Zone System Negative Design needs an Update

[Steve Sherman]

Generally speaking The Zone System is fairly superfluous, but the article is quite flawed.

Here in lies the double-edged sword of the internet, information can now reach round the globe at the click of a button in a free and open venue. Sadly, that information can be cast in doubt with a simple, unsubstantiated claim that a 4000+ word article backed up with comparative illustrations and 35+ years of wisdom is "quite flawed". And while I have never met the disparaging party, he has challenged my work and writings in the past, to what end gain I simply have no clue. When invited to share his own photography to offer some type of validation to his claims nothing comes, except of course written, yet unsubstantiated words to cast doubt where there is clear evidence to the contrary.
When good people with valuable information lose interest in sharing their knowledge look no further than "Forum Photographers" who choose to make absolute claims but cannot provide any visual reference or comparisons to validate their claims.

[Drew Wiley]

There are just so many variables, especially with "variable" paper, which graphs and such cannot realistically address. For example, I'm quite concerned with final images tone, which not only differs from paper to paper, along with developer choices, but by how the degree of exposure and development affects each respective emulsion of that particular paper/developer combination in relation to specific time and temperature, and then in relation to potentially several different toners in sequence. I'd almost have to plot a different set of graphs and densitometer plots for every different image I make in the darkrooom! Previsulization - hah! That was always more propaganda then practical truth. It's applicable to the extent you want a reasonably flexible negative to begin with, with all the necessary information as usable density. But after that, a negative can be interpreted in various ways. And nowadays, I have the opportunity to reinterpret some old negatives in a very different manner than originally, because the paper choices themselves are quite different, plus I've learned a lot of new tricks along the way. If I had to mathematically compute all this in advance, I'd die of old age before ever printing a single image! A simple test strip tells me what I need to know in just a few minutes, and I proceed upon that. And if everything were completely predictable, life would be pretty boring. Some of my very best prints were "accidents".

[climbabout]

Articles like this are hard to digest initially and it's easy to get lost in the technical details that lead to Steve's conclusions. The lessons here though are really quite simple:

1 - Todays MC papers allow tremendous flexibility in printing that wasn't available years ago.
2 - Build a negative with adequate shadow detail first and foremost.
3 - Reduced highlight density through compressed film development allows you to use a higher proportion of hard contrast filtration which accentuates mid tone contrast/separation while at the same time expanding the highlights in the final print that were compressed during film development.

Tim

[Drew Wiley]

Sorta. I like your summary, but by taking advantage of certain specific benefits of a particular VC paper, we might be compromising something else. I don't like compression development in general. Some of the premium VC papers almost allow you to have your cake and eat it too. For everything else, supplementary unsharp masking is an excellent option. But this applies primarily to high contrast scenes, where we're trying to get an awful lot onto the negative. Some films handle high contrast a lot better than others. Then there's modest contrast scenes which allow some development expansion with little penalty afterwards. It's all fun to learn, and nobody needs to argue about the correct alleged silver bullet. Try as many as you wish.

[Peter Lewin]

The one thing I haven’t seen mentioned in any of these posts is mention of Steve’s photographs. While I have only seen them on my computer screens rather than in person, I find them quite wonderful. That isn’t to say I love every image, but given their high technical level, I wouldn’t criticize his approach. We may decide to stick with whatever processes we are comfortable with, but given the quality of the end product, one can’t write off the technique either.

[jnantz]

Those papers can't show what's not in the negative. That's a sustancial part of the Zone System.

and papers can't show a lot of what is ON the negative that is what photograph IS .. a series of consequential and inconsequental compromises

[Bill Burk]

Is it fair to say you found traditional Zone System was fine for graded paper (target grade 2) but MG papers have mid-tone bumpiness which is unpleasant when you print negatives aimed for lower grades? So you flatten your negatives to target grade 4 or 5?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Nice article and perhaps we need to take a look at how the Zone System is used with multi-contrast papers. I think what this article shows is just how flexible film based photography can be, it allows us to find a process that is a good fit for us, one that helps us realize our vision as an artist. I do not think it really matters what system or process is used as long as a photographer sticks with it long enough to get really good at it, meaning they are able to consistently produce prints they are satisfied with. Be it the traditional "Zone System", "Beyond the Zone System", "Steve Sherman System" or one that you come up with is really, in the end, not very important. The only thing that matters is if you, as a photographer, are able to create a print that tells the story you want it to. I believe Ted Orland has stated with the new VC/MC papers all he would do is cut the film speed in half and reduce development by 20% from the recommend time to produce negatives that were easy to print. Alan Ross wrote a great article several years ago where he suggested moving the shadow values up to Zone IV (which is what I did and found for me it worked). So, some of this is really not new and the goal is the same, capture as much detail in a negative as possible which then translates into more options while printing in the darkroom.

I know many really technical photographers who produce beautiful negs and boring prints! I also know many who produce not so great negs and wonderful prints! Lord knows, museums are full of breathtaking images made from all different qualities of negative and paper but in the end, all that matters is if the photographer was able to use the piece of film to create a print that told the story they wanted it to. Hell, just look at the neg for "Moonrise, Hernandez" - what a lousy neg! Anyone who knows me knows that I am NOT an engineer type of person! So, over the years I settled on a process that works for me and produces negs that I find enjoyable to print. I have two enlargers, one is subtractive while the other is additive. Both are capable of producing beautiful prints as long as I know what I am doing. Is my method based on science? No, but I tested and played with it until I could consistently produce a neg that I enjoyed printing.

Steve's process is great and is just another tool in the tool box. Would I change what I am currently doing? Sure, if my current process no longer produced negatives with the quality I need to create the print I want. I simply do not believe in a magic bullet, there are no magic papers, magic developers, magic enlargers or magic processes. Nothing takes the place of hard work, testing, failure and success. That said, it is important to read and try to understand new methods and processes as they then become tools to be used when needed. What Steve describes is a process that works for him, for his type of photography and printing. If we are smart, we will learn from his experience and perhaps try a few of his techniques. Have you ever tried additive printing? If not, give it a go and see for yourself, you may not find it so great but then again it may be something you find interesting enough to explore more deeply.

[Pere Casals]

In theory if we flatten the negative with a compensating development but later we expand by printing with a higher grade paper then we should get something similar, (beyond the particular shoulder/toe in the paper)...

But... the compensation may have a benefical side effect...

I we use low agitation combined with high dilution then we may enhance the relative "microcontrast", because the spots building a higher density are eating the chem from neighbour areas, and less exposed areas source fresher chem to denser neighbour areas.

Then that (relatively higher) microcontrast is pushed by the higher paper grade required to print the flat negative.

Just an speculation... that may explain the effect described by Steve (if I'm not wrong, of course...)

By "relatively higher" I mean compared to the final microcontrast that ends in the print when using the suitable grade for same general contrast for each case.

[Steve Sherman]

Nice article and perhaps we need to take a look at how the Zone System is used with multi-contrast papers. I think what this article shows is just how flexible film based photography can be, it allows us to find a process that is a good fit for us, one that helps us realize our vision as an artist.

If everyone had the approach in Eric's opening 2 sentences, photography, politics or anything else we encounter in life we'd all be richer for it. Nowhere did I suggest that my way is the only way, clearly there are scores of approaches to creating world-class prints, the article details my way. In essence what my article suggests is that Multi-Contrast papers have allowed a different negative design which can produce a varied number of interpretations of a negative design to exploit what MC papers offer in 2018.

A big part of the negativity here is rooted in Guys are Guys, we've got egos, we need to be right, we're competitive to a fault, hell I'm in a sports hall of fame because I'm so competitive ! But to tear down an idea, or worst yet for someone to hide behind reasoning without some type of validation tells me that person can never grow, they are stuck in the past and can't OR won't transition to the present as a means to be better in the future. For me personally I believe the methods and techniques I use produce the finest prints I've seen for my aesthetic, that's not everyone's personal preference, simply mine. The day I see prints that I respond to more than mine I'll be all over changing my approach and technique and will have no issue with passing on praise to a peer.

No one in this thread, or for that matter on this forum is a big enough name who could drop in, make an arbitrary statement and have it taken as universal gospel. If I had that type cache I would simply say, give more, even generous shadow exposure, compress development to less than traditional Zone 8 density and use Multi-Contrast papers to affect the final contrast in the print. That simple mantra is what took me 4400+ words say and several comparative illustrations to validate.

We all started in the exact same place, where you end up is limited only by yourself !

Happy Holidays and a Creative 2019 !