Relevance of zone system when scanning

[mdarnton]

I think there's possibly a technical communications blockage here. I think what Alan is referring to is that the film AS A SUBJECT ITSELF has a slim dynamic range, even though it can capture a broad subject range.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I don;t know about the zone system. However, I do scan film with an Epson V600 flat bed scanner. You want to capture the full range of the negative or chrome. So first, do not let the scanner automatically set the scan. Manually set the black and white points (levels) so that they are just past the ends of the histogram. That will prevent clipping. It will allow you to capture the full range of the data. Make all adjustment afterwards with your post processing program. Where to set the various tones related to the final print paper you use is another subject.

I simply scan my negatives as wysiwyg. Ie, I make linear raw tiffs of the film. I do zero manipulation with the scanner other than maybe a brightness setting, but I find that doesn't really help. I do the same for the positives, but playing with how well the scanner can handle that. I do all of my actual conversions, etc in PS. Even if scan is from a drum scanner. I want the linear raw tiff so the formula is not baked in which could force me to rescan a negative if it does come out right letting the scanner do the conversion.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The zone system is used for visualization during image capture and planning for subsequent film development. It has absolutely nothing to do with scanning. For many years now, I scan to a 16-bit linear file and convert in PS using the ColorPerfect plugin.

This is what I do. use the zone system for exposure and then in post processing to place things better where I want them to be. I do use the zone for color film as well, because I want to control how my shadows are exposed as well.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I haven't done much in depth of the zone system but I have read about it over the years and finally got a spot meter to have greater control over my exposure. BUT I guess the point of my question was, zone system is meant to be used with darkroom printing on chemical paper. Scanning is a different medium. I guess you'd be shooting specifically for scanning. I was wondering if any of you have found that the zone system doesn't apply, at least, in the full affect as the paper/chemicals. Say, like my v700 is not able to capture the full range of a zone system neg. (I like shooting color as well). Also lets say the zone system used for velvia had a shorter zone range so you have to adjust your aim of zones for a small amount. Have any of you found that you need to change the way you shoot, specifically for scanning, as oppose to darkroom printing?

Nope, I still expose for shadows and develop for highlights. My scanning is just converting that negative to a digital world. I want to be able to wet print from my negatives and if I expose explicitly for digital world, they won't be real good for wet printing.

[Alan Klein]

If I understand Alan9940, I'm with him. I am going back to scan a lot of my old work, and discovering that scanning handles a much wider range of negs than I was comfortable printing in the past. It's especially nice for thin negs with a lot of detail in the shadows, where I can bring out details that weren't printable in silver except with a lot of local bleaching, and though I dont have many of these, I'm discovering gradation in "burned out" highlights that I never knew was there. For one shot in particular it was very easy for me to go back and meter the original situation to discover that the scene had 17 stops of range. Printing it digitally was a snap; by silver it would have been impossible. I'm pretty much done with silver for printing!

I found there is a lot of details in the shadows that weren't apparent either when first scanned. Also, some old faded color shots can be color restored. Digital provides a lot of modern restorative effects and finds stuff that seems otherwise hidden.

[Alan Klein]

Oh wait, you said that.

[Bernice Loui]

In both examples, the original information recorded in film_print has been lost. What is visually perceived is interpreted by an individuals mind. If what has been perceived then interpreted by the mind of an individual is inserted into the image as data information alterations, this becomes and expression + interoperation of that individual. PS or any item of software + hardware are mere tools and means.

~Does this improve or degrade the image?



Bernice

I found there is a lot of details in the shadows that weren't apparent either when first scanned. Also, some old faded color shots can be color restored. Digital provides a lot of modern restorative effects and finds stuff that seems otherwise hidden.

[sperdynamite]

I would just take the film speed evaluation and metering techniques and then start shooting. That's largely what I've done and I'm darkroom printing too.

[darr]

I no longer scan my film with a scanner, but do digitize it with either a Hasselblad CFV-50c digital back or a Fuji X-Pro3. I changed from scanning bc I find the quality I can achieve through digitizing via camera sensor does just as well for me. My studio is already setup with a medium format digitizing copy station, but I tend to use the X-Pro3 a lot more these days out of convenience and speed. I hardly ever print over 24" and the X-Pro3's files can handle that fine.

My technique has stayed pretty much the same. I shoot b&w film metering for the shadows. I develop my film based off what type of contrast I am looking for. I want a flatter file for post processing. Here are a few examples metering for the shadows, developing for the highlights, and digitizing for a flatter file prior to post processing. The color negative below (Portra 400) was developed by a lab, digitized with my X-Pro3, and post processed using Negative Lab Pro. All the b&w negatives were post processed in Lightroom and PS.

Maybe it is the teacher in me, but I find these type of discussions can be confusing in the learning process without visual examples and practical experience explanations. My advice, get your exposure and development techniques down to a routine. B&W film is an affordable learning tool. Anything that you capture on the negative can be reproduced and enhanced through digitizing. This is a creative outlet for many of us; do not be afraid to experiment and have patience as the learning curve can be long, but worth it IMO.

Kind regards,
Darr


All examples have been shot within a few months of today except for the child's portrait which I made over thirty years ago. It is of my niece who is thirty-six years old now. The film was Kodak VPS which evolved into Portra.

[Drew Wiley]

Reminds me of the many roadside stands here in the Calif. growing up. They can still be encountered, but more and more are switching from their own farm produce to becoming re-sellers of gift-like packaged food items (like peanut brittle and jelly), since big corporate farms have swallowed up most of the family operations. But as an outsider looking in, I can only offer a couple of comments. First, I know people who start out scanning and digital printing, but then afterwards want to do it darkroom style instead, and find their negatives impractical because those negatives simply aren't versatile the way they exposed and developed them. Second, what is hypothetically retrievable in a neg or chrome isn't always high-quality information at the extremes. That kind of shortcoming is frequently detectable in prints by the "I can do anything in PS" crowd. You can swallow it down, but something just doesn't taste right. In fact, the best digital printers I personally know exercise quite a bit of restraint because they were excellent darkroom printers first.