Paper Zones

[Stephen Benskin]

Although it is not explicitly stated in the test procedures in The Negative, it is pretty clearly implied in the text Adams advocates the plotting of curves and the comparison of curves. I'm not talking about the specifc procedures themselves and the difficulty in interpreting the data (as we've discussed before), just the framework. In that context I don't think BTZS adds any value other than test exposures by contacting. In fact I still think BTZS may even be potentially problematic/detrimental when it comes to subject luminance ranges outside the norm. In my opinion BTZS is too concerned with a mechanized approach to fitting the negative density range to the paper, and not concerned enough with printing controls.

I'm not thrilled with the outdated and made up terms Davis' uses, or the work-arounds for film speed and flare, but it's the closest thing I've seen to solid sensitometry written for a general audience (except Sensitometry for Photographers). How he applies tone reproduction might be a bit confusing for some. Davis is a little too gimmicky for my taste. Give me tone reproduction straight up.

Michael, not sure if I agree with you with Adams and curves.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Actually, for those interested, the subject of zones has never come up in any of the workshops that I have been present at.

PE

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Are you saying he's not concerned with curves? I guess this discussion could actually pertain to several posts back when you were talking about the two density points in Adams (metered minus 4 stops and metered plus 3 stops). I didn't agree those are the only two points Adams's ZS is concerned with, but forgot to address it.

This might just be a question of semantics.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michael, in the workshops I teach, I cover the basics of film and paper design! And, the students do go out and take pictures as well. These are not just lab courses. I was also answering a question by Bill.

So, the student comes out of this with the basics of why something is done, not just how.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Michael, you are right as far as you go. I go another step and say that the zone system is not necessary with a neg-pos system, and that is the crux of the matter.

As an example, with a film with a straight line H&D curve except for toe and shoulder, due to the latitude of the paper itself, any exposure on the straight line can be printed on the paper with the correct adjustment for density and the zone is unimportant.

If you insist on using the film toe or shoulder, then zones may be useful, but you lose so much information that it is best to stay on the straight line of the negative.

The quality of the print is brought out by using the correct paper contrast and by dodging and burning if needed, and the correct film quality is gotten by correct development.

PE

 

[markbarendt]

PE it may not be necessary but it can be useful even if not bumping the toe or shoulder, in a specific case I can design my system to peg to a zone or point to make proofing much easier, more consistent using a standardized metering methods, development, and printing setups.

 

[Bill Burk]

...any exposure on the straight line can be printed on the paper...

I appreciate the clarification. Your challenge is valid, and makes a user of the Zone System like me, aware of the fact I need a good reason to continue using the system.

Just off the top of my head, I can say a valid continued use of Zone System in the field is to evaluate the scene to see what is likely to be printed effectively on the paper. And to decide what is and is not important to record/print. I also believe that it is a strong tool for planning abstract renderings.

And of course, it's fun.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ok, lets assume a very wide luminance range. The paper still has a fixed range even though the film image is spread out over more of the curve. You dodge and burn to move things around on the paper!

Now, if you are doing still life or landscape, you have the time to work with the zone system. Ansel Adams did this, and did it very well, but remember it was his method used to explain something to others less adept as he was. Well, to continue, imagine that you are a news photographer following a breaking event. No time for the zone system. Overexposes a tad and you have no problem. Fire away. I've said this before, at near the speed of sound and upside down, you can't worry about the zone system. You are expected to turn out 35mm color and 4x5 B&W and every shot must be perfect. You don't worry about the zone system.

Or, you are laying out 25 - 60 cameras on a pad and are expected to get perfect photos for a launch 24 hours from now (if lucky). We did not have auto metering. So, we set a best guess which was overexpose!

All of this moved the negs up the straight line and as long as that was so, the photos were fine.

PE

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Okay, now we are getting into a discussion about degrees. Does anybody need to do anything? No, "you push the button, we do the rest." And Ron, I could easily question the need to make your own emulsion since I could just go out and buy a box of film. This shouldn't be about which tool should or shouldn't be used.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I appreciate the clarification. Your challenge is valid, and makes a user of the Zone System like me, aware of the fact I need a good reason to continue using the system.

Just off the top of my head, I can say a valid continued use of Zone System in the field is to evaluate the scene to see what is likely to be printed effectively on the paper. And to decide what is and is not important to record/print. I also believe that it is a strong tool for planning abstract renderings.

I agree with you, Bill. Lately, I have started a more conscious consideration of dodging and burning, at the stage of negative exposure, and I try to optimise negative development to make its printing easier. What I mean by that is that I may indicate N+1 etc even if I have enough overall contrast (so otherwise N), but if I would like to add local contrast, which could be a bit harder to increase through local print manipulation. Having very recently discovered selective masking (for dodging and burning) and masked flashing, I am happier to be "accessing" parts of the straight-line of the curve which were previously too hard to burn or dodge, and therefore necessitated overall, global contrast adjustments. So, in some way, I would expect to need ZS less, but, on the other hand, it helps me decide what I want to labour on during printing.

Nonetheless, the understanding of ZS, BTZS, and a healthy dose of sensitometry learing spurned on by yourselves, here on APUG, will be with me for as long as I practice this form of photography, which to me, is priceless.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Okay, now we are getting into a discussion about degrees. Does anybody need to do anything? No, "you push the button, we do the rest." And Ron, I could easily question the need to make your own emulsion since I could just go out and buy a box of film. This shouldn't be about which tool should or shouldn't be used.

Steve;

Good point.

Here is my reasoning. All textbooks on emulsion making omit items or commit errors. All! And, the art of emulsion making is dying out and may soon be gone. Therefore, I am trying to teach as many to make and coat as possible. I may not get it all right and I may not reach all those interested, but I am trying.

And, part of the art includes photographic system engineering. That is why I devote some time (for those students interested), to this art, otherwise it will be lost.

So, that is the workshop rational. As to how it is used, it does pertain to H&D curves and the use (or lack thereof) of the zone system. It just is not needed.

For those who have been listening and recognize the limits of paper prints, go take another look at the Haist diagrams and now I will add more. ECN has contrast one full 0.1 lower than the Portra family, and more latitude. The ECP can yield a Dmax of up to 5.0, and thus these two products approach the ideal in photographic image capture.

PE

 

[AndreasT]

All a double edged sword.
If I may quote Michael.
“students would become acquainted with real sensitometry (including at least some basic scientific method fundamentals). Once you get into that, you have less and less need for a simplified, non-standard model like the ZS which would lead to all sorts of problems when it comes to testing and coming to meaningful conclusions about the properties and characteristics of the materials.”
I believe the ZS etc are the stepping stones to get deeper into sensitometry if one wishes. I agree that many problems can arise using or believing a system. Believe me I experienced it. Learning a lot from some discussions here.
This is a wide and intense field. Otherwise these discussions wouldn’t take place. There is always something new to learn and think about. Thank goodness.
To quote PE “Well, to continue, imagine that you are a news photographer following a breaking event. No time for the zone system.”
I have to disagree in part, I believe the ZS can help one using 35mm film. Not in the classical sense but getting an understanding how materials work, even if partly wrong will always help at least at the exposure stage.
Just getting involved with this subject opens the door to go further.
One thing I have noticed, the more I learn from you guys and various books, the more relaxed I get.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

To quote PE “Well, to continue, imagine that you are a news photographer following a breaking event. No time for the zone system.”

I don't think that was a fair comparison to begin with. Fine art and photojournalism use photography for different purposes. A photojournalist isn't going to reject a negative of the burning Hindenburg just because the depth of field is too shallow.

I find it interesting that throughout this discussion, with all of the contrasting opinions, we all seem to agree upon the importance of understanding the materials we use.

Finally, I don't need to know anything technical to make a photograph, but I choose to know.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

But few people want to study sensitometry, so the ZS provides an alternative - a reasonable, simplified framework for exposure and development of the negative to support visualization. It isn't meant to be more than that.

I agree.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Some of the finest "art" that I have seen using photography came via photojournalism.

I don't think that I need say more.

PE

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... But few people want to study sensitometry, so the ZS provides an alternative - a reasonable, simplified framework for exposure and development of the negative to support visualization. It isn't meant to be more than that.

... and, for those of us who do not have the time or inclination to devote to sensitometry, the ZS gets us in the ballpark. That's all that's really needed, and I think it is somehow better than overexpose and dodge and burn... I agree with Stephen that many ZS practitioners have a false sense of precision. There are those of us, however, that strive for precision and realize we're lucky if we get within a stop or so. That's not a reason to abandon the system or to stop striving, however,

Best,

Doremus

 

[markbarendt]

The most important thing that the zone system brings to the table, IMO, is a simple way to talk about tieing real subject matter in a scene to specific tones/placements in a print.

 

[AndreasT]

I don't think that was a fair comparison to begin with. Fine art and photojournalism use photography for different purposes. A photojournalist isn't going to reject a negative of the burning Hindenburg just because the depth of field is too shallow.

It is funny that you mention that. I enlarged a glass negative of a German photographer who actually photographed the exploding Hindenburg.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

... and, for those of us who do not have the time or inclination to devote to sensitometry, the ZS gets us in the ballpark. That's all that's really needed, and I think it is somehow better than overexpose and dodge and burn... I agree with Stephen that many ZS practitioners have a false sense of precision. There are those of us, however, that strive for precision and realize we're lucky if we get within a stop or so. That's not a reason to abandon the system or to stop striving, however,

Nothing's perfect. So it's always a good idea to understand the strengths and limitations for any process or methodology. One of the inherent difficulties with photography is that it's not just psychophysical, like the perception of color. It includes creativity which isn't quantifiable and is often the exception to the rule.

 

[Bill Burk]

PE and Stephen,

I wouldn't mind seeing a course co-ordinated between you two!

Maybe I'm taking the things said on this site too personally. Or maybe I'm just sensitive to heretical comments about Zone System tradition because I want to teach an overview of the different approaches to the Zone System. If the whole idea is proved invalid, then I fear my book will be brief and won't sell many copies.

I went back to the first post of this thread Stephen, and the thought occurred to me - I was being bull-headed about holding onto the Ansel/Archer Zones on the meter. So I couldn't see how you could implement your other ideas such as Munsell.

But there is no reason Zones have to be evenly spaced on the light meter! Let go the "one stop" spacing on the meter and you can explore all your examples!

Say for example, you wanted to explore the Munsell model. Tone Reproduction tracings could be used to work backwards to light meter readings that lead to Munsell spacing on the print.

Then, exploring a scene with a light meter so calibrated, you could interpret the scene according to Munsell.

Now.. back to choosing a typeface for the book. I'm thinking something transitional...