Calibrating Zone System to Grade 3?

Bill:

Is your concern for a contracted negative (N-1, N-2, etc) that the neg will be so flat or have such reduced local contrast that even the higher paper grade won't be able to restore a healthy looking print?

I really don't intend to go further than N-1 when contracting negatives. For reasons of local contrast, I think I'd rather be inclined to use a compensating film formula.

I think what I may do is aim for Grade 3 printing with an adjusted version of Ansco 130, substantially reducing the Hydroquinone. If I want less contrast, I can drop to Grade 2, perhaps putting back hydroquinone if needed for a split grade. If I want more, I can restore the hydroquinone with grade 3 and also use a higher concentration. Grade 4 is also easier to find than grade 1. Softer negs have served me well for travel portraiture where you have to work quickly and don't have time to perfectly zone out every negative.

With an existing negative I'm also going to test a couple VC papers (MCC and Oriental VC) against Galerie to check how my WD2D+ negs print, especially in the highlights. If the VC papers behave best, I can aim for Grade 2 1/2, stop worrying and move on. VC papers may have more of a future as well.

...unless the analog photography market collapses altogether and we eventually have to coat our own papers...

J

Jarin Blaschke,

We often talk in glowing terms of local contrast. Developing flatter negatives reduces local contrast by definition. I don't think it will make it hard to get a healthy print.

Mortensen wrote about how much he regarded highlight detail. I owe it to myself to try some experiments with "gamma infinity and controlled subject lighting". Mortensen's portraits do exhibit remarkable highlight detail, while Fred Picker's portraits seem pasty.

Fred Picker, you may know, is a proponent of the Zone System. So it is fair to compare their work to see the differences you get with portraiture. I wouldn't use Mortensen's technique with landscapes, I don't think.

Maybe so... but prints with little or no shadow detail can be harsh regardless of highlight detail. It's finding a proper balance that's important. Much of that hinges on subject matter and visual mood... not to mention personal taste and opinion.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Maybe so... but prints with little or no shadow detail can be harsh regardless of highlight detail. It's finding a proper balance that's important. Much of that hinges on subject matter and visual mood... not to mention personal taste and opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can't ignore the shadows. Mortensen lit them.

Bill Burk said:

Yes, you can't ignore the shadows. Mortensen lit them.

Click to expand...

He lit landscape shadows from how far away and with what?

A reflector, 4 feet square, which he gives a detailed construction diagram for in "Outdoor Portraiture".

It's a frame of wood with hinges and clasps, and a roll of white fabric that you can roll up to take with you.

Bill Burk said:

A reflector, 4 feet square, which he gives a detailed construction diagram for in "Outdoor Portraiture".

It's a frame of wood with hinges and clasps, and a roll of white fabric that you can roll up to take with you.

Click to expand...

A nice big "soft box", love it.

Bill Burk said:

A reflector, 4 feet square, which he gives a detailed construction diagram for in "Outdoor Portraiture".

It's a frame of wood with hinges and clasps, and a roll of white fabric that you can roll up to take with you.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, lighting control is a much better option, if it's practical, than contrast compression via less development but this doesn't work for landscape photography.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Well, yes, lighting control is a much better option, if it's practical, than contrast compression via less development but this doesn't work for landscape photography.

Click to expand...

What does work, to avoid contrast compression, is burn and dodge.

markbarendt said:

What does work, to avoid contrast compression, is burn and dodge.

Click to expand...

Yep... and masks

Bill Burk said:

Jarin Blaschke,
.......

Mortensen wrote about how much he regarded highlight detail. I owe it to myself to try some experiments with "gamma infinity and controlled subject lighting". Mortensen's portraits do exhibit remarkable highlight detail, while Fred Picker's portraits seem pasty.

Fred Picker, you may know, is a proponent of the Zone System. So it is fair to compare their work to see the differences you get with portraiture. I wouldn't use Mortensen's technique with landscapes, I don't think.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt in my view that a print with good highlight detail is far more pleasing than one without. I believe the brain is more forgiving of an area of total blackness, than a similar sized one of total whiteness. Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to seeing detail in lit areas, but not in extremely dark ones.

Please don't use Fred Picker as an expert on the Zone System. He was an excellent marketer who saw the advantage of riding the coat tails of Adams to market his products, but his interpretations of the Zone System, like those of many other writers, were often faulty. Use a real expert on the Zone System like Ansel Adams, John Sexton or Al Weber.

My initial assessment is that Mortensen's suggestions aren't generally useful for Landscape photography, though I am softening my stance upon further reading. In some specific cases he has good ideas.

It's fair to say he was envious of those who had technical control of the medium. He wrote a story in "Print Finishing" in which he describes a fictitious "Morten Williamson" who dismisses prints by a "Mr. Easton" with disdain (and a little envy of their technical competence). I think it's obvious who he's talking about.

He gave some examples worth learning from. If a subject is interesting because of its texture, then textural lighting is called for (example roadside cliff erosion / mass wasting). If a subject is interesting for its tones, then softer lighting is called for (example still-life grapes). Each example looks terrible in the other lighting.

But it's not just Mortensen who talked about natural reflectors. This is often written in old photography books (I just picked up a dozen and almost all advise using natural reflectors like cliffs, snow and beaches.)

Again, I have to disagree with Mortensen's blanket statements. Each subject is different and one cannot blindly state that one lighting method is best for a given subject due to importance of tonality vs. texture. Some generalizations may be largely true but nothing is set in stone.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Again, I have to disagree with Mortensen's blanket statements. Each subject is different and one cannot blindly state that one lighting method is best for a given subject due to importance of tonality vs. texture. Some generalizations may be largely true but nothing is set in stone.

Click to expand...

If you saw the photos in his example, you'd agree with the suggestion to consider the lighting for the subject. His still life of grapes, really looked awful in directional light, and the roadside erosion looked awful in flat light.

Fortunately the suggestion is not tied to a personality. I can find other authors who suggest that a scene changes dramatically throughout the day, and some times look better than others - especially apparent when the shots are compared side-by-side, you can easily have a preference.

Of course lighting is important. It's "at least" as important as composition and maybe more so. I just disagree with absolute blanket statements generated by observation of a very few images.

In the interest of being fair, here are his words, so you can see for yourself if his statement is what you consider an objectionable blanket statement... Or if what he wrote is a properly qualified general principle.

From "Mortenson on the Negative"... In the concluding paragraphs of chapter 8 "Lighting: Fundamental, Not Decorative", after he explained Texture Light and Tone Light and many axioms of lighting...

"So, for effective photography, you must have not only good subject matter, but you must display it under the appropriate kind of light. If the interest of the subject matter lies in its texture or tangible three-dimensional qualities, you must show it under a Texture Light. If the interest of the subject matter lies principally in the relationships of its local tones, you must show it under a Tone Light."

My objection to his statements is use of the word "must" because that word makes them blanket statements. It may be "usually" or "mostly" true but not "always" true for every subject.

Aside from this discussion of Mortensen, in which I think you two are having two different discussions, in your opinion (anybody) is there something lost in local contrast by developing a slightly softer negative (to Grade 3) that can't be recovered by use of the harder paper?

I think too that it would be ridiculous to say that you should never shoot grapes in hard directional light. But I'm not sure if that's what Bill is saying. Now Mortensen's choice of "subject matter" is another whole discussion.

Jarin

ps: looking at the paper specs, it seems that if I calibrate to Gallerie grade 3, I'm really calibrating to the average manufacturer's grade 2.5 anyway.

Bill Burk said:

In the interest of being fair, here are his words, so you can see for yourself if his statement is what you consider an objectionable blanket statement... Or if what he wrote is a properly qualified general principle.

From "Mortenson on the Negative"... In the concluding paragraphs of chapter 8 "Lighting: Fundamental, Not Decorative", after he explained Texture Light and Tone Light and many axioms of lighting...

"So, for effective photography, you must have not only good subject matter, but you must display it under the appropriate kind of light. If the interest of the subject matter lies in its texture or tangible three-dimensional qualities, you must show it under a Texture Light. If the interest of the subject matter lies principally in the relationships of its local tones, you must show it under a Tone Light."

Click to expand...

One of the lessons I see in Mortenson's words is "don't necessarily take what you are given". If you see a great composition in bad light, figure out how or when to shoot it to get good light. If that means artificial lighting, so-be-it.

O-N-F

Quotes are interesting beasts, they can be incredible little gems spoken first in a certain context but then they get repurposed and are expected to stand on their own and bring authority. Mortenson's quotes seem to reside in an artistic context.

Personally when I see words like "must" I try to understand the context and what the author is trying to get across.

If one is trying to mimic Mortenson (even just for practice), Mortenson's musts are pretty important.

If one is just trying to get ideas to improve one's own context by studying Mortenson, Mortenson's musts become mere suggestions.

Jarin, Mark... You're probably better at reading between the lines and abstract interpretation of written and spoken word than I. I tend to take things far too literally.

I always exposed, developed and selenium toned aiming for grade 3 Ilford Gallery DW fiber base paper. That worked best for me but this might be because of film and developer choice plus the characteristics if Ilford's papers at the time.

Old-N-Feeble said:

Jarin, Mark... You're probably better at reading between the lines and abstract interpretation of written and spoken word than I. I tend to take things far too literally.

I always exposed, developed and selenium toned aiming for grade 3 Ilford Gallery DW fiber base paper. That worked best for me but this might be because of film and developer choice plus the characteristics if Ilford's papers at the time.

Click to expand...

IMO it isn't the exact grade that matters, it's having a standard, grade 2, 2-1/2, 3, or whatever; that's the magic.

As to reading between the lines, no. Simply understanding that Mortenson was right "in his world". In "my world' the rules are different, If I want to learn from Mortenson I have to adapt his ideas.

Jarin Blaschke said:

Aside from this discussion of Mortensen, in which I think you two are having two different discussions, in your opinion (anybody) is there something lost in local contrast by developing a slightly softer negative (to Grade 3) that can't be recovered by use of the harder paper? ...

Click to expand...

Just the opposite in my experience. I usually try to optimize local contrast by tailoring contraction developments (N-x) for grade 3 (even on VC paper). I find this gives more local contrast than developing more and printing on grade 2. Contraction negatives tend to be flat, and higher grade papers have a longer, steeper straight line section and less toe/shoulder area than grade 2 and lower.

Getting expressive contrast in a print is often less of a question of "matching" paper and film response curves than of getting pleasing (usually not too flat) local contrast. This often means that one has to use a contrastier negative/paper grade than would be required for a fullly-toned "straight print" and simply dodge, burn and mask in order to squeeze in the highlights and shadows.

Bottom line: You will need printing controls and latitude of paper contrast. Therefore, aim for a middle value that allows leeway on both sides. In choosing your middle value, keep in mind that a slightly thinner negative has less grain, but the need to print it on a higher contrast paper may change the highlight and shadow rendering a bit (less toe/shoulder, more "straight line" rendition). Find out which you prefer (for what subjects) by simply shooting two negatives of several scenes, develop one for grade 2, one for grade 3, make prints and evaluate.

Best,

Doremus

Jarin Blaschke,

Take Doremus Scudder's word - that's based on printing experience. Doremus knows what you're proposing will work.

Keep in mind I target right in the middle between Grade 2 and 3, it works well for me. Targeting Grade 3 is not significantly different.

If contraction went so far as to create mottled negatives due to short developing times, then I would say develop longer. But you're not going to that extreme.

My reason for bringing in Mortensen was not meant to add confusion, I just wanted to think through a contrary opinion. It's not based on my personal experience. I have not tried gamma infinity yet, I am just working out in my mind how it might lead to delicate gradations in the highlights. There are some experiments that I want to do to see if it's relevant for me.

Aiming for Grade 3 is going to work.

Doremus Scudder said:

Just the opposite in my experience. I usually try to optimize local contrast by tailoring contraction developments (N-x) for grade 3 (even on VC paper). I find this gives more local contrast than developing more and printing on grade 2. Contraction negatives tend to be flat, and higher grade papers have a longer, steeper straight line section and less toe/shoulder area than grade 2 and lower.

Getting expressive contrast in a print is often less of a question of "matching" paper and film response curves than of getting pleasing (usually not too flat) local contrast. This often means that one has to use a contrastier negative/paper grade than would be required for a fullly-toned "straight print" and simply dodge, burn and mask in order to squeeze in the highlights and shadows.

Bottom line: You will need printing controls and latitude of paper contrast. Therefore, aim for a middle value that allows leeway on both sides. In choosing your middle value, keep in mind that a slightly thinner negative has less grain, but the need to print it on a higher contrast paper may change the highlight and shadow rendering a bit (less toe/shoulder, more "straight line" rendition). Find out which you prefer (for what subjects) by simply shooting two negatives of several scenes, develop one for grade 2, one for grade 3, make prints and evaluate.

Best,

Doremus

Click to expand...

This is precisely my experience but I added selenium toning to further straighten and lengthen the H&D curve.

Thanks Doremus:

I guess what I've been asking is a very subjective question and I might simply need to do the work and test more than I thought I would need to. I'm starting over, having been away from any substantial printing for some years. Let me know if the below method seems sound:

On Monday I'll take an existing full scale negative, print it on 3 cantidates (Seagull VC, Galerie G3 and MCC110) and find a favorite.

Then I'll find my HP5 film speed with zone I using a best estimated developing time with 3 candidate developers (Rodinal, DiXactol and WD2D+).

Then I'll shoot a scene at my found speed (or speeds - as there are still 3 developers to choose) with a wide range of tones that all fits into Normal but rich zone range with maybe some very small specular shiny bits that go beyond zone IX. I'll need 9 near identical images. The shot cannot require any additional variables such as extension factor, reciprocity adjustment, filter factors, etc.

For each of the 3 developers, I'll develop it 3 different times: My best estimate/published time, 15% shorter, 15% longer.

With my chosen favorite paper at my preferred grade and developer dilution (Grade 3, 1+1 Ansco 130 with substituted benzotriazole and reduced HQ), I print all 9 negatives to just achieve maximum black at zone 0 (edge of the neg). Identifying the negatives from each developer where a barely textured "white" lands closest to ideal zone XIII, I have found my developing times for each developer. Now I hopefully have 3 acceptable straight prints of my test scene and the only variance is developer type. Because I have a real scene, shot without filters and with dimensional objects, I can subjectively choose the developer I like.

I will then have a workflow for HP5 in a given developer and time, optimized for my darkroom materials. I can take a densitometer reading for zone XIII off the negative and use it as a shortcut to find development times for other films I like presently or films unfamiliar I would like to test.