Barnbaum - Zone IV Shadows

[markbarendt]

The question then is when measuring does one measure absolutes or zone to zone.

I'm not suggesting one way is right and the other wrong or that we need to standardize because rounding errors will also come into play.

I know that with my L-358 it reads out in tenths and there is a one in 100 chance that a measured spread will matching decimals for the readings at both ends, probably one in 1000 that both readings are both ".0's"

It seems to me that the precision you guys are suggesting is not normal, at least not with anyone I have ever shot with. Honestly, I can't remember anyone suggesting a development contraction of .5, 1.5, or any other fraction. The normal/default precision is 1/2 stop, .5 round down, .6 round up.

 

[Vaughn]

No problem understanding that the range is 3 stops and no problem understanding that I have four zones represented (and more than likely some areas below and above this that I could not easily measure). And if I was printing with silver gelatin I would probably add a bit more development and stretch the distance between those 4 zones out a bit.

Thanks!

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I always round 0.5 up. And don't get me started with "even-odd rounding"!

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I don't want to get into a fight here, but this is where I believe the arbitrary nature of Zone labels begins to get in they way. Take it out of Zones and place it within a strictly tone reproduction framework.

Yes - I agree that the Zone labels introduce some errors. Afterall, it's supposed to be a simplification and simplifications do often introduce errors.

Taking actual meter readings at 0.1 stops and doing the math with those would be more accurate.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Well, we seem to have generated a fair amount of heat and a little light. Taking the spotlight off Bruce for a moment some of you might like to have a read of this:-
<http://www.awh-imaging.co.uk/barrythornton/unzone.htm>

I quite understand that it will appear to be sacrilegious to some and too lacking in technical refinement to others, but it seems quite practical to me.
At least I can understand it, which is probably a good starting point!

 

[markbarendt]

Mark, .5 round down/.6 round up means going to the nearest full stop, not half stop. In any case, this is not a matter of precision, just basic exposure.

Using whole stop rounding (1/2 stop precision) defines a range 1-stop wide not an absolute point and that range is actually reasonably close to the range that the standard error (1/3 stop precision) you speak of creates, which is actually a 2/3-stop wide possibility.

With the tools normally available to us, we aren't measuring absolutes, we are measuring within a range. The only realistic point to use is the middle, because the error can go either way.

We've got to be clear one stop represents either halving or doubling (depending on which direction) the amount of light hitting the film relative to any given amount of exposure, or else any further discussion of zones etc just makes a mess.

Yes, one stop equals "either halving or doubling (depending on which direction) the amount of light hitting the film relative to any given amount of exposure". No quarrels there.

But it is also important to understand that a zone does not necessarily equal a stop.

Regardless of whether a scene has a total brightness range of 13 or 7-stops there are still 10 zones. That means for a 13-stop scene each zone is 1.3 (~1-1/3) stops wide for the 7-stop scene, 0.7 (~2/3) stops wide.

The zone system was designed to carry 10-artistic-zones which are described in non-technical/non-mathematic term like "black", from a real measurable scene to a real measurable paper.

And papers have roughly a 6 stop total brightness range, from paper white to max black; so a zone is ~.6 (~2/3) wide.

My meter reads in tenths of a stop. Obviously tenths are way too small an increment.

Actually, I think tenths, or thirds, would go a long way solving the confusion.

It's relatively easy to keep track of any bias in rounding when you are doing it for yourself. But when we have already rounded in our head and we give the simplified numbers to an innocent bystander, the understanding is lost.

Using decimals or fractions gives the bystanders "the rest or the story".

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I've lost track of whether the discussion is about the accuracy of exposure placement or calculating luminance range, or is it something else? But the one thing that throws a monkey wrench into any of it is flare. In addition to flare, if you remember that example of the layover of negative density ranges on a grade two paper curve, it should be evident that there is a rather large variance of NDRs that will produce a quality print on a single grade of paper. There are just too many uncontrollable variables for any real precision to be possible in actual use: from the variable flare in shooting conditions to the subjective interpretation of print quality. If a higher precision was actually required, most of the time the photograph would probably fail.

 

[2F/2F]

He likes to have the detail in the low end on the neg, so he can choose to use it or not use it when printing. Modern films allow this sort of overexposure to actually be a useful tool, while older-style films will react more poorly to the overexposure.

Why make it complicated with the mixing of the ZS placement and EC? Just place the shadows on Zone IV if that is what you want. No need to use one stop EC so that you end up referring to it as zone III when it will actually give you a density more in line with what you'd expect from a zone IV placement.

 

[markbarendt]

There are just too many uncontrollable variables for any real precision to be possible in actual use: from the variable flare in shooting conditions to the subjective interpretation of print quality. If a higher precision was actually required, most of the time the photograph would probably fail.

I fully agree!

The only practical exception I can think of is in a studio situation with no natural light.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

It's kind of funny - I've had couple classes with Bruce and I know he's got a good math and science background.

 

[markbarendt]

No!!

Yes!!

Please refer to the illustration in Ansel Adams, The Negative, page 72, in the section on expansion and contraction, for a graphic representation of this concept.

Expansion and contraction are used to fit longer scale (more f-stops) or shorter scale (fewer stop) SBRs to a range that will "straight print".

One zone in the scene ONLY equals a one f-stop in a perfectly normal scene. In all other cases zones don't equal f-stops.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Yes!!

Please refer to the illustration in Ansel Adams, The Negative, page 72, in the section on expansion and contraction, for a graphic representation of this concept.

Expansion and contraction are used to fit longer scale (more f-stops) or shorter scale (fewer stop) SBRs to a range that will "straight print".

One zone in the scene ONLY equals a one f-stop in a perfectly normal scene. In all other cases zones don't equal f-stops.

I believe your confusing scene luminance range, negative density range, and print LER as it comes to Zones. The original scene is the physical world and as such a stop is a stop. I find it problematic to use Zones with the negative except as guidelines or in a relative way such as how page 72 illustrates how the luminance range from the original scene can be manipulated on the negative through processing.

Earlier, you mention something about a fixed 10 Zone range and fitting a 13 stop range into it. That would be referring to how the print reflection density range breaks down into ten Zones (RD - Black to white in the print and not log exposure range which relates to the negative density range) and you have to fit the original scene of 13 stops into the ten step Zones (not stops) through compression of the distribution of the original illuminance range through film processing so that the negative density range "fits" the paper LER.

 

[Chuck_P]

Regardless of whether a scene has a total brightness range of 13 or 7-stops there are still 10 zones. That means for a 13-stop scene each zone is 1.3 (~1-1/3) stops wide for the 7-stop scene, 0.7 (~2/3) stops wide.

If you view the horizontal axis of the curve in terms of log exposure, it's easy to see the progression of zones. Zone X on the relative log E scale is 2.7 units, Zone XI would be 3.0, XII is 3.3, XIII is 3.6 etc.......... A person can carry the zones (or log exposure units, no difference) out as far as they want. But what matters is what can be captured, developed, and printed on the surface of the paper within the "dynamic range" from zones I - IX i.e., log exposures from ZS point of view from 0.0 to 2.4.

I pretty much agree with you, there are 10 zones that we can consider in our visualization of the final print, who cares that a luminance falls on a log exposure of 3.6 (or Zone XIII), we have to get its corresponding negative density down to that of a Zone VIII print value for some textural rendering or a Zone IX value to render it with slight tonality with no texture.

 

[markbarendt]

I believe your confusing scene luminance range, negative density range, and print LER as it comes to Zones. The original scene is the physical world and as such a stop is a stop. I find it problematic to use Zones with the negative except as guidelines or in a relative way such as how page 72 illustrates how the luminance range from the original scene can be manipulated on the negative through processing.

Earlier, you mention something about a fixed 10 Zone range and fitting a 13 stop range into it. That would be referring to how the print reflection density range breaks down into ten Zones (RD - Black to white in the print and not log exposure range which relates to the negative density range) and you have to fit the original scene of 13 stops into the ten step Zones (not stops) through compression of the distribution of the original illuminance range through film processing so that the negative density range "fits" the paper LER.

I've been confused before and if it turns out I am I'll happily admit it and be thankful I learned something.

Another stab at explaining this.

Theoretically in the Zone System, assuming no mistakes and that film and paper tests have already been done and that info is being used, the only reason to use expansion or contraction development is to make a non-standard SBR (7 or 13 or x-stops) fit the ten zones on the paper. Adams repeatedly tries to get us to visualize the print while we are considering the shot. My read is he wants us to see the zones we are going to print, in the scene. The Zones are an artistic tool to carry our vision from scene to print.

Theoretically there should also be a given density range within a negative that will print the SBR that we chose at the camera in a straight manner onto the paper, anything out side that density range simply prints black or white.

At the negative, we adjust development to change how many stops from the scene fit in the printable range of a straight print.

If we have a 13-stop scene we reduce the development, flattening the curve and making more f-stops fall in printable range, but the number of zones, that we considered at the camera and are trying to print, does not change.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Mark, that sounds like you've got it.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Mark,

I think you've basically got it... but you can expand past this...

... the only reason to use expansion or contraction development is to make a non-standard SBR (7 or 13 or x-stops) fit the ten zones on the paper.

Applies if you are going for a straight interpretation. But...

Adams repeatedly tries to get us to visualize the print while we are considering the shot.

Some might think Adams was primarily a "straight" photographer (he was not - he just made the prints seem that way), so many Zone System practitioners don't take previsualization to the next level -- stylized interpretation.

This is where it's easier to get your head around Minor White's teaching -- because he gave more obviously stylistic examples. Take a normal scene and develop it N+2 and you will get a stylized high-contrast print.

You can do this clearly in Zone System language: Say you find a standard SBR scene with a wall painted gray that you want to show in the print as white. Even though your metering tells you to develop Normal, you can use expansion to kick it up a notch. (Adam's example in The Print, Bodie California - even though he developed it Normal he made a stylized print)

 

[markbarendt]

That's starting to sound a little better!

I agree, but the math hasn't changed.

 

[markbarendt]

Bill I fully understand that Adams wasn't a straight printer, his stated intent was to get negatives that were easy to print.

Starting with negative that will straight print can save work and improve quality.

 

[Chuck_P]

............... the only reason to use expansion or contraction development is to make a non-standard SBR (7 or 13 or x-stops) fit the ten zones on the paper.QUOTE]

Not the only reason............page 223 in The Negative discusses reasons to apply expansion and contraction primarily for its effect on the local contrast in the middle zones.

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill I fully understand that Adams wasn't a straight printer, his stated intent was to get negatives that were easy to print.

Starting with negative that will straight print can save work and improve quality.

Absolutely. And you get that once you calibrate your system and start using it. Then you start to apply your ideas about how things are supposed to appear. I found a print in my collection from James F. Danis, who worked to explore white. White sands, adobes etc. I'm not sure that he used Zone System to place his sand on Zone VIII and let his shadows print on VI - but that's the kind of stylizations that is the strength of the Zone System. Calling your shots.

 

[markbarendt]

............... the only reason to use expansion or contraction development is to make a non-standard SBR (7 or 13 or x-stops) fit the ten zones on the paper.QUOTE]

Not the only reason............page 223 in The Negative discusses reasons to apply expansion and contraction primarily for its effect on the local contrast in the middle zones.

I stand corrected and actually use this so should have been able to spit it out.

 

[markbarendt]

There's not much point to bringing zone XIV down to zone VIII. You might get a straight print - but it will have no texture in zone VIII.

Ah, now I see how you have adapted zone system terminology to keep the math at 1:1 in the scene. That's a reasonable work around, we all adapt ideas to make them easier to use. It is, after all, just an artistic device, you're not bending the rules of physics.

But this brings up another question; do you carry 14-zones through to the paper?

I ask because theoretically I understand the zone carry through from the scene as described by Adams et al, but I also realize that there is info on the negative outside the straight print range. Vaughn joked about this earlier in the thread about a zone with a minus number.

If you do carry through, are your zones above X simply meant to fall outside the straight print range and brought back through burning?

BTW, I agree that expansion and contraction do have real practical limits, as Adams and his contemporaries did. Personally, given that the majority of my work comes off rolls I lean toward print controls more than development. Very much using the idea below.

The better you get at printing, the more you realize the zone system is about recording good information in the negative, and then using printing controls to extract them. It is not simply about expanding or contracting every SBR to fit a fixed density range.

 

[baachitraka]

Quantum mechanics of Zone System.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The ballgame has changed quite a bit now that high-quality VC papers are routinely available, which
wasn't the case when Adams wrote those books. You still need to get the desired subject range on
the part of the film curve which works best. And not only do films differ from one another in this
respect, so do papers. What is an acceptable model for one combination might not be for another.
And it all depends on the look you want. Folks tend to make all this unnecessarily complicated.
Reminds me of the hiker who was stumbling over rocks every other step because he was so busy
staring at the coordinates on his stupid GPS.

 

[Usagi]

Well, we seem to have generated a fair amount of heat and a little light. Taking the spotlight off Bruce for a moment some of you might like to have a read of this:-
Dead Link Removed

I quite understand that it will appear to be sacrilegious to some and too lacking in technical refinement to others, but it seems quite practical to me.
At least I can understand it, which is probably a good starting point!

That's good reminder.

I use densitometer, but when it comes to find out proper speed point and VIII - IX value, I do it by printing. Then after I have good ZS I and VIII or IX from judging print tones visually, I know what densities to look for.
That is helpful especially with staining developers.

However within years, I have to slowly made move towards less precise control, as there's really no point of fine tune everything exactly. Or even within marginal of 1/3 or 2/3 stop.

It could be easy just adopt some kind of N-2, N and N+2 variant of ZS - even one with only N-2 and N,doing rest with paper contrast.

The biggest barrier for me is mental. I have zones too deep in my backbone, so I always have kind of a vision of final print that I am aiming and I measure zones without need of any extra concentration.
To me, there's no 'put shadows to Zone III or IV' rules. I just put them where I wan't. If shadowed area is very dark to my eye, then it will be exposed so.

This does not leave much room for errors. If I find another interpretation of image during printing phase, there is not much to do if shadows are initially exposed to be very dark. Thus when I have any doubts and overall subject brightness range permits, I will shift all tones towards highlights by giving over exposure and then printing it down to my original vision. A bit like those d*gital photographers do with 'expose to the right'.

I think ZS more and more only concept of transfer subject to the print as I saw it at first place. It's 'calibrated' enough if I can print my original vision without too much darkroom acrobatics just by looking my notes of the subject and places of important zones and then adjusting paper contrast so that everything falls in proper places.