Bruce Barnbaum expose shadows zone iv

[bogeyes]

Just watched a short video clip of Bruce on Photographers Formulary web site. Has anyone any thoughts on Bruce's method?

 

[RAP]

ZOUNDS! WOW SO PROFOUND! HOWL LIKE A HOUND!

I agree with BB. Last I heard he shoots his Tri-x at 160 and processes in dilute HC110. Not sure what he is doing now but it works. I have found generally most shot their film 1 stop slower then what manufacturers state. Watch development of the high values.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I can appreciate what he is saying, if you want all the details on the negative, although I guess you'd need to be a bit more careful with the highlights depending on the film's curve.

Tom.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I haven't watched the clip, but I do have his book. He suggests normal zone type tests. Then he says to cut the film speed in half. And then he says to expose important shadows on Zone IV. Thus he recommends two stops more exposure than is usual in Zonie terms. This will give slightly grainier film with excellent tonal separation in the shadows. For medium and large format film, this isn't an issue. Most modern films don't shoulder off till well above zone 10, and so there isn't really a worry about highlight blocking.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Whether you do this (or do it by someother means, like testing for Zone I at a higher density than 0.1+B+f or just giving a little extra exposure as a margin of safety) depends on the film, so do your own tests with your own film, and see how it works.

For a film that has a long toe, placing the shadows on Zone IV instead of Zone III gets you a little better shadow separation at the risk of running out of room at the top of the curve, which would then require reducing development time. If it isn't really necessary for you to place the shadows on Zone IV to get good shadow separation with the film/dev combination you use, but you do get shouldering in the highlights (not too common with modern films and scenes of normal brightness range, but not impossible) and compensate by reducing development time, then you may be sacrificing some gradation and microcontrast by compressing all the tones into a smaller space on the curve, or not using the full potential of the film.

 

[Dennis McNutt]

Opening Up Zone III Shadows

If the luminance range of the scene is very high (common in scenes with a clear blue sky) placing shadow detail on Zone IV may compromise separation of important high tones, such as the brilliant edge of a backlit cloud, or nuances in sunlit snow. Normal contraction development may compress the mid-tones too much and also sacrifice micro-contrast in the shadows.

In that case I find that placing shadows Zone III often works. If this unacceptably weakens tonal separation in the shadows, I then use a Shadow Contrast Increase Mask (SCIM) to boost lower tone separation to the desired level.

In scenes with an extreme luminance range I will also use a Contrast Reduction Mask to lower overall printing contrast, and then if necessary use a Highlight Contrast Increase Mask to revive the highlights.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

There's a joke that Barnbaum's negatives are so dense that if he drops one, it puts a dent in the table.

Truthfully, a specific negative density doesn't equate to a specific print tone. Loyd Jones has written that, "Density, per se, has no significance as an indication of the ability of the photographic material to perform this function. the value of negative density by which any particular object brightness is rendered, as, for instance, the deepest shadow, is of no consequence except insofar as it may have some bearing on the exposure time required to make a print from the negative."

Increased exposure simply mores everything up the curve. There is initially a slight increase in density range as the shadows move up off the toe, but that's it. The negative can then be "printed down" without any detrimental results from a tonal respective. The undesirable aspects of this approach is longer camera exposure times, longer printing times, and a decrease in sharpness and increase in grain with increased exposure. Barnbaum shoots large format, so that last two factors aren't as big an issue as with 35mm.

Slight "over exposure" is actually a pretty good idea. Most people who use Zone System testing are already over exposing the film 1/2 to one stop over the current concept of correct film speed, yet no one complains about reduce quality because there isn't any loss. Prior to 1960, film speeds were 1/2 stop slower. Tri-X had a speed of 200 and Plus-X had a speed of 50. There is no absolute about exposure. It's all related to quality.

It's been awhile since I've read Barnbaum's book. I do remember thinking some of his ideas on how photography works come from another planet, but he does produce great work. His idea about exposure isn't new either, nor is it a bad one.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

If the luminance range of the scene is very high (common in scenes with a clear blue sky) placing shadow detail on Zone IV may compromise separation of important high tones, such as the brilliant edge of a backlit cloud, or nuances in sunlit snow. Normal contraction development may compress the mid-tones too much and also sacrifice micro-contrast in the shadows.

In that case I find that placing shadows Zone III often works. If this unacceptably weakens tonal separation in the shadows, I then use a Shadow Contrast Increase Mask (SCIM) to boost lower tone separation to the desired level.

In scenes with an extreme luminance range I will also use a Contrast Reduction Mask to lower overall printing contrast, and then if necessary use a Highlight Contrast Increase Mask to revive the highlights.

Ahhhh....that was music to my ears

Welcome aboard APUG, Dennis!

Murray

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Tri-X professional has a rather long toe. "Overexposing" the film moves the shadows up into the straight-line portion of the film curve more, helping with shadow separation. This is why many of us Tri-X sheet-film users rate the film at a slower E.I. (I use E.I. 250 though...), and often end up with rather dense negatives overall, but which have the negative values spread fairly evenly along the straight-line portion of the film curve.

Placing important shadows in Zone IV. however, is not really another "overexposure" of the film. It is an interpretive choice. Zone III is, practically speaking, black in the final print (black with some detail). If you wish a shadowed area to have a higher print value than "black" in the final print, it simply needs to be placed higher. I place shadowed white clapboard or snow on Zone V or V+ in order to retain the feeling of luminance in these "high shadows."

All too often, people forget that the Zone System is a visualization tool, and use it as simply an exposure system; "shadows in Zone III, highlights in Zone VIII and blast away." Interpretive placement of the highlight and shadow areas is ignored this way.

Not all shadows belong in Zone III. Black shadows should be placed in Zone III, more luminous shadows need to be higher, in Zone IV or V.

Conversely, not all "whites" should be stuck in Zone VIII. Bright white areas with a smidgen of detail should be placed in Zone VIII. Bright areas with more detail need to be in Zone VII or lower. Specular highlights, and very bright areas can be placed in Zone IX or higher, if that is the desired print value.

Barnbaum's shadow placement derives from his previsualization of the shadow values in the final print, not from a desire to "overexpose" the film more, for whatever reason. He has arrived at the correct E.I. for his shooting already. One should not blindly place all shadows in Zone IV either (Barnbaum doesn't, he simply recommends Zone IV for "important" shadows), but rather use the tonal palette available in the medium expressively, placing shadows where you feel they should be in the final print. This, of course, requires an expressive visualization of the final print at the time of exposure, which some Zone System users abdicate, in favor of "just getting a printable negative." The resulting "printable negative," however, is often difficult to print well, since we often want more luminous shadows in the final print than the Zone III we "automatically" placed them in. Better to think about them in the field than try to compensate for them in the printing process.

Best,

Doremus Scudder
www.DoremusScudder.com

 

[eclarke]

Exposure can be a philosophy and is a personal system all the way through the print. Just don't underexpose! I place my shadow on Zone IV and shoot two sheets so I have some options...EC

 

[Mahler_one]

What an illuminating discussion for aspiring photographers to read, and try to grasp. As I have often thought, and occasionally written here, the discussions on APUG often offer better insights ( and examples ) then those found in many well reviewed photographic texts. Thanks. I followed the links that some of you have supplied, and the photographs noted are ample proof that, as some have said, "whatever you are doing, keep doing it"!

Ed

 

[David Brown]

All too often, people forget that the Zone System is a visualization tool, and use it as simply an exposure system; "shadows in Zone III, highlights in Zone VIII and blast away." Interpretive placement of the highlight and shadow areas is ignored this way.

Yes!!!! Thanks for this.

 

[clineco]

I know this is an old thread...but I'm curious.

According to BB's video, should textured highlights be in zone VIII or still in VII?

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi clineco,

Minor correction: Textured highlights are Zone VIII.

In his video, on the whiteboard, Bruce Barnbaum explains that you should place shadows on Zone IV so shadows will fall on the straight-line part of the film curve.

Assuming you make no other change to traditional Zone System usage (say the only change is you want to do what Bruce Barnbaum says... so you place shadows on Zone IV)...

Then you should let textured highlights... that normally fall on Zone VIII... fall on Zone IX. Later you will print these textured highlights down to Zone VIII. You will also print down the shadows to Zone II or Zone III.

 

[Dennis McNutt]

Exposure can be a philosophy and is a personal system all the way through the print. Just don't underexpose! I place my shadow on Zone IV and shoot two sheets so I have some options...EC

Well said! Great photos aren't about densitometer numbers, but the emotional impact of how all the shades of light and dark are expressed.

Since it has been a while since I last posted in this wonderful forum, let me again recommend Lynn Radeka's wonderful work with B/W masks.

Start with his interactive examples page:

http://www.maskingkits.com/maskingexamples.htm

This will show you the expressive potential of various masks.

Then you may wish to read his introduction to various common B/W film masks:

http://www.maskingkits.com/maskingbasics.htm

Masks are a wonderful tool to shape the way a negative is interpreted in a finished print.

Good masking!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

ZOUNDS! WOW SO PROFOUND! HOWL LIKE A HOUND!

I agree with BB. Last I heard he shoots his Tri-x at 160 and processes in dilute HC110. Not sure what he is doing now but it works. I have found generally most shot their film 1 stop slower then what manufacturers state. Watch development of the high values.

It's hard to argue with success and BB makes very successful images but there are different ways to get there.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If the luminance range of the scene is very high (common in scenes with a clear blue sky) placing shadow detail on Zone IV may compromise separation of important high tones, such as the brilliant edge of a backlit cloud, or nuances in sunlit snow. Normal contraction development may compress the mid-tones too much and also sacrifice micro-contrast in the shadows.

In that case I find that placing shadows Zone III often works. If this unacceptably weakens tonal separation in the shadows, I then use a Shadow Contrast Increase Mask (SCIM) to boost lower tone separation to the desired level.

In scenes with an extreme luminance range I will also use a Contrast Reduction Mask to lower overall printing contrast, and then if necessary use a Highlight Contrast Increase Mask to revive the highlights.

I agree, unfortunately,negative masking is still highly under utilized due to the work involved.however, they are often well worth the effort.

 

[clineco]

Hi clineco,

Minor correction: Textured highlights are Zone VIII.

In his video, on the whiteboard, Bruce Barnbaum explains that you should place shadows on Zone IV so shadows will fall on the straight-line part of the film curve.

Assuming you make no other change to traditional Zone System usage (say the only change is you want to do what Bruce Barnbaum says... so you place shadows on Zone IV)...

Then you should let textured highlights... that normally fall on Zone VIII... fall on Zone IX. Later you will print these textured highlights down to Zone VIII. You will also print down the shadows to Zone II or Zone III.

Ok. Makes sense, thank you very much!

 

[pentaxuser]

Reading Bill Burk's post made me want to re-acquaint myself with Bruce Barnbaum's U-tube video. However when I clicked on the bookmark it said that the "user had withdrawn it". Does "user" mean Bruce himself, if so I wonder why?

Pity as it was a useful video. Is it available elsewhere?

I was hoping to ensure I understood whether BB had covered the question that arose in my mind before I needlessly asked it here but given the circumstances, here goes.

Bill, if you have to print down the highlights to Z VIII and shadows down to Z III or Z II it seems you revert back to where you might have been if you'd have left the shadows in Z III to begin with or does placing the shadows on the straight line part of the graph by putting them at Z IV confer an advantage per se and if so, what is it?

Thanks

pentaxuser
Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

I found this link that still works...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnt5yFArWo

The idea of overexposing and printing down is simple, Bruce Barnbaum talks about that.

You overexpose to get a better negative as far as the shadows are concerned.

To get his point across, Bruce Barnbaum dramatized the amount of overexposure that is beneficial. In my opinion, once you get up off the toe, you've overexposed enough to improve the shadows. I get up off the toe by rating my 400 speed film at EI 250 (2/3 stop overexposure).


Dennis McNutt,

I think I know a good thread that needs your input, I'll try to bring it up - it's something to the effect of "what took your printing to the next level." That thread carried on for 5 pages and didn't mention masking... a travesty only you can address!

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the link, Bill. It confirmed to me that it is a lecture worth listening to.

pentaxuser

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

My method when I was a teen was to shoot Agfapan 25, 100 and 400 (rarely) at around half rated speed and never expose shadows below Zone III. I processed in Rodinal, usually 1:100 but sometimes 1:50 if the scene was low contrast. I underdeveloped to bring textured highlights way down to Zone VI then selenium toned to bring the negative contrast back up. I found this processed very effective at raising shadow detail off of the toe while lengthening and straightening the H&D curve thereby keeping the highlights off of the shoulder. I much preferred DW grade 3 Ilford Gallery which I also selenium toned. The end result was prints with very open shadows and sparkling textured highlights. At least, I thought so.

EDIT: A side benefit of selenium toning to increase contrast is it's done via visual inspection in bright light. Too, if you didn't quite tone enough the first time you can tone again provided you didn't maximize toning the first time.

 

[cowanw]

Your mention of highlights reminded me to post of a thought I had looking at the video.
Everybody talks about textured shadows, but maybe one is more interested in the highlights, for example, in some portraits. Doing what Bruce Barnbaum says must push the highlights up the curve around the shoulder.
If slight overexposure and underdevelopment is good for textured shadows; then, slight underexposure and overdevelopment will do for the highlights what Bruce wants for his shadows.
Seems to me neither is always right unless your subject is always similar.

 

[pentaxuser]

Unfortunately BB doesn't spend much time in his lecture to describing what is to be done about the danger of pushing Z VIII into Z IX. It may be that based on what increase in exposure is required to take the shadows off the toe as per Bill Burk's post it does not result in a problem for textured highlights.


Any thoughts on this aspect anyone?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

I watched the video, it made sense but then he's just doing exactly what many of us do if we use the Zone System with practical testing rather than sensitometry, so in many ways it's rather muddled as he's not acknowledging you need to do personal film speed/development time tests.

Although I learnt the Zone Systen on my own it mirrored exactly what most used here in the UK which came from photographers like Peter Goldfield who'd assisted Minor White.

The reality is he's just placing the shadows on Zone III so Zone VIII IS NOT being taken to Zone IX it's just his different way of thinking. The Zone system is nothing new (nor is BYTZS) just a way to use a meter to help with the old adage expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

Interestingly John Blakemore who makes AA lookmextremely amateurish when it comes to tonal control doesn't use a densitometer.

Ian