getting a personal EI without an enlarger or densimeter?

[Xmas]

Ok, so I'd like to call attention to what Rob is saying.

This statement shows two characteristics of the zone system that drive me nuts.

• The expected exposure accuracy.
• Just how close the zone system runs to under-exposure as a matter of course.

Minimizing exposure has benefits: minimizing grain and shutter time; but minimizing exposure means "your" EI has to be dang near perfect and your metering needs to be just right because when the target for "Zone I" is just a hair "thicker" than f+fb, then you are always just "that" one hair away from an underexposure. I will grant that when shooting at very small apertures, like f/32 with a slow film, shutter speed can be a big concern. We do need to ask ourselves how often most of us are there though.

The accuracy of the Zone system is not without practical benefit either: this makes 1st proofs/contacts easier/more standard to print; but what many people miss is that this "minimum exposure target" is really just the lower threshold of a wide range of exposure levels that can and will produce absolutely excellent, and IMO, no compromise prints.

Most people don't need to run as tight to the toe as the zone system asks, to do good work.

Again my school was different.

a) the zone system does not have problems, if you don't understand it or can't make it work don't use it.
b) the ISO has no safety factor, they don't even use a standard developer
c) the ASA standard used to have a stop safety factor before 1961
d) the mods should not be deleting posts with profanity only posts with push, pushed, or pushing

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I have just one thing to say: Opinions are like ISOs... everyone has one and they all smell bad.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Again my school was different.

a) the zone system does not have problems, if you don't understand it or can't make it work don't use it.
b) the ISO has no safety factor, they don't even use a standard developer
c) the ASA standard used to have a stop safety factor before 1961
d) the mods should not be deleting posts with profanity only posts with push, pushed, or pushing

I agree with c) and d).

I believe I understand the Zone System rather well and you aren't getting what you think you're getting. To start, the target values are wrong and flare doesn't seem to play a factor.

The current ISO does have a safety factor. C.N. Nelson's Safety Factors in Camera Exposure is authoritative. It is the paper that lead to the 1960 standard (along with Simple Methods of Approximating Fractional Gradient Speeds). All available HERE.

Mark, because of Zone System testing methods, the results are different than the rhetoric would suggest. Think pre-1960 speeds with the one stop safety factor.

 

[markbarendt]

a) the zone system does not have problems,

There are some really great and helpful concepts that come packaged in the zone system. It is worth learning.

It's also worthwhile knowing it's limitations and frailties and where other techniques have advantages.

 

[pdeeh]

Sometimes it does seem quite remarkable that people manage to make beautiful photographs without knowing the first thing about sensitometry, what a Zone is, or possessing a spot meter.

I suppose it must be luck, a bit like a monkey's selfie ...

 

[Steve Smith]

Sometimes it does seem quite remarkable that people manage to make beautiful photographs without knowing the first thing about sensitometry, what a Zone is, or possessing a spot meter.

Yes. I suppose people do tend to overthink things when they become interested in them.


Steve.

 

[pdeeh]

It's not that I think there's anything wrong with being a tech-head about this, far from it.

This may be the last place on the planet where such discussions are taking place, and I suppose there's a chance that the generation of people discussing it may be the last who do so with the background of having used film in a time when this stuff was being researched and published in learned journals with proper scientific rigour.

But I also think discussions like this can lead an unwary or uninformed person who is new to film into thinking that they can't take good photographs without an array of expensive technology and a full understanding of some very arcane sensitometric mathematics.

Whether we thereby lose some great photographers to the lure of the graph-paper* and endless testing without making any beautiful photographs is a moot point. Perhaps we sometimes lose great sensitometricians to the lure of making beautiful photographs without caring about toes, shoulders, gammas and zones ?


* I have just been informed that apparently, in this modern age, some people no longer use graph-paper, preferring something called a "computer" ...

 

[Xmas]

There are some really great and helpful concepts that come packaged in the zone system. It is worth learning.

It's also worthwhile knowing it's limitations and frailties and where other techniques have advantages.

I use a zone 1 spot meter reading on high contrast scenes where I want to be able to print the zone 1 and an average reading would be more 'random'. And yes I use the pre 1961 ASA factor.

If you don't understand bracket more or have a personal EI.

Zone 1 is zone 1 on the prints shadows not silver above base fog, that is pushing your luck.

 

[rbultman]

It's not that I think there's anything wrong with being a tech-head about this, far from it.

This may be the last place on the planet where such discussions are taking place, and I suppose there's a chance that the generation of people discussing it may be the last who do so with the background of having used film in a time when this stuff was being researched and published in learned journals with proper scientific rigour.

But I also think discussions like this can lead an unwary or uninformed person who is new to film into thinking that they can't take good photographs without an array of expensive technology and a full understanding of some very arcane sensitometric mathematics.

Whether we thereby lose some great photographers to the lure of the graph-paper* and endless testing without making any beautiful photographs is a moot point. Perhaps we sometimes lose great sensitometricians to the lure of making beautiful photographs without caring about toes, shoulders, gammas and zones ?


* I have just been informed that apparently, in this modern age, some people no longer use graph-paper, preferring something called a "computer" ...

I am a tech head by nature as I am an engineer. That being said, I don't have the time in my life to devote to sensitometry. I merely want to see what all of this "expose a 1/2 box speed for better negatives" thing is all about. It seems that based on some of the recent posts as well as the reported variety of testing methods and their (un)correctness, one steps from ISO land (i.e box speed) into a morass of opinions with everyone shouting they have the one true way.

I understand the generalities:

1. If shadow detail is insufficient, increase exposure.
2. If the shadow detail is too dense, decrease exposure.
3. If highlights are blown out, reduce development.
4. If negatives are too thin, but there is sufficient shadow detail, increase development.

I really approach photography more qualitatively than quantitatively. To date I have shot at box speed and developed to the times listed in data sheets with mostly standard developers. This has worked for me fairly well, although I have had a few cases where decreased development time would have helped keep the highlights in check. I had a brief foray into home-mixed pyro developers but that just didn't work out for me so I'm sticking to standard developers. I mostly use the in-camera meter or one of 4 hand-held meters for cameras which lack meters. I know how to compensate for either bright or dark scenes and how to use selective metering with the in-camera meter in order to get a better negative. I haven't really found the need to use a hand-held spot meter although using one may have helped those few frames with blown highlights. With the limited printing that I have done, I see how split-grade printing with VC paper is genius with high-contrast negatives. I wish I had more time to print but it will be a couple of years before I will be able to set up a permanent darkroom.

Some of the advice given amounts to the above generalities. Pdeeh, I agree with you regarding scaring people away with sensitometry. There are many good introductory photography books that teach the basics including the generalities mentioned here, and they mostly give the same, solid information. It's when you stray away from box speed that things start to get dicey, confusing, and contentious.

I suppose I have gone from heating foods in the microwave, to cooking from recipes while following them verbatim, and am now looking to alter those recipes, create my own, or cook by feel. This last analogy is to me is where you go from cooking food that tastes pretty good to cooking food that tastes fantastic.

Regards,
Rob

 

[baachitraka]

@Rob: I may include the part played by the exposure meter to those four points.

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

I agree with c) and d).

I believe I understand the Zone System rather well and you aren't getting what you think you're getting. To start, the target values are wrong and flare doesn't seem to play a factor.

The current ISO does have a safety factor. C.N. Nelson's Safety Factors in Camera Exposure is authoritative. It is the paper that lead to the 1960 standard (along with Simple Methods of Approximating Fractional Gradient Speeds). All available HERE.

Mark, because of Zone System testing methods, the results are different than the rhetoric would suggest. Think pre-1960 speeds with the one stop safety factor.

Thank you very much for the reference articles.
The safety factor reduction paper was to a speculative standard in 1959 when it was written and is more speculative today.
For example in '59 people with a good meter metered 'every' frame of Ektachrome or Kodachrome but may not have bothered at all for HP3. So they won't have changed their exposure when Ilford changed the ASA from 200 to 400. For people read me.

Only the noobs will have got more underexposed negs.

The other points are a mite easier to detect it is better to read the article if you are worried. Some are positive BTW.

Note some don't apply to me as I'm still using eg 50s film, 50s lenses and 40s meters, and have an Avery label on TLRs and other BTL shutter cameras (Note Foma 400 film because I like grain).

When I look at the current ISO rules the post 61 'safety factor' mentioned is now 'smaller' cause of intervening changes.
Think of a nats intromissive organ width.

 

[peter k.]

I understand the generalities:

1. If shadow detail is insufficient, increase exposure.
2. If the shadow detail is too dense, decrease exposure.
3. If highlights are blown out, reduce development.
4. If negatives are too thin, but there is sufficient shadow detail, increase development.

Well being doing this for a couple of years now, and consider myself still a beginner. Got lost in a misunderstanding of the zone system and messed up allot of shots, by underexposing. Took a break and decided not to be so anal, and just been flowing my nose more or less, and your four points give it a clarity that I've been coming to.
Thanks...
Most likely with my new understanding and experience will try the zone system again, but not so ah... specifically.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

It's interesting that there are at least three people responding to the OP's question who are very familiar with sensitometry principles, two of which also own sensitometers, all suggesting the OP should set the meter to the ISO, and go out and shoot.

 

[pdeeh]

Yes,but Stephen, there are at least three blogs on the internet somewhere which say you should shoot at 2/3 box speed and develop in a monobath (etc.) for the best results, and as we know, what a stranger says in a blog trumps any so-called expert who understands sensitometry.

 

[removed account4]

Yes,but Stephen, there are at least three blogs on the internet somewhere which say you should shoot at 2/3 box speed and develop in a monobath (etc.) for the best results, and as we know, what a stranger says in a blog trumps any so-called expert who understands sensitometry.

i agree pdeeh

but there are also big names ( or recognized names at least ) who
claim that iso is rigid no matter what sensitometric testing suggests.
same big name/s say there is no latitude with black and white film
that it is as rigid and exposure needs to be perfect just like chrome film
and anyone who thinks differently is sort of a hack ( not serious ) ..
and then there are others, not big names no data-tools
who just bracket, and develop and expose the film the next time
with the exposure that "looked the best / was good enough"

threads like this are great, but it seems that none of it really matters anyways ...

 

[removed account4]

OIt is common for people to adopt a rather strange condescending attitude toward sensitometry "I don't need to know this, I'm an artist not a scientist" while at the same talking about which Zone to place shadows on, how to get N-5, pre-exposing negatives, print flashing, rating TMX at EI 80 vs 64 etc.

hi michael

i haven't ever spoken with anyone or read anyone who has said they are an artist not a scientist and they dont' need to know sensitometry and
poo-poo semsitometric testing or data gathering tools ( or densitometer ) even use the word "zone" or n-5 or have commentary about rating tmx at 80 or 64 ..
i think people like what they like, if they want to learn how to gather data with the hopes of gaining a better understanding of how film and paper work that is great but
none of it is necessary or even almost necessary to get nice prints; people who are so in your face about all this stuff really need to lighten up a little bit ( maybe 2 or 3 fstops ).
maybe you were basing the comment on some of the things i have done and said over the years ( expired developer, expired film and not really giving a cR@P ) ... i have
never even used the word zone placement in 45 years of making exposures with a camera.

 

[rbultman]

if you want to learn, might as well start by learning the right things.

I don't know if I need to know this or not but I at least want to investigate it. Please point me to sources of "the right things". What is your suggested reading list?

Regards,
Rob "still shooting box speed and enjoying photography as a hobby but afraid I'm missing out on something" Bultman

 

[rbultman]

i hope my comments don't tip the scale to turn this into a foodfight, because that wasn't my intent.

Me too (not saying they will). This thread has been largely productive (for me) and I'd like it to continue that way. It's making me think and we are getting some good responses here, IMO.

Regards,
Rob

 

[RobC]

Did Cartier Bresson use the zone system? Did Man Ray use the zone system? The zone system is good if you have the need and time to apply it with a degree of accuracy. If you don't have the need or time or the inclination then it's not compulsory.

Using ISO speed and recommended dev using stock solution will give you approx 7 1/2 stop range from black to white which will print on grade 2.

Quick and dirty zone system calibration:

Using half the ISO speed and reducing dev by 30% will give you approximately a 10 stop range from black to white which will print on grade 2.

It takes only one line to explain how to get an approximate calibration for it. If you want precise calibration it takes a whole book. (well it doesn't actually take a whole book but people like to write whole books).

You're done.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Yes,but Stephen, there are at least three blogs on the internet somewhere which say you should shoot at 2/3 box speed and develop in a monobath (etc.) for the best results, and as we know, what a stranger says in a blog trumps any so-called expert who understands sensitometry.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wanted to simply point out that people who understand sensitometry, tone reproduction and exposure theory don't always default to testing.

 

[pdeeh]

I was just having a joke, Stephen ...

 

[ooze]

Here's a method from the KODAK Workshop Series book "Advanced Black-and-White Photography".

Here I quote very loosely, but the essence is the same:
1) Set your camera to the manufacturer's recommended ISO film speed.
2) Set up a gray card so that it is uniformly lit. You can use any other solid-colored matte board, preferably of neutral colour such as gray.
3) Fill your frame with the card and set the lens to infinity.
4) Meter the card (with your preferred metering method, reflective or incident)
5) You will make an exposure series from 6 stops underexposed to 2 stops underexposed. Set the initial aperture to f16 and choose your shutter speed accordingly. Maintain this shutter speed throughout the test, i.e. only change the aperture.
6) First make a blank exposure (later to be used as a reference) and than expose 9 consecutive frames in total, starting from -6 stops to -2 stops, increasing the aperture in half stop increments.
7) Process your film as usual.

Now I quote precisely:
Evaluating the Test
You are looking for the frame with 0.1 density more than the unexposed (blank) frame. This frame will have a light gray tinge. However, there will normally be two or three test shots with an even lighter gray tinge (too little density) than this frame...

The evaluation goes on with densitometer measurements, however the last sentence in bold above should be an indication of your personal speed you ought to choose when using that particular camera, metering method, developer etc. Just find the third or fourth frame after the blank exposure. This is the true Zone I. If it happens to be the frame that's been underexposed by 4 stops, then fine, simply continue to use the manufacturer's ISO speed. But if it turns out to be the frame that's been, say, underexposed by 3 stops, then you should set your camera/meter to half the speed.

Here's a simple table from the same book that shows how to transfer the test result to a personal exposure index:

Stops Underexposed (of your chosen Zone I frame) --> Multiply Film Speed by This Factor
6 --> 4
5.5 --> 2.8
5 --> 2.0
4.5 --> 1.4
4 --> 1
3.5 --> 0.7
3 --> 0.5
2.5 --> 0.35
2 --> 0.25

 

[markbarendt]

... I merely want to see what all of this "expose a 1/2 box speed for better negatives" thing is all about. ...

Lets assume for a moment that you are doing a portrait and that you want to peg a specific point on the face at a specific density on the print.

Technically, if you change nothing else from your previous/normal metering method, changing to 1/2 box speed simply moves all your subject matter to the right .3 on the film curve and that change in negative density simply means that "to place the face where you want it" the printing exposure for the 1/2 box speed negative needs be a little extra versus as a negative shot at box speed.

So to use numbers, if the print you want from a box speed negative were to print "normally" from the negative densities 0.1 to 1.2 then the print from a 1/2 box speed negative would print "normally" from negatives densities .4 to 1.5 instead. 1/4 box speed .7 to 1.8. (Rough numbers here, just trying to illustrate the concept.)

The exact same subject matter can be printed from any of these 3 EI's.

Negatives shot at 1/2 or 1/4 speed will have more shadow detail on the negative than those shot at box, but that doesn't mean that extra detail will print, or that you even want it to print. To print that extra detail, and still place the face where you planned it to be, you have to change other things like film contrast or paper grade, or start burning and dodging.

 

[RobC]

maybe its because some people don't actually print in the darkroom that they struggle with the concept of printable density range and what it really means.

 

[removed account4]

You're kidding, right?

hi michael
no, not kidding ..
i've never read threads where someone trash talks sensitometric / density / ZS sorts of stuff
and then asks questions on what zone to place things. i guess maybe i just don't read those threads ?
i have heard of barnbaum ( i think ) but i haven't ever
read anything that he has written or seen his work, sorry i don't really follow the big names

if someone suggests he/she is right and everyone else is wrong, it is a bit much.
but what do i know ... i'm usually wrong ...