Another Zone System Question

I'm starting to use the zone system.
I have a question about Ansel Adams procedure he describes for making testprints in part 3 "The Print".

He search for a correct exposure for zone VII/VIII. Then he looks at the shadows and decides whether he needs a contrast change. But say you decide switching from grade 2 to grade 3. Will this not degrade the highlights
which where defined with grade 2 ?

Thanks !

Now, admittedly I'm no expert here, but I've read the book and try to think in terms of the zone system.

That being said, I think you're splitting hairs. Are you theorizing or have you noticed something in practice? I don't mean to be dismissive of your question, but the latitude of b&w film is so wide and control in the darkroom so great, that I think a suitable/excellent print could be made regardless.

I had tested for the system EI, then tested for the minimum time for maximum
blacks with this EI (grade 2). Third I did the system development time
and came to the best result for zone VII/VIII with film developed -15%.

The I exposed a paper at grade 2.5 and noticed that zone VII/VIII was already off, hence my question.

But I am aware that excellent prints can and are being made by printers
not using the zone system.

I want to try the zone system, to see if a can get more control
in my workflow, but it is a tool, not the means.

henk@apug said:

I'm starting to use the zone system.
I have a question about Ansel Adams procedure he describes for making testprints in part 3 "The Print".

He search for a correct exposure for zone VII/VIII. Then he looks at the shadows and decides whether he needs a contrast change. But say you decide switching from grade 2 to grade 3. Will this not degrade the highlights
which where defined with grade 2 ?

Thanks !

Click to expand...

It may, in which case, you have to correct the highlight exposure again. Before you think, this is a ping-pong approach, it isn't. Experienced printers have test tables for their favorite paper at hand. To do your own, take a look at:

Dead Link Removed

and scroll down to 'Paper Exposure compensation'.

Your development time targets a particular paper, of a particular grade, used with a particular developer. If you have a full-scale negative, where at the #2 paper's min time for max black, the high value in the negative prints as a Zone VIII value (i.e. just a slight amount of tone, slightly darker than paper-base white) on the #2 paper, then you would not try to print it on a grade #3 paper of that brand, since printing down the high values will result in loss of detail in the low values. You would only use #3 paper with a negative that has lower-than-desired contrast.

If you're really forced to use a #3 paper to print a negative that was developed to be printed on #2, then you would want to use a low-contrast developer, or perhaps two developers, one "soft" and one "hard", like Selectol Soft and Dektol. Those who develop Azo or Lodima in Amidol lower the contrast by splitting the development time between the developer tray and a tray of water.

Hope this helps!

I think the question was if highlights are affected if one switches from one grade of paper to another. Well, if you follow AA's way of printing, 'expose for the highlights and correct the shadows with contrast', then they are! But, that's not a job stopper, because you can easily compensate for it with a customized table.

Ralph,

I see in the image that you attached is compensation for the same
type of paper that I use. Could I use these values or should I perform
my own tests with my setup ?

Thanks again !

You are correct so you are understanding how paper responds to contrast changes which is a good thing. Experienced printers, i.e. those who print often, tend to be observant of these things and learn to make a slight adjust in print time to compensate. Or you can do printing by numbers by using a chart like Ralphs but you are led down the testing route to get numbers which assume that your highlight time was correct which is wrong because what looks best with softer contrast may not look correct with more or less contrast. Personally I opt for the more intuitive method which is doing it by eye. You need to practice and it will become second nature. The more frequently you print the easier it becomes to judge both contrast and time changes together.

It is complicated by the fact that a grade 2 and grade 3 paper curves cross at a particular print density. But setting your print time on that point is virtually impossible unless you are operating in laboratory conditions and measuring test print densities. That means any chart is invalidated since it is based on that "speed point" and you won't hit it with a visual assessment which is how experienced printers work. So for me it comes down to seat of the pants assessment of test print to decide how much change to make to contrast and time.

Just to add to the above:
The chart can be helpful as a guide but unused paper loses contrast over time so unless your paper is very fresh then the chart is invalidated. Also developer strength varies as it is used from print to print. So it is only a guide and ultimately it is your ability to decide by visual inspection what is the correct print time and contrast. So that's two more reasons not to rely solely on numbers for what is right for you.

henk@apug said:

Ralph,

I see in the image that you attached is compensation for the same
type of paper that I use. Could I use these values or should I perform
my own tests with my setup ?

Thanks again !

Click to expand...

The contrast values you see in the table are ISO grades not filter numbers. If your system is calibrated to ISO grades, you can use the table as is. Otherwise, you need to do your own test.

tlitody said:

... Or you can do printing by numbers by using a chart like Ralphs but you are led down the testing route to get numbers which assume that your highlight time was correct which is wrong because what looks best with softer contrast may not look correct with more or less contrast. ...

Click to expand...

The test takes care of most of that. The rest is done with a final test strip.

tlitody said:

... It is complicated by the fact that a grade 2 and grade 3 paper curves cross at a particular print density. But setting your print time on that point is virtually impossible unless you are operating in laboratory conditions and measuring test print densities. ...

Click to expand...

You don't want to set your print time to that (speed) point anyway. No lab required.

tlitody said:

... The chart can be helpful as a guide but unused paper loses contrast over time so unless your paper is very fresh then the chart is invalidated. ...

Click to expand...

In average, paper loses about 1/4 grade over a period of two years, and even so, the exposure compensation for the contrast change stays relatively constant. Paper contrast loss does not invalidate the chart.

tlitody said:

... Also developer strength varies as it is used from print to print. So it is only a guide and ultimately it is your ability to decide by visual inspection what is the correct print time and contrast. So that's two more reasons not to rely solely on numbers for what is right for you.

Click to expand...

Changes in developer strength and temperature fluctuations are compensated through factorial development. When it comes to contrast loss through aging developer, the developer is exhausted and needs to be discarded.


You are right that the table is only a guide, but it is a very good one. The whole thing about visual inspection is OK, but it has its own set of problems. Tired eyes see things differently than fresh eyes to name one. These tables are not the only way to print, but they help to cut down on subjective analysis and make printing efforts more consistent.

My previous way of working was that I did not use the zone system at all, very often used the "sunny 16" rule to expose without even measuring light.

Then in the darkroom for every print I made, I would first make teststrips on the most important part of the image mostly at grade 2 to define the best density. After that I would to teststrips on the same part of the image with other grades to define the best contrast. After that I would decide for dodging and burning.

In Belgium and certainly other countries, Ilford has made considerable price raises to its products, and I thought maybe finally it is time to set up the
zone system in my workflow, because I read already a lot about it and liked the idea of doing a testprint at MTFMB and then dodging and burning. Could save me (a lot of) paper. Also I could make use of a densitometer from an apugger in he Dutch forums.

I have just done my zone system tests and am about to make my first prints
using this settings.

I am very curious to find out if it will be an improvement in savings of materials, but hopefully in a better print quality.

Stay tuned...

I reviewed Evaluating the Test Print so I could follow along. The group gave you some great answers. I have this feeling you asked something that wasn't addressed yet.

You decided to go from Grade 2 to Grade 3 because the best looking strip on Grade 2, looking at bright but not pure white, does not have dark enough shadows - or something like that.

I think you are asking - if the system led me to a negative that should be printed on Grade 2, what business do I have going to Grade 3?

To answer that philosophically, ask yourself "How does the result on Grade 2 fit my visualization"? Did you keep records of the Zones you placed? Are they where you expected? If the answer is yes, then Zone System is working for you - maybe you were disappointed that a tone you didn't pay attention to in the original scene, or thought was unimportant glares at you as a flaw. To paraphrase Minor White, you can toss this negative as unacceptable for not living up to your expectations or remake yourself to accept this result.

But if the Zones aren't where you placed them, it might be a process variation. There are so many variables time/temp/agitation/old paper/chemistry to name a few. In case a process variation made the negative have a shorter range than you aimed for - you are fine to go to a higher grade paper and make a new test strip. The Zone system was still doing its job for you - it made you a negative that is probably only a Grade away from what you wanted in the first place.

Ralph's chart will save you money by getting you there faster - it can help you make a satisfying test strip with best exposure in the middle and with darker and lighter choices.