Actual zone system

[Serge S]

I had my fp4 BTZS tested for me.
The only issue is I don't use the individual tubes, but process in a Jobo - so I end up with a bunch of different development times & lose the benefit of being able to batch process my film when I want to be exacting. I get great negatives with BTZS.

I did not have HP5 BTZS done. I tend to take an incident reading of the shadow area & keep that exposure. I get too much shadow detail. I will stop down one stop next time to see if that works out better. And try 2 stops as well for good measure. I rate HP5 @ 320 & process in DDX (1:4)
Many times I'll just hold up the incident meter & use that reading - works out ok in most circumstances. Will need to be more cognizant of Zone VII going forward

FWIW - The BTZS methods as we taught it at workshops took less than a day to complete. We would have the class in the morning the expose step wedges, process film then have plotted results by dinner time. It gives you all the data for a film and developer combination in a few hours. Paper is very fast as well. When Phil and I were working on a new developer, he would run 4-5 tests a day. Of course, that was Phil.

[Drew Wiley]

VC papers are great, but certainly won't solve everything. I'm not a golfer, but do know it's not all that easy to get the ball out of a sand trap. You waste a lot of time. Or it might get lost in the woods, fall into a pond, or go through someone's front window. Darkroom life is vastly easier with negatives "good" to begin with.

[Corran]

I think this depends on what we call a "good" negative. For me, if I can achieve what I wanted with the negative through the use of contrast filters, it is a good negative. Because of the latitude of film, there can be several exposures that will yield a "good" negative.

That's fair. If the negative is totally off the rails as far as contrast, there's only so much that can be done with traditional techniques and #0-5 filters. But as you said, there can be plenty of latitude, and I personally feel that saying "if the negative contrast is off, no amount post-fiddling with filters will correct for this initial inadequacy" is not really true. From my experience, giving the negative enough light and then developing normally (per manufacturer data) for the films default EI will practically always yield a good-enough negative for VC printing. No amount of Zone System contrast control is absolutely "needed" for one to make a decent print with a typical negative developed normally. Of course we may want to dial things in for repeatability, artistic control, etc.

Myself, I've dialed in my developing system with Pyrocat HD for most films, and most times can print straight with no filter or use Graded papers with no issues. VC papers and appropriate filters fix the rest. Almost all issues I have with a negative comes from exposure issues if I accidentally underexposed or drastically overexposed a scene. I almost never have a contrast issue. And I like to shoot backlit stuff, often with the disc of the sun in the frame. Some of this is down to the Pyrocat development I think.

I've also done some full Zone System tests with appropriate measurements with a densitometer. My early TMX negatives were grossly overdeveloped as I was using manufacturer times despite using constant agitation in a tube. My contrast was uncontrollable even with VC filters.

[Drew Wiley]

My own earlier over-development errors were with FP4. I had some enticing 4x5 compositions that were almost impossible to print in a pleasing manner on any grade of paper. Fortunately, I didn't throw them away, and by means of unsharp masking and modern high-quality VC papers finally got some excellent prints out some of of them - nearly 40 years later!

[monochromeFan]

Back in 2011, SM Booth shared Gem Singer's simple explanation of the use of expansion and contraction in practice, which was the best I've ever read. Impressed me so much I printed it out and carried it around for years. The link to the original is here, at post #5 (and Gem's response at #6): https://www.largeformatphotography.i...for-Landscapes

Here is the relevant text:
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.

and ilford at least gives interestin generalities to alter development in terms of contrast control depending on dynamic range of a shot.. boosting contrast, and increasing highlights at least.

[Serge S]

That's great you could revisit those negatives and print them well. Sometimes it's worth looking at old contact sheets and discovering an image that we may have overlooked or can be printed better because we are better at seeing or printing or whatever

My own earlier over-development errors were with FP4. I had some enticing 4x5 compositions that were almost impossible to print in a pleasing manner on any grade of paper. Fortunately, I didn't throw them away, and by means of unsharp masking and modern high-quality VC papers finally got some excellent prints out some of of them - nearly 40 years later!

[Michael R]

Isn't that the exact purpose of filters on VC paper?? I've definitely made less-than-perfect negatives, especially on roll film, and boosted contrast with #4-5 filters.

This is correct. As long as the negative contains the information great prints can be made. In fact from a tone reproduction perspective "fitting the negative to the paper" has never really been the way to a great print, particularly if the subject luminance range of the scene is > roughly 1 stop more than average. You trade one problem for another.

I think when learning the Zone System a lot of people get tunneled into a focus on making so-called great negatives, often to the detriment of printing skill - which is where the true control lies.

[Corran]

I spent a number of years chasing perfect negatives, with the thought that they would print perfectly with no burning/dodging. Of course this is not correct as b&d could be for artistic purposes or as local contrast control as opposed to the global control of developing.

[Drew Wiley]

A great negative is one which potentially works at several different levels. It's finely crafted, but versatile too, at least within any given basic medium like silver gelatin printing versus some alternative. But that doesn't preclude all kinds of potential extra tools or techniques to make the most out of it. And the Zonie definition of a perfectly printable negative might not be my own idea. I'm on record about disliking heavy-handed minus or compensation development to handle high scene contrast ranges. There are other ways of doing it.

[Doremus Scudder]

This is correct. As long as the negative contains the information great prints can be made. In fact from a tone reproduction perspective "fitting the negative to the paper" has never really been the way to a great print, particularly if the subject luminance range of the scene is > roughly 1 stop more than average. You trade one problem for another.

I think when learning the Zone System a lot of people get tunneled into a focus on making so-called great negatives, often to the detriment of printing skill - which is where the true control lies.

As a long-time dyed-in-the-wool Zone System practitioner, all I can say to the above is "Amen."

Reducing development by much more than N-1 just creates a new set of problems. Increasing contrast more than about N+2 likewise. In really extreme situations, I find myself planning on using print manipulations, split-printing techniques, bleaching, SLIMTs,even flashing before I'll go beyond those limits. An N-4 scene can be dealt with really easily with N-1 (or even more) development, softer paper grades/filtration and a combination of the above printing techniques and yield a much more satisfying print than that from a negative developed to N-4. Similarly, low-contrast scenes usually boost better with no more than N+1 development and then contrast boosting when printing using filtration (using a Wratten # 47 for extreme contrast is really satisfying sometimes), higher-contrast developers, etc. than developing the negative a lot longer.

The Zone System allows me to plan a lot of this in advance, or at least realize that I'll have to work hard at a print. Still, I really try to stay withing the N-1 to N+1 window, with the occasional N+2. I usually develop N-1 and N+1 scenes with "Normal" development and reserve the plus and minus times for greater extremes of subject luminance range.

I spent a number of years chasing perfect negatives, with the thought that they would print perfectly with no burning/dodging. Of course this is not correct as b&d could be for artistic purposes or as local contrast control as opposed to the global control of developing.

Often, making a negative with the "correct" overall contrast range to print at, say grade 2 filtrations with no manipulations yields a much worse print than on made from a contrastier negative (or with greater-contrast filtration) and lots of manipulations. This is especially true when shadow and mid-tone separation is most important and/or there are subtle highlights that are going to end up on the paper's toe but need good separation.

The "perfect" negative for me is often the on that requires the most work (but yields a superior print).

Best,

Doremus