Thanks Bill. I already have my exposure and development sorted, but I still like to read about the technical side when the subject arises.
For a diffusion light source grade 3 paper LER is 0.88 and for a condenser light source 0.65
Thanks. I have an old magazine somewhere that says that 35mm films should be exposed and processed to be printed on grade 3 as standard rather than the usually recommended grade 2.
It makes sense because of the higher magnification required for the small negatives. It also covers optimum F/stops to squeeze maximum image quality.
Actually, I would suggest that the papers were designed so that a middle contrast grade - grade 2 - would give the best results with the most common negatives and most common printing methods.
Correct. 35mm film requires more delicate development to achieve optimum quality.Yes, contact printing was one of those methods, but that contact printing was the type used in "snapshot" type prints provided to the casual photographer - often from much larger than 35mm negs, that often received much more exposure than would be considered optimum now for the vast majority of film photography.
Everything has evolved since then.
Thanks Stephen!
I wonder if we could have a Nikon "Matrix Metering" type of app which would take a raw scan and recommend grade settings for an enlarger. Probably would have a limited market, so probably won't happen.
I seem to recall it's everywhere, so I don't know who said that there wasn't a way to objectively select paper contrast so take the LER and NDR as suggestions and choose the final paper contrast by trial and error.
Did Jones say something like that?
In my "studies" I was prepared to go into paper matching but short-circuited it when I realized that I already "knew" what grade to use.
No matter how much you think you understand something, any feelings of complacency are shattered when you have to explain it to someone else. They say no one learns more in a classroom than the teacher. And that pretty much sums it up when I was teaching a class and the lesson was on the Zone System. Like many people, I started with the Zone System, but soon I moved onto more scientific versions of sensitometry and tone reproduction.
When it came time to teach, I had to finally face certain concepts that didnt seem to match up between what I learn about sensitometry and what the Zone System was explaining. One of these dilemmas is on how to define a normal negative. The basic idea is to process the negative so that the negative density range will fit onto the papers log exposure range. While sensitometry uses the method that is described in Chucks thread Testing for Relative ISO Range Numbers, the Zone System has a set of density aim values for the negative to fit onto a grade 2 paper.
According to sensitometric and tone reproduction theory, a paper with an LER of 1.05 is considered a grade 2 paper; therefore, a negative with a density range of 1.05 should fit nicely onto the paper.
According to Zone System theory, the negative density range for a grade 2 paper is 1.25 (1.35 0.10). Sensitometric theory says that is the range for a grade 1 paper and not a grade 2 paper.
Obviously one has to be wrong. Since a negative with a density range of 1.25 will be too contrasty for a LER 1.05 grade 2 paper, it must be the Zone Systems approach that is incorrect. Except that in practice, both methods seem to work. Thus the dilemma.
Some people dont seem to have problems not questioning such differences. Personally, I had blown off the Zone System values as coming from a less precise, less sophisticated method. That is until I had to explain it and why it still worked. I had to ask myself how two seemingly dissimilar methods that had different stated aim values could produce similar results.
Theres a good reason for it and an important lesson that should be kept in mind by everyone when testing.
The contrast of paper should have nothing to do with the negative density range. All negatives should be developed the same and printed on the same grade of paper, with minor adjustments in case of under-exposure or bad flare. This will assure that the mid-tones are reproduced at close to 1:1.
I did both approaching this scientifically and trying t use the plain Zone System. Both worked for me, but I'm seeing you about to make the same fundamental mistake I
made and that is: trying to fit the entire subject brightness range onto the paper. That is indeed possible but rarely desirable, as it will ultimately lead to a battleship-grey print. A good-looking B&W print has some Dmax blacks and some Dmin whites to show the entire palette of greys
I’ve got grade 2 baby and it gives me all the love I need.
What I have noticed in the past was that one manufacturers contrast grade can differ from another manufacturer.
For example, I found Kentmere Kenthene paper in grade 2 to be nearer equivalent to Ilfospeed grade 3 when I tried them years ago.
I did both approaching this scientifically and trying t use the plain Zone System. Both worked for me, but I'm seeing you about to make the same fundamental mistake I
made and that is: trying to fit the entire subject brightness range onto the paper. That is indeed possible but rarely desirable, as it will ultimately lead to a battleship-grey print. A good-looking B&W print has some Dmax blacks and some Dmin whites to show the entire palette of greys
How so? 1:1 is what the Kodak book Negative Making for Professional Photographers says. I would be willing to listen to arguments for a little more, but what most zone system practitioners do is compress. Their prints are all too revealing of their approach. The prints are listless and lifeless.I believe you may have misinterpreted the 1956 Kodak publication which appears to have been published in 1952. Could you provide a supporting argument that doesn't rely on that one source? Please include an explanation what the NDR is based on.
BTW, the mid-tone gradient on the reproduction curve should exceed 1.0. Generally the preferred gradient should be at 1.10-1.12, according to The Theory of the Photographic Process, 3rd edition, Chapter 22, The Theory of Tone Reproduction by C.N. Nelson (co-author of the above paper with Jones).
How so? 1:1 is what the Kodak book Negative Making for Professional Photographers says.
How so? 1:1 is what the Kodak book Negative Making for Professional Photographers says. I would be willing to listen to arguments for a little more, but what most zone system practitioners do is compress. Their prints are all too revealing of their approach. The prints are listless and lifeless.
Negative Making for Professional Photographers appears to be more of a publication than a book. These Kodak publications are factual but tend to generalize the information as their aim is for the non-technical photographic population, which can lead to misinterpretations. I found it online if anyone wishes to check it out https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435005178942&seq=17
Personally, I use Tone Reproduction Theory and not the Zone System. The Zone System is a simplified version of tone reproduction. In simplifying it into a system as well as Adams not being as technical as his reputation, there are mistakes or misconceptions that can cause confusion and lead to wrong conclusions. This thread is about one of those misconceptions.
You are the one making assertions; therefore, you have the burden of proof. I'm genuinely curious how, "The contrast of paper should have nothing to do with the negative density range. All negatives should be developed the same and printed on the same grade of paper." This appears to me to be about the concept of determining an aim "normal" negative and it isn't just limited to the Zone System. It's fundamental to photography. I'm just asking you to describe your thought process and show how you came to that conclusion.
Stephen
I would assume the vast majority of novices who come to this forum are using 35mm equipment, and are doing mostly what is called "spontaneous", "candid", or "reportage" photography. They simply want to be able to take, develop, and print well enough to get "good" results. The zone system is never going to work for them. Trying to convert them to this is really doing them a disservice.
It is relatively easy to establish what a "normal" negative is. You start with the paper grade and work backwards.
You are confusing negative density range with gradient. This is the fallacy of the zone system. The contrast (gradient) of the paper has nothing to do with the negative density range, which can vary quite a lot on a single roll of film, whereas the negatives' gradient remains unchanged in that roll. The paper contrast should be changed in cases of accidental over-development or underdevelopment (which affects the negatives' gradient), but not the density range of the negative. Assume you want to photograph a brick wall in even light. There will be a very narrow density range, right?Thanks for replying. I agree that there are different types of genres / disciplines that are not conducive with the Zone System. In fact, the Zone System isn't a necessary component to any aspect of photography. It's a tool and can be useful or problematic depending on how it's handled. I do feel that you are possibly making a couple strawman assumptions. The types of images uploaded to this forum demonstrates the wide range of interests of the members. I also don't believe anyone is attempting to convert anyone to anything. People share information. "Convert" implies an agenda. The purpose of this particular thread is to explain a flaw in the interpretation of the Zone System method of determining the desired negative density range.
Again, I agree. So, why does it appear you are stating the exact opposite in an earlier post? "The contrast of paper should have nothing to do with the negative density range." The idea is to match the subject Luminance range to the printing material using the negative. This is basically what you say in the rest of the paragraph so you clearly understand it. Maybe I am missing some distinction between the two statements.
Assume you want to photograph a brick wall in even light. There will be a very narrow density range, right?
The gradient of the paper should be fixed (within narrow limits).
Depends on how you want the brick wall to render. So no, the paper grade "should" not be fixed.
True, but wouldn't that be for aesthetic pictorial effect rather than technical reasons?
Agreed. I had that (politically incorrect) thought looking at some (reproductions of-) prints in AA's "The Print" and "Natural Light Photography". Not a fan of Moriyama either...but what most zone system practitioners do is compress. Their prints are all too revealing of their approach. The prints are listless and lifeless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?