N for midtones

hello. this post is based around the 'expose for shadows, develop for highlights' rule. is there a way to use the N development or highlights to find the proper development for midtones? for example, if you have to areas of a scene, one area is exposed for a zone VII, the other a zone V, the N development that propperly develops the zone VII highlight may not be enough to get the zone V exposure to zone V. because, just as shadows aren't effected so much by development, perhaps midtones are slightly less effected than highlights by development. and as the N development is for highlights, can you somehow use that info to find the developmet for accurate midtones, or do you just have to experiment more? if you need clarification on my post, just let me know. thanks

27 April 2006

My experience in 35 mm and LF has been that more experimentation is the way of finding the proper development time to gain density in Zone V. You could use the Kodak "development time computer" (or like device) from the "Darkroom Data Guide" to estimate the extra development needed. Unfortunately added development will also add density to Zone VII.

I wonder of development with dilute developer for long periods of time might help.

Regards,
Darwin

drpsilver said:

27 April 2006

My experience in 35 mm and LF has been that more experimentation is the way of finding the proper development time to gain density in Zone V. You could use the Kodak "development time computer" (or like device) from the "Darkroom Data Guide" to estimate the extra development needed. Unfortunately added development will also add density to Zone VII.

I wonder of development with dilute developer for long periods of time might help.

Regards,
Darwin

Click to expand...

If you can identify Zone III in the scene, wherein lie the darkest detailed shadows, you can set your meter for 2 stops higher film speed (say 1600 for ISO 400 film) and use what the meter's calculator says when you aim it at Zone III. The way you develop the film then depends on where in the scene you see Zone VIII, significant highlights. Normally it will be about 5 f-stops brighter. If so, develop normally. If it is brighter, develop less.

If I understand your question, you are trying to arrange for a certain midtone negative density and are wondering if that would allow you to let the shadows fall where they will and the highlights be determined by development.

Yes that could be done. It does in fact have certain merit in some applications. This could conceivable allow one to have higher local contrast in the midtones to highlights and the shadows would possible be empty of details. This could allow prints that represented in some ways by the work of Brett Weston...if you are not familiar with his abstract images, I encourage you to view them. They are available online.

A shortcoming that exists in both the Zone System and BTZS is that they are based on shadow detail for exposure. That is not a problem for most photographers because that is what we strive for. However it limits local contrast density on the camera negative by virtue of the fact that local density information must reside within the constraints of overall contrast. For some photographers that works out to be consistant with their desired results...for others it is too limiting in application.

Donald Miller said:

If I understand your question, you are trying to arrange for a certain midtone negative density and are wondering if that would allow you to let the shadows fall where they will and the highlights be determined by development.

Yes that could be done. It does in fact have certain merit in some applications. This could conceivable allow one to have higher local contrast in the midtones to highlights and the shadows would possible be empty of details. This could allow prints that represented in some ways by the work of Brett Weston...if you are not familiar with his abstract images, I encourage you to view them. They are available online.

A shortcoming that exists in both the Zone System and BTZS is that they are based on shadow detail for exposure. That is not a problem for most photographers because that is what we strive for. However it limits local contrast density on the camera negative by virtue of the fact that local density information must reside within the constraints of overall contrast. For some photographers that works out to be consistant with their desired results...for others it is too limiting in application.

Click to expand...

Surely, if you let yourself be hog tied by the system. I don't think Adams meant it to be that way. He likened the scene to a musical scale because he was first a musician, and a damned fine one at that. If he had been a singer or an oboe player, he would have sung the praises of slight, planned, deviations from absolute pitch, which I'm sure he admired in musicians who had that part of phrasing at their disposal. When you try to make believe that every part of a creative process is subject to some law, you may have pictures that have everything but the song.

But I'm a singing, oboe playing engineering son of a singing Doctor of Philosophy and Philology of English. What do I know?

ElectricLadyland said:

..... is there a way to use the N development or highlights to find the proper development for midtones? .....

Click to expand...

Yep. It is easy-peasy.

Using contemporary tools and materials, we have certain advantages over previous photographers.

I use an incident meter for most of my portraiture ( which is about 80% of my work ) for the simple reason I want faces to fall where they naturally fall.

( I DO use a spot meter to check the background... but it isn't THAT hard ! )

With certain developers and films, we can get box film speed, a long straight line ( density proportional to exposure ) and a splendid balance of all the other virtues.

Using Kodak's XTOL and TMY, you can simply expose for Zone V or VI, and adjust the development to give you the density you want. Chances are, it will be very close to Kodak's .58 CI suggestion. Since the combination of film and developer does not produce funny dips and dives in the curve, you can literally expose for ANYTHING and get everything else to fall where it can be retrieved later.

For the record, this combination yields a straight line from .15 to 2.3.

In normal use, with a camera with an electronic shutter like my Nikon F5, it is no big deal to make negatives with routine precision beyond Ansel's wildest dreams.

Other developers that make life easy include Aculux 2 from Paterson, and Ilford's DDX. Films such as FP4, Tri X, Plus X, Delta 100.... perform quite similarly.

Of course, you COULD spend a lot of time tinkering. But Kodak's Xtol data is wonderfully good and will bring you to the starting line very quickly, and you can expose for Zone V reliably and cheerfully.
.

The problem with old sayings like "expose for shadows, develop for highlights" is that they are gross over-simplifications of complex sets of variables. As such, they need to be interpreted within the context of a defined set of those variables to make much sense.

That said, if you (reflective) meter a shadow area in a typically-lit scene that you want to be Zone III, and close down two stops to place it at Zone III, Zone V and Zone VII will take care of themselves with "normal" development. That's because the scene brightness range (Zones III to VII), or "contrast", is "normal" and well within the tonal range of most films.

That explanation, too, is somewhat of an over-simplification, however, because it ignores the quality of the light illuminating the scene. If the lighting is "flat" the midtones will also be "flat" - lacking in texture or micro-contrast (the tiny little shadows and highlights created by surface texture in the subject with more specular lighting). It also ignores the effect of the printing process, and the response curve of the paper (and process), on the final output. It's best to consider all of these variables in the overall workflow in order to achieve the results you're looking for in the final print (or, back-lighted or projected transparency).

gainer said:

Surely, if you let yourself be hog tied by the system. I don't think Adams meant it to be that way. He likened the scene to a musical scale because he was first a musician, and a damned fine one at that. If he had been a singer or an oboe player, he would have sung the praises of slight, planned, deviations from absolute pitch, which I'm sure he admired in musicians who had that part of phrasing at their disposal. When you try to make believe that every part of a creative process is subject to some law, you may have pictures that have everything but the song.

But I'm a singing, oboe playing engineering son of a singing Doctor of Philosophy and Philology of English. What do I know?

Click to expand...

Patrick, I am really unsure how to interpert your post and the tone of what you said. I made no directed comments to you, as you will note. Yet, you seem to have a propensity to take offense where none is intended. I did not address any system at the exclusion of others.

The last time that you took offense over something that I said, you will recall that you tried to impress me with your engineering capablilities at NASA (I believe it was) and I told you at that time that reference was not germane to the discussion at hand. In other words it really didn't serve to impress me very much. I hate to tell you this but your reference to music in your directed comments seems to have the same effect upon me.

I suggest that you reread what I stated and then you might think about the tone of your directed comments. Just a suggestion, mind you.

Donald Miller said:

Patrick, I am really unsure how to interpert your post and the tone of what you said. I made no directed comments to you, as you will note. Yet, you seem to have a propensity to take offense where none is intended. I did not address any system at the exclusion of others.

The last time that you took offense over something that I said, you will recall that you tried to impress me with your engineering capablilities at NASA (I believe it was) and I told you at that time that reference was not germane to the discussion at hand. In other words it really didn't serve to impress me very much. I hate to tell you this but your reference to music in your directed comments seems to have the same effect upon me.

I suggest that you reread what I stated and then you might think about the tone of your directed comments. Just a suggestion, mind you.

Click to expand...

"Tone of my comments"--That's a good one. The tone you hear is in your ear, not my voice.

I am blessed with short term memory loss, so don't remember that I ever tried to demean you. I usually say what I think is true, unless in the manner of a story teller using fiction to make a point. I wasn't careful enough in my choice of pronouns. I tend to use "you" when I should have said "one" or "we". Hell, I didn't even think I was taking offense. I was just saying what I have noticed quite often, that technical excellence is an end rather than a means, and that I don't think that was Adams' motivation. Any musician who has a soul learns to "bend" a tune with whatever facilities his instrument will allow. The notes on the page are the framework around which the music is wrapped. When the framework shows through too obviously, we in the audience remark "What a marvelous technician" and avoid future performances. Are you saying there are not parallels in photography?

I don't really care who, if anyone, is impressed by what I have done. Stating my past and present occupations only lets people know my background and maybe a little about what to expect. If I am an ignoramus in some fields, so is everyone else in the world. So what?

If I take the side of one who thinks the Zone System has been carried much farther than need be in the direction of control, I am not alone. Wynne Bullock expressed a similar opinion.