N-1, N, N+1

[Jay Staton]

Being a LF nubie, I have started off by emercing myself in A.A.'s books and his ideas on the Zone system. Does it really make that much difference in developing to N, N-1, N+1, etc. on a properly exposed sheet of b&w film exposed for the shadows? How much shadow detail do you lose developing everything at N? Can I make most of those adjustments in Photoshop? I shoot mostly contrasty subjects.

I haven't taken the time to shoot a handful of negs of the same subject, and used different development times. I need to. But before I do, what does your experience suggest?

Thanks,

Jay

[John_4185]

Can I make most of those adjustments in Photoshop?

You can as long as the important, textured highlights are not blocked (maxed out) and as long as there is the shadow detail you want. Besides curves and masks, you can take a number of exposures and use the HDR option for further machinations. Oops. I mean manipulations.

Photoshop is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

[Brian Ellis]

You don't lose any shadow detail developing at N. You don't lose any shadow detail developing at N - either, assuming you properly compensated for anticipated minus development at the time of expsoures (by increasing the exposure 1/3 to 1/2 a stop over the meter reading when planning minus development). And of course you lose no shadow detail by developing at N+. Shadow detail is based on exposure. Development time primarily affects the density of the highlights. Development time has little or no effect on shadow detail because the shadows are pretty much fully developed about a third to half way through the development time. It's the exposure that affects shadow detail.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

Why haven't you done the nine negative test? Qut asking if the water is fine and dive in. When you do these test and make the contact prints, you will be able to see the differences for yourself. That's when the big Ah-Ha will happen. A picture is worth a thousand words rings true and you will have nine. C'mon in the waters fine.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

"Can I make most of those adjustments in Photoshop?" I was just thinking how times have changed. In the old days it used to be "The lab can fix it." Still makes me cringe. I'm sorry if I sound kinda hard on you. The time to get rid of sloppy practices is in the beginning. Burn the film and do the test so that you KNOW where everything is going to fall, with the paper you intend to use. Then you can use photoshop for something other than a repair shop. I shot nothing but digital for 4 years and found that I was lacking exposure discipline, Depending on photoshop to make it right. Now that I'm back into LF I feel a lot better about my photography, because I enjoy the focus and discipline it requires to do right.

[Jeff Moore]

The whole purpose of proper exposure and development, including N+ and N-, is to expand the range of information you can capture and reveal in the negative. If the info is not in the negative to begin with, no amount of Photoshop manipultation can bring out what is not there.

[Brian Ellis]

Just as variable contrast paper somewhat minimized the importance of the zone system (which was conceived at a time when the only papers were graded) so Photoshop has further minimized it. Yes, you definitely can make more adjustments to the print in Photoshop than you can in a darkroom so yes, a negative as close to "perfect" as possible usually isn't of critical importance. Nevertheless, the fewer adjustments you have to make in Photoshop the better, both from a time and quality standpoint, so the better the negative you start with the better your prints are likely to be. My only concession to Photoshop is that I almost never use plus development any more and I've reduced my N time to about N minus 1/2. Otherwise I continue to use the zone system for exposure and development.

The principal advantage of Photoshop IMHO isn't the exposure and development latitude it gives you, it's the greater control over the print, the ability to make almost any change you can imagine in order to make the print you want to make as opposed to making the print that the limitations of the darkroom force upon you.

[Ralph Barker]

I'll just add a reminder that the availability of making adjustments to an image in Photoshop depends on the ability of the scanner to "see" and extract image data from the film. Blocked highlights (overly dense areas in the neg) can be a particular problem for many scanners. And, in Photoshop, burning in just adds blanket density, not additional detail as it does with an enlarger. So, I think getting the desired detail in the negative to begin with still has the same value to the final result.

[paulr]

For me, any precision beyond N+ and N- always just seemed like a waste of attention .. fussiness for its own sake. The black and white paper and developers I used offered so much flexibility; photoshop offers even more. I'd rather be thinking about what's in front of me when I'm photographing, not about fractional grades of contrast.

In the last ten years, I can't think of a single negative that gave me trouble because of over or under development.

[j.e.simmons]

All of the previous posters are correct, but as a newbie, you may not understand what their long answers are saying. Here is the general rule:

Exposure controls shadows - development controls the highlights.

You must get both shadows and highlights approximately correct for your scanner (or printing paper) to see the information.

Do the tests.

juan