Need some help with the Zone System

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

TMX or TMY and why?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I've been using my digital camera to take exposure readings as well as a director's viewfinder set on BW view. It's blinkies (clip points) and histogram seem to provide advantages over my regular light meter. With TMX or TMY BW film I then add a 1/2 stop to what seems average reading to me. This is still just experimentation with me. I'm not making some profound declaration about this method.

 

[BrianShaw]

…

In my opinion, the 1960 change was based on obsolete data.

This is classic… the world’s foremost thought leaders in photographic exposure reached a consensus on film speed rating some 60 years ago, and now a Roman emperor declares them in error. LOL.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

For the paper with the reasoning and analysis of the change to the 1960 fixed density speed method, please see Nelson, C.N., Safety Factors in Camera Exposure, Photographic Science and Engineering, Vol 4, n. 1, January-February 1960. Found here: Safety Factors Paper.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for sharing that paper again. Original source material is invaluable to understanding! Does the paper really end at 10 pages with a formula, and no conclusion? Or, perhaps, that section with the recommendation was the conclusion.

 

[MattKing]

This is classic… the world’s foremost thought leaders in photographic exposure reached a consensus on film speed rating some 60 years ago, and now a Roman emperor declares them in error. LOL.

I think it is more of a case of someone arriving at a modification to the standard that serves their particular wants and needs - and most likely extremely well - and then declaring that that modification is the most appropriate for everyone else..
Sort of like the pre and post Julian calendar

 

[Paul Howell]

What most folk forget is that the Zone system is based on visualization or pervisualization (White), it's all about going beyond the record shot and seeing the scene to match the photographers interpretation of the scene to match her/his emotional connection. Minor White lectured that once the shadow is picked (zone II or III in most cases) followed by the highlights the mid zones will just fall into place. If a photogerher picks say zone II for shadow, shadow without much if any detail, and develops for VII the other tones are set as well. So, lets say that the photographer meters the highlight as zone VI but wants to bring into Zone VII, development is +1, that means what was V will be zone VI, zone IV will be zone V, while III and II should not be affected as much. Having taken the Zone workshop from Minor White in the 60s I can say that he was not obsessed with the curve, just understanding how he match a given film and developer to his previsulations. Midtones just follow the highlights.

Without visualization there is really no point to the zone, for a record shot, just a good incident meter, a little testing to adjust ISO for aging shutters and meter, VC paper, and you are good. Or, as I read Phil Davis, for sheet film, BTZS might give really accurate exposures.

 

[Bill Burk]

@Paul Howell,

You’re welcome to dinner anytime.

We need more insights from Minor White, even if it’s just something you remember from the workshop.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Thanks for sharing that paper again. Original source material is invaluable to understanding! Does the paper really end at 10 pages with a formula, and no conclusion? Or, perhaps, that section with the recommendation was the conclusion.

The version posted was redone (typeset) by a member of the forum. The original copy wasn't in the best of shape. I tend to wonder whether a page is missing too or if it just looks that way because of the way it was typeset. I'll have to look for the original.

 

[BrianShaw]

The version posted was redone (typeset) by a member of the forum. The original copy wasn't in the best of shape. I tend to wonder whether a page is missing too or if it just looks that way because of the way it was typeset. I'll have to look for the original.

Thanks. I think I asked you this before and will try my best effort to not forget the answer!

Don’t put too much effort into it as their point is well made in the available material.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bill, the problem I have with generic film curves like the ancient one you post is that they are misleadingly generic. Actual films aren't all the same. Right on the first few pages of more modern Kodak Black and White Photography handbooks it explains that important distinction. Similarly, "Preferred Tone Reproduction" and "Average Pictorial Subject" are so generalized as to be nearly worthless. Then, of all things, that chart interpolates the S-curve as if it were a straight diagonal. Well, that might have been fine as a crude teaching tool to beginners, but it's also darn crude sensitometry, with miserably separated shadows and blown out shouldered-off highlights, even for moderate scene contrast range. Basically, just a fictitious representation with little real-world relevance. Even the increments are weird. Real log density units would be spaced in increments of .30 apiece, and tenths thereof..
not .40 apart.

 

[BrianShaw]

… but don’t you think that for 97.38% of photographers that “generic” or “average” is good enough?

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, Brian, when speaking about generic and average, it would be more appropriate to set the goalpost at "bad enough".

 

[Vaughn]

In my carbon prints I can get image-forming detail in Zone 0 and maybe Zone -1...probably not Zone -2, but who knows?

Wrap your Zonie minds around that!

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's because carbon is darker than silver, and the light in the redwoods is darker than elsewhere. Or maybe the Time Zone is different in the Republic of Jefferson, skewing the whole Zone System itself. Well, it sure isn't all that bright here today either - our first heavy rains of the year. Guess I'll spend the afternoon print spotting, plus some other minor darkroom chore, including a successful image that was metered clear down to Zone 1.

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill, the problem I have with generic film curves like the ancient one you post is that they are misleadingly generic. Actual films aren't all the same…

Don’t be bashin’ my buddy Zakia that’s like taking swipes at Donald Knuth. (I don’t really know either but you know they have my regard).

Figure I-8 is not a film curve, it’s the preferred tone reproduction curve… based on the prints people picked best represented the original scene. It’s how people want the print to look.

Already has the paper s-curve in it.

The x and y scales are the same, the dashed line indicates 1:1 (perfect copy).

This fits the narrative. People don’t want a repro copy, they want detail in people’s faces. And they don’t care if you take that detail from the shadows and highlights.

Do you think if people wanted literal tone reproduction papers would have been engineered to eliminate as much of the s-curve as possible?

Do you think standards would have been different if people in the study were asked “Which prints are the most artistic?”

 

[DREW WILEY]

Don 't beat around the bush. It's a simple fact of life that one shoe size does NOT fit all. And whatever hypothetical paper that was based on probably went extinct before trilobites did. Yet even before then, Kodak knew enough to offer curve plotting paper in standard log .30 graph increments, and not arbitrary .40.

Here we go again - down another totally elliptical rabbit hole. Let's just say that those interested in the Zone System to begin with are NOT people only interested in faces, irregardless of what is going on in the shadows and highlights. In fact, any commercial portrait photographer expecting to be paid back in the day had to know how to handle highlights with considerable skill, including differences in complexion. I don't think Geronimo would want his face printed the same density value as Casper the Ghost; there could be serious consequences to that mistake, if he had paid photographers (actually, people paid him for the right of photographing him).

But "people" keep insisting the only flavor of ice cream which exists is Vanilla. Now we need to define "people", or "most people". Sounds like another arbitrary public survey based on a sample of one.

But while I'm at it, if photographers have to steal from the shadows, and sacrifice down there, to get decent upper midtones, I doubt they know what they're doing to begin with. Using the wrong film? -probably. Depending too much on mechanically-minded rote development? - probably. Why do you think the Zone System was cooked up to begin with?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

This is classic… the world’s foremost thought leaders in photographic exposure reached a consensus on film speed rating some 60 years ago, and now a Roman emperor declares them in error. LOL.

I have provided the facts behind this. It makes perfect sense.

1) Films were getting faster (meaning smaller apertures were being used than with slower pre-war films).

2) People were moving to 35mm cameras.

3) The vast majority of those were rangefinder types with leaf shutters.

4) Smaller apertures combined with leaf shutters gives proportionally more exposure than large apertures.

All these contributed to excessive exposure; but when focal-plane shutter cameras (mostly SLRs) became more popular, starting around 1959, this situation no longer obtained.

Look here, at some ads in Pop Photo from 1956:

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RK4AAOSwaWxkZd4s/s-l1600.png

As always, most people bought the less expensive cameras.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

For the paper with the reasoning and analysis of the change to the 1960 fixed density speed method, please see Nelson, C.N., Safety Factors in Camera Exposure, Photographic Science and Engineering, Vol 4, n. 1, January-February 1960. Found here: Safety Factors Paper.

This is important, from that paper:

"In practice, most between-the-lens shutters give exposure times that are greater than the marked values when small apertures are used. Camera shutters are generally calibrated at maximum lens aperture where the efficiency of the shutter is at its lowest value. When the lens opening is reduced, the efficiency of the shutter increases and the effective exposure time becomes longer. Furthermore, some exposure meters have calibration constants that lead to greater exposure. The net result is that the effective safety factor is in practice, often greater than 2.4."


Focal-plane shutter cameras do not suffer from this problem, and thus the decrease in exposure is unwarranted and contraindicated.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In 1956, the Zonies were still shooting 8x10. Many still do today. Clear up well into the 1990's, there were multiple camera stores in this area alone with entire departments dedicated to a major selection of large format cameras and lenses. Plenty of real meter choices too. I personally moved FROM 35mm to 6X7, then rapidly up to 4X5, then 8X10.
I'm glad I kept equipment necessary to all those formats; but my own photographic evolution runs contrary to the Pop Photo ad stereotypes, and so does the gravitational pull of the Zone System itself. Easy and "popular" isn't the point - getting better negatives and prints is. And one should start with a serious real meter.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

In 1956, the Zonies were still shooting 8x10. Many still do today. Clear up well into the 1990's, there were multiple camera stores in this area alone with entire departments dedicated to a major selection of large format cameras and lenses. Plenty of real meter choices too. I personally moved FROM 35mm to 6X7, then rapidly up to 4X5, then 8X10.
I'm glad I kept equipment necessary to all those formats; but my own photographic evolution runs contrary to the Pop Photo ad stereotypes, and so does the gravitational pull of the Zone System itself. Easy and "popular" isn't the point - getting better negatives and prints is. And one should start with a serious real meter.

But photograph a soccer match with an 8X10. Action? Not much!

 

[DREW WILEY]

By now, I'm sure both AA and Minor White are churning in their graves. This has all drifted so far from any semblance of Zone System information as to be getting ludicrous. But even they knew how to apply their respective systems to 35 mm photography as well. And even before their time, photographers knew how to capture sports and movement using box cameras. No, probably no pro sports or wildlife photographer would do that today. But look up the career of Muybridge, or even one of the current movies about his life,
and you'll understand.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

By now, I'm sure both AA and Minor White are churning in their graves. This has all drifted so far from any semblance of Zone System information as to be getting ludicrous. But even they knew how to apply their respective systems to 35 mm photography as well. And even before their time, photographers knew how to capture sports and movement using box cameras. No, probably no pro sports or wildlife photographer would do that today. But look up the career of Muybridge, or even one of the current movies about his life,
and you'll understand.

We still don't know:

1) What format the OP is using
2) What his goal is

 

[Bill Burk]

Pink Piranhas vs Purple Panthers, revisited

Illustration for the thread... Ideas or Pictures?

www.photrio.com

Obligatory 4x5 soccer shot

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I do remember trying to photograph wild waterfowl several times with the 8X10, just for the heck of it. The secret is to just hang around awhile, and don't make any sudden moves, until they start ignoring you. I once had a red fox get curious and lay down right beside me. Another time, a skunk checked out my camera. More recently, it was a family of otters. The craziest incident was at an old 1920's hunting club location where there were still some roaming large ibex. I was using my 8x10 atop my big wooden tripod, with the dark cloth over my head. A large ibex couldn't figure out what a black animal with five legs and one big eyeball was. So it was caught in a tension between uncontrollable curiosity and downright fear. It walked right up eye to eye with my lens, shaking the whole time. Then it suddenly let out a huge belch, and scared itself into a high leap, and took off running. Unforgettable.

But a waste of time? Nope. The practice allowed me to get a lovely LF shot of nervous wild mustangs, closeups of busy ladybug swarms, precise compositions containing geese in flight, etc.