Higher silver content.

[Vaughn]

All just to say, sometimes 13 or 14 stops of light is fun to play with.

Thirteen stops difference in this scene...possibly more as the meter only read down to 0. Just slight less than normal development (5x7/210mm lens), Carbon print, camera negative, straight print (no burning/dodging).

So what I am saying is Zone -I would be the darkest in the cave roof that are pure black (and smooth). Some of that black area corresponds to no silver on the negative and are smooth. Some areas are equally black but correspond to thin areas of the negative that still have image within them. The detail in these areas read as equally black sharp relief within the areas of smooth black. This detail is seen as light reflects off the relief when viewing the print...not by differences in tonalities

PS...I could have used another stop equivilent of exposure or so for the top of the image...but it still looks like a cave.

 

[koraks]

I know what you mean, Vaughn, I do carbon transfer (within the limitations of my abilities), so I'm aware of what you're talking about. But zone 0 is the absolute threshold under which nothing changes anymore on the print.

I can get a visible image in relief (not in tonal difference) that is formed by light after exposing with enough light to get to Zone 0.

Nooo.....you get shadow separation by whatever means until there's nothing to separate anymore (you've exposed virtually all the way through your tissue so that it will only *just* transfer anymore) and THEN you've hit zone 0 for your process. Below that is nothing, it's the abyss, a black hole that we can't even define as black anymore, etc. A theoretical non-entity. There's no zone -I, there's no zone XI. You can keep saying "but these amps go to eleven" - it's still just painting a different number over the one Marshall put there.

Of course, you could invent zone -I if you wanted, in which case I'd recommend writing a trilogy of books, lecture on the topic and work your way towards a situation where we've collectively changed what we now call zone 0 to what you will call zone -I.

It's a bit of a silly discussion and frankly, I don't like it, because on my side of the argument it's just a definition that you nor I have much influence on, and on your side of the argument is the in itself nice phenomenon of making detail without adding visible pigment density. By calling it 'zone -I' you're in my opinion doing that interesting feat a disservice because it's unnecessarily confusing, results in semantic silliness and doesn't help anyone make better prints or appreciate them more.

So my proposal is to keep it at this; I've seen a 'zone XI' discussion develop between two friends of mine and it didn't really go anywhere. I get both their positions. I get your position as well; no need to explain it, I already understood it the first time round.

 

[Vaughn]

I know what you mean, Vaughn, I do carbon transfer (within the limitations of my abilities), so I'm aware of what you're talking about. But zone 0 is the absolute threshold under which nothing changes anymore on the print...

That is why I invented it. Who would confuse a minus Zone with AA?

How do you describe the exposure difference seen in a shadow of a carbon print that is equally black all over, but some areas are smooth black (like a silver gelatin print) but some parts are textured by raised relief that is part of the scene? It is almost unique in photographic processes...and in the way some people make carbon prints. Not everyone wants a lot of raised relief in their carbon prints, and some want none. My carbons have a lot of relief.

If my negative goes from clear areas (Zone 0) to 10 stops in density and I expose to print Zone V of the neg down to Zone IV on the print, then I believe that would have me printing what was in Zone II on the neg to Zone I...Zone I falls to Zone 0...and the clear area on the film (Zone 0) prints as "Zone -I". That's the math(s). There is no visual difference in how dark the print is between Zone 0 and my pseudoZone -1...but there is a difference in the amount of exposure that creates the image-forming relief that is visibly different between the two 'zones'.

I have just not seen a word to decribe the phenomenon, so I have made one up.

And I explain more fully not for you, but for me, and for anyone foolish enough to want to entertain a different way of looking at something. After 9000 posts, I like to shake a couple brain mothballs and spider webs occasionally. Think about it...speakers are designed to create wavelengths we cannot hear...only feel. Why limit a phototgraph to just what one can see? Is there something to feel in those darkest shadows?

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Totally brilliant discussion all around. Thanks, everybody.

 

[koraks]

And I explain more fully not for you, but for me

Gotcha, say no more

And I see what you mean, I really do. I'd still call your dmax-without-relief zone 0 and dmax-with-relief zone I because there's differentiation. You choose to place it outside the scale because this differentiation occurs on another dimension. I choose to integrate it into the existing scale because I feel it's still part of the same print and discern with the same human senses.

One thing you did achieve is that from now on when you speak of zone -I in one of your prints, you'll be obliged to send me this print so I can put it on my wall for further analysis. I assume we've got an understanding of this, no?

 

[Vaughn]

Both areas are equally black...Zone I is usually a stop lighter that Zone 0, is it not?

I agree...relief and tonality do not fit into the zone terminology very well.

All I know is that my Zone 0 has detail (in the form or relief), yet is pure black. And if I give it another stop of light, (taking it to Zone -I) it stays black and gets more relief detail.

 

[koraks]

Definitions, terms and semantics, Vaughn. Whether you call it zone 0, -I or zetaxylos, I'd love to have a closer look at your prints exhibiting them. We could even refrain from the zone talk if this materializes

 

[alanrockwood]

Check out Dr. Richard Henry's book, "Controls in Black and White Photography" where he examines the common belief in photography that more silver in photo paper produces blacker blacks. It doesn't -- so it won't in film either.

And more silver won't produce finer grain either. That depends on the size of the silver crystals.

There are a lot of beliefs in photography that are pure myth. Henry's book explores many of them, but there are still plenty of them left to go around. The point of his book is that you should run some simple tests yourself before accepting anything as photographic "gospel" -- even if it make superficial sense, such as more silver means blacker blacks.

I have a copy of the second edition of Richard Henry's book. It is excellent.

Something less widely known in the photography world is that Richard Henry was a very prominent clinical chemist prior to his retirement.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have a copy of the second edition of Richard Henry's book. It is excellent.

Henry's book is one of the few general guides in black & white photography that allows for an easy and straightforward recommendation.

 

[miha]

No wonder people talk about silver... from the horse's mouth (ILFORDPHOTO web):

 

[AgX]

First this is marketing speak too, as to argue why there are two price levels. Secondly one must be careful not to mix apples and oranges. A manufacturer tries to reduce silver content as much as possible. Thus when a still satisfying imaging level is reached by this means, further reduction of silver content most likely means going beyond this level. Thus the more expensive films not necessarily are "silver-rich", but just contain somewhat more silver.
On the other hand at least theoretically those means may be costly too to an extent that one keeps the low silver content for all comparable films but saves on those means.

 

[miha]

My point was Ilford say less silver = less quality, Adox say the same. Ex Kodak employees say to the contrary. I think I understand the logic behind in both cases, however I might be wrong and so can be 1000+ posters that argue over this very same premise.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I have a copy of the second edition of Richard Henry's book. It is excellent.

Something less widely known in the photography world is that Richard Henry was a very prominent clinical chemist prior to his retirement.

Ditto, one of the best books on the technical side of B&W - a lot easier on the grey matter than trying to wade through Mees & Co..

Feel a kinship on the clinical chemistry side. My consulting firm developed/concepted/trouble-shot clinical chemistry analyzers for (I'm a shameless name-dropper) Boehringer-Mannheim/Roche Diagnostics, YSI, Abbot Labs & Becton-Dickinson. Our other major client was nuArc. Go figure.

 

[AgX]

My point was Ilford say less silver = less quality, Adox say the same. Ex Kodak employees say to the contrary. I think I understand the logic behind in both cases, however I might be wrong and so can be 1000+ posters that argue over this very same premise.

It depends on what emulsions you are comparing to each other...

If you take an old style emulsion, and compare it to a modern one trimmed for high silver-effcieny at lower silver content the image quality/yield may not have suffered. If you reduce, for costs, the silver content at the latter further, it will be reduced.

On the other side, if one needs extreme high density, then a higher than normal silver content will be necessary. But in such case due to the special characteristics of such fim it may be paid more for, by a niche clientele.

 

[koraks]

My point was Ilford say less silver = less quality

Which is not to say that it's correct. Kentmere films contain less silver than HP5+ and FP4+, apparently, but I'm betting a good bottle of wine that for instance TMAX100 also contains less silver. Is that film worse in terms of quality than let's say FP4+? Let's not go there, perhaps, but I'll wager to say that no, it isn't any worse.

Moreover, silver content is an easy thing to flog to the general public as being 'good'. The reasons why Kentmere films are supposedly lesser quality than Ilford's offering likely has to do with all kinds of factors, silver content being only one of them, and one that cannot be isolated from the rest of the emulsion formulation. By stating it the way they do above, all they show is that they looked for an easy way to argue that Ilford branded films are worth their premium. Arguing that on the basis of more nuances emulsion differences, or let alone aesthetic qualities, would take a lot longer story, a lot more background knowledge on the part of the receiver (the general public) and hence would overall be not so effective in a sales pitch.

Long story short: don't mistake a sales pitch for a technical assessment. The two are only tangentially related.

 

[miha]

Which is not to say that it's correct.

My point exactly. Talk to Ilford, not to me.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, I see your point. They're as much part of it as the 1000 other posters.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

View attachment 316333

FWIW Ilford HP5+ produces much better slides than Kentmere Pan 400 in my experience. Dr5 also confirm that DMax and EI range of Kentmere 400 is much worse than that of HP5+ in their proprietary reversal process.

 

[Lachlan Young]

My point was Ilford say less silver = less quality, Adox say the same. Ex Kodak employees say to the contrary. I think I understand the logic behind in both cases, however I might be wrong and so can be 1000+ posters that argue over this very same premise.

No, Kodak did pretty extensive research into how low a silver level would start to visually impact on the outcome - the point is that all know there is a threshold above which more silver makes no difference for neg use - and a higher level if you are trying to reversal process the emulsion. However, Kodak has sensitising technology that enables better sensitisation of more of the silver in a given emulsion set - thus allowing 400 speed out of an emulsion that otherwise has the sharpness, resolution, image content/ transmission capacity of a 100 speed emulsion (and the silver content of a 100 speed emulsion - the GSM coating weight difference of silver between 100 and 400 speed emulsions is much less than to an emulsion that would be noticeably deficient in silver) - and the chemicals used are likely far costlier than the quite small silver level difference. The problem is not silver levels but tone curve/ image colour outcomes and a willed lack of consumer awareness about the complexity of this - and 3rd party marketing people who ruthlessly push their opinions ahead of the science in search of paying off their outlay on toll coated materials sitting ageing in a warehouse.

 

[Lachlan Young]

FWIW Ilford HP5+ produces much better slides than Kentmere Pan 400 in my experience. Dr5 also confirm that DMax and EI range of Kentmere 400 is much worse than that of HP5+ in their proprietary reversal process.

Unless the process is fully disclosed and you know the structures of both emulsion sets are absolutely identical, the more likely conclusions are that the emulsion structure (ie impact of First Developer on accessing and developing all the silver without accidental monobath effects) and tone curves are going to play a much greater role on the outcomes than silver level.

 

[miha]

The problem is not silver levels but tone curve/ image colour outcomes and a willed lack of consumer awareness about the complexity of this - and 3rd party marketing people who ruthlessly push their opinions ahead of the science in search of paying off their outlay on toll coated materials sitting ageing in a warehouse.

True. So did you talk to Harman?

 

[MattKing]

True. So did you talk to Harman?

I've an enquiry in with them, but await a response.
I find it interesting that the "lower silver" comment is in the part of the site addressed to "new" photographers choosing their first film, but not in the main information on the films themselves.

 

[jnk]

Just because something is "technically" better doesn't make it better for every purpose. Frankly older films had more life and better tonality. You can see it. Look at Tri-X for example. It kept getting "improved" to the point where it doesn't look anywhere near the same as it used to. Some people think that is a good thing, but in today's world I'd argue it isn't really.

Seems to me by limiting silver and also thinning the emulsion films have become rather generic and digital looking. I wish someone would rewind the clock and make a film that was more malleable, like old films used to be. If I want grainless I can just use a digital camera, which at this point has eclipsed film for "grainless" purposes.

SURENDER DOROTHY
––– DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!

digital is right !
if I wanted a digital image' I'd use a phone

 

[miha]

I've an enquiry in with them, but await a response.
I find it interesting that the "lower silver" comment is in the part of the site addressed to "new" photographers choosing their first film, but not in the main information on the films themselves.

Indeed. They don't even make such distinction with their papers. I'm mean they still offer Kentmere RC paper. Slightly cheaper too. I guess it sells well otherwise they would cut it off. Please keep us posted.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

They don't even make such distinction with their papers. I'm mean they still offer Kentmere RC paper.

That's because all papers have more or less the same DMax and one being silver rich than the other makes no real sense. On the contrary, different films have different DMax.