Developing zones/shadow vs. highlight.

It totally depends on the film and the developer. There are tons of different developers out there and everyone has a favorite that's married to a film and a processing methodology. The one I use needs to exposed at 1/2 the recommended speed - to get more exposure - to ensure that there's enough shadow detail in a negative. The rule of thumb is that if you're going to make a mistake in exposure, it's better to overexpose rather than underexpose because it's easier to try to pull detail out of a really dense neg than try to create detail that isn't actually there.

Light meters are all different as well, so you have to get used to what you're using and base your exposure off of that.

A dense negative would be too light?

Corey Fehr said:

That makes sense. What if I have a roll of 24 , all with different exposures? How would I remember all of them and what the contrast was on each?

Click to expand...

You rarely do - although it can be helpful to make accurate notes. Unless you have a whole roll of the same subject, taken under the same lighting.
As a beginner shooting roll film, you are probably best to aim for normal or average contrast from your development choice except under particular circumstances.
What sort of circumstances, you ask? Obvious ones!
As an example, photographs taken under misty or foggy conditions are often low in contrast because the light under those conditions is very low in contrast. So if I shoot a whole roll entirely under those conditions, I will seriously consider extending the developing time, to increase the inherent contrast in the resulting negatives. In the case of fog, there is no need to adjust exposure from what the meter indicates, because shadows will tend to be well illuminated.
Something similar applies to a roll exposed entirely in harsh, contrasty direct sunlight. In that case, the contrast is so high that there is a desire to reduce that contrast when it is incorporated in the negatives. So the development time is reduced. In this case, there is also concern that the shadows may be so relatively dark that they might need extra exposure in order to reveal detail. So I would seriously consider a moderate increase in overall exposure to help fill in those shadows.

A dense neg would be where your highlights in the neg are very dark (like going black), along with the rest of it, hopefully. If you find that you have no detail in your shadows but good detail in your highlights then you've underexposed your film.

Matt-This was super helpful. Thank you.

So with fog, you don't need to adjust your exposure for the correct zone level from the middle grey?

Or were you referring to something else?

Is that what people mean when they say "exposure compensation"? Knocking off or adding stops from the zone system?

Got it. Thanks!

Michael Wesik said:

A dense neg would be where your highlights in the neg are very dark (like going black), along with the rest of it, hopefully. If you find that you have no detail in your shadows but good detail in your highlights then you've underexposed your film.

Click to expand...

Corey Fehr said:

One more big question for the day.

I know the saying "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" is quite common. I understand the concept of exposing for the shadows. (Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is metering the shadow (zone IV) then compensating the light down from middle gray (zone V) to ensure the correct exposure.)

I'm a bit confused on the "develop for the highlights", however. I was told by the professor that "if the image has true black, those blacks need to be exposed as true blacks." Maybe I'm not wrapping my head around this, but that seems more like you're "developing for shadows" as well.

Could someone elaborate in basic/moderate terms what developing for the highlights entails, and how what I was told fits into this?

I'm including my VERY FIRST (so go easy) printed images I ever made. (As of a few days ago.) Feel free to critique or use these as examples of what I could change in correlation with this question.

Click to expand...

Corey, I like your first photos;they show a lot of creativity,which is far more important than all the technical knowledge,which comes automatically with experience.I'll include one of my small writingds on the ZONE System.Try not to overthink it;It is actually very simple in its approach;expose for the important shadows where you would like to maintain detail and then develop long enough to get detail into the highlights but not too long as that will make them too dense and detail is lost.

Corey Fehr said:

A dense negative would be too light?

Click to expand...

No - a dense negative would result in a print that would be too light, unless you adjusted your print time to make it darker.
More importantly though, if a negative is too dense, all the tones in it may get squeezed together and give you a print that is grainy and far from pleasing.
There is a famous Ansel Adams quote that refers to a negative as being the (musical) score, while the print is the performance. You can use music analogies to help understand this.
Music that is played too quietly is hard to hear, there isn't much detail, and there isn't any dynamic range - much like a badly under-exposed and/or badly under-developed negative.
Music that is played at a volume within an appropriate range of volumes is easy to hear, can reveal a lot of detail, and exhibit a wide and satisfying dynamic range - much like a well exposed and well developed negative.
Music that is played too loud is painful to listen to, obscures the detail and doesn't permit a useful dynamic range - much like a badly over-exposed and/or badly over-developed negative.

MattKing said:

No - a dense negative would result in a print that would be too light, unless you adjusted your print time to make it darker.
More importantly though, if a negative is too dense, all the tones in it may get squeezed together and give you a print that is grainy and far from pleasing.
There is a famous Ansel Adams quote that refers to a negative as being the (musical) score, while the print is the performance. You can use music analogies to help understand this.
Music that is played too quietly is hard to hear, there isn't much detail, and there isn't any dynamic range - much like a badly under-exposed and/or badly under-developed negative.
Music that is played at a volume within an appropriate range of volumes is easy to hear, can reveal a lot of detail, and exhibit a wide and satisfying dynamic range - much like a well exposed and well developed negative.
Music that is played too loud is painful to listen to, obscures the detail and doesn't permit a useful dynamic range - much like a badly over-exposed and/or badly over-developed negative.

Click to expand...

Just sayin, that if you're developing to the right contrast index, more density/overexposure is really just more printing time. Over development is a different animal...

Corey Fehr said:

Matt-This was super helpful. Thank you.

So with fog, you don't need to adjust your exposure for the correct zone level from the middle grey?

Or were you referring to something else?

Is that what people mean when they say "exposure compensation"? Knocking off or adding stops from the zone system?

Click to expand...

Your meter will most likely have no problem with recommending a good exposure under foggy conditions.

Exposure compensation is what we do when we know that the meter is likely to be fooled. For example, to get good pictures of snow, you need to add exposure, because most reflected light meters will try to make snow look gray. This is because meters are good at reading average tones, but tend to make non-average things render as average (gray).

I would really, really recommend becoming familiar with normal exposure and development before one seeks to refine that with zone system concerns. Especially if you are using roll film, rather than using single sheets of large format film.

I'll throw in something here - that old adage "read a newspaper through your highlights" is just silly.

I've been doing this a long long time, and if I develop negatives for a stop density change in highlights, they look pretty much the same to me on the lightbox.

Judge your highlights by your final output. A grade 2 to 3 print, or however you scan if you're into that. If the way you shoot, expose, develop, and print produces a print where shadow detail is good and highlight detail is good - your opinion of good, that is - you're doing well. If you have to dodge your skies, or burn them in - your negs can likely be better.

I tell beginners, shoot a roll of the same scene, a scene that's "what you're into", be that landscapes or city streets at night or portraits or what have you. Find a scene with a good range of shadows and highlights. In the darkroom or changing bag, cut enough film to ensure you have 2 or 3 exposed frames, develop it, fix, wash and dry it with a hair dryer and go right to a 4x5 or 5x7 print. Extra credit, shoot a few frames at the beginning of the roll with the lens cap on and test that in your enlarger to find the max black time (the time at that height it takes to get max black and no more). Then print a neg at that time and height. If it takes little or no futzing at the contrast grade you like to get a full range of tones, you're good. If the highlights are dull, develop 20% longer - if they're blown out, develop 20% less. Bottle the dev from your first strip (it didn't do much work), get it to the same temp and develop another strip. Blow dry that and go straight to the same sized print and compare. How'd you do? Take notes of your times and dilutions, save your test prints in a binder.

This sounds complicated, but it's really simple, and in an afternoon you can learn a whole lot about a given film and dev combo.

You can make it more complex by bracketing or setting up an artificially lit still life and metering all the zones, but for now - I tell ya, this will give you a lot of info that's based on your gear, your process, and your eye.

Corey Fehr said:

Knocking off or adding stops from the zone system?

Click to expand...

Corey,

Forgive me for being blunt, but at this point you have no business even typing "zone system".
Forget you ever heard that term.

You don't know how to make consistently good prints from average subjects using normal techniques.
Your early prints look good, and you're well on your way, but you're not there yet.

Get the basics down so you know them in your sleep.
You can start diverging when you understand the basic path.

- Leigh

That was a little harsh.

This is what we're being taught in my college class, so I technically do have to know them.

We are being tested on them.

Corey Fehr said:

That was a little harsh.

This is what we're being taught in my college class, so I technically do have to know them.

We are being tested on them.

Click to expand...

Corey:
I think Leigh is right.
You just aren't at a level yet where a zone system approach makes any sense at all. At least not any version of the zone system that I am familiar with.

Well. As I said. Unfortunately, this is the material we're being taught and tested on.

Thus, why I'm reaching out to further my understanding as opposed to taking the simplistic over-view we've been given in class without further explanation.

Corey Fehr said:

Well. As I said. Unfortunately, this is the material we're being taught and tested on.

Thus, why I'm reaching out to further my understanding as opposed to taking the simplistic over-view we've been given in class without further explanation.

Click to expand...

You're doing fine and you're asking the right questions. It's overwhelming stuff that's rarely taught or explained well; and as you can tell by these threads, people take their stances and have their opinions. Take everything with a grain of salt and none of it too seriously. And especially, write the "zone system" as often as possible. I learned the Zone System from the get go. Read whatever you want too...

Corey Fehr said:

Well. As I said. Unfortunately, this is the material we're being taught and tested on.

Thus, why I'm reaching out to further my understanding as opposed to taking the simplistic over-view we've been given in class without further explanation.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering about whether your course is actually about the zone system, or whether that is just a label that the instructor is attaching to other, somewhat related principles.
Exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights is an extreme simplification of just a small part of the zone system.
The zone system is about visualization in terms of zones of tone, placement and fall of exposure, expansion and contraction through development controls, and an approach that is much more suited to single sheets of film than rolls of film.
Do any of the terms in the previous sentence match the materials in your course?

MattKing said:

I'm wondering about whether your course is actually about the zone system, or whether that is just a label that the instructor is attaching to other, somewhat related principles.
Exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights is an extreme simplification of just a small part of the zone system.
The zone system is about visualization in terms of zones of tone, placement and fall of exposure, expansion and contraction through development controls, and an approach that is much more suited to single sheets of film than rolls of film.
Do any of the terms in the previous sentence match the materials in your course?

Click to expand...

What does it matter?

Michael Wesik said:

What does it matter?

Click to expand...

It matters if she starts trying to learn something based on the label "zone system" when that isn't what the instructor is actually teaching.

MattKing said:

It matters if she starts trying to learn something based on the label "zone system" when that isn't what the instructor is actually teaching.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the point though. It was about furthering understanding. Why limit someone's scope of inquiry? Sure, you can't execute expansions and contractions as you would with sheet film, but you can still conceptualize a photograph in terms of visualizing the final print.

I'm sure you guys don't mean to come across as arrogant and condescending.

Michael Wesik said:

That wasn't the point though. It was about furthering understanding. Why limit someone's scope of inquiry? Sure, you can't execute expansions and contractions as you would with sheet film, but you can still conceptualize a photograph in terms of visualizing the final print.

I'm sure you guys don't mean to come across as arrogant and condescending.

Click to expand...

Michael:
I don't disagree about the benefits of visualization.
But I do disagree that it makes sense for someone who has just developed her first film and done her first print to immediately start referring to zone system resources.
A much more basic text - Henry Horenstein comes to mind - makes much more sense.
If you can point her (and me) to a resource that emphasizes the benefits of visualization but also deals with the technical requirements with a simplified, roll film approach suitable for near beginners, then please do so.
To me, the zone system can be a great tool for improving and refining one's work, but I don't think it is at all appropriate for someone who is basically new to film and the darkroom.

jnanian said:

hi corey

the best thing in the world ( with film photography at least )
is the bracket your exposures. first of all, without reading a manual
or anything else you should "rate" your film 1 fstop more than the "box speed"
so if it is 400 speed film set your camera at 200, if it is 125 speed film set it at about 70 &c ...
THEN bracket your exposures
so do what your light meter says for example 60th of a second it says f11 expose at f11 ... also at f 16 and f8
( one stop above and 1 stop below ) and process as your school suggests you process your film ..
and print so you have BLACK and white using contrast filters.
the photographs you have uploaded look great !
keep up the good work !
john

Click to expand...

Welcome Corey to the beautiful world of film photography.

What John wrote fits perfectly the bill.

By bracketing you will see the different exposures and
how they print.
You will find out which one print best, better or not at all.
You will see how blown out highlights look on a negative.
You will see how shadows have details or not on a negative.
And then you will overexpose your film 1 stop to make sure you have shadow detail.

You need to shoot and print. Practice will teach you a lot. Your mistakes too.
Practice, practice, practice
And you will soon realize that this is really easy.
What you see, what you shoot is what matters. That's the most important.
Processing is like cooking. And you will adjust it to your taste and your vision.
It's like biking... The more you do... The better you are at it
All the best,
G.

Corey,
I can only speak from personal experience here and I completely know what you are going through. Many years ago after I got out of the military I decided to go back to college for some courses that interested me and not for ones that I had no interest in. Yup, first one was Photography #101. Our instructor went by the book with the Zone System also and we were required to pray at night and thank Ansel. Just kidding of course! I bought Ansel Adams three volume set The Camera, The Negative and The Print. I did learn from those three, but the other required reading was THE ZONE VI MANUAL BY FRED PICKER that Peter mentioned above. Fred's approach was much easier for me to grasp since Adams got far to technical for me and became a little confusing. Fred was kind of a plain, simple guy and I think I just understood his teachings better. Another very good reading for me was Minor Whites little yellow handbook. The truth is, I never fully grasp the inner workings of the Zone System until I took and advanced course in large format (4X5) photography. I believe it was working with a single negative through the exposure, development and printing phase that helped me. With roll film like, 120 format and 35mm format, you have multiple-different exposures on one roll and it seemed to confuse me a little more that's all. I realize you have no choice at the moment so just hang in there. To be honest, I don't really use the Zone System now the way it was taught to me back in the 70's. I now use a highly sensitive incident meter and then apply the Zone System theory to my exposure or to what I want to see in my final print. So, I guess I'm saying, "Nothing is written in stone" when it comes to photography and your personal view. Of course your instructor doesn't want you to think that way at the moment!
My advice is to try and not swallow a bigger piece steak than you can chew, take smaller bites. You'll choke if you do! Try Googling "How to expose a B&W negative" and reading only things that pertain to exposure. Once you understand exposure of the negative then Google "Controlling the high values in a B&W negative" and read only what pertains to that. Put the two together, add the basics of the Zone System and your home free. Remember, one step at a time. Or a smaller bite. Most of all, have fun while you are at it.

Hi Corey,

Your instructor's developing sheet looks almost identical to the one I had in my darkroom class. When I asked my instructor about whether those times would work with push or pulled film, or other films, he said yes (which I knew even then couldn't be right.) We weren't forced to learn the zone system, which I think is impossible anyway if you are shooting roll film (unless EVERY image is under the same lighting conditions, which is rare, unless you are doing studio work). That said, I dutifully bought the bible in three parts, aka Adams trilogy of books. I tried reading them multiple times over the years, but they always lead to the same result - me falling asleep! He's not an easy read and most of what he's talking about refers to shooting sheet film, which is not what you are doing. Now, of course, if this is something you have to learn for your class, then you just gotta learn it, but perhaps you can ask your instructor by what he means when it comes to applying the zone system to roll film. Or is he talking about having a wide ranges of tones in the print? The two are not the same.

As a beginner, remember to KISS (keep it simple, stupid). Choose one film. Shoot it at box speed at the developer recommendations (which you are probably doing). Thousands, perhaps millions of people did that throughout the years and had good images. That said, you should also take a roll and bracket - normal exposure, 1&2 stops over, and 1&2 stops under. Do it in different lighting conditions - bright, contrasty light, dull, low contrast light, indoors, snow scenes, etc. You can try seven different situations on one roll of film. From that you should discover what works best for you, and if you should shoot at box speed (say, for dull light), or at half box speed for contrasty light.

Similarly, when you are in the darkroom, don't be afraid to use as much paper as you need to get it right. Like film, don't be afraid to push the limits of your printing - try to make the best print you can at different filter grades. You may find that you like more contrasty prints, or perhaps less contrasty prints. (No need to do this all the time, but someone suggested it to me, and it really helped me out.) And, of course, you may have to consider what your instructor likes. I find that men (in general) print far darker and/or more contrastier than I do, not that I am representative of all female photographers.

Of course, everyone here is giving you opinions on what to do based on their own experiences, so you have a lot to filter through. Since I am no different, I will give you two of my recommended books that helped me a lot. In addition to some of the books listed above, I really love these two books:

1- Way Beyond Monochrome, 2nd ed. By Ralph Lambrecht (he has already replied to this thread) and Chris Woodhouse. Lots of advice for film and printing.
2-The Master Photographer's Master Printing Course by Tim Rudman (he used to be on APUG a while back, but not so much anymore). Maybe you can find it used or in the library.

Cheers.