developing time test

[Wayne]

I am testing my film developing time as described by Fred Picker in his Zone VI Workshop, and Steve Simmins in the recent issue of View Camera. This involves (afte finding film speed) exposing several sheets at Zone 8 and developing them for different times. Then I have to interpret which one gives a Zone 8 tone on my paper. I am finding this process a bit too subjective. Fred Picker says to look for "a very pale gray", while Steve Simmons says it should be "just barely perceptibly darker" than the white paper.

My print at 7.5 minutes is pale gray, but if I cover the gray-white boundary line in the middle of the sheet (half of the paper was covered, getting no exposure), I dont think I can tell really there is a difference in shade. But it is quite obvious when that line isnt covered, I would say its more than "just barely perceptible", its obviously perceptible. My 9 minute developing time shows what I would consider a barely perceptible difference, less than the 7.5 minutes, but of course I really cant see any difference when I cover the boundary line.

I'm sure that my correct time is either 7.5 or 9 minutes, or somewhere in between, but I cant decide. Is there any way to take the subjectivity out of this somewhat?

 

[Nick Zentena]

Use a densitometer. But then you either need a new piece of equipment or to borrow one.

 

[Rlibersky]

I would use the time that gives you the white you like.

 

[Wayne]

I dont have a densitometer, although I could possibly take samples to a lab. Not too convenient though. I'm thinking that it would have been better to make a Zone 8 exposure of a white textured surface, at least then I would have something to base my judgement on other than pure tone with no context.

 

[seadrive]

I'm thinking that it would have been better to make a Zone 8 exposure of a white textured surface, at least then I would have something to base my judgement on other than pure tone with no context.

I agree. Find a subject with a large area of what you would consider a "Zone VIII subject", like a white church steeple in sunlight, or snow on a bright day.

Make 5 identical exposures, and develop for 5 different times. Then make your proper proof, and pick the one where the subject looks in the print the way it felt when you photographed it.

Be sure to use your best/favorite paper for this test. You want to match your negs to the paper you will usually use to print something you really like.

End of development test.

 

[Wayne]

I'm sick of testing though. I've been testing for 2 weeks. I think I'll just choose 8 minutes and start making some pictures, keeping a close eye on my Zone 8 values.

Isnt there anyone out there who has done these tests and also had a hard time deciding which strip to choose?

 

[dmax]

Like many others, I have also gone through tests and testing periods, and have experienced your frustration. Precision has its place, but only to a certain extent. Subjectivity then takes over. To paraphrase an instructor in a workshop I attended years ago: "We are not in the business of replicating density wedges day in and day out. If we were to do that, we would be working in one of Kodak's test labs, and so we can't be where we want to be taking pictures."

Keep in mind that a "zone" is just that - a zone. It contains a range of values that can be quantified, but in the end, the quantities within that zone are perceptually barely different from each other. Think of Zone 8 as eventually graduating into Zone 9. For all practical purposes, a middle Zone 8 should work.

My version of a real-world test of selecting my "correct" developing time is to make a straight print out of a negative taken of a real-world subject, say a building in sunlight. If it basically prints itself, and if after I tape the print on the wall and the print still "looks correct" after looking at it for a few days, I settle for the particular development time that produced that print. If the highlights look a bit dim, I adjust accordingly. If the highlights look a bit too washed out, I adjust similarly.

From my own experience in running tests (I do have these obsessive periods that may qualify as a disease of sorts that afflict some of us): there are far more variables to easily contend with and to control with precision. On the wet side alone are the following: freshness of chemistry, quality of water, temperature drift, replicability of agitation methods, etc. Then there are the variables in the taking side: shutter accuracy, agreement between different shutters, metering technique, etc.

I think the goal in testing is to familiarize ourselves enough with how our materials behave, but not to let the materials dominate our ways of working. Just my two cents.

 

[eddym]

I would use the time that gives you the white you like.

Very true, but to which I would add, "the textured white you like." Pure white is not Zone VIII.

 

[eddym]

Isnt there anyone out there who has done these tests and also had a hard time deciding which strip to choose?

Wayne, I have done the tests, though it has been a few years back, and I still use the results in my work. It was one of the best, most instructive things I have done since I began photography. And to reply to your question in your original post: this really is subjective. The way you like your textured whites to reproduce may not be the same way I like mine to reproduce. And we may be (in fact, likely are) using different films and papers. You need to arrive at the development time that suits you, not me. There are no Zone Police, measuring your highlights and shadows, calling you to task if your Zone VIII is "off" by half a stop. Photography is subjective; it is your expression of the world as you see it. Do these tests so that you will know where your Zone VIII is going to fall, and then use that every time you take a picture. That's what it's all about. The tests are just the beginning. If they take two weeks, so what? You've got the rest of your life to apply what you learned from them.