Making a Zone Ruler

Starting with Zone I planned -2.43 Log mcs

Zone 0 would be planned -.3 so -2.73 Log mcs = 0.0019 mcs

0.0019 mcs + 0.0056 flare = 0.0075 = -2.12

This is almost exactly Step 20

Zone 0 = Step 20
Zone I = Step 19

Starting again with Zone I planned -2.43 Log mcs

Zone II would be planned +.3 so -2.13 Log mcs = 0.0074 mcs + 0.0056 flare = 0.013 mcs = -1.89 Log mcs.

Zone II with flare, Print Reflection Density is 1.66

Step 18 Print Reflection Density is 1.64. Good enough.

Zone 0 = Step 20
Zone I = Step 19
Zone II = Step 18

Zone III would be planned +.3 so -1.83 Log mcs = 0.0148 mcs + 0.0056 flare = 0.0204 mcs = -1.69 Log mcs.

Zone III with flare, Print Reflection Density is 1.50

Step 17 Print Reflection Density is 1.52. Good enough.

Zone 0 = Step 20
Zone I = Step 19
Zone II = Step 18
Zone III = Step 17

Zone IV would be planned +.3 so -1.53 Log mcs = 0.0295 mcs + 0.0056 flare = 0.0351 mcs = -1.45 Log mcs.

Zone IV with flare, Print Reflection Density is 1.21

Step 15 Print Reflection Density is 1.19. Good enough.

Zone 0 = Step 20
Zone I = Step 19
Zone II = Step 18
Zone III = Step 17
Zone IV = Step 15

At this point, flare has stopped being significant. There are two steps between each one stop print Zone from here on out. So the rest of the series is two steps apart until you reach Zone X.

Stephen Benskin said:

Okay, I see what you've done. This is the print from the test negative. It took a minute to realize I wasn't looking at the paper curve. You're next step should be to plot the Zone densities on the paper curve.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I did. As I plotted several Zone densities, as I found they were very close to my actual Step densities, I felt confident that making Zone Rulers using my actual prints was appropriate.

If my plotted densities had been far away from the actual Step densities, I might have felt the need to re-print to get better sample patches. But the patches I had worked out well for the Zone Rulers.

Bill,

I think it's very valuable making Zone Rulers, especially for beginners learning to visualize print values. The fact that you point out, i.e., that the Zone Ruler steps are not even, but follow the combination film and paper curves, is something that really helped me when learning years ago.

BTW, I made rulers for most my different films and development schemes (at least N, N-1, N-2 and N+1). I followed the directions in the White, Zakia, Lorenz "New Zone System Manual," which doesn't require step wedges or densitometers (or plotting for that matter). For me, the strictly in-camera and visual approach worked well.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder said:

Bill,

I think it's very valuable making Zone Rulers, especially for beginners learning to visualize print values. The fact that you point out, i.e., that the Zone Ruler steps are not even, but follow the combination film and paper curves, is something that really helped me when learning years ago.

BTW, I made rulers for most my different films and development schemes (at least N, N-1, N-2 and N+1). I followed the directions in the White, Zakia, Lorenz "New Zone System Manual," which doesn't require step wedges or densitometers (or plotting for that matter). For me, the strictly in-camera and visual approach worked well.

Click to expand...

Bill incorporated flare into his ruler. From my perspective, he's attempting to correlate tone reproduction with the Zone System.

Doremus Scudder said:

Bill,

I think it's very valuable making Zone Rulers, especially for beginners learning to visualize print values.

...

BTW, I made rulers for most my different films and development schemes (at least N, N-1, N-2 and N+1).

Click to expand...

Hi Doremus,

I agree it's especially valuable for beginners, because the exercise really ties together what you are trying to achieve in a print.

I assembled an N+1 Zone Ruler since developing to 0.5 CI is a popular suggestion, I wanted to see what you get with that.


Zone Ruler 0.48 CI

Bill,

Looks to me like you've got an N-1 Zone Ruler there! (Not N+1... a typo?) And, yes, anyone using this together with their spot meter would easily see that they could get some highlight detail in a value that "fell" on Zone X by developing to this C.I.

Conversely, with an N+1 Zone Ruler, you would find that you'd be pretty much in "paper white" by Zone VIII (for me, just a hint of tone, since my N+1 Zone VIII corresponds to N Zone IX). What's interesting for me, in visualizing prints, is the distribution of tones between the extremes with contraction and expansion developments. Comparing Zones III through VII on your two Zone Rulers (N-1 on the left, N on the right) tells the tale. It's good to have that idea of how mid-tones distribute differently in your head when planning a shot (i.e., pretty much lower on the scale compared to normal for an N-1 development scheme; the opposite for N+1). Often, I'll intentionally choose a difficult negative to print just to get some of the mid-tones out of the mud when doing contractions.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus you're right... The ruler with Zone 0 through Zone XI is an N-1 ruler. I'm always making that gaffe. Lenny Eiger caught me on that same mistake when we were talking at a recent meetup...