First foray into Zone - what happened?

[Scott --]

Hi, all -

Ok, last week I read The Negative. Bought me a Pentax Spotmeter V. Made me a bag bellows to tide me over until my *real* bellows arrive. Went out today and took some pictures..

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_crop002.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/crop002.jpg) http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_crop001.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/crop001.jpg)

Ok, so it looks to me like I should've done an N-1 development on these to pull the highlights back down to earth. Here's what's confusing me: I metered the darkest areas I wanted to keep texture in and placed them in Zone III. I checked all the highlight areas, and, at most, they were Zone VIII. Why'd they blow out completely? I thought Zone VIII retained some detail.

While I'm thinking of it, too, is there a storehouse (similar to digitaltruth) for N+/- times for different films/developers somewhere? Or am I gonna have to do some testing?

Thanks,
Scott

[cyrus]

Hi, all -

Ok, last week I read The Negative. Bought me a Pentax Spotmeter V. Made me a bag bellows to tide me over until my *real* bellows arrive. Went out today and took some pictures.

Ok, so it looks to me like I should've done an N-1 development on these to pull the highlights back down to earth. Here's what's confusing me: I metered the darkest areas I wanted to keep texture in and placed them in Zone III. I checked all the highlight areas, and, at most, they were Zone VIII. Why'd they blow out completely? I thought Zone VIII retained some detail.

While I'm thinking of it, too, is there a storehouse (similar to digitaltruth) for N+/- times for different films/developers somewhere? Or am I gonna have to do some testing?

Thanks,
Scott

N times are probably too dependent on your development style (agitation/enlarger/paper/developer etc) for a standard chart to useful but some Zone books have such charts.


Perhaps that could also explain why your highlights were blown - too much agitation caused too much contrast in what was already a contrasty scene?

Remember the formula: expose for shadows develop for highlights. You exposed for shadow when you placed the textured shadows in Zone III so you have done the first part. Now you have to get control over your highlights and so you have to figure out what your particular N is - and that means more testing. Fun, huh?!

Its probably best to do this testing indoors with an evenly lit subject that has some texture - like a towel or a sweater. (The color of course doesn't make a difference)

[steve simmons]

From here the high values do not look blown out.

Did you test for your film speed and developing time? Don't use what you may read in a book or magazine, you have to test for your own. Without testing you don't have any foundation.

Are you sure you gave less exposure to move the shadows down to 3. You would be surprised how many people want to open up to give less exposure.

Some people feel you need a densitometer to test and others don't. There is a simple straightforward testing procedure in an article in the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site

www.viewcamera.com

steve simmons

[David A. Goldfarb]

This testing with actual prints is where you can take account of the print process. As a starting point, you might target your Zone VIII density at, say, Dlog 1.2, but if this is giving you blown out highlights with your enlarger/paper/developer of choice, run some tests with the Zone VIII targeted at 1.1 or 1.0.

Or did you not actually do the film speed test and the development time test? If that's the case, then, yes, you need to do some testing.

[Scott --]

N times are probably too dependent on your development style (agitation/enlarger/paper/developer etc) for a standard chart to useful but some Zone books have such charts.

Perhaps that could also explain why your highlights were blown - too much agitation caused too much contrast in what was already a contrasty scene?


Cyrus, I'm using a Beseler drum on a Uniroller base. Over agitation might be a problem now, but I've never had a problem with it before. Need to test.


Or did you not actually do the film speed test and the development time test? If that's the case, then, yes, you need to do some testing.

David, I'm (as a starting point) using the developing times I've always used for this film/developer. I've gotten good results from it before, so I'm a little confused.



Are you sure you gave less exposure to move the shadows down to 3. You would be surprised how many people want to open up to give less exposure.

Some people feel you need a densitometer to test and others don't. There is a simple straightforward testing procedure in an article in the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site

I just checked the meter, and yes, I gave less exposure with the move to Zone III. Wouldn't put it passed me, though. And besides, the rocks in the picture look about where I wanted them to. It's the parts in the light that look blown to me. So, I need to test.

I downloaded and printed the article on the VC page. And I'm going to reread your coverage of Zone use. Maybe something'll click that didn't yet. It made sense when I read Ansel's version... :confused:

Thanks for the help, guys. I'm looking forward to nailing this.

Scott

[David A. Goldfarb]

You got good results before, but with a different metering method, so maybe you were really underexposing a bit, and now you're giving more exposure to be sure that you've placed the shadows appropriately, and maybe that's pushing the highlights out of range. If you're shooting TXP, that's easy to do.

At the same time, you haven't tested for film speed, so you don't really know if your Zone III placement is right. You've got good shadow detail, so it's probably on the straight line portion of the curve, but maybe you could drop the exposure a half stop or a full stop, and still have good shadows without pushing the highlights off the scale.

[Scott --]

FWIW, I was shooting Arista.EDU Ultra 100 at 100. So shooting at 80 or 50 might bring the highlights back into range? Kind of makes sense.

My old metering method was kind of an amalgam of incident metering and center weighted Canon A2 metering. Not very precise, whatever it was. :o

[Ken Lee]

Unless I am mistaken, you haven't mentioned how you are making the positives we see here: via scanning ? enlarging ? contact printing ? What are we looking at: a scan of a print ? a scan of a negative ?

Your negatives might be perfect, if contact printed on number 2 paper, or maybe not - depending on your local water supply, thermometer, timer, style of agitation, etc. And that's just the Negative - never mind a print, where even more factors can come into play.

Your scanner might not be up to the task of penetrating the dense high values of the negatives. Or, you might not be using your scanner software correctly.

As they say, "The possibilities are endless"...no ?

For what it's worth, Photoshop says that the high values of the water in the first image, reach around 99%, which we can translate to Zone 9.9, IE pure white. Keep in mind that even a 1-degree spot meter reads a fairly large area from a distance. I wonder whether the meter could accurately read those areas of highest brightness, without being influenced by adjacent tones.

Based on experience, to get texture in dark stones in the shade - at the same time as white water in full sun - requires more than a simple N-1 contraction, whatever your meter might have suggested to the contrary.

So you probably did get N-1, but it just wasn't enough.

Another suggestion is that you need to determine the "normal" film speed first, before you can determine alternate development schemes. Otherwise, you have no point of reference.

[Donald Qualls]

Assuming your scanning reflects your printing, those look to me like you need to expose about half a stop more (to account for speed loss) and then develop at least 20% less than you did.

The point of testing is to *find out* what values you need to use. I find I have to cut almost all published times by anything from 20% to 50% (Ilford times are especially bad; someone at Ilford *really* likes contrast). And the basis of Zone has been only semi-jokingly boiled down as "expose more, develop less".

FWIW, that first one especially is probably a "high contrast scene" and would genuinely have called for N-1 -- but until you know what your N is, you can't give N-1. You really need to test with a gray chart, or else do the "towel test" (expose a solid color towel for a range from -5 to +5 stops and examine for texture and details to find Zones I, II, VIII and IX, then determine how many stops of actual exposure separated those negatives and back out how much to change your development to get N), before you can do much with expansions and contractions.

As it is, it sounds like you're trying to take a shortcut into Zone, bypassing the testing (which, I'll admit, is harder to do without a densitometer, though some scanners can be made for work for that task).

[Scott --]

Unless I am mistaken, you haven't mentioned how you are making the positives we see here: via scanning ? enlarging ? contact printing ? What are we looking at: a scan of a print ? a scan of a negative ?

Your negatives might be perfect, if contact printed on number 2 paper, or maybe not - depending on your local water supply, thermometer, timer, style of agitation, etc. And that's just the Negative - never mind a print, where even more factors can come into play.

Your scanner might not be up to the task of penetrating the dense high values of the negatives. Or, you might not be using your scanner software correctly.

As they say, "The possibilities are endless"...no ?

For what it's worth, Photoshop says that the high values of the water in the first image, reach around 99%, which we can translate to Zone 9.9, IE pure white. Keep in mind that even a 1-degree spot meter reads a fairly large area from a distance. I wonder whether the meter could accurately read those areas of highest brightness, without being influenced by adjacent tones.

Based on experience, to get texture in dark stones in the shade - at the same time as white water in full sun - requires more than a simple N-1 contraction, whatever your meter might have suggested to the contrary.

So you probably did get N-1, but it just wasn't enough.

Another suggestion is that you need to determine the "normal" film speed first, before you can determine alternate development schemes. Otherwise, you have no point of reference.

Ok, I have some more reading to do. I'm scanning these negatives, and on examination, there's detail in the negative where there's not in the scan. My gut tells me that the highlights need to come down a bit, though, but that might be a matter of finding actual EI.

Problem I have with testing right now is that every protocol I've read calls for printing, which I just am not set up to do yet. I understand that creating the optimal negative is coupled to what you'll do with it (ie, printing), but I'm not there yet.


Assuming your scanning reflects your printing, those look to me like you need to expose about half a stop more (to account for speed loss) and then develop at least 20% less than you did.

The point of testing is to *find out* what values you need to use. I find I have to cut almost all published times by anything from 20% to 50% (Ilford times are especially bad; someone at Ilford *really* likes contrast). And the basis of Zone has been only semi-jokingly boiled down as "expose more, develop less".

FWIW, that first one especially is probably a "high contrast scene" and would genuinely have called for N-1 -- but until you know what your N is, you can't give N-1. You really need to test with a gray chart, or else do the "towel test" (expose a solid color towel for a range from -5 to +5 stops and examine for texture and details to find Zones I, II, VIII and IX, then determine how many stops of actual exposure separated those negatives and back out how much to change your development to get N), before you can do much with expansions and contractions.

As it is, it sounds like you're trying to take a shortcut into Zone, bypassing the testing (which, I'll admit, is harder to do without a densitometer, though some scanners can be made for work for that task).

I wouldn't say I'm trying to shortcut my way into Zone, but I might be jumping too far at first. I guess, since I've always done ok with box speeds and my usual development, it'd follow that I could use that as a starting point. Guess I have some unlearning to do.

[cyrus]

Ok, I have some more reading to do. I'm scanning these negatives, and on examination, there's detail in the negative where there's not in the scan. My gut tells me that the highlights need to come down a bit, though, but that might be a matter of finding actual EI.

Problem I have with testing right now is that every protocol I've read calls for printing, which I just am not set up to do yet. I understand that creating the optimal negative is coupled to what you'll do with it (ie, printing), but I'm not there yet.



I wouldn't say I'm trying to shortcut my way into Zone, but I might be jumping too far at first. I guess, since I've always done ok with box speeds and my usual development, it'd follow that I could use that as a starting point. Guess I have some unlearning to do.

Right about now incident metering sounds good, huh?

[Brian Ellis]

Rather than doing the testing yourself you might consider letting The View Camera Store do it for you. Costs about $30, you'll likely spend that much on film and who knows how many hours of time trying to do it yourself. Plus you'll get back more and better information than you'd ever create on your own. Takes about ten days from the time they send you the exposed film to develop to the time you get back the information.

One minor correction to somebody's post above. The suggestion was to use a textured object such as a sweater as the subject matter for your tests. The usual recommendation is to use a smooth surface. Textured surfaces usually contain multiple tones but for testing purposes you should be metering only a single tone. Also, while in theory the color shouldn't matter I've always thought it best to avoid using something that's very dark or very bright as the testing object.

[domenico Foschi]

The highlights do look blown out and I wonder if your metering was correct.
Did you meter the highlights from the camera distance or did you get close to the rocks.
The reason why I am saying this is because if you metered the highlights from the distance the meter actually estimated an average reading of the rocks and the shadows of the cracks between the rocks.
I f I stand correct, the rocks are in sunlight and in my opinion they are highre than zone VIII.

[Sandeha]

One more thought ... about the roller drum. I have no objection to most published developing times when devving in a tube, but on the roller I have to cut the time by 15% and add an extra 25% plain water.

And testing (you probably realise) is as much a verification of your thermometer and light meter as of the individual film type and dev.

[Ken Lee]

"Ok, I have some more reading to do. I'm scanning these negatives, and on examination, there's detail in the negative where there's not in the scan. My gut tells me that the highlights need to come down a bit, though, but that might be a matter of finding actual EI."

You have done enough reading for now. You understand all the concepts nicely. You only need to make a few adjustments, since you have already gotten quite close.

"Problem I have with testing right now is that every protocol I've read calls for printing, which I just am not set up to do yet. I understand that creating the optimal negative is coupled to what you'll do with it (ie, printing), but I'm not there yet."

I don't remember the Adams book, but one key concept is that when printing, give just enough exposure to render the blank film edge as Zone 0. In other words, print through any "base fog" in the film, but no more. If you darken the print any further, you are tossing out detail in the low values.

You can do the same when scanning. Scan just dark enough for the film edge to be at 0 % brightness, but no darker. If your scanner software allows the high values to fall wherever they are, with no "clipping" of values, then you can judge the resulting tones.

[Ken Lee]

Here's one way to test:

Under normal lighting conditions, set up a scene that has a wide range of tonal values. The objects should be familiar, and large. For example, a white sheet close to the camera, is much more helpful than small spots of white water at a distance. It's best if you can compare the objects in the print, with the real objects. For example, I often test with my dark-cloth in the photo, so that I can later compare the values of the dark cloth to the "real dark cloth". I put half the dark cloth in the shade, so I can see what it looks like under sun and shade.

Add a grey card to the scene. In each scene, place a card which tells the film speed in big letters. That way, it will be easy to know which one is which. Here's a sample image (http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/tmypc200.jpg). Kodak TMax 400 shot at 200, developed in PyroCat HD. As Borat would say: "Is nice".

It's best if you can have a person in the photo, since the eye is great at knowing when a face is rendered naturally in the print. We know what the print should feel like.

For a film with a published speed of 100, shoot the target 4 times at speed of 25, 4 times at 50, 4 times at 100, and 4 sheets at 200. Now you have 16 sheets, or 4 sets.

If the published developing time is 10 minutes, then develop one set at 10 minutes, another set at 6 minutes, another at 8 minutes, and another at 12 minutes.

Scan the resulting negatives. You will probably find your N, N-1, and N + 1 right away.

[David A. Goldfarb]

FWIW, I was shooting Arista.EDU Ultra 100 at 100. So shooting at 80 or 50 might bring the highlights back into range? Kind of makes sense.

Actually it's the other way around. Lowering EI setting on your meter (increasing exposure) would improve shadow detail, but might reduce highlight detail. Increasing EI (reducing exposure) would potentially decrease shadow detail, but might improve highlight detail, if the highlights were already on the shoulder of the film's characteristic curve. Ideally, you want to test the film speed so that you can use the minimum exposure that gives you good shadows, and then adjust the development time to put the highlights in the range of your printing process, whether scanning or printing traditionally.

Since you are scanning, rather than printing, it might be that your negatives are just exceeding the actual capacities of your scanner (whatever the manufacturer's specs claim), and you need to reduce development time to get optimal scans.

You could just contact print them at minimum exposure for maximum black in the unexposed areas to see how printable they will be on photographic paper. This doesn't take a very elaborate setup--a contact printing frame, light bulb, timer, thermometer, bottles and a graduate for chemistry, and four trays in a dark space. You can keep the fixed prints in a holding tray with plain water and take them to the bathroom to wash them at the end of the session.

[Scott --]

Ok, FWIW, I went back and rescanned. There's definitely detail in the highlights, but I have to tone down the scan to get them:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_crop347.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/crop347.jpg)

David, I'm going to start contact printing presently. Enough of this - I want prints!

Thanks for all the help, everyone. I will get this.

[Ken Lee]

FYI - You can extend the range of the scanner (if the scanner and software allow) by scanning multiple times, at different levels of brightness. Then overlay the files in Photoshop or Gimp, or any other program that allows precise overlay. With Photoshop, you can control the % that each layer will contribute, and you can also mask out portions.

I haven't done this often, but it occurs to me as a way to extend the range of the image, when the negative contains a long range of tones - especially when you can't go back and re-shoot, etc.

[steve simmons]

You should build a scanning curve in your scanning software to bring in a good scan. Making a bad scan and fixing it in Photoshop is the same as making a bad negative and fixing it in the darkroom.

steve simmons

[Scott --]

Agreed. Will look into that next, Steve.

[Donald Qualls]

Ok, FWIW, I went back and rescanned.

<snip>

Enough of this - I want prints!

Thanks for all the help, everyone. I will get this.

Based on that rescan, you've got some work to do on scanning, but your exposure and developing are as good as they need to be until you own a densitometer or have a specific problem with printing. It took me a couple years to get really confident with my scanning software, and I'm not looking forward to the thought of replacing this scanner at some future date and having to learn all over again.

Scanning is a skill, just like printing -- but it's a lot cheaper to learn. ;)

[cyrus]

The suggestion was to use a textured object such as a sweater as the subject matter for your tests. The usual recommendation is to use a smooth surface. Textured surfaces usually contain multiple tones but for testing purposes you should be metering only a single tone. Also, while in theory the color shouldn't matter I've always thought it best to avoid using something that's very dark or very bright as the testing object.

All the zone books I've read use a textured item. Point being that you can see the textured highlights and textured shadow zones. If you use a smooth surface, you won't be able to distinguish a textured highlight from a blown-out highlight on your test strip photo, since it will all look plain white. The difference between Zone II and Zone III is that Zone III shows details (texture). The difference between Zone VIII and IX is that Zone VIII shows details (texture)

[steve simmons]

You are looking for a tone not a texture. As long as the lighting is flat and not from the side creating a lot of local contrast you will be fine. Don't let people make this too complicated for you


steve