I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: First I should shoot a few frames of a normal contrast scene (placing the values in their correct zones) at various EIs and look for the lowest exposure that gives me slight detail in zone 2 after developing the frames. I would determine whether zone 2 has detail by optically printing a contact sheet of the negatives at the lowest exposure that makes the film base black. From there, I would use the EI I determined to shoot another normal contrast scene, develop the negatives at different times, print contact sheets of the negatives, and choose the development time that gives slight detail in zone 8. This would give me the dev time and EI that leads to an 11 stop difference between pitch black and pure white. Let me know if this is right. Thank you.And, one stop of exposure difference does not equate to a fixed difference in negative density. The separation between exposures on the negatives in increments of one stop can be adjusted by development. More development = more separation; less development = less separation.
The task for those starting out is to:
1) find a personal E.I. that ensures proper shadow detail and
2) find a development time for "normal" that makes Zone VIII a detailed white when Zone III is printed as a detailed black.
My advice for those starting with the Zone System is to simply rate their film 2/3 stop slower than box speed to start with and forget the E.I. testing recommended by Ansel Adams and Co. This gets you really, really close because it basically compensates for the difference in metering inherent in the Zone System. Then just move on to the development tests for N.
Find a "normal" scene for testing, a real-life scene in which the the highlights you want to appear as textured whites fall in Zone VIII when you set your meter to expose a shadow as a textured black (you'll note there's some subjectivity here - no problem, just make decisions and go). Make three negatives of the scene and develop one at the manufacturer's recommended development time and the other two at 20% more and 20% less time.
Then, print them optically exposing so that your Zone III value prints as the textured black you want it to on an intermediate grade of paper (#2 or 2.5 filter). Then see how the textured whites look. Choose the best image and use that developing time for your N. Extrapolate an intermediate time if you need to. Being approximate here is not a problem.
Now, go out and make images. Keep good notes and print your good images. If you need to adjust your E.I. or development time from what you've determined, then go ahead and do that.
If you have scenes that need N+ or N- treatment you have a couple of choices. You can just develop normally and use the range of contrast control available to you with VC papers to take up the slack. Many here do just that. Or, you can find development times for N+ and N- as above: find a scene that needs N+1 expansion (the value you want as a textured white falls on Zone VII instead of VIII), make three negatives, develop them 10%, 20% and 30% more than N and go through the selection process. For N-1 find an appropriate scene (textured white falls on Zone IX instead of VIII) make three negatives and develop them 10%, 20% and 30% less than N. Similar procedures for N+2 and N-2, etc.
Or, do as I do. Develop your N+1 and N-1 negatives normally and use printing controls for contrast adjustments. For N+2 and N-2 negatives, I develop N+1 and N-1, respectively, and then print.
To address your questions more precisely: The range of printing paper depends on the contrast grade; higher grades/filtrations have less range and vice-versa. Your task with ZS calibration is to match negative density to an intermediate grade setting. Tweak development time to arrive at this, but don't be afraid to use other contrast settings when needed. Basic calibration just gets you in the ballpark; you still have creative decisions to make about contrast adjustments when printing.
Yes, condenser enlargers print with more contrast. The effect is like having a contrastier negative. The paper's dynamic range doesn't change, only the contrast from the enlarger is different. If you use a condenser enlarger, compensate for the extra contrast by reducing negative development time a bit so your N stays N.
The whole object of targeting an intermediate paper grade is so you have lots of leeway on either side for negatives that need more or less contrast to make a good print. Only if you are using a fixed grade paper that only comes in one grade do you need to be more precise and really make sure every negative will print well on that paper. Otherwise, embrace the imprecision a bit, especially to start with, and refine as you go.
Best,
Doremus
Right.I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: First I should shoot a few frames of a normal contrast scene (placing the values in their correct zones) at various EIs and look for the lowest exposure that gives me slight detail in zone 2 after developing the frames. I would determine whether zone 2 has detail by optically printing a contact sheet of the negatives at the lowest exposure that makes the film base black. From there, I would use the EI I determined to shoot another normal contrast scene, develop the negatives at different times, print contact sheets of the negatives, and choose the development time that gives slight detail in zone 8. This would give me the dev time and EI that leads to an 11 stop difference between pitch black and pure white. Let me know if this is right. Thank you.
I like this, Bill. It's a good way to introduce the concept.To reconcile the thought that paper has six stops of range and there are ten or eleven Zones in a normal scene…
You develop film to fifty or sixty percent… ...
My advice is that you should not try to learn the Zone System from Internet forums. Most people who offer advice don’t understand it themselves. Buy “The Negative” by Ansel Adams. Used copies are cheap and you will avoid conflicting advice and a lot of nonsense.
Like Bill advises, skip the film speed test. Set your E.I. at 2/3 stop slower than whatever speed the film says it is. ISO 400 speed film would be 250. ISO 100 speed film would be 64, etc. Forget the proper proof (printing so the film base is max black) for now too. What you want to do is find a developing time for "normal" scenes in which textured blacks are Zone III and textured whites are Zone VIII on the meter.I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: First I should shoot a few frames of a normal contrast scene (placing the values in their correct zones) at various EIs and look for the lowest exposure that gives me slight detail in zone 2 after developing the frames. I would determine whether zone 2 has detail by optically printing a contact sheet of the negatives at the lowest exposure that makes the film base black. From there, I would use the EI I determined to shoot another normal contrast scene, develop the negatives at different times, print contact sheets of the negatives, and choose the development time that gives slight detail in zone 8. This would give me the dev time and EI that leads to an 11 stop difference between pitch black and pure white. Let me know if this is right. Thank you.
Right.
You can take Doremus' advice to skip the film speed test and use a speed 2/3 stop lower than rated film speed, so if your film is 400, you may pick 250 and go to the next step.
You are welcome to perform that film speed test, it is wonderful learning experience. But film speeds are reliable with fresh modern film. And the 2/3 stop is Zone System metering difference from average metering.
I have found that in general, the ISO speeds of B&W films are too high. The "speed" is supposed to provide a good exposure for most circumstances. It was doubled in 1960, supposedly because negatives were too dense. I have a hunch that this may have been true because most cameras before 1960 used leaf shutters, the negatives were large, and contact-printed.
There were a number of reasons for the change, but the most important was the fact that most people were using smaller formats, in particular 135, and those smaller formats impose a much heavier quality penalty for over-exposed negatives.
The other major factor was the improvement of camera meters.
The net result of the change was an overall improvement of the quality of prints coming from photo labs and amateur users.
For the skilled professionals and advanced enthusiasts, who were capable of adjusting techniques to match their particular needs, they were most likely adjusting their exposure based on factors that matter to them.
In any event, I obtain better results using ISO speed, just as others prefer to use other settings.
Using the higher speeds prioritizes mid-tone and highlight rendition, which is much more important than shadow rendition when it comes to most images - particularly of people.
The ISO specification is based on evaluation of large numbers of prints, by large numbers of people.
It also gives better results for those who depend on labs for prints - and now scans - and far more people still get their results that way than by developing their own.
If your preference is for shadows, and you wish to apply your own controls, than of course you are free to increase exposure from the ISO targets.
Amen. Brother! Except I would not blame the manufacturers, but the ISO standard itself.I place a high priority on shadow values. Even in outdoor portraiture I've had to deal with significant contrast ranges between different ethnic complexions in the same shot, or drastic differences between the dark suit of a groom and the bright white dress of the bride. People don't want to see either extreme look blank and textureless if they're paying serious money for the print.
There a good reasons why experienced photographer don't trust labeled box speed on black on white film, and recommend starting with a lower rating. Unlike modern color films, I myself hold to the mantra, "Guilty until proven innocent", when in comes to black and white film speeds. A lot of them (certainly not all) seem over-optimistic, seemingly for sheer marketing reasons. That's why the traditional Zone System taught the importance of establishing your own "personal speed rating" for each respective film.
I always find it interesting when people complain about a standard that best serves the majority of film users, because their own use isn't well suited to it.
ISO speeds, when properly reported, are informative and useful and provide great results to most people, in the majority of circumstances.
If you have specialized knowledge and experience that allows you to obtain better results, using different speed numbers, in particular circumstances, you should feel free to do so.
I can do that, but usually the best way to do so is just to use the ISO number and apply an offset that suits the circumstances.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. Yes, that makes a lot more sense now. A final question:Like Bill advises, skip the film speed test. Set your E.I. at 2/3 stop slower than whatever speed the film says it is. ISO 400 speed film would be 250. ISO 100 speed film would be 64, etc. Forget the proper proof (printing so the film base is max black) for now too. What you want to do is find a developing time for "normal" scenes in which textured blacks are Zone III and textured whites are Zone VIII on the meter.
Before you go to the next step you need to differentiate between "placing" a value and where a value "falls." You meter a shadow that you want to be rendered a textured black in the print and "place" it in Zone III. This is the value that you will base your exposure on. Once you find the right exposure for the shadow value placed where you want it, you have your exposure setting. You only need to check the highlight to see what development you need. Since you're testing "normal" (N), you need to find a scene in which a value you want as a textured white naturally "falls" in Zone VIII. Sometimes you have to look a while for a scene with this distribution of luminances.
On to the actual test: Find your Zone III shadow; the one you want to be textured black in the print. Meter it and then "place" it in Zone III by setting your meter dial to overexpose it two stops from the suggested exposure (which is Zone V). Example: if your meter says f/22 at 1/30 sec., your Zone III exposure would be f/22 at 1/8 sec.
Set your meter dial at that Zone III exposure and leave it there. Next meter the highlight value you want to be a textured white. If you have a "normal" scene (which is what you want for testing N development times!), a highlight that you want rendered a textured white should "fall" on Zone VIII, which in this case is five stops less exposure that what your meter dial is set at, or something like f/22 at 1/250 sec. So meter that highlight and see what the meter says. If it doesn't read close to that, then you don't have a "normal" scene; go find another oneMaybe you'll have to wait for the sun to come out or whatever.
Then, develop your negatives for the recommended time and 20% more and less. One of the resulting negatives should be close. To check, though, don't make a proper proof, but rather print the negatives so that the Zone III shadow is how you want it to look. Choose the print in which the Zone VIII highlight is a textured white. One of the negatives should be close. If you have one print with the highlight too light and another with the highlight too dark, then extrapolate the intermediate time. That will get you close enough to begin making fine prints.
Don't worry about testing for N+ and N- times till you have normal (N) nailed down. Normal scenes are found on regular sunny days where you have open shadows and sunlit highlights as long as the lighting isn't too harsh.
As far as "proper proofs" go: I find them useful to keep tabs on my exposure and development. Do make some of these, but be aware that maximum black is relative to lighting used for viewing, etc., etc. The danger is to want to make the film rebate too dark resulting in thinking you need to slow your film way, way down. If you do that E.I. test and you find your best E.I. is two or three stops slower than box speed, you're likely making the proper proof wrong.
Does that make sense now?
Doremus
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?