Multi-spot metering in b&w landscape

[renes]

Hello,

Could you share what is your method when metering with multi-spot for b&w landsape? I am going to buy a spot lightmeter, want to use it for b&w landscape but have a few question how to meter best with multi-spot. How many readings you get? what part do you start metering and which one is your last? If you take 4, 5 or 7 measurements, do you always get the same average measurement?

thanks in advance.

[Gem Singer]

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's usually the proper exposure for the scene.

Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.

If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.

Less than five, increase development.

More than five, decrease development.

No need to take a whole series of meter readings and average them. That's defeating the purpose.

Just make certain that you have given enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows. Then, develop for the highlights.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

[percepts]

Spot meters are usually used another way to how you are thinking. Yes you can average readings but most people do the following.

Meter the darkest are you want to just retain full textural detail. This will be a shadow area of the landscape so perhaps the base of some rocks or the dark side of a tree trunk in deep shadow. The reading that gives would expose that area as a mid tone so you close down two stops from that reading.
So if reading of shadow area was 1/4 of second at f8, then you would expose for 1/4 second at f16.

That will make sure you have well exposed shadows areas that retain detail (not blocked). Then you control development times by experimentation to determine what is the correct dev time to give well developed highlights.

It gets a bit more complicated but essentially that is how the zone system works.

Read "The Negative" by Ansel Adams for a full and weighty discussion on how to go about using a spot meter to get spot on meter readings using his zone system.

p.s. The method I have described is what is done for B+W. If you are using colour film and require colour accuracy, then you must meter a reference surface such as a Macbeth colour chart and use reading from that to set exposure based on known exposure values for the chart.

[Brian Ellis]

With negative film (I don't use slide film) people who use the zone system or some variation or derivative of it often only take two readings, one reading of the darkest shadow area in which you want texture or detail, which determines your exposure, and another reading of the brightest area in which you want texture or detail, which determines your development time. Everything in between those two readings will be whatever they are based on how you expose and how you develop, which are governed by the two readings mentioned above.

You might sometimes take a third or maybe even fourth reading if there's another area or two in the scene that's vital to the image you have in mind, just to see what effect the exposure you're considering will have on that area. I never try to average readings since for me the point of taking readings in the first place is to determine exposure and development times and that's done by the shadow and highlight readings mentioned above, not by any average.

[civich]

Gem,
Books have been written on this subject - what makes you think you can nail it down for a beginner in just ten sentences? Oh - you just did. Jeez. That's great. Wow.
Thanks.
-Chris, who's read Minor White till I was cross-eyed, Ivich

[Chuck P.]

Hard to expand on what's been said, but it's the old maxim: "expose for the desired shadow values and develop for the desired highlight values"; it is extremely relevent in B&W negative photography.

[Gem Singer]

Ivich,

Early tomorrow morning, four of us from the Dallas LF group are traveling to Ft.Worth to photograph an old bridge that spans the Trinity River.

Two of us will be using spot meters, both digital and analog. Two others will be using complicated and expensive computerized light meters that can read ambient light, as well as spot readings.

In the long run, all of us will end up using an equal amount of exposure (+ or - half a stop) for the same scene.

If you understand what your meter is telling you, it doesn't matter what type or brand of meter you use to determine the proper exposure.

As Steve S. is fond of stating, "It isn't rocket science".

[ki6mf]

Good advice from all of the posts. Search this forum on how to do a film speed test using your spot meter and how to determine development times. The zone system is calibrating your meter to your film development time at an optimum film speed. Keep in mind every hand held light meter reads an 18% gray card. This is usually referred to as Zone 5. The meter reads every value as if it were zone 5 or the 18% gray card regardless of how light or dark the tone is. Your shadows will be two stops less than the meter reading. Say for example a shadow reading shows an Exposure Value (EV) of 7.3 and if you ISO is 300 you would see an exposure for zone 5 of F32 at 2 Seconds. Assuming you want to keep the F stop at 32 you need to let less light in to the negative and set the shutter two stops to a speed of 1/2 second. You would then use your film speed tests to increase or decrease development times to correct highlights on you negatives.

[ChrisN]

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's usually the proper exposure for the scene.

Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.

If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.

Less than five, increase development.

More than five, decrease development.

No need to take a whole series of meter readings and average them. That's defeating the purpose.

Just make certain that you have given enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows. Then, develop for the highlights.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

Beautifully and succinctly stated -thank you!

[Doremus Scudder]

Gem,

Perfect! You and Richard Feynman.
A brief, easily comprehensible by beginners, yet complete, description of Zone System metering. Impressive.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[renes]

Great thanks to all of you for this clear explanation!

But now I have a few question more:


Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.


"expose for the desired shadow values and develop for the desired highlight values"; it is extremely relevent in B&W negative photography.

Is there any dark area you would not like to have it detailed?
In other words: when it need not to be detailed?

The same question refers to the the brightest area.


Search this forum on how to do a film speed test using your spot meter and how to determine development times. The zone system is calibrating your meter to your film development time at an optimum film speed. Keep in mind every hand held light meter reads an 18% gray card. This is usually referred to as Zone 5. The meter reads every value as if it were zone 5 or the 18% gray card regardless of how light or dark the tone is. Your shadows will be two stops less than the meter reading.

I use mainly TRI-X 320 and Fuji Acros 100 and develop in Kodak D-76. I am going to buy Sekonic L-558 spot lightmeter, and it reads 13% gray card. Should it be calibrated to 18%? Could it be made by service or I can do it on my own? I should test a film speed using spot meter not till then, right? I wiil try to find how to make it.

[percepts]

Not a simple to question to answer.
The manufacturers development times usually give contrast on film which retains approx 7 or 8 stops from black to white if printed onto grade 2 paper with no filtration. This works well for some subjects and not so well for other subjects. All depends on the brightness range of the subject.
For landscapes it is often the case that with some bright sky and some deep shadows, the subject brightness range (SBR) is possibly 10 stops and in extreme cases can be a lot more. On an overcast day it may only be 7 stops or less.

So you have to work out a standard development time which gives you a known amount of stops in your subject brightness range on grade 2 paper. Typically for landscape work that is 9 or 10 stops but is a personal and subjective choice.

Then when you meter the subject you pick your shadow area which you want full detail in, meter it and reduce exposure by 2 stops.

At the other end of the scale a highlight value wich just retains a little detail is the metered value which is opened up by 3 stops. So from the shadow value to the highlight value (retaining a little detail) is 5 stops. Assuming your standard development is for a 10 stop range, then having metered the shadow area you meter the highlight area in which you want a little detail and check that the difference is 5 stops. If it is then perfect. But if the difference is 7 stops then you have some choices to make. You can either reduce development time to reduce the contrast on film so that everything is printable or you can decide which is more important in the subject and adjust exposure to capture the highlights and let the shadows start to block up. Or you expose for the shadows and let the highlights block up.

The usual method is to still expose for the shadows because the highlights will still be captured on film but will be difficult to print.
If you expose for the highlights and let the shadows block up, you will lose the shadow information completely as it won't be captured on film.

So yes you can place the exposure where you want knowing that you are favouring either shadows or highlights and that if you favour one over the other then the other will either lose detail or be difficult to print.

But using the zone system you can work out development modifications for SBR which are above or below normal and bring everything within easy printing range. This will cover the vast majority of subjects and only with extreme SBR will you have to lose something at either end of the scale.

You also have to learn by experience how dark a shadow area is but since most subject brightness range will fit on film, the usual method is to expose for a shadow which ensures the complete subject range is captured on film and worry about getting the correct tone when printing.

Finally black and white prints usually benefit from having a full range of tones in the print from black to white but this is subjective and a personal choice. It is not mandatory to have a maximum black in a print. There are beautiful prints which have no tones close to black. Basically large areas of pure black usually don't look good in a print but it depends on the subject composition as to what looks good or doesn't. So you can let things go completely black if you want or not.

[Flauvius]

An Example of all this theory:

If your shadow reading is: "5"; - Then imagine your shadow reading to be: "3".

Then, if your meter's highlight reading is: "7", - (and if you count on your fingers) - you will have a (5) zone light spread.

Wha La, you have perfect lighting!

[percepts]

I am going to buy Sekonic L-558 spot lightmeter, and it reads 13% gray card. Should it be calibrated to 18%? Could it be made by service or I can do it on my own? I should test a film speed using spot meter not till then, right? I wiil try to find how to make it.

DO NOT try to adjust your light meter.

It is myth that light meters should be adjusted to 18%. Yes there is a lot of bad information on the web and in books. Most of it because people have just copied what someone before them said.

A big part of doing film speed tests is that it takes care of any inaccuracies in your lightmeter. So if your light meter is consistently out by 1/8 th of a stop that will be reflected in the fact that the personal EI/film speed you arrive at will be altered by 1/8th of a stop as well.
So providing nothing major is wrong with your light meter it will work fine out of the box. If there was an error in your light meter which was not consistent, then adjusting the meter would not resolve the problem anyway. So until you have proved there is a serious error with light meter don't touch it.

Is 18% middle grey? NO.

Z0 = 1/2
Z1 = 1
Z2 = 2
Z3 = 4
Z4 = 8
Z5 = 16
Z6 = 32
Z7 = 64
Z8 = 128
Z9 = 256
Z10 = 512

Z0 thru Z10 is a continous grayscale from black to white. Z0 is black and Z10 is white
Assume Z0 thru Z10 are 1 stop differences. Each stop is twice as bright as the previous stop. Z5 is 5 stops brighter than Z0 and 10 is 5 stops brighter than Z5.
Z5 is the middle of the scale.

So we shine 512 units of light at the greyscale and meter the Z5 area. It reflects 16 units of light. 16 units of light is 3.125% of 512. It is not 18%. Somebody has been lying or talking bollocks. Or have they?

Suppose our greyscale only goes upto Z5 and we shine 16 units of light at it. The mid point is halfway between Z0 and Z5 which is Z2.5. The reflectance value for Z2.5 is 2.828 units of light. 2.828 is 17.67% of 16 which is pretty damn close to 18%.

So 18% is the mid point of a 5 stop range which is good to know if you are using slide film such as velvia. But its pretty useless for black and white film which has 7, 8 and more stops of range.

However, 18% is always 2.5 stops less than 100% reflectance. (at least very close to 2.5 stops). So on a 10 stop range 18% would be Z7.5. On a 12 stop range it would be Z9.5 etc...

That means a kodak grey card is always 2.5 stops less than the brightest part of the subject assuming it is in the same lighting. And that is the problem because shadows are not in the same lighting as areas in direct sunlight. So if you place the grey card in sun it is useless for working out shadows. And if you place it in the shadows it is useless for working out areas in sunlight. But using the zone system you don't need to use a grey card because with a spot meter you can be more accurate by metering shadows, working out difference for highlights and adjusting development to suit SBR.

[renes]

Thanks for next advice and so clear explanations. I can not wait to use it in practice with my 6x9 and 9x12 Voigtlander Bergheil cameras.

I wonder how to use (if possible) the Zone system when taking b&w landscape on 120 roll-film back - there is only one possible development, not so much flexibility in processing as with sheet film. Did you face with similar problem?

To help a bit I bought a second roll-film back, one to use with 100iso neg (sunlight & contrasty sceneries), second one for 320iso (cloudy, overcast & low contrast views).

Is it any solution which can help in accounting development time when you took (and have on film) 3-4 shots with different range stops between the darkest and brightest area in the scene. Average?

[ki6mf]

The only thing you can do for 120 roll film is develop the whole roll for the calculated exposure. If you keep separate backs for different development times you are OK on doing the entire roll and would vary the development for the entire roll as needed. When the sun is shinning I have found that you are almost always in a n -2 or n-3 situation and shorter development times are important.

[percepts]

some zone system users have development times for N, N+1 stop, N+2, N-1, N-2 and some have even more.

But in reality using 120 film you can buy one or two extra backs and / or know that one stop extra range should be easily coped with when printing on VC paper. 2 stops extra range can be coped with using VC paper. Zone system was designed before VC paper existed. So only if you are printing on graded paper is development modification really necessary for vast majority of subjects.

Also light levels tend to stay fairly constant whilst photographing one particular subject so you can easily fire off 10 or 12 frames which will all require the same development. A roll of 120 film is cheap. Use it. And keep a spare back for the occasional extreme case but even then you can just change film and shoot a whole roll for one particular subject.

[Brian Ellis]

"Is there any dark area you would not like to have it detailed?
In other words: when it need not to be detailed?

The same question refers to the the brightest area."

Sure. There will often be small areas in a landscape photograph that contain nothing you care about in the scene. And if you try to exposure for them you'll end up blowing out the highlights. Same with highlights the other way. It's really all an aesthetic decision - what kind of print do you want to make? Maybe you want a dark, moody print, maybe you want a bright, high-key print. So you expose and develop accordingly.

[Mike1234]

I agree with what others have said here. Have at least three RFH's so you can expose/develop to best suit the requirements of a given group of images. That said, I'm no longer shooting 120 B&W and, if I was, I'd use one back and use a whole roll for every shot. But I'm shooting 6x12cm so this allows six exposures per image... not at all bad as one can bracket and have have backup negs in case one is mucked up in processing or post processing.

[Richard M. Coda]

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's usually the proper exposure for the scene.

Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.

If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.

Less than five, increase development.

More than five, decrease development.

No need to take a whole series of meter readings and average them. That's defeating the purpose.

Just make certain that you have given enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows. Then, develop for the highlights.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

I tried to understand this in college (1982) when I learned of it... couldn't do it. Tried to think too much into it, like it was quantum physics or something. Then one day a few months out of college I was playing around and I had an epiphany... it just hit me like a ton of bricks. I couldn't believe how easy it was!

[renes]

Waht about scene reading with spot lightmeter when using filters for b&w?
Is it a best way to put the filter in front of lens to read desired scene?

[Gem Singer]

Hold the filter in front of the spotmeter.

Take the reading through the filter.

Place the filter on the lens.

Make the exposure.

I repeat, "it isn't rocket science".

[ki6mf]

I do what Gem Singer stated above. Sometimes I will meter a shadow that is near me as opposed to what is framed in the camera. This is used when the shadows are across a large open area. Also I do sometimes place shadows in zone 4 as opposed to Zone 3. I only do this when I decide that a dominate shadow needs to be lighter. I usually only pay attention to Zone 3 Textured shadows and Zone 7 textured highlights and dont go checking zone readings for the mid tones.

[percepts]

Waht about scene reading with spot lightmeter when using filters for b&w?
Is it a best way to put the filter in front of lens to read desired scene?

metering through filter will work OK some times and not other times. Depends on particular filter. Deep red filters are not good for metering through, especially those with sharp wavelength cut off.
Use filter factor as starting point for exposure adjustment.

[Mike1234]

Man, I'm hearing (reading) some really good common sense tactics here. Geez... where have I heard this before? "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" and "meter throught the filter". What could be easier? Forget all the complex formulations and other crap. Just follow those simple tactics and WHEN you begin to notice any little imperfections then tweak exposure/development/metering/filtering to suit. For instance... development time/temp/dilution/agitation affects shadows too... just not nearly as much as highlights. All films are affected by filters in different ways. Meters read colors differently. Other little variations abound... blah, blah, blah. So if the "perfection bug" ever bites you in the arse then read up on that aspect and do your real-world testing with the ONE or TWO films and ONE or TWO developers you've settled on using the VERY FEW filters you use. But until that arse-biting perfection bug strikes just follow those two rules... "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights", and "meter through the filter".

Ahhh... doesn't that feel better?? :)

[Lenny Eiger]

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

I'll add my 2 cents.... I agree wholeheartedly. I used to teach my college course by asking who would like to learn the Zone System in ten minutes.... The students loved it. I used to give them a card with 4 steps - read zone 3, read zone 7, calc the dev (+ or - to 4) and close down two from zone 3 reading to expose.

It was almost exactly what you wrote except I used 4 for the number of stops from 3 to 7 vs 5. It's totally arbitrary, of course, and doesn't really matter. I used 4 when I wanted to match to a silver paper, when I moved to platinum and ultimately inkjet, I used a much longer tonal scale (more development). I didn't change the system, just the development times...

I don't bother with filters... just don't find them necessary.... I can adjust all of that in the scanner or in Photoshop... or development...

Lenny

[Gem Singer]

Lenny,

Zone III
ZoneIV
Zone V
Zone VI
ZoneVII

Count them. That's five zones (stops)

[pocketfulladoubles]

This is a great thread for beginners. Thanks for all the input. Continuing on Gem's very clear response, I think it should be stated that different films will have different curves. You have to know your film and how it will respond down in the Zone 2 and 3 areas for shadows, and for Zones 7+ for highlights, and that simply takes experinece and/or testing. Once you have a good handle on how your film (and developing it) responds, you can use these exposure regions of the film's curve to adjust how you want to separate shadows and highlights. You can also manipulate this with pre-exposing the film and I'm sure other more advanced methods.

I'm a newbie myself, so I won't pretend to really know, but I'm hoping someone can elabortate on more than just 'shadows and highlights', etc. Isn't there a whole art to balancing the midtones (Zones 4 to 6) as well?

Also, I find using a #29 for viewing helps find the bright and dark spots in a scene. I think Adams used a #90, no?

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

Zone III
ZoneIV
Zone V
Zone VI
ZoneVII

Count them. That's five zones (stops)

Five zones if you think of them as objects. However, mathematically,

7-3 = 4

When you meter I believe it follows math more than the other. If not, I'd be metering up until 8. It's a conceptual thing, tho', the number is meaningless. It's not an exact representation of much at all... A 4 or 5 stop range does not match to what the printing solution can do. There are compression options after the fact as well. In my new Zone System iPhone app, released very soon, I will offer a preference to set it to whatever span the user sees the number as...

Zone 3 to Zone 5 is important from an exposure point of view, but the range is only there to match to a development time.

I thought your summary was excellent, BTW, and I think you helped a number of people on this forum finally get it. It's too bad a one page book wouldn't sell very well (or for very much) or you'd really have something.

Just for fun, I will add one caveat. It's important not to get too anal about things. There are times when the zone system does not work as planned. There are many times when a student will want to test it to the max and try and bring down the light from a window blasting in to an otherwise flat scene. They may get the window in, but the scene will still be flat. That's an extreme example, but it also works outside, where one needs to look carefully at the light as well as the light meter...

And of course... it's easy enough to bracket the development as well as the exposure, or instead of it... something I would suggest for folks new to this...

Lenny

[Mike1234]

I agree with Lenny and some others here. Just get started with the simplest methodology. Only start tweaking when you know enough to know "sumthin' ain't right". As you correct those "ain't right" things then you can tweak more of them as they become obvious to you. Just fix the biggest "ain't right" stuff first and march forward.

[Preston]

"Just fix the biggest "ain't right" stuff first and march forward."

Sage advice, indeed!

Sometimes, fixing the big 'ain't right stuff' prevents the small 'ain't right stuff' from showing up at all.

This has been a very enlightening discussion. I've used and taught the Zone System for many years, and to have such succinct explanations appear is nice to see. This discussion will be very helpful to any phtographer.

-P

[Vaughn]

I have used the same words as Gem to our students -- usually after they get a multi-hour lecture on it from one of the professors. For those students that like a "why", I will quickly explain why one's shadow detail depends on exposure, and why the highlights are determined largely by development (for some, that would only confuse).

I found it very easy to take my notes and determine exposure using EV values read directly from the meter (Pentax Digital Spot). For example, if the darkest shadows where I want detail reads "4", my exposure will be "6" (2 stops less exposure than the shadow reading). I check out the highlights, perhaps take a couple of readings of areas of interest. Then with the meter set on "6", I determine the actual f-stop and shutter speed to be used.

Much easier for my brain than thinking in terms of f-stop and shutter speed the whole process through.

Vaughn

[Mike1234]

Edward Weston flew by the seat of his pants using terminology something like, "the meter says this but I'll give it a little more", and "suggested development is that but I'll give it a little less". He did okay.

[BetterSense]

I don't bother with filters... just don't find them necessary.... I can adjust all of that in the scanner or in Photoshop... or development...

You may not find them necessary or desirable, but there is no way you can "adjust all that" with any post-processing tools at all, unless you are shooting color film and desaturating it. See my flickr set on playing around with color filters to see the dramatic results--including completely disappearing elements--that can be accomplished with color filters.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29315038@N02/sets/72157621981383574/show/

[Lenny Eiger]

See my flickr set on playing around with color filters to see the dramatic results--including completely disappearing elements--that can be accomplished with color filters.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29315038@N02/sets/72157621981383574/show/

Perhaps you put up the wrong url, but what I saw was that you used "3-D glasses from church" which are red and green, presumably. Perhaps you want to be a bit more specific as to what you see happening different that you think would not be accomplished with development or post processing.

Lenny

[BetterSense]

The red and green filters filter out parts of the spectrum, radically shifting the tones on the film, to the extent that elements of the picture completely swap tones with each other between filters, or disappear altogether...you cannot put that back on the negative with post-processing.

Look how the metal frame of the playground swaps tones with the slide itself...and the pole-thing in the forground. Look at the shape-puzzle to the left of the slide and the frame around it. Starting with a B&W file, you can't modify tones this way practically.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3801671042_be20ac198e_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3525/3801671056_a509251276_b.jpg

Which of the motorcycles is darker?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2520/3801671100_0c162a31ef_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/3801671078_d8deb04d08_b.jpg

I can't make different colors render on film to different densities with development or even digital processing, but maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[Lenny Eiger]

The red and green filters filter out parts of the spectrum, radically shifting the tones on the film, to the extent that elements of the picture completely swap tones with each other between filters, or disappear altogether...you cannot put that back on the negative with post-processing.


I see what you are saying. I am always trying to pull out as much of the normal scene as I can. In the scenes that you show, I would go more for getting enough shadow detail and develop so the highlights are right. I would let the "normal" tones do their thing... It's an aesthetic decision, to be sure. There's nothing wrong with changing anything. It's just not the way I do things... I have always dislike black skies, and high contrast, for example. I don't see the use for my work.

I would also say that modifying things a bit, say, changing the tones on a motorcycle is a fairly easy thing to do with masks and curves, if a bit tedious...

Lenny

[Mike1234]

The slide and bike were blue, right? The canopy was probably green.

[renes]

Remove one more of my doubt.

All the above applies to zones Adams. Unfortunately, at that time
light meters were not known to the ANSI standards.

ZONE V is an area of approximately 18% reflective, light meters are calibrated in the majority at 12% (ANSI), and so it is about ½ EV (f-stop) less than 18%. So if after measuring shadow area in Zone III, should we not close down the lens two and half stops instead two?

Thanks.

[Lenny Eiger]

ZONE V is an area of approximately 18% reflective, light meters are calibrated in the majority at 12% (ANSI), and so it is about ½ EV (f-stop) less than 18%. So if after measuring shadow area in Zone III, should we not close down the lens two and half stops instead two?

Thanks.

Then it would only be 1.5 stops down. However, that isn't the issue. The Zone system is one where "pre-visualizes" a scene with a distinct spread of tones across the spectrum. It's a totally arbitrary visualization in some respects. Point your meter in the shadow area, close down two stops, just like everyone else, and expose and develop a few hundred sheets to see what you can and can't get out of the shadows. There's nothing like experience...

That would be my suggestion....

Lenny

[Bruce Watson]

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's usually the proper exposure for the scene.

Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.

If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.

Less than five, increase development.

More than five, decrease development.

No need to take a whole series of meter readings and average them. That's defeating the purpose.

Just make certain that you have given enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows. Then, develop for the highlights.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

+1. Nice and concise.

[Bambooflyrod]

This thread has been a revelation to me. Many thanks. I have tried a number of times to get my head around the 'zone system' and now I see the light. (Pun intended.)

[ki6mf]

I wouldn't worry about filter factors. Instead with the spot meter of choice meter through the filter and shoot. You will almost always be off by some fraction of a stop which you correct when printing.

[renes]

Which book would you recommend as the best about Zone System expalanation and applying it in practice?

[ki6mf]

Nick Johnson at New England School of Photography has a book sold to students at the school for around $20.00 You would need to contact him directly through the school at (617) 437-1868. The School is closed till Jan 4th. The best on line step by step instructions I personally have found are at
http://www.jerryo.com/teaching.htm

Jerry gives plain English step by step devoid of jargon, pseudo scientific, pop culture, hidden meaning, mystic, mythical, or otherwise drug induced explanations of how to do the testing necessary for all aspects of the zone system. I find Jerry's tutorials better than Fred Pickers excellent book.

Here is some of what he covers:
Film speed and print time:
• Finding your Normal developing time
• Using a densitometer
• The Visual Method (without densitometer)
• The practical method
• Finding N+ and N- developing times

[mikebarger]

Fred Pickers little book, I've seen as cheap as 2.00usd and as high as 30.00usd on ebay.

Great book to learn the zone system.

Mike

[Lenny Eiger]

Which book would you recommend as the best about Zone System expalanation and applying it in practice?

Maybe Minor White's. However, the IMO best would be none at all. Gem's explanation is what it is. (Except I think the magic # is 4 ;-) ) Read it again a few times, then go apply it a bunch and all will be clear.

The problem is that a lot of folks have made it more complicated than it is. It's very simple.

Lenny

[ki6mf]

Regarding areas that are all black with no detail. There is no hard and fast rule for this its a matter of how much black with no texture you want in the finish image. Remember once these areas become silhouettes there is nothing you can do to fix this. It becomes a subjective decision. In a related matter there are some times where your zone 3 reading may be to dark so there are times when i have placed a shadow in Zone 4 rather than zone 3. Often this happens when I don't have much shadow to determine exposure for my shadow areas and I derive my zone 3 by reading what zone 4 will be.

[renes]

(...)

Zone 3 to Zone 5 is important from an exposure point of view, but the range is only there to match to a development time (...)
Lenny

Write a bit more about calculating the precise development time, put some examples, please. When do you chose N+1, N+2 or even N+3? Same with: N-1, N-2, N-3?

say, you use Fuji Acros, you got only 2 range EV in the scene, what development time would you chose?

[Lenny Eiger]

Write a bit more about calculating the precise development time, put some examples, please. When do you chose N+1, N+2 or even N+3? Same with: N-1, N-2, N-3?
example: you use Fuji Acros, you got only 2 range EV in the scene, what development time would you chose?

N-3 is a shorter development time, and each successive number is a little longer. For traditional film and developers the number used to be around 17%. For example, N-3 time might be 4 minutes, N-2 might be around 5 minutes, N-1 around 6 1/2, N at 7 1/2, N+1 a little more, N+2 a little more...

While you can't make more exposure with more development (within reason) the more you develop, the darker the highlights will be on the negative. This will make negatives too contrasty to print at some point.

The exact number of minutes and seconds depends a lot on the developer and film, and more importantly, the final printing process. Getting to the exact development time is a matter of experience. There are a number of methods, but I find that trial and error is the best. In the old days, it was to match to a number 2 paper. Then I went to alternative processes and I wanted a very different negative. It's very similar for inkjet printing. Lots of folks would disagree with me on the last point, everyone has their ultimate negative...

I hope this helps,

Lenny

[ki6mf]

If you only have two stops difference this is very flat light and an alternative for this condition is on this link. http://enginova.com/photo_exposures.htm

You usually don't go to n-4 or n+3 instead use a compensating developer like d76 diluted 1:5 developed for 15 minutes with agitation every 2 minutes (my personal choice) or something like HC 110 in a 2 step water bath process.

Follow this link and look at film speed and developer testing. http://www.jerryo.com/teaching.htm

[ki6mf]

I second what Lenny said and also remember if you use full strength developer and cut short development times you run the risk of not enough development time in the shadow areas. A diluted developer solves this problem. I use d 76 1:2 and though testing found my development times are around 14 minutes ISO 300 Ilford HP5. for me n-1 is 12 minutes, n-2 is 10 minutes n-3 is 8 minutes. On most sunny days you will probably be at n-2 or n-3. If you are in n-4 go to compensating developer. The trade off is that processing takes longer however you can test and get very precise times for development between zones. Remember you are using development times to create highlights and use camera controls ( F stop and Shutter speed) to get the shadows exposed properly. The zone system is really about using the light meter with what ever film and developer combination you choose, calibrating development times and print times and then NOT varying ANYTHING. If you want to experiment with other films or developers ALL tests must start over from the beginning.

[Chuck P.]

Which book would you recommend as the best about Zone System expalanation and applying it in practice?

I went straight to the source with The Negative. At the very least, having a copy to go along with some other source that you may be using could help with clarifications. The Negative is not hard to understand.

[Riverman]

This has been an excellent thread. Conceptually I haven't had trouble with the zone system. What has been difficult for me though is correctly determining which shadows to place in Zone III. Visually I find it much easier to identify something in the scene which I know should represent a middle tone. When I started in LF I tried to meter for shadow values and work with the zone system. But I found that I would invariably put a shadow in Zone III which really should have been in a lower zone, and ended up blowing the highlights beyond repair.

So, in frustration I adopted a much sloppier approach to metering, measuring different spots in the scene and taking the average as my exposure, always shooting at the manufacturer's EI (never testing the film first). The negs I've shot in this way have definitely been printable but that's more a product of luck than judgment. Particularly since I have not been doing my own developing.

So, this thread, combined with the fact that Quickloads look to be on the way out (I just shot my last box of Acros QL) has inspired me to make myself a "real" LF photographer as my new year's resolution. I shall pick up a changing tent and start loading my darkslides again. I'm going to run EI tests on sheets of Acros following the step by step guides in Steve Simmons book and I'm also going to try my hand at developing 4x5 to get control of the development stage.

I'm a lazy photographer really, very much drawn to aesthetics and composition but too idle to get a grasp of the more technical, scientific side of the equation. In 2010 that changes!

Hmm. Whilst typing it has occurred to me that since Quickloads and Readyloads are no more, 2010 also might be the year I jump into 5x7. The ability to shoot Quickloads was one of my main reasons for choosing 4x5 when starting LF in 2008. If I'm going to do darkslides and my own developing, why not in 5x7!

[ki6mf]

Generally I select deepest shadows and don't worry about exposing for less detail. Sometimes if the physical depth of the shadow is several feet, like a deep crevice or hole in a rock, you will find the exposure for that shadow can be a few stops between shadow that is well light , like at the front of the hole, versus deep into the depth that is the shadow. This can force what would have been an-2 development time, for example, to become compensating (beyond n-3). It becomes a subjective decision. One thing you can do is shoot a back up negative, develop and print the first, then change developing time for the back up negative. Time and experience will help to determine how to place the shadow.

[Chuck P.]

[QUOTE]What has been difficult for me though is correctly determining which shadows to place in Zone III.

As cliche' as it is, the visualization of your final print will dictate your shadow placement, that is why there is no rock solid answer to your difficulty.


Visually I find it much easier to identify something in the scene which I know should represent a middle tone.

This train of thought goes along with the use of a gray card or an incident meter when sunlight and shadow are present in the scene (generally not a good idea, IMO). But, continuing with your original thought, spot readings of those important shadow areas need to be made to see where they "fall" in relation to such a middle value reading. If the middle value reading is "EV11" and the important shadow area reads "EV8", then an exposure based on the middle value reading will underexpose your important shadow area to ZII.


When I started in LF I tried to meter for shadow values and work with the zone system. But I found that I would invariably put a shadow in Zone III which really should have been in a lower zone, and ended up blowing the highlights beyond repair.

With proper Zone System calibration of your EI and "normal" development time, this is easy to overcome.

Just because your Zone III shadow placement blows the important highlight, does not necessarily mean that it is an improper placement. But it does mean that you did not modify the development enouigh to accomodate your desired Zone III placement. Did you use the spot meter to read where the highlight value "fell" on the zone scale? Say, for example, it fell on Zone X, but you want it on Zone VIII (full texture at the highlight end of the scale), then you would have to plan "N-2" development to accomodate the Zone III placement. N-2 development will develop a Zone X reflective value to a Zone VIII negative density. You could lower the shadow placement by two zones to Zone I, bringing the highlight down to Zone VIII. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as long as it meets your aesthetic visualization of the final print values. There is no reason that shadow placements should always be considered at Zone III or IV.

Just some additional food for thought.

[Mike1234]

Oh to hell with it!! Meter your shadows at -3 or -2 and develop the highlights to expand or compress them into the film equivilent to making a final print. Stop with the anal retention!!

[Chuck P.]

Oh to hell with it!! Meter your shadows at -3 or -2 and develop the highlights to expand or compress them into the film equivilent to making a final print. Stop with the anal retention!!

It's basic ZS stuff, nothing anal about it. Just ignore the discussion if you don't like it or understand it, which ever the case may be for you.

[percepts]

Oh to hell with it!! Meter your shadows at -3 or -2 and develop the highlights to expand or compress them into the film equivilent to making a final print. Stop with the anal retention!!

Everythings easy when you know how but enquring minds like to understand why and not just be rule followers without a clue.

So I'm a complete newbie and haven't a clue what -3 means or why it should be -3 and how can I be sure that -3 is right for me?

Your reponse to this this will tell us whether you are capable of communicating anything meaningful to someone who wants learn or whether you are just being a smart arse because you think you know something.

Happy New Year...

[Mike1234]

Now that I look again at my response above it comes off as very negative. It wasn't meant to be. I only meant "throw caution to the wind" and "stop worrying so much". To begin with just folllow the "basic rules of thumb" and you'll "be in the ballpark" with good printable negs. You can "tweak" to your heart's content later. :)

[Riverman]

For me the most important thing to get a grip on is the development side of things. I don't do my own developing so it's something ideally that I need to start doing in the new year. As Chuck mentioned, in those cases where I feared I'd blown the highlights, I probably could have rescued things if I'd altered the development.

If I continued to use a lab for processing 4x5 rather than doing it myself, presumably I could ask the lab for info on development times/temperatures that they're using and then ask them to do the altered developments in my film tests so that I can establish a consistent system for altering development with that lab?

[Chuck P.]

So I'm a complete newbie and haven't a clue what -3 means................

Strictly speaking, in the ZS vernacular, a Zone VIII negative density of 1.3 is the calibration point for "normal" development. And, the personal EI is the EI that yields a negative density of 0.1 above the filmbase + fog density. You've probably heard this before, but it's key to everything in the ZS. The above parameters establish a negative density range (any range can be tested for, but it needs to be within the exposure scale of the paper) to which the film should be developed each instance, regardless of development time. In the case above, it's 1.2, take the difference of the two to know the range. Once these two ends of the zone scale are controlled in this manner, other development modifications can be made with ease.

All development times, are relative to the "normal" time, that's why the normal is established first. The graph you see illustrates this point. So, any negative exposed to a SBR from:

- Zone I to Zone X, can be contracted to a negative density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N-2)
- Zone I to Zone IX, can be contracted to a negative density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N-1)

- Zone I to Zone VIII, can be normally developed to a density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N)

- Zone I to Zone VII, can be expanded to a negative density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N+1)
- Zone I to Zone VI, can be expanded to a negative density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N+2)

For extreme contrast situations where compensating development is definitely needed,

- Zone I to Zone XI, can be contracted to a negative density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N-3)
- Zone I to Zone XII, can be contracted to a negative density range from Zone I to Zone VIII (N-4)

You may not have a densitometer to determine negative density and create graphs, I realize this, but regardless, this is what is taught in The Negative. I hope this clarifies normal, minus, and plus development for you, at least in terms of ZS procedures.

[percepts]

Chuck thanks,
I do understand all this but was making the point to Mike that beginners need more explanation to understnad this stuff than just "meter and close down two stops and worry about development later if necessary".

The 1.3 density is a rather arbitrary density based on old materials. I would suggest trialling some current papers to see if its still valid. And use very fresh paper to do it as the point moves significantly as paper ages. i.e. 1.3 is all well and good but can never nail it reliably unless you are using paper of a known CI at the time of printing. But thats what VC paper resolves for most of us.

[Chuck P.]

[QUOTE]I do understand all this but was making the point to Mike that beginners need more explanation to understnad this stuff than just "meter and close down two stops and worry about development later if necessary".

I took you quite literally (which is the only way I can take it) when you said you didn't have a clue to what -3 was, maybe it'll be helpful to others. I agree with the other, learning something new, IMO, is not the time to ignore the fundamentals of what makes something work, it's the time to master them. The shortest route is not always desirable.


The 1.3 density is a rather arbitrary density based on old materials.

So far it is working very nicely for me. You will recall I said that any range can be tested for, at the time this stuff really started clicking for me, I simply tested based on how I was learning, so far don't see the need to change it. The one example I can site is Alan Ross, who has info on his site about calibrating "normal" development with a Zone IX density of 1.45 for a range of 1.35.

[Lenny Eiger]

[QUOTE=percepts;543385]The one example I can site is Alan Ross, who has info on his site about calibrating "normal" development with a Zone IX density of 1.45 for a range of 1.35.

As nice as Alan is (I consider myself a friend), this number needs to be taken into context. It should not be put out there as a standard, especially when addressing people who would call themselves newbies.

There are different styles of printing in the darkroom. Some people like more contrast than others. Alan is from that school, perhaps not all the way but certainly in that direction. Personally, I wouldn't consider going that high for a darkroom print. There is no right or wrong, of course, this is all personal choice, one simply has to attempt to make a print at the density (or development time) to know whether it works for the type of print you want or not. (One's highlights are either blown out, perfect, or the print is dead flat, etc.)

Further, there are many folks on this list that use a hybrid process. This needs a very different negative. "Needs" might be too strong a word, let's just say a much longer range is optimal. There are also those that do alternative processes like platinum or carbon, etc. They use a negative developed to a higher range as well.

Lenny

[Chuck P.]

Lenny,

Not sure I follow you, are suggesting that Ross is putting that out as a standard since it is on his site? I don't get that feeling at all. Or, did you think I was?

I certainly did not imply it was some "standard" density from which to go by, only that, IMO, Ross seems to consider it a possibility in calibrating with the ZS. And, for sure, certainly it is a possiblilty. He may be doing that for himself, who knows. I would love to learn more of his results when or if he ever wants to share it with all of us.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny,

Not sure I follow you, are suggesting that Ross is putting that out as a standard since it is on his site? I don't get that feeling at all. Or, did you think I was?

I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything. There's no conspiracy here, and no one did anything wrong.

What I am suggesting is that when a number is put out it needs to be qualified for different purposes. I get frustrated often here when some folks make recommendations without having the full info (you didn't do this, its just an example). I am usually more frustrated at the OP, who asks a question like what kind of scanner should I buy, or what kind of film. Before answering, we all need to find out what they are trying to accomplish before we offer advice.

It's clear that a lot of folks are using all kinds of different techniques and many of them - that shouldn't be successful based on my results - are doing very well. We all have our secret sauce... I think we need to keep that in mind as we pass along info to others. They may or may not be trying to accomplish the same thing we are.

Please don't take this personally, Im not directing it at you at all...



I would love to learn more of his results when or if he ever wants to share it with all of us.

Alan is a very accessible and very generous guy. At the risk of overwhelming him (don't everyone do this at once) drop him an email I am sure he will tell you whatever he can...


Lenny

[Chuck P.]

I don't have thin skin, I never took any offense, just needed some clarification which you gave. It's easy to get misunderstood in this type of communication---thank you.
__________________

I already found out thant Mr. Ross is willing to provide assistance. It was a year or so ago that I came across his "Zone System Heresy - A Case For Zone IX Calibration" (http://http://www.alanrossphotography.com/blog/) info on his site. I had some questions about it and I emailed him. I must have caught him perfect because as I recall, there was rather prompt reply with a very conversational-like tone. Very nice.

[percepts]

The arbitrary number of 1.3 was arrived at using old materials and AA's specific enlarger. It may not be good for current materials and your particular enlarger and your preferred paper developer. That is why it is and always will be an arbitrary number. With VC paper providing it is close enough then that doesn't matter but with graded papers it does.
That is why IMO you should do a print test using fresh paper (your most used) with your prefered paper developer and determine what is the density required for your working methods. It may be 1.3 for zone VIII but I think it will be less than that for a true zone VIII. And you might discover that what you thought was zone VIII is really zone IX or X. All depends on your personal working methods, materials and technique but if you never do the test you will never really know. Does that matter? Maybe and maybe not.

[Mike1234]

Percepts is absolutely right. The calibration process must included every step from each lens/shutter/camera, filters, film choice, developer & technique, film toning (selenium or gold?), enlarger/light source, paper/developer/technique, paper toning, etc. Everything will have at least some impact on the final result. When you get deeply into it you'll discover that substantial N+ development affects shadows too... just not as much as the highlights... so if you REALLY want to be exact you'll have to adjust exposure to compensate... let's say minus 1/2 step. But wait... that brings Zone 8 down to Zone 7.5 so now you need to further increase development. Likewise with substantial N- development except with the opposite affect.

That said, the Zone System is really quite simple. It's all the little variables that can get away from you. Slip up on just one and it affects all the other variables so all your testing is wasted. KEEP EXCELLENT RECORDS so you can find those mistakes and correct them.

If you really want to be meticulously precise then make darned sure you keep complete records and buy acurate transmission and reflection densitometers or modify a spot meter to perform those funtions. File your negs with notes... lens, aperture, shutter speed, shadow exposure placement, sun placement, how the lens was shaded, development adjustments, toning... everything.

The reason I wrote earlier to be less anal about it is because it's my opinion you should take this one step at a time. Become BASICALLY familiar with where to place your shadow values and acquire a better understanding of film developing to get your negs in the ballpark for density/contrast. This better understanding of the basics will lead you to a better vision or a clearer understanding for FINAL PRINT PLANNING before you ever click the shutter. Once you have this vision/understanding then it's so much easier to tweak your entire process to near perfection.

Again, the ZS is EASY. You just need to KNOW and UNDERSTAND and CONTROL all those little VARIABLES... many of which I'm sure neglected to mention here.

Again, I intended no offense in my earlier post. I'm just suggesting you take it in smaller steps. One doesn't learn to poll vault on the first try. Use shorter polls and progress as you master those.

[Lenny Eiger]

That is why IMO you should do a print test using fresh paper (your most used) with your prefered paper developer and determine what is the density required for your working methods.

Couldn't agree more... exactly to the point.

Lenny

[Mike1234]

No offense but for ZS precision the prints should be adjusted to the negs except for burning/dodging/masking. The negs should not be adjusted to the prints. Two wrongs do not make a right. Or... am I misunderstanding your post?

[Lenny Eiger]

No offense but for ZS precision the prints should be adjusted to the negs except for burning/dodging/masking. The negs should not be adjusted to the prints. Two wrongs do not make a right. Or... am I misunderstanding your post?

Underdeveloping, or simply developing less, to have less density in sky tones was a technique invented because photographic paper had a specific range, limited greatly in comparison to a piece of film. One could not print in a light tone in the sky if the negative was too dense at that end. Sometimes burning could help but not always, sometimes it just made a mess.

Even with Photoshop the negative is important. While one can move tones up and down, a neg can be flattened or have too much contrast, thereby limiting the number of tones that go into Photoshop. It's the tones in between the various steps that make a rich print.

In any process, the capacity of the final step needs to wrap back thru the various processes at the beginning.

The negative needs to be adjusted, both exposure and development, to the capacity of the printing process.

Lenny

[Mike1234]

Lenny... yes, but your post above seems to indicate the need to adjust the neg to the paper and printing process. The ZS gets it right on the neg first then adjusts paper and printing process to take full advantage of the highest quality neg one can make. Step 1. get it right on film... step 2. get it right on print. Yes though... paper contrast does affect film development. If this is what you meant then you're absolutely right.

Hmm... I'm apparently contradictly myself to a degree. :)

That admitted... I never had to vary my printing process much. I used either grade 2 or grade 3 Ilford Gallery in Phenidone? and selenium toned.

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny... yes, but your post above seems to indicate the need to adjust the neg to the paper and printing process. The ZS gets it right on the neg first then adjusts paper and printing process to take full advantage of the highest quality neg one can make. Step 1. get it right on film... step 2. get it right on print. Yes though... paper contrast does affect film development. If this is what you meant then you're absolutely right. Hmm... I'm apparently contradictly myself to a degree. :)

Yes, you are correct. However, what criteria does one use to get the "neg right first"? The criteria is based on what the paper and printing process are capable of.

Lenny

[Mike1234]

Find film ISO... use a transmission densitometer to read the FB+Fog of a process but unexposed piece of film (ballpark due to later adjustments). Make an exposure in sunlight of a stepped gray scale one of these steps will be Zone 1. Bracket by 1/3 stops up to 1 stop above that down to 1 stop below. Ballpark figure for Zone 1 placement is +.1 over FB+Fog. Locate the neg with this density. If the correct reading happens to be the +1 stop neg then cut your "rated" ISO value in half... that's your starting point for ISO setting.

Find "normal" development time... Measure the Zone 7 or 8 spot for proper density with your transmission densitometer. If the neg is within range then you've already got your exposure/development "starting point" for "N" development. If it's off then try again adjusting development to increase or decrease contrast until you find the right "ballpark" combination. If development is adjusted substantially then your exposure must be adjusted and the process repeated. BTW, if you intend to tone your negs be sure to include this in your process.

Once you've found your normalized exp/dev for your film then you can search for a paper/dev/toning procedure that suits a normal neg. If you happen to prefer grade 3 paper then you may need to adjust film development to suit (as Lenny and percepts already said).

All this is time-consuming and this really only nips the tip of the iceberg. That's why I keep harping on taking baby steps.

[percepts]

Measure the Zone 7 or 8 spot for proper density with your transmission densitometer. If the neg is within range then you've already got your exposure/development "starting point" for "N" development. If it's off then try again adjusting development to increase or decrease contrast until you find the right "ballpark" combination.

Problem is that this is meaningless unless you know what the zone 7 or 8 or 9 density should be and it is not always 1.3 and can be quite a long way from that. But most beginners are taught that its 1.3. Personally I disagree but that's just the way I work. For some it may be correct. But it is pointless going down the zone system path unless you are 100% sure that metered - 2 or 3 stops is really where you think it is and that zone VIII really will print at print value VIII. If it doesn't then all assumptions about N+ or N- will be wrong. You may get away with it in printing or you may not.

A print test is very simple. Just expose a zone 1 neg and a zone 9 neg.

Test strip the zone 1 to print a tad lighter than max black and then print the zone 9 neg for the same time and dev. The zone 9 should be just decernable hint of grey. That will teach you a lot about your film dev, paper and paper dev. But I stress you should do this with fresh paper.

[Mike1234]

Problem is that this is meaningless unless you know what the zone 7 or 8 or 9 density should be and it is not always 1.3 and can be quite a long way from that. But most beginners are taught that its 1.3. Personally I disagree but that's just the way I work. For some it may be correct. But it is pointless going down the zone system path unless you are 100% sure that metered - 2 or 3 stops is really where you think it is and that zone VIII really will print at print value VIII. If it doesn't then all assumptions about N+ or N- will be wrong. You may get away with it in printing or you may not.

A print test is very simple. Just expose a zone 1 neg and a zone 9 neg.

Test strip the zone 1 to print a tad lighter than max black and then print the zone 9 neg for the same time and dev. The zone 9 should be just decernable hint of grey. That will teach you a lot about your film dev, paper and paper dev. But I stress you should do this with fresh paper.

That's why I said that procedure will get you "in the ballpark" and it will give you a "starting point". If you're not even in the ballpark how can you even dream of hitting a homerun? ;)

[Lenny Eiger]

I like to make this simpler than the two of you are suggesting. I say find someone who you think prints well, look at one of their "best" negatives. Then expose and develop to match it. Where Zone 3 is in the scene is a matter of what's possible, reasonable, style, where you are, etc. Calculating low-end numbers with a densitometer isn't as important as the high end with the work I do... As long as I am in range, its all good...

I guess I've been doing this a long time and amongst us we can't even agree on how many zones there ought to be in a scene. I tire of the numbers, and look for a neg as juicy as I want my print to be...


Lenny

[Mike1234]

Lenny, you think like Edward Weston and there's certainly nothing wrong with that!! :)

I agree that keeping things simpler at the onset of the learning process is best. Master the simple first then move on to the more complicated if you so desire. It's like I asked the OP before, "How deep do you want to tumble into the rabbit hole?"

[Chuck P.]

It may be 1.3 for zone VIII but I think it will be less than that for a true zone VIII.

This has me real curious, what exactly do you mean by a "true Zone VIII?"
_________________________

On a side note about the discussion in general, going back and reading some of these posts reminds me of my personal feelings that while the ZS is not complicated in application (it is remarkably fluid once the vitals are grasped) it will always, IMHO, seem infinitely convoluted as hell in disussion. The problem is, IMO, if it is made too simple in a verbal attempt at explanation, the vital things that make the ZS such a wanderful tool will be horribly overlooked, IMHO. That said, someone new should not ever rely on these forums to learn the ZS, IMO---it requires a sufficient amount of personal endeavor, I'm sure many will disagree. Anyway, these things just crossed my mind and so I chose to air them in this post.

[percepts]

This has me real curious, what exactly do you mean by a "true Zone VIII?"


I mean a subject Zone VIII that actually prints as a print value VIII on normal enalrger settings with normal development on your normal paper.

Enlarger filtration can make a big difference to what your Zone VIII neg density should be.
AA didn't use VC paper so he he wasn't using combined Y+M filtration like a lot of people do today. Depending on how or if you calibrate your nominal G2 Y+M filtration can make a big difference to what your Zone VIII neg density should be and therefore whether 1.3 will actually print as a print value VIII.
If you have never printed it to prove the fact then how do you know it does. And if it doesn't, then all your other zone system assumptions about what is happening will be wrong.

[Daniel_Buck]

I spot the darkest area I care about, and the brightest area I care about. Then I look at the range between them and determine how I want to set my exposure. kind of a quick and dirty zone system. I don't usually spot meter things inbetween the darkest and the lightest spots unless those first to spots are so far apart than I'm in danger of loosing one or the other. Then I'll spot meter some of the mid-tones and determine my exposure from there.

Most of the time I can get both areas well exposed by putting the exposure somewhere near the middle of the two readings. But depending on the scene and what the other values are inbetween the darkest and the brigtest things I spot, I'll adjust my exposure.

[Tim k]

Aim the one degree spot at the darkest area in the scene where you still want to see some detail. Close down two stops.

You have just placed the shadow area in Zone III.

That's usually the proper exposure for the scene.

Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.

If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.

Less than five, increase development.

More than five, decrease development.

No need to take a whole series of meter readings and average them. That's defeating the purpose.

Just make certain that you have given enough exposure to get some detail in the shadows. Then, develop for the highlights.

That's the Zone System in a nut shell.

I'm a little late to the party but, Simply Genius.

[Mike1234]

I spot the darkest area I care about, and the brightest area I care about. Then I look at the range between them and determine how I want to set my exposure. kind of a quick and dirty zone system. I don't usually spot meter things inbetween the darkest and the lightest spots unless those first to spots are so far apart than I'm in danger of loosing one or the other. Then I'll spot meter some of the mid-tones and determine my exposure from there.

Most of the time I can get both areas well exposed by putting the exposure somewhere near the middle of the two readings. But depending on the scene and what the other values are inbetween the darkest and the brigtest things I spot, I'll adjust my exposure.

Dan... this is essentially the way Edward Weston did it so you're in good company. Of course, he didn't have a spot meter. :)

[Lenny Eiger]

Most of the time I can get both areas well exposed by putting the exposure somewhere near the middle of the two readings. But depending on the scene and what the other values are inbetween the darkest and the brigtest things I spot, I'll adjust my exposure.

I would weight it down a little closer to the bottom rather than trying for the middle...

Lenny

[Chuck P.]

[QUOTE]I mean a subject Zone VIII that actually prints as a print value VIII on normal enalrger settings with normal development on your normal paper.

That's how a Zone VIII density of 1.3 works for me, but I didn't have to test it in the manner that you suggest as it simply was not necessary. Practical usage confirms it clearly.

Chuck

[Robert Hughes]

Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights ... or the other way around. :)

[Bill Burk]

After you spot the shadow and stop down... Shoot. Now that you have already captured the fleeting moment, you can take the time to finish the rest of the metering to find the range and development time.

[jeroldharter]

Just read this thread. Gem's description is very good. I would just add something that I don't think I saw in the other posts.

Once you start adjusting development time to account for the variability of the scene brightness range, then you also change the film speed.

The net result is that less than normal development requires more than normal exposure and more than normal development requires less than normal exposure. For my materials, this ranges by about 1 stop.

[Cornelius]

Gem,

That was awesome. Best short explanation I've seen. Thank you.

Cornelius

[Carterofmars]

Really good reading here. I was pointed to this string by a RFF forum brethren. So glad he did.

Thanks.