Need some help with the Zone System

[Doremus Scudder]

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

 

[Dismayed]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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…

So the ten or eleven stops of subject luminance range are developed to make a negative that has six stops of density range. If you use a condenser enlarger, you would be more likely to develop the film to fifty percent.

 

[MTGseattle]

I like this book.

The Zone System Craft Book: A Comprehensive Guide to the Zone System of Exposure and Development by Woods, John Charles: Good Paperback (1992) | ThriftBooks-Dallas

Free Shipping - ISBN: 9780697131904 - Paperback - McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Langua - 1992 - Condition: Good - No Jacket - Pages can have notes/highlighting. Spine may show signs of wear. ~ ThriftBooks: Read More, Spend Less - The Zone System Craft Book: A Comprehensive Guide to the...

www.abebooks.com

 

[Smokwawelski]

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

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

AA's attempt to apply the ZS technique and terminology to color photography was frustrating to him, to say the least. You can only alter the exposure and development ratios of color films so far, and then the hues themselves go berserk. Studios could balance the lighting, of course; but Mother Nature has her own moods. One giant distinction is that with color photography, either chrome or color neg, you want to meter things in relation to the engineered midpoint itself, and what will or will not properly reproduce in color either side of that. You have a relatively narrow window within which everything must properly fit; that is especially the case with chrome or slide films.

But in black and white technique, there is no need to worry about the hue implications, so the old adage applies, meter for the shadows and develop for the highlights. You have quite a range of flexibility.

Roll films differ in the sense that individual frames can't be individually developed. But you can still strategize for the predominance of them coming out correctly, ZS theory wise, and then having only an odd shot or two on the roll to be grappled with exceptionally, if it is even worth printing. I try to stick as much as possible with some consistent kind of lighting for each roll. Or those who have interchangeable backs for their MF camera, or roll film backs for view cameras, can segregate different Zone plus and minus categories to their own respective holders if necessary. But with today's excellent VC papers you can get away with quite a bit which was once miserable to accommodate.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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… ...

I like this, Bill. It's a good way to introduce the concept.

And, for scenes that have 12 or 13 Zones, you develop film 40% = N-1. For scenes with eight or nine Zones, then develop 70%, or N+1.

Doremus

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

First I read Ansel Adams books, then article in magizines and on line. However, I learned and came to understand it here back in the APUG days, but I had to ask questions on this site interactively until I finially understood and could use it well.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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.

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 one Maybe 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

 

[Hassasin]

The bottom line of the Zone System is that that one can spend countless time testing and assessing, while most of the time ending up in a hole (of varying size) trying to fix the unfixable in the darkroom. It pays to understand what ZS is or was about, how its application can help controlling the outcome, but then it starts to make more sense why Mr. Zuiko put two buttons on OM-4, highlights and shadows, each either reducing or increasing exposure by two stops, more that good enough for most of the "government" work, while still allowing excellent quality of the final print. The latter nearly always needing milking to some or large degree in the printing stage.

And I disagree ZS, as generally known, is NOT one step incremental. It is, which is why it can, in principle, be easier to apply.

 

[Hassasin]

And while ZS makes sense with sheet film where each shot is a stand alone for both exposure and development, it succumbs to near useless with roll film (given effort and time required to get in line with ZS voodoo, only to find it impossible to fit all frames into same ideology of fine control it implies )

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 105mm Tessar F/3.5 - Photo Jottings

Our review camera for today is the Zeiss Ikon Ikonta with Tessar 105mm F/3.5 lens and Compur Rapid shutter. This late pre-war folder is quite slim, fits in your back pocket, and takes very sharp pictures with proper technique; whether or not they're good pictures is up to you. This is a 521/2...

photojottings.com

https://rolleiflex.us/cdn/shop/products/DSC6392_1322x2048.jpg?v=1680841506

Also, films were becoming faster. This meant that smaller apertures were being used, which causes greater exposure to the film, because of the fact that the leaf shutter opens from the center, meaning that small apertures are "open" for a longer time than large ones. Ironically, right around 1960 the flood of inexpensive SLR cameras from Japan began, and these used focal-plane shutters. At small apertures, focal-plane shutters give less exposure than leaf shutters. So, as a result, the doubling of film speeds in 1960 has led to underexposure. I have made careful tests, and almost every negative that I make with about 2/3 to 1 stop more exposure gives a better print than those exposed at ISO. In addition, every article I have read by critical testers has made the same claim.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

Perhaps cameras were being equipped with more accurate meters, but there is widespread acknowledgement by today's photographers using focal-plane shutter cameras that more exposure (close to the values pre-1960) gives optimum results. What camera do you use? Have you ever run tests?

See this, please:

Interesting Tidbit about exposure compensatiion with leaf shutters at small apertures

I got an old copy of the "Kodak Professional Photoguide" (1979), from my local camera shop today. They have lots of useful info, especially for large format, and I like to have one handy. It's got a grey card, color patches, and lots of handy calculator dials for things like lens extension...

www.largeformatphotography.info

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

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

The original speed determinations were indeed based on observer preference, but this was done long before 1960. It supports the old film speeds.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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. But even talking seriously about the Zone System doesn't make a whole lot of sense if someone is going to just hand the wheel to a semi-automated commercial lab service anyway. They might have their own relevant tips for how to best expose any film they commonly handle; but that's a somewhat different scenario.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

Amen. Brother! Except I would not blame the manufacturers, but the ISO standard itself.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[250swb]

I think @DREW WILEY explained it best so far in post #13.

But it all begins with calibration and ends by understanding the calibration isn't to force everything into a rigid system but to allow a photographer to adjust reality by understanding his materials. In both the AA and Fred Picker approaches the 'calibration' (testing where your Zone V is) and marking up of the light meter with a Zone scale is the biggest help to the novice, but novices don't always use a Weston Master or Pentax Spot meter, or anything with a dial anymore. The good old dial when marked up with the zone scale gives a visual reference in-the-field for planning plus or minus development back in the darkroom and this info goes down on the notepad.

It's a lot to learn and I agree inevitably gets mangled on the internet by people expecting precise language rather than simply taking the meaning of something. Which is why books are important because they give illustrations to cross reference with the explanations. It was pretty much the first thing I learned at college and it was only after a couple of weeks of testing and darkroom work that the light bulb went on. After which the principles stay with you for life, even if you never use the actual Zone System ever again. I did use it for five years, and being able to imagine what I wanted from an image, read the scene, use the meter to make a plan, and take it all back to the darkroom already knowing what I needed to do was like magic. And even after I'd switched to medium format and 35mm the idea of planning ahead always seemed like a good idea. So I hope the OP can stick with it, but I think from the post they need to read through ALL of Ansel Adams books 'The Camera', 'The Negative' and 'The Print' before even trying to master the Zone system because I think there is a misunderstanding so far.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The ZS is best learned hand in hand with honing one's film development and paper printing skills at the same time, in relation to your own gear and aesthetic objectives. Otherwise, what's the point? The whole idea is to tailor each step in the chain of process to best fit the next one, relative to YOUR OWN PRACTICAL RESULTS. And if that involves starting out with a different film speed than on the box, that's what you do.

 

[MTGseattle]

To add further consternation for the OP of the thread. Once you're quite a few feet of film into this process, in theory your zone III shadow density should start looking the same to your eye and reading the same (or really, really closely) on a densitometer. Given same film and developer combo.
It takes a lot of seat time to throw some negatives on the light table and exclaim "Ah Ha!" at your well placed and processed zones 3 and 7.
I'm not even close again yet myself. All of this is simply a repeatable way to get yourself negatives that print well and somewhat easily (not a ton of dodging and burning) on your paper. As others have said, all of this was figured out before the advent of multi-grade papers. So in theory yet again, we should have a slight advantage in the darkroom these days. Whether the "look" of multi-grade papers is as nice is a whole different can of worms.
There's a lot of sage wisdom above. I'll emphasize too that some reasons for all of the testing are because each persons preferred gear may be "off"
perhaps your shutter drags a bit, maybe your meter reads 1/3rd stop under/over? Each cancelled out variable helps the overall process.

I apologize for regurgitating anyone's info. I've been making silly mistakes lately, and typing out some of the processes helps them get etched into the gray matter again.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

I agree. I found that using less than the manufacturer's ISO is a poor compromise. I start with the ISO and adjust as necessary for the conditions for that situation. Besides it is good mental exercise which forestalls or prevents senility.

 

[Smokwawelski]

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 one Maybe 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

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.