Has the Zone System been lying to me?

Hi all:

I have been slowly trying to teach myself Black and White photography and the use of a view camera for the past 2 years. I have been working with the Zone System, and trying to nail down my exposure and development system. Up until now, I think I've been hung up on the "shadows on 3 and highlights on 8", because my negatives always seem to be flat and lifeless, with no true black or bright paper white. Zone 3 seems to be too light and zone 8 too dark. I am thinking I am overexposing and underdeveloping. Or my perception of what the zones actually are is off and I am placing on zone 3 thinking it will be darker than it actually is, and vice versa for zone 8. When I look at a sample photo illustrating zone placement in John Schafer's Ansel Adams Guide book 1, there seems to be detail in zones 2 and 9, where I imagined zones 3 and 8 should lie. So my questions to you:

Are many people Selenium toning your negatives to achieve this detail beyond the "usable zones" (while placing on zone 3 and developing for zone 8 first)? Or is there actually some slight detail in zones 2 and 9, and I've had it all wrong?

Lastly, I am wondering how people get such a large tonal range in flat/low contrast scenes, and in scenes where the areas of bright highlight and dark shadow are too small to take a meter reading from. Do you place a grey card in the scene, select you exposure based on that, or a stop or 2 below (to compensate for increased exposure time), then really increase development? Or do you photograph it flat then use a high paper grade? I don't see how a high paper grade would work, because so much detail is lost in the shadows and highlights when that is done, and the photos I've seen have lost no detail at all.

Thanks,
Tim

If your Zone VIII density is insufficient for the contrast you want, then increase your development time.

How are you determining your film speed and development time (e.g., densitometer, step wedge, minimum time for maximum black)?

Tim,

Do yourself a favor and get this, 'Finely Focused: Mechanics and Creativity in Large Format Photography':
Dead Link Removed
Have you tested your true film speed and development time as David suggested? If you shoot one film it may be worth some cash to have The View Camera Store do the film speed test and development time for you. They send you film, 5 sheets I think, with a step wedge exposed under controlled conditions on it, you process each sheet for different times send it back to them and they put it on a densitometer, run a program and out pops your film speed and development time (N) and N-1, N-2, N+1 and N+2. But it costs about $50. Dead Link Removed

Do one or the other or both-it's up to you.

Good luck,

Scott

Circle of the Sun Productions (Bruce Barlow) also sells an inexpensive kit to help you do the Zone System tests.
juan

You don't need a kit. The Nine Negative Test will pinpoint your EI and development times so close you will wonder why you haven't done it before. It is all done visually and needs no densitometer readings. Additionally it pinpoints it for the paper on which you are printing.
Cost? 9 sheets of film and 2 sheets of your favorite enlarging paper.

Shoot a neg 1/3 over and develop for double your normal time. This will tell you what you need to know in an instant. You are most likely right, and you are over rating your film speed.

If you get a neg that really pops the way you want from doing this, you might want to re-examine your baseline.

Check your safe light situation as well.

Jim Noel said:

You don't need a kit. The Nine Negative Test will pinpoint your EI and development times so close you will wonder why you haven't done it before. It is all done visually and needs no densitometer readings. Additionally it pinpoints it for the paper on which you are printing.
Cost? 9 sheets of film and 2 sheets of your favorite enlarging paper.

Click to expand...

So, how do I go about doing this? I've been doing a 5 minute prewash in distilled water before I develop my FP4+ (rated at 80) in D76 1:1 in a JOBO 3010 on a Beseler base and my normal development time is only 5 1/2 minutes. The other night I developed some film but it was nearly 80 F not 70 F like it was when I did my development time test and my film was WAY overdeveloped. According to the temperature compensation chart I only needed 3 minutes and that is way to short to do with any consistency. I'm thinking about developing without the prewash so I can extend my normal development time. Sorry to hijack this thread.

Scott

Ansel hammered the Visualisation part of the ZS, and we want to skate right past it.

Often, we get the densitometry perfect, but aren't visualising properly.

Minor White pressed the need to learn to see (literally) what your film/paper combination would see.
It takes a LOT of effort to learn how to keep the Zone 8 in your head,
especially when Zone 8 with, for instance, TMY & Ilford WT in LPD is SO different from TMY/Ilford WT in Dektol, or 120.

We really DO have to learn to see what the values are, and it helps having a reference in our hand to SEE what Zone 8, or Zone 9 might be.



I still keep a pack of 'zone rulers' in my camera bag.
See "The Zone System Manual" by, Minor White, Richard Zakia, and Peter Lorenz for details how to make one.

scott k said:

So, how do I go about doing this? I've been doing a 5 minute prewash in distilled water before I develop my FP4+ (rated at 80) in D76 1:1 in a JOBO 3010 on a Beseler base and my normal development time is only 5 1/2 minutes. The other night I developed some film but it was nearly 80 F not 70 F like it was when I did my development time test and my film was WAY overdeveloped. According to the temperature compensation chart I only needed 3 minutes and that is way to short to do with any consistency. I'm thinking about developing without the prewash so I can extend my normal development time. Sorry to hijack this thread.

Scott

Click to expand...

If you want this info send me a pm.

juan said:

Circle of the Sun Productions (Bruce Barlow) also sells an inexpensive kit to help you do the Zone System tests.
juan

Click to expand...

This is what I've done, and have had the most success with. Obviously not enough success, however.

My problem with any of these testing systems is that off-black and pure black look the same to me, and the same for off-white and pure white. I thought I had the system down until I developed a bunch of negs from a recent trip and contact printed them. The "bright white clouds" were not glowing, and the "shadow detail" was more than plain to see, probably more like zone 4. I looked at a sample zone chart in the above mentioned book again, and noticed that zone 8 actually *is* a little muddy, and zone 3 is a little on the light side. The sample picture has a "zone 9" pointer to an area, and there's detail there- like I imagined zone 8 to be. This is one of AA's own photos, used to illustrate zone placement.

I also noticed that the film edge beyond the image is visible on my contact sheets- not paper black, as it should be (hence my judgement problem of "almost black" vs "pure black" during my testing. I obviously underestimated my proper proof time a bit, but the problem is too dramatic in the blacks to be attributed only to that. If I were to do it again, I'd have to make my own pure white and pure black paper chips made of the paper I'm using. The white chip in Bruce's kit is writing paper, and the "off-white" side is definitely not the same tone as zone 8 in the sample picture I'm looking at in this book.

I have read many books, and tried a number of techniques. Bruce's is simple, and many people have told me how simple the testing process is. It seems absolutely kindergarten to me in theory. I'm not a stupid person, yet this testing elude me and make me feel like a complete idiot.

Anyway, the point is that when I look through various books of photos, I see detail in the areas darker and lighter than the shade chips in AA's own book for zones 3 and 8 respectively. As an exercise, I go through books "placing" areas of the photo on zones and comparing to a zone chart. Hence my question for this thread. It really has nothing to do with my own photos, other than how I'm not getting what I've expected. I just think my visualization of what zones 3 and 8 are, have been inaccurate. I'm maybe confusing "noticeable detail" (zones 2 and 9) with "useful, informative detail that you don't have to look really closely at to see" (zones 3 and 8).

Tim

JBrunner said:

Shoot a neg 1/3 over and develop for double your normal time. This will tell you what you need to know in an instant. You are most likely right, and the you are over rating your film speed.

If you get a neg that really pops the way you want from doing this, you might want to re-examine your baseline.

Check your safe light situation as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jason- I'm almost certain my safelight isn't completely safe, but it is very dim, and I have it pointing away from the paper (it's on a swivel mount) or the paper facing away from it as much as possible when the paper is out.

I'm not sure what to make of your other advice though.

Tim

df cardwell said:

Ansel hammered the Visualisation part of the ZS, and we want to skate right past it.

Often, we get the densitometry perfect, but aren't visualising properly.

<snip>

Click to expand...

Hi,
Very nicely put, and applicable to so many things (besides tonality) that help to construct interesting images.
Celac

My first thought after reading your post is that you don't even really know what a zone is. Otherwise, why would you be surprised that a zone III looks like, well, a zone III, or that a zone VIII looks like, well, a zone VIII? You have to go back and read over and over until you get it. This is a huge problem among many so-called zone system users. They have supposedly fully embraced the zone system, but they don't even know what a zone is. If you are always placing your shadows on III and your highlights on VIII, you miss the entire point of the Zone System. It is not some technical exercise to give you someone else's idealized perfect negative and perfect print. It is not there to give you a "safe" negative with detail in the blacks and the whites. It is a highly subjective artistic tool that lets you craft the negative that will allow you to most easily make the print you envision. I place things, or let them fall, on Zones 0, I, and II all the time, because that's where I want them. I let highlights fall on, or develop to, Zones IX and X, and what would be beyond X, all the time, because that's where I want them. You absolutely cannot make any good use of the zone system unless you have the ability to see your final print before you even set up the camera. So, get to visualizin', then expose and develop however the heck you want, free from guides and rules. If you aren't already visualizing, how on Earth have you spent two years using the zone system? Or, rather, *why* on Earth have you? Why would you even want to use the zone system in the first place if it is not to be used as a tool in your hands? *You* manipulate the tools, not the other way around. It is there to help those who visualize first and ask questions later achieve what they want. It is not there to tell any old Joe Photographer how to expose and develop every picture "correctly". The use of the zone system absolutely requires you to commit to artistic decisions. Period. Or else it is useless.

BTW, I was so busy ranting, I forgot to mention the technically obvious: If you are exposing and developing in such a way that your thinnest part of the neg. prints to a zone III and your thickest part of the neg. prints to a zone VIII with normal printing on a grade 2 paper, you would theoretically need a grade 5 paper to achieve a full-scale print.

Here, read this short article. Maybe it will change your outlook.

Dead Link Removed

Sometimes we end up so involve with the technical side that we forget why we're doing what we're doing.

You don't need a kit. The Nine Negative Test will pinpoint your EI and development times so close you will wonder why you haven't done it before. It is all done visually and needs no densitometer readings. Additionally it pinpoints it for the paper on which you are printing.
Cost? 9 sheets of film and 2 sheets of your favorite enlarging paper.

Click to expand...

I remember how thick the reading, without computers, the early AA books on the Zone System were. Fred Picker came along and that was a great help. It took longer than it should have but when you work alone in a communications blackout, no computers, it's difficult. I finally got it, but the variables of the equipment and with bathroom darkrooms it was still problematic. The Zone system demands a closely calibrated lifestyle.

At Brooks Institute of Photography one of the first assignments, I believe it was in Basic I, was the Nine Negative Test. It's a great way to get your arms around exposure and development. I'm surprised it's not mentioned more often.

I recommend Fred Pickers Zone system book and the Zone System Manual. If you are going to be a real Zone System user then you will want to read all of the books on the subject and distill your own Zone System from them.

Curt

I generally try to keep my important detail areas between III and VII for my B&W neg film. I know I will have detail at Zone II and Zone VIII. But my important detail will definitely be kept. Now I don't try to limit my complete contrast range to within a few zones because I love shooting high contrast subject and I know some of the image area will fall outside of the III-VII range.

2F/2F said:

My first thought after reading your post is that you don't even really know what a zone is. Otherwise, why would you be surprised that a zone III looks like, well, a zone III, or that a zone VIII looks like, well, a zone VIII? You have to go back and read over and over until you get it. This is a huge problem among many so-called zone system users. They have supposedly fully embraced the zone system, but they don't even know what a zone is. If you are always placing your shadows on III and your highlights on VIII, you miss the entire point of the Zone System. It is not some technical exercise to give you someone else's idealized perfect negative and perfect print. It is not there to give you a "safe" negative with detail in the blacks and the whites. It is a highly subjective artistic tool that lets you craft the negative that will allow you to most easily make the print you envision. I place things, or let them fall, on Zones 0, I, and II all the time, because that's where I want them. I let highlights fall on, or develop to, Zones IX and X, and what would be beyond X, all the time, because that's where I want them. You absolutely cannot make any good use of the zone system unless you have the ability to see your final print before you even set up the camera. So, get to visualizin', then expose and develop however the heck you want, free from guides and rules. If you aren't already visualizing, how on Earth have you spent two years using the zone system? Or, rather, *why* on Earth have you? Why would you even want to use the zone system in the first place if it is not to be used as a tool in your hands? *You* manipulate the tools, not the other way around. It is there to help those who visualize first and ask questions later achieve what they want. It is not there to tell any old Joe Photographer how to expose and develop every picture "correctly". The use of the zone system absolutely requires you to commit to artistic decisions. Period. Or else it is useless.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty confident I know what a zone is, and understand the system. I do admit to a misconception as to what the detailed ends of the III to VIII may look like in the final photo.

I have been "using" the system for 2 years without having perfected it because it's a hobby and I have a full time job, wife, and new baby. So time to spend on this stuff can come in spurts with weeks in between. I should have made it more clear that I am trying to "learn" the zone system. I am trying to learn to walk (getting the mechanics of the "tool" down) so I can eventually run with it- manipulate the tool in order to make artistic decisions.
I'm not always just "placing shadows on 3 and highlights on 8" like an unthinking automaton, but when I have a "normal" scene, and want to use it as a test negative, that's exactly what I do. For me with this purpose in mind, it *is* a technical exercise. From the tone of your post, I'm not sure if you don't like zone system users or if you're a hard core "zonie" and offended that I am not proficient in it, and calling myself a zone system user.

Again, my testing and (mis)use of the zone system is not the main observation I'm trying to make (although it was a part of my initial question and the two are entangled)- I reiterate: I can only go by the zone scales I have in my books, but I am seeing that many photos have detail in areas darker than the traditional zone 3 and lighter than the traditional zone 8 according to the scales in my books and am wondering if this is generally the case. Christopher Walrath has stated he has some (but not important) detail in zone 2 (thanks for your reply, BTW- finally some acknowledgment that I'm not completely off- base), and df cardwell has pointed out that it can be difficult to keep what zone 8 is exactly in our heads. I'm simply trying to learn exactly what zones 3 and 8 look like in a print so I can take that back to my learning of the zone system, because so far they've been more theoretical to me than practical, and not what I would interpret them as when looking at the print of a master photographer. A perfect example is Huntington Witherill's "Reflections, Badwater, Death Valley 1979", page 56 of "Orchestrating Icons". I see detail in the upper downsloping hill, but this large triangular area is considerably darker than what the zone 3 tone is on my tonal scale in Schafer's book, and in my contact prints where I have placed the shadows with detail on zone 3. It *is* however, where I would have imagined zone 3 to lie on a tonal scale according to the adage of "darkest area you want to keep detail". Maybe the tonal scale in Schafer's book is inaccurate, and this is just a bunch of blithering.....

Regarding my opinion of my flat negatives, after an informative reply from the author of one of the books of photos I own, I realize that not all negs will look great on a grade 2 paper, which is how I contact print my proofs. Maybe they will start to shine a bit more on a 3, or maybe even a 4.

Thanks again everybody for your replies,
Tim

Opinion: There's WAY too much hype and 'mystery' surrounding the zone system. It ain't rocket science. And it's my opinion that there's no substantial reason to use it unless you print on graded paper! Just cut your film speed by 2/3 a stop and expose for shadow detail... and you can't really go wrong. It's all about the PRINT...! Your time will be FAR FAR better spent learning how to make images that please you, not trying to match your negative to an imaginary paper you will never buy (assuming you're using VC papers). If you're printing ONLY on G2 or G3 well, that's a different story.

The easiest way to get a good sweet spot is to place a Macbeth color checker in the image and shoot to get the best neutral scale and densities in the various colors. This is a quickie way that we used at Kodak.

If the neutral is centered with a white square and a black square, you have it nailed. If one or the other is gray, you are off. By white and black, I mean in the print itself.

PE

Visible detail and texture in a print is tied to tone. Zone III and zone VII are usually the last zones that show true detail...and they by no means look black or white. Zones II and VIII usually show texture, but no true detail. This is what you are seeing in those zone II areas. You could see that there was what looked like text on a page, but you could not read it. They do not look pure black or white either, but getting there. Zones I and IX pretty much look black and white, but not *quite*. They show no detail or texture, just a bit of tone. Zone 0 is as black as your paper can get, and zone X is how it looks when it has been developed after receiving no exposure.

There are 21 "zones" in a modern film, each one of which is spaced 0.15 (1/2 stop) apart. The zone system as we practice it here and as we discuss it, limits us to 7 zones out of the 21 possible zones.

So, the 7 zones we use are actually a sliding scale that can be moved up and down the film scale based on how straight the line of the films characteristic curve actually is. And the reason for 7 is that the average print can only print 7 due to the limits of the reflective material.

PE

If I may add one more thing to the discussion relating to 2F/2F's statement:

It is a highly subjective artistic tool that lets you craft the negative that will allow you to most easily make the print you envision.

Click to expand...

A tremendous eye opener for me was AA's book "Examples." Seeing his 'straight prints' before any printing manipulation many of them look pretty flat and boring. I never realized the extent of his printing interpretation until I read that book. I don't think he made any final 'straight' prints from any of his negatives.

Tim, reading all you wrote here, I think you are mistaken zones 2 and 3, and zones 7 and 8. So, here are some basics, with emphasis on what I think are your confusions:

On a normal contrast light (5 stops between the full detailed shadows and highlights in the real scene):
- zones 3 and 7 show full detail in the negative as in the print,
- zones 2 and 8 show average detail in the negative and low detail in the print (but some detail is still there!),
- zones 1 and 9 show low detail in the negative and black and white in the print,
- while zones 0 and 10 show black and white in the negative too.
Films read from 0 to 10, while papers read only from 1 to 9.

Now, how to guess where to look for the full detail in shadow and highlights? You should first distinguish between normal, lower, low, higher, and high contrast with your naked eyes, without a light meter. Only after that, you'll be able to chose what readings to take, to compare them, to visualize the scene, and finally chose what to place in the zones 3 and 7 (not 8). While enlarging, you can flash the paper to increase the detail in zone 8, if this is what you want or need. These recommendations do not apply to portraiture, of course.

Thank you everybody- all of these posts have been very helpful. I have a much better idea on how I should be visualizing a scene with zone placements. Sean- I will look for that book- it sounds very helpful. 2F/2F and Phenix- your posts have verified in my mind what I'm finding, and where I was failing to visualize before. PE: I was going to do a large scale of what you suggest by placing a grey card in a scene, put a piece of white paper in the bright sun, and a black matt in deep shadow- I just have to wait for it to stop raining...

Tim