Where's Zone VIII ?

[blevblev]

After setting my Zone I / EI the next step has been doing the Zone VIII / development time test. The Zone I test is objective, being .1 over film base+fog. The Zone VIII test, however, is subjective because it requires trying to figure out what Zone VIII looks like on a print without anything to compare it to. I ordered a Zone VIII sample from Circle of the Sun and received a computer printed piece of paper with paper base and Zone VIII to compare it to. I also watched the Fred Picker tape about 'the negative' and watched his Zone VIII test.

It seems like the Circle of the Sun Zone VIII is an extremely faint gray compared to that which Fred Picker showed. Fred also said that it really doesn't matter as long as you know where your Zone VIII is. That is, if you place Zone VIII very high, you just can't place anything you want any tonality in the print to be higher than that. If you place it lower, then you can go above Zone VIII.

What is the consensus (if any) about this? Where do most people place it?

[John Bowen]

I think the Circle of the Sun printed piece of paper does a good job of illustrating a Zone VIII tone. If my memory is correct, Picker stated that you should see the faintest tone compared to the white paper base. I also recall having the same question you did when I first did the test....many, many moons ago.

You don't mention whether you think your Zone VIII test looks a little too dark (likely) or too light. If it looks too dark, just do it again and this time develop for another 20%

[Bjorn Nilsson]

In Sweden we had a sports commentary who always commented figure iceskating. Of course he also had to talk a little bit about the dresses of the female skaters. Long story short: One of the dresses was "dark white". That became his "second name" nowadays: Bengt Mörkvitt Grive. ("Mörkvitt" is swedish for dark white.)
Anyhow, that's my zone VIII, "dark white".

//Björn

[Greg Lockrey]

With Plus-X, I place it at around 1.07 density.

[Bruce Barlow]

You're completely right -it is subjective, which is why I supply my notion of what it is supposed to be as an example. You want what Fred Picker would have called "minimum printable density" on the print. He did call it "maximum printable density" on the negative. So it is an ever-so-slight tone on the print - you should barely be able to see it, as in my example with the kit. That way, with a proper Zone I, you're making the most of the materials you're using.

I'm sensitive to snow today, because about a foot will fall over the next several hours. Printing snow in sun needs that brilliant white, but it's not paper base - snow has texture, which means you need a little bit of tone to convey that. But not much.

I wouldn't go by the video because he was trying to make things visible on the video, rather than completely accurate and not-likely-to-be-visible. Who knows? Maybe you've got the contrast on your TV too high? I showed up to his workshop with a sample like the video and he told me it was a "good Zone VII"...

That's why dry-down becomes important, too. I spent hours one day printing snow pictures with a new paper. Guessed that its dry-down percentage was 6% and printed accordingly. Got it wrong and had dingy slush rather than bright snow. Tested for dry-down (which I should have done in the first place) and found it to be 10%, not 6%. -4% more when I reprinted made all the difference. Call it one second on a 25 second exposure.

Try it for yourself. Get a good print of a good negative - any will do. Now print two more prints: +1 second, and -1 second. Put them up side-by-side. The difference is bigger than you'd guess, and worth seeing (rather than guessing) to know for yourself.

[blevblev]

Roger. I'll have to go develop that next piece of film (the 3rd one) a little more. Thanks.

[Brian Ellis]

It doesn't sound like you have a transmission densitometer (if not you should pick one up, they're simple to use and sell for next to nothing on ebay) but in standard zone system testing when Zone I is .10 above fb+f Zone VIII density isn't subjective, it's usually considered to be about 1.35 above film base plus fog if you're using a diffusion enlarger, a little lower if you're using a condenser (always keeping in mind that a "zone" is an area of similar values, not a specific point).

[Greg Lockrey]

With Plus-X, I place it at around 1.07 density.

Opps!, I stand corrected, it is about 1.30 with Plus-X and a diffusion enlarger head. (Long night. ) 1.07 is zone VII.

[blevblev]

RE: It doesn't sound like you have a transmission densitometer

I do, and I used it to determine Zone I, but Zone I is a different animal. The minimal density of Zone I is pretty much completely developed very early in the development cycle, and it isn't affected by development time as Zone VIII is.

My understanding is that you need to make prints to determine Zone VIII. I might be able to use your densities to get close, but I'd still have to make prints. Your Zone VIII and mine will almost certainly be different because of the differences between your/my enlarger, light source, paper, paper contrast, developer and maybe even water.

[Kevin Crisp]

I always thought Zone VIII was supposed to be the lightest shade that had a least a hint or trace of detail in it. If you shoot a test of a subject that does not have some texture, determining what is Zone VIII is tough.