Need some help with the Zone System

[DREW WILEY]

No "compromise" about it. If you don't get enough shadow gradation using box speed, then you need to boost the exposure further up onto the straight line section of the curve by either rating it at a lower speed or otherwise adjusting for more exposure. And that doesn't mean your personal instrumentation is off. Not all films are the same; and what a manufacturer thinks is the best rating for the masses might not be ideal for either you or I personally, depending on how we print, and our own expectations. With medium-toe and longer toe panchromatic films, I always cut the speed in half to begin testing, as bracket upwards from there on my initial tests. And to this day, I mainly expose even films like FP4, Delta 100, Pan F, Acros, and most others at half box speed; and it sure as heck isn't because either my meters (plural - all precisely matched) or metering technique is off. I only use box speed with films have a longer straight line way down into the toe, like TMax 100 and 400 and the former Bergger 200 and Super-XX 200. Otherwise, I'd be outright throwing my money away buying film.

 

[Bill Burk]

The standard is fine!

It’s the index to it that you should take personally.

If you hear rumors that the film you use fails to meet its speed claim you can pay attention to the stories and figure out how to deal with it.

But the normal films from reputable (Kodak and Ilford) manufacturers meet the standards they mention on the box.

The weird films (like their near infrared or films they call 3200) will have weasel words like “in a manner similar to that described by ISO…” Those films play by different rules.

But for a normal film, trust the ASA/ISO is correct and come up with a personal index to it.

My favorite index is 2/3 stop less than rated speed. I know the rated speed is correct, and I know I get better shadows when given slightly more exposure than “the least which is enough”.

The standards aim for the least which is enough to make an excellent print in the darkroom.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Yes, that makes a lot more sense now. A final question:
These tests will create a "personalised" development time and EI for the film/developer/enlarger combination you tested with. But does the brand of VC paper you choose have a significant effect on the final print, given that you use the same filter? Similarly, is the type of paper developer that important? Again, thanks for the response.

You’re going to use your brand of paper to test. Some would say changing brands you have to start over, but that’s a little harsh and frankly if you got excellent prints with one brand, you’ll get excellent prints with another.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's no substitute for actual experience. You can't think all this out in advance. The most you can do up front is try to get your negatives properly enough exposed and developed so that they can be used on a variety of papers. Some people stick with a single film and paper as long as those are around; I work with a variety of both, even in a single darkroom session. With experience, it all gets intuitive. Even the Zone System is basically simple, and shouldn't be intimidating. Otherwise, it wouldn't have become so popular for decades on end.

There are certainly other exposure and development models out there than the ZS itself. And I don't religiously follow it at all, or even think about it much anymore. But I do recommend learning it in some fashion or another, because it simplifies a number of practical black and white issues.

 

[Alan9940]

Over the years, I've tested about a dozen films measuring for Zone I placement at about 0.10 over fb+f and most of my personal EI's have fallen in the 1/3 - 2/3 stop range below box speed. The only exception, so far, has been Ferrania P30. I believe the box speed is ISO 80, yet my testing brought it in at EI 32.

 

[MattKing]

Over the years, I've tested about a dozen films measuring for Zone I placement at about 0.10 over fb+f and most of my personal EI's have fallen in the 1/3 - 2/3 stop range below box speed. The only exception, so far, has been Ferrania P30. I believe the box speed is ISO 80, yet my testing brought it in at EI 32.

And of course, using Zone I placement at about 0.10 over fb+f for a personal EI, and testing using standard ISO criteria result in, by definition, a 2/3 of a stop difference - with the ISO being the higher of the two.
So Alan's test yields pretty well match the numbers on the box. And you deal with that difference by metering in a different way.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Again, no rote formula works with every film. It's not some generic density point that is the most meaningful, but the CONSISTENCY of density steps above your metered threshold value. The Zone System per se doesn't tell you that; in theory, it just presumes every Zone is an equal density amount apart from the rest. An actual densitometer plot of your chosen film will tell you. That's why so many Zonies place their shadow values way up on Zone III, because they're so paranoid of the toe of the curve. Well, that might make sense if you're shooting Pan F; but it sure doesn't make sense with a long scale film like TMax, where the film is usable clear down into Zone I if necessary. Just printed one of those yesterday, and am darn grateful I happened to be packing TMY400 sheet film the day I shot it. The lighting
might have seemed soft in those woods due to the overcast, but the meter itself told a totally different story.

 

[Alan9940]

Well, that might make sense if you're shooting Pan F; but it sure doesn't make sense with a long scale film like TMax, where the film is usable clear down into Zone I if necessary. Just printed one of those yesterday, and am darn grateful I happened to be packing TMY400 sheet film the day I shot it.

Are you saying that you get visible detail down to Zone I with TMax films? I haven't used those films in years and didn't use either that much when I did, but if I can get better shadow separation lower down the curve I may have to revisit; especially TMY for the 8x10.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep, sometimes clear down to Zone 0, developed normal. Of course, if you're going to skate right to the edge of the ice rink, you need to meter very carefully. I was just out in the darkroom looking at a couple of my TMY 8x10 prints on MGWT fully dry, and they hold lovely gradation and detailed texture way way down there. I wouldn't have gotten that with FP4 or HP5. Yes, there are all kinds of tricks ZS and otherwise to improve results with most films; but often only a true long-scale film does it right. TMY has gotten expensive, so I tend to shoot lesser contrast scenes on other films instead; but when you need TMY, you need it.

 

[Alan9940]

Thanks, Drew. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking...extract a pint of blood and get a box of 8x10 TMY just for those scenes that could benefit from its response. However, based on what you've said and the fact that most of my shooting is desert scenes I could probably make good use of TMY most of the time!

 

[DREW WILEY]

My favorite 8X10 desert film of all time was Bergger 200. It had even more straight line linearity than Tmax. But TMY is more versatile in that it is fine enough grained for serious 4x5 enlargements too, plus that extra stop of speed. I'm just glad I stockpiled both speeds of TMax 8x10 in my freezer back when it was about a fourth the price as today.

 

[Paul Howell]

In BTZS paper is important, the folks who run the Large Format store test both film and paper using BTZS principles, with the Zone system not so much. But, once have paper you like I would stick to it. Using VC paper I use grade 2 filter as my starting point. I've read others who like 2 1/2 or even grade 3, I use Foma and grade 2 seems normal to me.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

No, it doesn't. Everyone who does an exposure test, bracketing at 1/2 stop increments, will find the same results. Giving 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure than ISO calls for will get better results with better shadow detail. Try it yourself!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

It's really pretty easy to avoid underexposure and loss of shadow detail when working with roll film and averaging/in-camera meters. You simply have to find a good film-speed rating for normal and then recognize situations that are more contrasty than normal and use exposure compensation to add exposure in these cases. Sure, you'll get a negative with a long range of densities, but most modern films don't shoulder off like films of the past. Then you can just use the contrast controls available when printing to get the higher dynamic range of the negatives made in contrasty situations to fit the paper.

So, expose normal and flat scenes as per the meter, overexpose contrasty scenes that the meter would otherwise underexpose. Of course, I'm referring to black-and-white negative material here. Color negative films work similarly, but have less latitude. Transparency films need a different approach based on placing a highlight value.

Best,

Doremus

How, pray tell, is one supposed to calculate all this while photographing a soccer match? We still don't know what format the OP is using. It sounds like he is using 35mm or roll film.

 

[MattKing]

No, it doesn't. Everyone who does an exposure test, bracketing at 1/2 stop increments, will find the same results. Giving 1/2 to 1 stop more exposure than ISO calls for will get better results with better shadow detail. Try it yourself!

I have.
The result being more - not necessarily better - shadow detail, but lower quality prints.
Some of the quality reduction can be compensated for at the printing stage, but that is subject and scene and lighting dependent.
You should note that I don't work with sheet film. I do sometimes employ a version of expansion development, but only when lighting conditions are consistent through an entire roll - something that does happen up here on the Wet Coast.
I can't remember when I last used a contraction development time, but I have.
When I did the sort of speed tests that fit within the usual Zone System workflow, I got the results that one would expect - 2/3 of a stop different , exactly matching the 2/3 of a stop difference between the speed criteria used in the two definitions. So I just use the ISO speed and meter appropriately - most frequently using incident metering.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

In BTZS paper is important, the folks who run the Large Format store test both film and paper using BTZS principles, with the Zone system not so much. But, once have paper you like I would stick to it. Using VC paper I use grade 2 filter as my starting point. I've read others who like 2 1/2 or even grade 3, I use Foma and grade 2 seems normal to me.

Using the zs presupposes that fitting a long Subject Brightness Range (SBR) or narrow SBR onto a fixed scale (so that the tones will map according to the "Visualization") is "good".

But it means that the mid-tones will be distorted, and no longer "map" at a 1:1 ratio to the scene. This is easily noticed, and such prints from "expanded" or "contracted" negatives will look unnatural and contrived. You may want to consult this:

Negative making for professional photographers

Most relevant passage:

Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.

In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I have.
The result being more - not necessarily better - shadow detail, but lower quality prints.

I have found that my results are better.

 

[MattKing]

I have found that my results are better.

You should make a point of using your own method then, rather than the method recommended by the majority.
By the way, the quoted material in your recent post is from before the change in the ASA speed standards, so no doubt is influences by the greater safety margin built into that standard than the one that has been in place since when I was four years old.
As I was essentially raised on Kodachrome, starting with Kodachrome II, the current standard is the one that makes the most sense for me.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

You should make a point of using your own method then, rather than the method recommended by the majority.
By the way, the quoted material in your recent post is from before the change in the ASA speed standards, so no doubt is influences by the greater safety margin built into that standard than the one that has been in place since when I was four years old.
As I was essentially raised on Kodachrome, starting with Kodachrome II, the current standard is the one that makes the most sense for me.

The ASA method for rating transparency film is different. I have no problem with transparency film exposure, and find the speed ratings to be accurate.

I assure you and everyone reading this forum that you will get better results using + 2/3 stop exposure than your meter 35mm TTL SLR suggests, with B&W film. I was 10 in 1960, BTW.

I would also be inclined to assert that many people have never seen a really good B&W print.

I remember using a Nikkormat (averaging meter) back in the 1960s, and although I did not appreciate it at the time, my negatives always looked a little thin and lacking in shadow detail. When I got my own camera, a Leicaflex SL, I started metering the shadow areas directly, and this gave me more exposure. It was quite a revelation. My prints looked much better.

The change in film speed has no effect on the discussion from the Kodak book, by the way.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Augustus - it is not the right of that book or article you quoted, or anyone else for that matter, to decide for another person which tones in an image count the most. In fact, I treat every single image as it's own case, worthy of printing in any manner I personally feel is best, and don't apply any procedural rubber stamp to any of it. And I really don't care what "most people" want (with "most" itself being a presumptive assertion). Most people are poor photographers, and don't print at all.

But don't get offended - I disagree with Matt too. He is pushing his own myth, when he states that mo' better shadow detail potentially equates to poorer prints. Well, that would true if the person involved is a poor printmaker to begin with. Otherwise, it's nonsense. I'm not exactly a fan of classical music, but I have heard enough great concert pianists to know they use the full scale of the keyboard as needed, and not just the keys in the middle.

Too many damn stereotypes on this thread too. The Zone System is just another set of tools, which can be used either eloquently or clumsily, depending on who is wielding it.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Augustus - it is not the right of that book or article you quoted, or anyone else for that matter, to decide for another person which tones in an image count the most. In fact, I treat every single image as it's own case, worthy of printing in any manner I personally feel is best, and don't apply any procedural rubber stamp to any of it. And I really don't care what "most people" want (with "most" itself being a presumptive assertion). Most people are poor photographers, and don't print at all.

But don't get offended - I disagree with Matt too. He is pushing his own myth, when he states that mo' better shadow detail potentially equates to poorer prints. Well, that would true if the person involved is a poor printmaker to begin with. Otherwise, it's nonsense. I'm not exactly a fan of classical music, but I have heard enough great concert pianists to know they use the full scale of the keyboard as needed, and not just the keys in the middle.

Too many damn stereotypes on this thread too. The Zone System is just another set of tools, which can be used either eloquently or clumsily, depending on who is wielding it.

I think you have misunderstood the Kodak text. This was the result of a large experiment conducted over many years, and the results are explained in that text. This book was intended for professional photographers (portrait and commercial), and thus it offers guidance for them to produce "professional" results as expected by their clients. Thus it certainly does matter what observers prefer. And that is the basis of their recommendations, namely, that mid-tones are the most important of all. I happen to agree. Your attitude is not uncommon, and I understand what you mean, but I can easily detect zs contrast manipulation in a print. It just doesn't look "right". What if you wanted to photograph a plain wall, all uniform in tone? Would it be "artistic" to manipulate it so that it had a pure white and black? What would that achieve?

 

[MattKing]

He is pushing his own myth, when he states that mo' better shadow detail potentially equates to poorer prints.

Not really what I was saying.
What I'm saying is that people sacrifice mid-tone and highlight rendition in pursuit of shadow detail. And that ends up being a poor trade off, if not done with knowledge and experience and skill.
A lot of my background involved dealing with amateurs - much of it during the explosion of interest that happened in the 1970s and early 1980s, coinciding with the big increase in use of SLRs and 135 film. Almost all of them were using labs. Some had the knowledge and capabilities to use customized film speeds and/or relatively specialized metering techniques. But for most, the box speed gave the best results.
For those who have available to them all the tools of a "professional" darkroom - particularly well developed printing skills - feel free to develop your own approach to film speeds.
I'm sure a similar observation can be made for those who are skilled in the preparation of scans and the digital post-processing that occurs after that - I'm better with the darkroom.
But my suggestion remains - the ISO film speed is an excellent measure of the film. How you interpret the results from use of a meter isn't a function of the film speed, it is a function of your knowledge and approach to metering. If one is seeing consistently under-exposed results from their metering, it is best to adjust the approach to the metering, not the setting on the meter dial.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Not really what I was saying.
What I'm saying is that people sacrifice mid-tone and highlight rendition in pursuit of shadow detail. And that ends up being a poor trade off, if not done with knowledge and experience and skill.
A lot of my background involved dealing with amateurs - much of it during the explosion of interest that happened in the 1970s and early 1980s, coinciding with the big increase in use of SLRs and 135 film. Almost all of them were using labs. Some had the knowledge and capabilities to use customized film speeds and/or relatively specialized metering techniques. But for most, the box speed gave the best results.
For those who have available to them all the tools of a "professional" darkroom - particularly well developed printing skills - feel free to develop your own approach to film speeds.
I'm sure a similar observation can be made for those who are skilled in the preparation of scans and the digital post-processing that occurs after that - I'm better with the darkroom.
But my suggestion remains - the ISO film speed is an excellent measure of the film. How you interpret the results from use of a meter isn't a function of the film speed, it is a function of your knowledge and approach to metering. If one is seeing consistently under-exposed results from their metering, it is best to adjust the approach to the metering, not the setting on the meter dial.

Well, I don't usually even meter. I know what the exposure is for many common situations. With ISO 400 film, in open shadow (e.g., the side of a building on a sunny day with unobscured sky to my back), it's about 1/250s @ f/5.6. I do mostly spontaneous photography (candids, sports, etc.). The situations are often changing and fluid, so getting at least the minimum exposure is important. A stop or two over is usually not a problem, but even 1/2 stop under is bad.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The only issue I have with that assessment is that this is a thread specifically asking about the Zone System. And it is fair to deduce that anyone seriously interested in that particular topic aspires to gain a personal level of control over negatives and prints which goes beyond what typical commercial labs provide on an entry-level basis, so likewise informs us that they have an interest or aspiration regarding darkroom skills too. Imprecise "wing it" metering based on "latitude" or TTL averaging doesn't mix well with the Zonie mantra either.

It makes little difference me whether this is framed around ASA or ISO box speed or not - I personally work off specific film curves visualized in my mind, shape n' all, but now so spontaneously that I don't even consciously think about it. Nor do I think about the Zone System any more except for labeling certain film holders or film rolls a special development regimen, like +1 or whatever. I am an advocate of sticking with box speed when it comes to color film exposure, however; but that's a quite different topic.

I'm old enough to remember the conversations of my still older brother with his other photo cronies, back when he was a student in the early 60's at the Brooks academy, where the teachers outright ridiculed both the subject matter and ZS approach of AA. They had their own exposure religion via "the book" of Kodak itself, with a heavy emphasis on controlled studio lighting. So go figure. Most of the time my own "studio" is outdoors, and when the special lighting arrives, it's called lightning.

 

[Bill Burk]

@Augustus Caesar

The Kodak passage describes this tone reproduction curve and asserts all negatives should be developed to match this curve in the finished print.

Before the Zone System was introduced it threw shade on its main premise. It overtly disparages “expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights”.

Sure, the study is an amazing body of intellect and it informs all the photolabs who develop film to match that curve. And the study is behind all Kodak advice to amateurs. It’s right.

But so is Ansel Adams’ Zone System which has has been taught over the years in books, schools and workshops and is practiced by “a vast majority” of black and white photographers who want to make fine art prints.

You know who else is right? William Mortensen. He directly contradicted Ansel Adams too (which made Ansel mad). As far as I can tell Mortensen came to his own teachings without being informed by the Kodak study and certainly not Adams.

But that’s just it. You can impact the look of your photographs by taking different approaches from different teachers.