Beyond The Zone System without phone but an calculator and enlarged curves

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I found old and new btzs books and reached to that conclusion , if you dont have expert curves enlarged and full sampled for each film and developer , and if your software hardware cant calculate from these curves , you have no business with btzs method. I contacted with expo/dev app maker , he advised me to use latest apple phone which 2500 dollars here.

I am thinking loud , if I enlarge 10X the for example tri x and d76 curve, if I carry a milimetric ruler and if I can save few programs in a casio calculator, what is my chance ? How can I calculate the multimetered light ?

And now another problem rises also, how can I find btzs pretested info ?

By the way, I can carry one olympus , two canon eos for n, n+1, n+2 development.

 

[Paul Howell]

In the first edition of BTZY Phil David used a Magic Wheel which was packaged with the book to calculate exposure, in the back he provides instructions for making one if the Wheel was missing from the book. He also provides directions for using a spot meter as a desensatomer both transmission and reflective.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

You don't need the zone system. Forget about it.

 

[Dani]

An older iPhone would work just fine. You can just check and see if said older iPhone is compatible with the latest iOS and that’s all you would need. You can get an old iPhone 12, the smaller one and I bet those are cheap to find.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

In the first edition of BTZY Phil David used a Magic Wheel which was packaged with the book to calculate exposure, in the back he provides instructions for making one if the Wheel was missing from the book. He also provides directions for using a spot meter as a desensatomer both transmission and reflective.

I downloaded the first edition , 1981, and there is wonder wheel description. I want to ask that idiot question , is wonder wheel usable on all films , developers , papers or is it specific for one solution. Book is too complicated.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

An older iPhone would work just fine. You can just check and see if said older iPhone is compatible with the latest iOS and that’s all you would need. You can get an old iPhone 12, the smaller one and I bet those are cheap to find.

No working iphone is cheap here.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You don't need the zone system. Forget about it.

Please back up your claim with facts and reasons.

 

[MattKing]

Of course, Beyond the Zone System doesn't really use the Zone System

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

My book scan copy is in poor quality and I need wonder wheel print files in PDF or CAD or I only want to buy the wheel , not the book.

 

[Paul Howell]

I downloaded the first edition , 1981, and there is wonder wheel description. I want to ask that idiot question , is wonder wheel usable on all films , developers , papers or is it specific for one solution. Book is too complicated.

As far I can figure out, all films and papers matched with a developer of the user choice. But if you read the first edition Phil Davis was clear that BTZS is for sheet film, each sheet is exposed and developed for a given scene and SBR. If you are shooting roll film BTZS along with Zone System has limitations.

I need wonder wheel print files in PDF or CAD or I only want to buy the wheel .

The wonder wheel was only used for the first edition, by the second Davis had developed an app for a Palm Pilot followed by a Smart Phone. I believe there are apps for Android and Apple. Finding an intact working Wonder Wheel will be a real find.


You don't need the zone system. Forget about it.

BTZS is not the Zone, the only aspect of the Zone System used by Phil Davis was a version of the 10 Zones, he reduced the number of Zones to 7, the zones with texture.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Please back up your claim with facts and reasons.

In fact, films are designed to be easy to use without any extra work. All film should be developed the same. Use compensating developers, which will let the highlight and shadows fall perfectly into place. Sorry, I can't edit the pdf. This is T-Max 400 developed in FX-21, a test shot to show how well the detail is held in the brightest and darkest areas, no dodging or burning. I do have another print, made from a different negative given one more stop than this one. It shows a bit more detail in the shadows. I'll try to get a scan put up here soon.

 

[BCM]

This was a typical question when I'd teach BTZS worlshops both locally and with Phil. We always tried to keep people from using the calculator as a crutch. It was important to view the scene, take readings and then make decisions on EVERYTHING ranges, etc. Regarding exposure times and field adjustments, you can simply take your favorite film and developer combinations (dramatically reduced these days) and print out charts. Plotter/matcher on the PC can be used to do this so you don't need a calculator or iPhone.

Unless you are doing something DRAMATICALLY different from what the test show, don't use fresh developer, etc. you'll be fine for most applications. We used to find students being off "correct exposure" by 2-3 stops, equipment being off by 2x (exposure) and meter readings off as well so development was less critical (+/- 10-15%). Using an incident meter usually clears up most exposure issues in the field and you can read about that method in the book or watch the on-line videos posted by The View Camera Store.

Paper notes in the field for 2-3 developer and film combinations is what I keep for backup in one of my sheet film bags.

 

[BCM]

In fact, films are designed to be easy to use without any extra work. All film should be developed the same. Use compensating developers, which will let the highlight and shadows fall perfectly into place. Sorry, I can't edit the pdf. This is T-Max 400 developed in FX-21, a test shot to show how well the detail is held in the brightest and darkest areas, no dodging or burning. I do have another print, made from a different negative given one more stop than this one. It shows a bit more detail in the shadows. I'll try to get a scan put up here soon.

I'd disagree here as TriX and other films do not always respond well to compensating developers over more than one stop or so. TMX and TMY have very different characteristics and respond to developers different than older emulsions that many of us still use. You also have to worry about the variables from different dilutions and oxidation issues for smaller volumes. Using fixed dilutions and changing times is more consistent for most users. Of course, to each their own.

 

[loccdor]

OP is using 35mm film. Bracketing any important shots is more practical than using a complicated system.

 

[mshchem]

Might be easier to buy the phone

 

[Paul Howell]

Buying a phone and an app is worthless without a very good if not complete understanding of BTZS. As noted by OP it is a complicated system, much more reliant on the science of Sensitomerty than AA's or Minor White version of the Zone. Without a densitometer or a spot meter to cobble together a makeshift unit having the app will be useless. Here in the U.S the View Camera Store will test film for a price, both sheet and roll film.

In OP case I recommend that he find a downloadable copy of Carson Graves The Zone System for 35mm Photographers which will allow him to apply principles of AA Zone System to 35mm roll film. Graves uses a ring around exposure test to determine E.I.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I'd disagree here as TriX and other films do not always respond well to compensating developers over more than one stop or so.

They sure do!

 

[koraks]

how well the detail is held in the brightest and darkest areas, no dodging or burning

From your pdf (here's a page explaining various ways to include photos in your posts):

Personally, I find that a poor example of the point you wanted to bring across. Shadow detail in that image is sorely lacking, and it's problematic since so much of the composition relies on large shadow areas. TMY2 can do a whole lot better, regardless of how it's developed - but it does need a little more exposure than this.

You don't need the zone system. Forget about it.

As a general statement, I don't agree. After all, you don't need to use a camera. Or film. Or photograph at all. The question of 'need' generally doesn't really apply in cases like these where we're discussing a hobby and a large part of the motivation is an interest in the technical execution of the process.

However, in this particular case, it's unclear to me what @Mustafa Umut Sarac hopes to gain from an application of BTZS in his photography. Also, having witnessed his other recent questions and examples, BTZS is not the place I would recommend he start, and instead, I would focus initially on gaining good control over metering and exposure to begin with. Then complicate matters further down the road if necessary/desired.

 

[snusmumriken]

I would say you don’t need the zone system - especially the part involving densitometry - until you feel a need for it. You can make beautiful photos without it.

What is useful is to carry in your head some concept of zones differing by one stop in terms of exposure, and where your meter reading sits relative to that scale. The nicety of precisely how those zones translate into tones on the paper can wait, perhaps indefinitely.

 

[reneboehmer]

I believe what you are trying to achieve is a reliable tonal reproduction for your enlargements. Before buying any tool, I strongly advise getting a solid grasp of the underlying concepts first.

A great starting point is Photographic Sensitometry by Todd & Zakia. Tools are only as good as the user inputting the data, and if you don't understand the curves, the software can mislead you.

I recommend plotting your first few tests by hand on graph paper. It allows you to really 'see' the data and gain an intuition for how development changes the curve shape—something that is hard to learn when software does the heavy lifting for you. Once you can interpret curves yourself, then look for software to speed up the workflow.

(Regarding BTZS: I personally do not recommend it. It is older software that can be difficult to use, and I've found its implementation of flare and speed point calculations to be less than optimal. It was not me who found those issues but @Stephen Benskin )

 

[Augustus Caesar]

From your pdf (here's a page explaining various ways to include photos in your posts):
View attachment 417849
Personally, I find that a poor example of the point you wanted to bring across. Shadow detail in that image is sorely lacking, and it's problematic since so much of the composition relies on large shadow areas. TMY2 can do a whole lot better, regardless of how it's developed - but it does need a little more exposure than this.


As a general statement, I don't agree. After all, you don't need to use a camera. Or film. Or photograph at all. The question of 'need' generally doesn't really apply in cases like these where we're discussing a hobby and a large part of the motivation is an interest in the technical execution of the process.

However, in this particular case, it's unclear to me what @Mustafa Umut Sarac hopes to gain from an application of BTZS in his photography. Also, having witnessed his other recent questions and examples, BTZS is not the place I would recommend he start, and instead, I would focus initially on gaining good control over metering and exposure to begin with. Then complicate matters further down the road if necessary/desired.

I made prints from several negatives, bracketed. This one has barely enough exposure to get shadow detail in the shaded side of the house (above the front porch). Taken at f/8 @1/250. The next one (not scanned yet), taken at f/5.6, is better. The problem is, of course, trying to get detail in the deep shade while holding it in the brightly lit area of the house in the upper right-hand corner of the image. I selected this house as a test, and the TMY-2 FX-21 combo did a fantastic job of retaining detail in both regions. The other print has not been scanned yet. My friend is doing it for me. I plan to post it when I get it. Note that the "open shade" (the front porch lit by open skylight) does have detail. The very darkest area is shaded by trees, so the light level there is very low. Remember that this was taken on a cloudless day, and the SBR is huge!

 

[koraks]

The problem is, of course, trying to get detail in the deep shade while holding it in the brightly lit area of the house in the upper right-hand corner of the image.

That's what burning & dodging are for. You can get it all in one exposure and it's actually not all that difficult, esp. with VC papers. But that doesn't mean the tonality will be very pleasing; you generally end up poor local contrast just so everything will fit in the total tonal scale. That also happens here. I don't understand the composition and why it was framed this way, but I suppose that wasn't relevant as it's apparently a test shot. Assuming that the shadow area at the front of the block is important, there's so little differentiation there that it just renders as a dark, undifferentiated mass anyway.

Keep in mind that this is one of those scans that for some reason lifts the black point considerably above the actual digital black point. This is a bit misleading as it can suggest (if you don't look carefully) that there's tonality in areas that are in reality void. Corrected for an objectively zero black point, this is what the scan looks like:

That makes it clear that either the print was overexposed, or, more likely, the film was considerably underexposed - again assuming that the black mass front and center serves a compositional purpose, which to me is not really clear. Either way, that supposed shadow differentiation - I guess we'll have to wait for the other print(s) to materialize, but this one most definitely lacks it.

Now, you could photograph a scene like this in such a way as to squash more of the brightness range into a more favorable part of the film curve, esp. with a flexible film like TMY2. But at that point it actually would start to make sense to think about concepts like the zone system or other approaches aimed at very deliberate tonal control. In a sense, the example you've shown illustrates the opposite of the point you tried to make: if you just develop as it says on the tin and then print straight, the end result is not necessarily very convincing. It may show what's on the negative, but it doesn't make a compelling print. Although in practice, with this particular film's long, straight HD curve, you would have a decent starting point if you just gave enough exposure and then matched the scan or paper grade to the negative.

Of course, a compelling print at the very least requires a compelling composition, so I'd always start there when it's about learning things and spending time on what happens between a camera, a photographer and and output medium. This is one reason I do ultimately agree with you (despite an IMO counterproductive example) in that OP would do well to just "do as it says on the tin" when it comes to development, provided he knows what role exposure plays (I agree with what @snusmumriken says about 'zone awareness'), so he can focus on the more important aspects of the photograph - such as what ends up in the image frame.

 

[pentaxuser]

Buying a phone and an app is worthless without a very good if not complete understanding of BTZS. As noted by OP it is a complicated system, much more reliant on the science of Sensitomerty than AA's or Minor White version of the Zone. Without a densitometer or a spot meter to cobble together a makeshift unit having the app will be useless. Here in the U.S the View Camera Store will test film for a price, both sheet and roll film.

In OP case I recommend that he find a downloadable copy of Carson Graves The Zone System for 35mm Photographers which will allow him to apply principles of AA Zone System to 35mm roll film. Graves uses a ring around exposure test to determine E.I.

The Carson Graves book is certainly a book that my nontechnical brain understood and gave me a lot of information but as others have said we don't know the motivation of the OP in wanting to know and operate the BTZS system well

Does he want to know and fully understand the BTZS system as an intellectual exercise and/or just to take better pictures. If it's the former and he (a) cannot afford the IPhone app (b) may have difficulties following the book, as he seems to have hinted at, then he may have problems fulfilling this requirement

If on the other hand he wants to ímprove his photography then the Carson Graves book may be a better option It certainly helped me

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[Augustus Caesar]

That's what burning & dodging are for. You can get it all in one exposure and it's actually not all that difficult, esp. with VC papers. But that doesn't mean the tonality will be very pleasing; you generally end up poor local contrast just so everything will fit in the total tonal scale. That also happens here. I don't understand the composition and why it was framed this way, but I suppose that wasn't relevant as it's apparently a test shot. Assuming that the shadow area at the front of the block is important, there's so little differentiation there that it just renders as a dark, undifferentiated mass anyway.

Keep in mind that this is one of those scans that for some reason lifts the black point considerably above the actual digital black point. This is a bit misleading as it can suggest (if you don't look carefully) that there's tonality in areas that are in reality void. Corrected for an objectively zero black point, this is what the scan looks like:
View attachment 417932
That makes it clear that either the print was overexposed, or, more likely, the film was considerably underexposed - again assuming that the black mass front and center serves a compositional purpose, which to me is not really clear. Either way, that supposed shadow differentiation - I guess we'll have to wait for the other print(s) to materialize, but this one most definitely lacks it.

Now, you could photograph a scene like this in such a way as to squash more of the brightness range into a more favorable part of the film curve, esp. with a flexible film like TMY2. But at that point it actually would start to make sense to think about concepts like the zone system or other approaches aimed at very deliberate tonal control. In a sense, the example you've shown illustrates the opposite of the point you tried to make: if you just develop as it says on the tin and then print straight, the end result is not necessarily very convincing. It may show what's on the negative, but it doesn't make a compelling print. Although in practice, with this particular film's long, straight HD curve, you would have a decent starting point if you just gave enough exposure and then matched the scan or paper grade to the negative.

Of course, a compelling print at the very least requires a compelling composition, so I'd always start there when it's about learning things and spending time on what happens between a camera, a photographer and and output medium. This is one reason I do ultimately agree with you (despite an IMO counterproductive example) in that OP would do well to just "do as it says on the tin" when it comes to development, provided he knows what role exposure plays (I agree with what @snusmumriken says about 'zone awareness'), so he can focus on the more important aspects of the photograph - such as what ends up in the image frame.

No, I don't think that burning and dodging are necessary most of the time. And no, the print is not overexposed. The brightest area in the upper right of the print has some specular reflection. There is shadow detail where there is "open shade", which is all that one could ask for in such a scene. I think that asking for detail on the porch (under the porch roof) is asking too much. The porch is "shaded" twice: once by the trees, and again by the porch roof.

This was a test shot, chosen because of its extreme SBR. I looked at the print again today (my friend had misplaced them) and indeed this frame is a little underexposed if the goal was to preserve a lot of detail in the background shaded areas. But looking at the print, there is detail in the foreground (the grass in the vacant lot). My goal here was to see how well the combo would work in such an extreme situation. The house behind this one is dark red brick, shaded by large trees. The grass and stone wall in the foreground are not shaded by trees, and receive light from the open sky. The other print, made with one additional stop of exposure, does show more shadow detail, but the very brightest areas (the upper right area of the print, in full direct sunlight) are barely holding. When I get the scans back I'll show you. By the way, the brick on the house is that pale yellow that was popular way back when; it is not white. There is a white splotch on the outside wall though, close to the top of the wall near the center window, and if you look closely you can see it.

One other point is that the lens used for this was the 50mm Summilux-R type II, 8-element lens (E60 filter size). It produces very brilliant images. I was testing this combo and lens too.

50mm f/1.4 Summilux-R II - Leica Wiki (English)

wiki.l-camera-forum.com