+fog. The curve plots show the Net Densities at Zone III for tests at N, N+1, N+2, N-1 and N-2. Note, HC-110 dilutions were 1+31 from concentrate, except 1+15 for N+2 (which could not be achieved with 1+31).
The results:
N: ND=.35

N+1: ND=.42 (.42-.35)/0.3 is approx plus 1/4-stop

N+2: ND=.56 (.56-.35)/0.3 is approx plus 2/3-stop

N-1: Film speed loss amounts to 1/3-stop, added in the field (so the curve was corrected so as to pass through 0.10 at Zone I)
ND= .30 (.30-.35)/0.3 is approx minus 1/6-stop

N-2: Film speed loss amounts to 1/3-stop, added in the field (so the curve was corrected so as to pass through 0.10 at Zone I)
ND=.28 (.28-.35)/0.3 is approx minus 1/4-stop

Thanks Jerry for the explanation, this probably ties in with why I have read that with expansion development, shadows placed on say zone 2 1/2 may end up closer to zone 3 if I have read it properly.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks Jerry for the explanation, this probably ties in with why I have read that with expansion development, shadows placed on say zone 2 1/2 may end up closer to zone 3 if I have read it properly.

OK, but consider that the Zone shifting of the shadows has two faces, one is density and another one is detail, probably density will shith more that detail level.

And the important thing is having detail recorded beyond that density shift...

[Pere Casals]

is a bit unrealistic because it does not duly take in account substantial differences in the films of even his time.

Drew, what has changed is normative, more than the films.

ASA PH2.5-1960 standard doubled box speed in 1960 without manufacturing changes. Pre 1960 there was 4.3 stops between meter point and speed point (ISO toe start), so 1/20 of the meter recommended exposure. Since 1960 it is 1/10, 3.3 Stops.

A major change was in the films was linear TMax, but IMHO anyway the ZS rules are still fair in the highlights, because the uncompressed highlights from those films are difficult to print, if scanning this is not a concern because a good scanner has no problem with 3.0D areas, but that situation is a trouble for wet printers.

There is still confusion about the 1960 changes, because pre-1960 literature is 1 zone shifted or not, depending if speaking in sensitometric wording or in practical terms, as that additional stop was a safety factor for the popular metering inaccuracy in the old times.

[cowanw]

AA was implying that Zone 2, being the lowest zone in the NEGATIVE having printable density above fbf, should, for hypothetical calibration purposes, be the lowest value or textural evidence above solid black in the print itself. What we actually do when printing is of course an esthetic personal choice. We can make black anything we wish. But with reference to teaching his Zone system, this would naturally be the way Ansel explained it. I think his whole Z2 to Z8 sandwich is a bit unrealistic because it does not duly take in account substantial differences in the films of even his time. It's a generalization. But I do admire it as a basic teaching model.


Not just for hypothetical calibration purposes though. And without interpreting what Adams is implying, on page 63, Adams says, " We further define the exposure reading taken from a single surface of the subject and used directly (i.e., without alteration) to produce this middle-gray print Value V as Zone. V exposure. "
He defines a Zone V exposure based on the print tone; He bases Zones 1 on the print tone and he bases Zone 9 and 10 on the print tone.

As I think about these things again (I have forgotten more than I have learned In life) I realize how the S curve of the N development contributes to the effective compression of tones from the 10 Zones (stops) of exposure down to 5 stops (10 Values) of the print. I was indeed wrong about the words. (how embarrassing with me talking about communication and the importance of definitions). But I still suggest that the egg that Adams' chicken hatches from is the observation that a negative developed at N and shot at a meter reading of a middle grey, and printed at variables to yield a middle grey print, in fact, results in a grey in the print that matches the gray of the original.
Which is circular since the variable of discovering N development and the print production are self defined. Nevertheless the beginning of the Zone system is the creation of the middle grey print value. (No great surprise given that the whole point is to produce a print.)

[Bill Burk]

...I realize how the S curve of the N development contributes to the effective compression of tones...

Actually, only a few films today have an early shoulder you will reach in normal highlights. (Adox 50 is an example film which has an early shoulder).

By early shoulder I mean, the straight line portion of most film extends well past what you need. You can place exposure very high, say Zone XII, on TMAX 100 or TMY2. All the concerns that Ansel Adams had about seeing chalky highlights in student and amateur prints that he blamed on the film shoulder, is not something you see today.

On the other hand, you ARE using the shoulder of the paper curve when you make the print.


But I still suggest that the egg that Adams' chicken hatches from is the observation that a negative developed at N and shot at a meter reading of a middle grey, and printed at variables to yield a middle grey print, in fact, results in a grey in the print that matches the gray of the original.

The 18% gray issue arises here. Say you start with seven zones in the subject, and shoehorn to fit it within five stops reflective density range in the print. Something has to shift from its original reflective value to maintain the illusion of seven tone separation values of the original. I say that the gray 18% shifts in value slightly towards higher reflective value. I don't think there's any mystique involved. I assert it's a simple tone reproduction outcome.

[Pere Casals]

On the other hand, you ARE using the shoulder of the paper curve when you make the print.

Well, in fact we are using the toe of the paper for the scene highlights... when printing paper's shoulder is for the shadows...

I guess that those gurus pulling TXP to EI 64 (as Neal Chaves mentioned) would seek having glare in the film's shoulder, just guessing.

[Bill Burk]

Yes right, you use the toe and shoulder when you print.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - there is a current recognized West Coast printmaker (whom I won't name) who bought into that "thick negative" Tri-X mentality - significantly overexpose, then overdevelop too. This is a holdover from contact printing days, and even then involved an extra margin of exposure for sake of shadow insurance or metering errors. It also accentuates the peppery grain of Tri-X. You read this kind of advice from several well-known previous generation contact printers who standardized on this one particular film, and apparently expected others to do the same. But the person I just mentioned enlarges. Because all the shadow values are well up the curve of the negative, there is likewise superb shadow gradation in his VC prints, as well as in the midtones. He happens to routinely split tone; and if this goes well, the color shift in the highlights makes these higher values rewarding. But split toning can be a bit unpredictable, so when the toning has not come out ideally, the highlights remain shouldered-off, washed out (no texture), and boring. But minus or compensating development (ala ZS theory) would rob him of the special look of the lower values, and how those accept the toning differently. So, as the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks". But quite a few "gurus" are just plain wrong sensitometrically. They might have made lovely prints, but often did so the hard way.

[Pere Casals]

Drew, this is an interesting insight... it proves that film is a flexible medium and it allows many ways to shape the image look.

_____________


It also accentuates the peppery grain of Tri-X.

Of course overdevelopment increases TX/TXP grain, but overexposure does the counter, in my experience...

[Neal Chaves]

Well, in fact we are using the toe of the paper for the scene highlights... when printing paper's shoulder is for the shadows...

I guess that those gurus pulling TXP to EI 64 (as Neal Chaves mentioned) would seek having glare in the film's shoulder, just guessing.

If I expose TXP or HP5+ at EI 64 and then develop in HC110 1:31 or Ilfotech HC 1:31 for 5 mins. at 68*, I produce an excellent negative and won't have any "glare" in the highlights. When Guru AA rates his TXP at 160 and develops for 5 mins, he frequently visualizes that the "shadows need more support" and places them on IV instead of III, which has effectively re-rated his film to EI 80. I plotted all my TXP curves right on top of AA's in his book The Negative. My curves were almost identical, but the rated speeds and development times were way off from his. From his data, you get nothing worth printing, as thousands who did not read his disclaimers have discovered.

When the eagerly awaited and highly hyped TMAX films appeared, I did not like my initial results and plotted the curves. I found that the curve rose from a long toe to a kind of "belly" rather than a straight line section, and then skewed upward at steep angle quickly reaching unprintable densities rather than shouldering off like TXP.

[Drew Wiley]

Neal, you failed to understand just how different TMax films are from Tri-X. The two T-Max products in Kodak's current lineup are among the most versatile films ever made, and were very thoughtfully engineered to replace several other film. Both are capable of a much straighter line than Tri-X, especially further down in the toe. But your own experience of a shad-belly curve is indeed characteristic of the specific manner in which you diluted HC-110 and underdeveloped. HC-110 will not give you a perfect straight line with TMX, but at correct dilution and time can deliver a straighter line than D76, for example. But I'm not trying to either convert you to a different film than your current preference or explain the various dev options for TMax. But these two TMax emulsions are voodoo if you overexpose them to begin with. No need to. The steeper curve in the toes will resolve the values way down there. Trying to use these newer films old "thick negative" style is just looking for trouble. And this is where conventional Zone System dogma goes astray using generalizations. If you place your shadow threshold of texture on Z 4, you have just wasted three stops of valuable real estate, and forced yourself in scrunching the range together with underdevelopment - hence the "uncharacteristic curve" you got.

[Bill Burk]

I once rated TMY-2 at EI 64. Film developed in D-76 1:1 for 13:30 looked fine to me except where dust, scratches, focus errors, motion blur or other defects made my shots unpleasant to print.

I later found the flaw in my zone system tests and lately rate the same film at EI 250 for zone system compatibility (Film is really 400).

But I find nothing wrong with choosing EI 64. It makes darkroom printing easier.

[Drew Wiley]

No. Nothing wrong. But it's like buying a Ferrari, discovering it will go 60mph in first gear, then throwing away the rest of the gears.

[Pere Casals]

If I expose TXP or HP5+ at EI 64 and then develop in HC110 1:31 or Ilfotech HC 1:31 for 5 mins. at 68*, I produce an excellent negative and won't have any "glare" in the highlights. When Guru AA rates his TXP at 160 and develops for 5 mins, he frequently visualizes that the "shadows need more support" and places them on IV instead of III, which has effectively re-rated his film to EI 80

If the Kodak graph for dilution B 1:31 is accurate...

185888

It really looks a film worth to shot at 1:31, 5 min, ISO 80, sporting a beautiful upswept curve,

if wanting that upswept shape then a linear film would require extensive DR labor to print a similar portrait... I guess that there isn't an easy way.

hmmm, portraiture is a complicate thing, nailing the shadings it's not that easy (at lest to me).

[Bill Burk]

Haaa Ferrari in first gear. Let’s see that up in the snow! If you need the speed for handholding or to avoid blur, then the film is really 400... But at 64, you only add about 0.3 wasted density that you “didn’t have to have”. And of that, only 0.2 is true garbage.

Another thing I am pondering on this holiday weekend... what do you get by shooting on the toe that you can’t simulate by shooting on the straight line and then dodging the shadow where you want to reveal some detail?

[Drew Wiley]

I've got hundreds of densitometer plots with various developers with TMax, hundreds of negs in various formats, and many many prints that would stop that comment in its tracks, Bill. I even use TMX for color separation work, where all three tricolor exposure curves have to precisely overlap on a long straight line. Try that on "Try-X" ! I was at the local camera store earlier today. Most of the folks who work there prefer film, and several do own view cameras. But none of them can figure out TMax. I ask them how they meter - averaging. They have no idea of how to spotmeter shadows. TMax films are certainly not the only films I work with; I know the distinctions. I have no favorite. It all depends on the circumstances. Today I picked up a roll of PanF. It's worthless in high contrast situations where TMax excels. But given "natural softbox" light (still a few days away on the forecast), it can really sing. ...But a Ferrari in the snow? Add a Highway Patrolman behind it, and I can recall a VERY humorous incident about 15 yrs ago.

[Pere Casals]

Haaa Ferrari in first gear. Let’s see that up in the snow! If you need the speed for handholding or to avoid blur, then the film is really 400... But at 64, you only add about 0.3 wasted density that you “didn’t have to have”. And of that, only 0.2 is true garbage.

Bill, TXP can be shot at ISO 320 and beyond...

But LF studio portraiture is usually illuminated with strobes, so we don't see motion blur, only a beautiful OOF roll-off shaped with camera movements. If wanting that upswept curve for portraits then there is no problem in making that pull.

Beyond that Karsh was usually shooting SXX at 1/10s, with continuous illumination from floods and spot lights...



what do you get by shooting on the toe that you can’t simulate by shooting on the straight line and then dodging the shadow where you want to reveal some detail?

It's not about burning or dodging an area, it's about the progression of the shadings in the face volumes. Perhaps some contrast mask may work, but burning/dodging does not offer a good control to pop face volumes. That should come from illumination and curves.

Sometimes we focus in "detail" level, but the way the greys evolve on the surfaces cannot be overlooked.

[Drew Wiley]

I underexposed and overdeveloped 8x10 TMX for portraiture, back when silver-rich graded papers worked well via "snatch development". All silvery midtone and highlight expansion; deliberately blocked shadows. Makes nice contact prints too. But yeah, you guessed it, classic Dagor lens too. Studio lighting.

[Pere Casals]

Dagor lens too.

hmmm, this modern world is full of "Perfective" lenses, with Perfect optical performance and Defective aesthetics :). Fortunately Ps solves it, a "creative" color shift masks the lens' job.

[Bill Burk]

Bill, TXP can be shot at ISO 320 and beyond...

But LF studio portraiture is usually illuminated with strobes, so we don't see motion blur, only a beautiful OOF roll-off shaped with camera movements. If wanting that upswept curve for portraits then there is no problem in making that pull.

Beyond that Karsh was usually shooting SXX at 1/10s, with continuous illumination from floods and spot lights...




It's not about burning or dodging an area, it's about the progression of the shadings in the face volumes. Perhaps some contrast mask may work, but burning/dodging does not offer a good control to pop face volumes. That should come from illumination and curves.

Sometimes we focus in "detail" level, but the way the greys evolve on the surfaces cannot be overlooked.

But the toe is out in the shadows. Certainly you aren’t shooting faces at the toe. As I understand from examples of dark interiors the toe allows you to have higher contrast which is used in faces, while keeping shadows open because they don’t go thud to black. Well if that shadow of mine went to black as my faces looked fine, I could open them up with a dodge

[Pere Casals]

But the toe is out in the shadows. Certainly you aren’t shooting faces at the toe. As I understand from examples of dark interiors the toe allows you to have higher contrast which is used in faces, while keeping shadows open because they don’t go thud to black. Well if that shadow of mine went to black as my faces looked fine, I could open them up with a dodge

Reviewing the kodak's graph (txp, 1:31, 5 min), the curve is upswept until 0.1 Lux·Second, so perhaps shapping the fill shadings. IMHO it's not about opening the shadows, but the way we open it. I find an analogy with Ps curve edition, not the same modifying brightness than gamma.

If we simply rise the shadows we can get a flat look, with the upswept curve we adjust the gradation of the shadows, a different concept.

[Drew Wiley]

hmmm... Pere, yes indeed. Now PS has a cobweb app, a fungus in lens app, a lens shade visible in the image app, wrong shade of lipstick app, giraffes at the North Pole app, just plain bad taste app, etc. But they'd never think this kind of stuff up if we hadn't done it all on film first! The easiest is the "forgot to pull the darkslide app" - just don't turn the screen on!

[Luis-F-S]

What was the question again? You had your answer by post No. 4, certainly in the first dozen or so; we're now pushing 60 responses.

[Bill Burk]

Haaaa Luis-F-S,

The question was, what are N development times for HP5+

And since by definition there is no answer, the thread has gone haywire.

I hope the directions we went have been somewhat educational about what the Zone System means.

[cmcdarris]

Luis and Bill, Funny!!! I started the thread and have read each response. I’ve learned a lot and also realize how much I don’t know. Many thanks for all who responded!!!!

[Pere Casals]

And since by definition there is no answer, the thread has gone haywire.

I hope the directions we went have been somewhat educational about what the Zone System means.

Yes.... what's about me I've learned several interesting things, including how to interpret the contrast chart in the ilford datasheet. A nice debate.

[Drew Wiley]

At this point in history, the Zone System has become something very elastic and personalized, so a variety of contradictory explanations can indeed be profitable overall.

[Pere Casals]

At this point in history, the Zone System has become something very elastic and personalized, so a variety of contradictory explanations can indeed be profitable overall.

Well, fortunately we also have the BTZS, that enlights ZS with extensive sensitometry, and from that we have all pieces of the puzzle. From that we only need to learn the aesthetic effects of the curves.

[Laminarman]

I haven't read all responses since I'm at work, but many years ago I used ZS with medium and large format and my brain let all of that slip away. Now having sold all of my darkroom gear, but with a Hassy and a 4x5 on imminent order I plan to do a hybrid system of shoot, develop at home and scan. Not quite sure how I do a hybrid approach and will have to buckle down and start reading more.

[Pere Casals]

I haven't read all responses since I'm at work, but many years ago I used ZS with medium and large format and my brain let all of that slip away. Now having sold all of my darkroom gear, but with a Hassy and a 4x5 on imminent order I plan to do a hybrid system of shoot, develop at home and scan. Not quite sure how I do a hybrid approach and will have to buckle down and start reading more.

Hybrid is more forgiving. A negative that's suitable to wet printing is also good for Hybrid. With Hybrid you ensure shadows have the detail you want in negative film, or you ensure highlight detail for slides. For BW wet printing, we had to shorten negative's development sometimes to not build excessive densities, with hybrid this is less a problem because no good scanner has problems with 2.0D to 3.0D that would be difficult to print in a darkroom.

So for hybrid you need to learn how to make good scans, taking all histogram, scanning 16bits/channel and saving in TIFF. Then you need to master Ps, take good tutorials or better read a book. Ps has amazing tools (layers!) to make what you want with the image and to deliver an extraordinary quality.

...Anyway crafting a sound image by pure optical means it also has an extraordinary value... If you are only making negatives for the hybrid you won't notice that perhaps many of those negatives would be difficult to print wet if you want that in the future, you have to be aware of that if you go to pure hybrid.

[Laminarman]

Thank you Pere that's very helpful. I think my PS skills could use some work, it's quite a process and even after many years I still feel like I know so very little.