Need some help with the Zone System

[Smokwawelski]

Hello everyone. I've been learning about the zone system by myself for a little while now, both online and through books. I just want to make sure that I am understanding it properly, so if someone who is more experienced than me could help out by addressing any misconceptions I have and answering my questions I would appreciate it.
From what I've read, the zone system is about taking the dynamic range of a scene and fitting it into the middle 11 stops of a negative (as modern negatives tend to have more than 11 stops of DR). This makes it so that when you go to print the negatives, the 11 stops of DR you captured fit perfectly onto the 11 stops on the paper at Grade 2 without any further manipulation.
My questions:
1. Is the dynamic range of all darkroom papers really 11 stops? I read somewhere that the DR of paper can be 6 stops or even lower. Doesn't this make the zone system irrelevant?
2. When printing with a condenser enlarger, there is about a grade of added contrast compared to a diffusion enlarger. Doesn't this lower the DR of the paper to less than 11? I know that some people lower the dev time by around 20% to lower the density of the highlights and therefore get a lower contrast negative, but doesn't this change the placement of the zones? Also shouldn't you also increase exposure as well so that the shadows come closer to middle grey as much as the highlights?
Hopefully my questions make sense, apologies if I misused any of the terminology.
Thank you.

 

[koraks]

1. Is the dynamic range of all darkroom papers really 11 stops?

No. The number of zones was really an arbitrary choice. It doesn't relate to the actual properties of film, paper or real-world scenes. They might have decided to have only 5 zones. Or 20. Or 100. It's just a number.
This misconception is actually the basis for your confusion, it seems. Try to let go of it and think of the zone system as a means to translate a certain level of luminosity in part of a real world scene into a certain optical density on a physical print.

I read somewhere that the DR of paper can be 6 stops or even lower.

https://www.rogerandfrances.com/paper-grades/ Scroll down to 'the numbers'. If that doesn't make sense, read up on how density is expressed as a logarithm and how that relates to powers of 2. It'll start to make sense at that point!

 

[Alan9940]

As koraks said above, the number of zones is/was arbitrary and simply (IMO) a way to express tonal values over a defined range. To my mind, the zone system is really a previsualization tool. After testing to determine your own personal EI for Zone I and development parameters to nail Zone VIII (some develop for higher or lower as their standard, it's your choice), you now have a solid idea of how luminosity values in the scene are going to be represented on the film. For example, if I place a shadow value in Zone III I know that I'm going to see detail in those shadows. If my meter tells me the difference between my detailed shadows and detailed highlights is about 6 stops, then I know I'm looking at a "normal" scene and develop for my normal time. Once you've got "normal" locked down, you can test for plus and minus development to manipulate the shoulder end of the curve (high values.)

The Zone System is a huge subject. Have fun!

 

[Smokwawelski]

No. The number of zones was really an arbitrary choice. It doesn't relate to the actual properties of film, paper or real-world scenes. They might have decided to have only 5 zones. Or 20. Or 100. It's just a number.
This misconception is actually the basis for your confusion, it seems. Try to let go of it and think of the zone system as a means to translate a certain level of luminosity in part of a real world scene into a certain optical density on a physical print.

But doesn't each zone equal a stop difference on the negative? Surely the number of zones do matter in this case, since a negative can only hold so many stops before clipping/crushing occurs.

 

[Paul Howell]

Minor White who learned the zone from AA reduced the number of zones to 9, Phil Davis as I understand it reduced the number to 7 (?) as zone 3 to 7 are the dynamic range he did not pay much attention to the shadows and highlights without shadows but have directions for use of the 10 zone when needed. When I shoot roll film I generally expose for zone III and develop for zone VII and adjust with VC paper.

 

[koraks]

But doesn't each zone equal a stop difference on the negative?

Typically not, no. There's (ideally) a linear relationship between stops of illumination and density on the negative. However, this relationship is (1) not linear at the toe and shoulder of the film, and often not perfectly so in the middle region either, and (2) it's not a 1:1 relationship in the sense that one stop difference in illumination is generally less than one stop difference in negative transmission density.

Surely the number of zones do matter in this case, since a negative can only hold so many stops before clipping/crushing occurs.

Toe and shoulder behavior (your clipping/crushing refers to the latter) does matter, but the illuminance range a negative film can capture without sloping off into the shoulder is generally more than 10 stops. Sometimes it's less with very high-contrast films. It's virtually never exactly 10 stops. So again, the zones in the zone system should not be confused with stops. They're really different concepts.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As koraks said above, the number of zones is/was arbitrary and simply (IMO) a way to express tonal values over a defined range. To my mind, the zone system is really a previsualization tool. After testing to determine your own personal EI for Zone I and development parameters to nail Zone VIII (some develop for higher or lower as their standard, it's your choice), you now have a solid idea of how luminosity values in the scene are going to be represented on the film. For example, if I place a shadow value in Zone III I know that I'm going to see detail in those shadows. If my meter tells me the difference between my detailed shadows and detailed highlights is about 6 stops, then I know I'm looking at a "normal" scene and develop for my normal time. Once you've got "normal" locked down, you can test for plus and minus development to manipulate the shoulder end of the curve (high values.)

The Zone System is a huge subject. Have fun!

Yes, modern films can have a much as 10 to 12 f/stops in dynamic range, but paper has at best 7 f/stops. So the challenge is to fix the SBR [Subject Brightness Range] of the negative into the paper. That is why dodging and burning are needed. I first do split grade printing and then look to dodging and burning as necessary. If you do not understand split grad printing, feel free to ask and I will describe it.

 

[grain elevator]

Typically not, no. There's (ideally) a linear relationship between stops of illumination and density on the negative. However, this relationship is (1) not linear at the toe and shoulder of the film, and often not perfectly so in the middle region either, and (2) it's not a 1:1 relationship in the sense that one stop difference in illumination is generally less than one stop difference in negative transmission density.


Toe and shoulder behavior (your clipping/crushing refers to the latter) does matter, but the illuminance range a negative film can capture without sloping off into the shoulder is generally more than 10 stops. Sometimes it's less with very high-contrast films. It's virtually never exactly 10 stops. So again, the zones in the zone system should not be confused with stops. They're really different concepts.

I think zones do equal stops of subject luminosity though. It's obvious and actually the premise of the thread (contrast reduction) that they don't translate into stops of the further steps of the process.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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

 

[koraks]

I think zones do equal stops of subject luminosity though.

No. If this were the case, all of reality would neatly exhibit exactly a 10 stop SBR. The whole point of the zone system is to decouple SBR from optical densities so that you can map one onto the other. Zones te just amental intermediate construct to make this mapping process a little easier.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Koraks,

Yes, but...

Zone System metering relies on placing a shadow on a certain Zone and then counting the stops between that and the highlights to see which Zone the highlight falls in. So, when metering, we need to think that one stop equals one Zone.

If I place a shadow in Zone III and then meter a highlight and it falls in Zone VIII, then "normal" is called for. If that highlight, however, falls in Zone IX, then N-1 is called for; if it falls in Zone VII, then N+1 is called for.

Yes, we manipulate the range and separation of densities on the negative with different developments or manipulate the range and separation of densities on the paper by using different contrast grades/ settings. Zones on the print do not equal one-stop increments.

Still, when metering, one stop = one Zone. How that gets reproduced eventually in the final print (compressed highlights and shadows due the toe and shoulder on both film and paper, how we develop the negative and which contrast grade we decide on) really has no bearing on Zone-System metering; rather, it is the purvey of Tone Reproduction.

When I work, I set my meter to my personal E.I. place a shadow on Zone whatever and count stops as Zones to see where the highlights fall.

The fact that reality doesn't always exhibit a 10-stop luminosity range has nothing to do with the metering. In fact, we need to be able recognize when the luminosity range of the subject exceeds or falls below the 10-stop "normal" range so we can plan our contrast controls. I've metered scenes where the highlight I want as a textured white falls in Zone XI or XII. I've dealt with N-4 scenes with a combination of reduced development, paper contrast, etc., etc.

Still , when I meter that 12- or 13-stop range. I'm thinking one stop = one Zone. Vice-versa for flat scenes.

Best,

Doremus

 

[koraks]

Doremus, OP's question is not strictly about metering. It's about the zone system as an integral approach.

I agree that in metering one might think in terms of zones equaling a stop, but the same person will then consider a far more restricted reflective density difference in a print also as a zone. As a result, a zone as such does not unambiguously relate to metered stops. When observing a scene, a photographer might meter a highlight, thinking "that'll fall on XIII in relation to the shadow I just metered" and in the same stride decide "I want that to be on IX in the print".

Anyway, feel free to split some more hairs; I'm sure OP has zoned out in confusion by now already.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Customarily, each Zone equates to one stop or EV of luminance. Exactly how many EV or stops of scene contrast range any specific film can handle is NOT a constant, and it is further altered according to the specific development regimen involved. That's why you potentially need a somewhat different concept of zone ranges for different films. A few panchromatic films can handle up to 12 stop ranges; most can't without resorting to special development techniques with side effects. None of the Zone System is cast in stone. It's meant to be malleable, tailored to your own personal requirements. I sometimes meter and expose on a Zone 0 to 11 basis, while some ZS gurus were so paranoid of exposure error that they taught a 3 to 8 system which can be downright counterproductive if the scene demands more than that.

Their answer was drastic "minus" or compression development when the scene contrast range was out of hand (often incorrectly called, "pull processing" in this forum). But that's a secondary topic, and not a solution I personally like. I'd rather pick a film with a longer native range to begin with.

Some scenes might have TOO LITTLE contrast for your typical printing applications. So the film can be developed longer for sake or greater contrast and density itself, to accommodate that situation.

But "N" (normal), Minus (-1, -2, etc), and Plus (+1, +2, etc), are standard Zone System expressions you should be familiar with, with each increment implying one cumulative EV being leveraged one way or the other.

How a particular neg will fit the scale of a particular paper is pretty hard to factor all at once up front. It takes hand in hand shooting, developing, and printing experience to understand well. Trying to figure this all out in advance is apt to be misleading, especially in this present era when variable contrast papers are dominant. Anyone who claims they can make the Zone System behave achieve some automatic outcome is a snake oil salesman for sure. The object is to obtain a versatile enough negative to print well under a reasonable range of options, not just one.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not sure if the BTZ folks still do, but in the original system Phil Davis tested paper as well as film, this information was factored into the calculator and later apps, Palm Pilot and Android. When asked Minor White said that AA felt that paper emulsions changed too from batch to batch to very useful, and that a negative should be matched to a paper surface and tone rather than fit a negative into a given paper. In the 80s and 90 I printed on maybe 6 or 7 papers depending on the subject and visual I wanted. Today there are so few paper emulsions, that most people settle on one or two papers so maybe the BTZ might have additional merit.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Customarily, each Zone equates to one stop or EV of luminance. ...

... "N" (normal), Minus (-1, -2, etc), and Plus (+1, +2, etc), are standard Zone System expressions you should be familiar with, with each increment implying one cumulative EV being leveraged one way or the other.
...

That about sums it up IM-HO

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, there is still plenty of paper variety and choice today. It's just mostly variable-contrast.

But that's why I stated the object of proper film exposure and development is to obtain a reasonably versatile negative. Specific papers come and go. The spacing of paper grade designations differed from brand to brand; and today, few actual graded papers even exist.

But all this talk about apps and Palm Pilot, etc - heck, who has time for all that nonsense when the light is rapidly changing or when the wind allows only intermittent opportunities to trip the shutter? The whole process needs to become second-nature and intuitive, with only a momentary light meter reading needed at the most. People tend to overthink the Zone System. It's really just a shorthand method for pigeonholing your shots into their respective development categories.

 

[BrianShaw]

PalmPilot... does anyone really still use them? That's so twentieth century (rounding down a bit)...

I had the Sony version, Sony CLIÉ, which was rather useful at the time. It was stolen when my car was at a carwash and quickly forgotten.

 

[Paul Howell]

I just checked, there seems to be a few user groups, a hobby I guess.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... People tend to overthink the Zone System. It's really just a shorthand method for pigeonholing your shots into their respective development categories.

... and visualizing possibilities

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, people are certainly welcome to stretch the rubber band in any manner they find necessary to fit their own needs. But one distinct benefit of learning the Zone System in its traditional sense is that it provides a common denominator jargon between many of us which we mutually understand, even if we might not all be hard core practitioners of that system. Referring to Zone III or Zone V, or Plus 1 development can certainly be easier than other ways of describing such things.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

What format are you using? What is your goal? These are more important than anything else.

 

[wiltw]

heck, who has time for all that nonsense when the light is rapidly changing or when the wind allows only intermittent opportunities to trip the shutter? The whole process needs to become second-nature and intuitive, with only a momentary light meter reading needed at the most. People tend to overthink the Zone System. It's really just a shorthand method for pigeonholing your shots into their respective development categories.

My own adventures into the Zone Sysem involved reading the AA books, and then deciding that the key concept for me was applying the Exposure portion of the entire system described by AA,. That is, determining what subject brighness area I wanted to map to mid-tone (Zone V) and apply this to color photography exposure, and also avoidance of reproducing snow as a dingey gray.

The mention that print paper might only have 7 stops of DR (some say 6 stops) compares with the even more limted DR of the offset printed (lithographed) page...5 stops or less. And commercial photographer needed to light sets to all fit within that narrower range of brightnesses, in providing color transparencies to their clients for printing in brochures, etc. So the ZS concepts certainly had applicabilty relative to what you delivered to the client.

The fact that I shot rollfilm B&W for personal use meant that I could not selectively apply compensating development to a single image; there could be applicability if could shoot an entire roll the same
And the fact that my 4x5 commercial work was predominantly in color meant that the Exposure part of ZS was the only part that was applicable to use in my photography.

Augustus Caeser raises very pertinent questions, relative to OP.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

What format are you using? What is your goal? These are more important than anything else.

I think even more important is how you meter. I use a totally different approach when using an averaging meter than I do with a spot meter, regardless of format. People who use incident meters have other approaches as well.

Placing a shadow value is difficult with an averaging meter and two steps removed with an incident one.

As far as the photographer's goal goes: the Zone System doesn't have to be used for reproducing AA-style work or even prints with a full tonal range. It's just a way to understand the basics of sensitometry and tone reproduction. How one applies those concepts is up to them.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I think even more important is how you meter. I use a totally different approach when using an averaging meter than I do with a spot meter, regardless of format. People who use incident meters have other approaches as well.

Placing a shadow value is difficult with an averaging meter and two steps removed with an incident one.

As far as the photographer's goal goes: the Zone System doesn't have to be used for reproducing AA-style work or even prints with a full tonal range. It's just a way to understand the basics of sensitometry and tone reproduction. How one applies those concepts is up to them.

Best,

Doremus

Well, in many situations you don't even have to meter. On clear sunny days, I usually shoot at 1/500s @ f/5.6 or f/8, unless the scene is entirely in shadow. This is for ISO 400 film, which I rate at EI 250. I was out today in brilliant sunshine photographing some buildings with shadows.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although AA was known to use the zone with MF, both Minor White and Phil Davis are fairly clear that that the ZS or BTZS work with sheet film. . With roll film you have to decide on setting the shadows or the highlights, when exposing for the highlights the shadows will need to take of themself when exposing for shadows and developing for highlights, pick zone VII or VII and let VIII and IX fall where they may, then fix in printing. Or bracket, or use a indicnet meter, or sunny 16, or guess. All seem to work pretty well.