Paper Zones

Bill Burk said:

"people accept compressed shadows, but it's not necessarily better than having detail in shadows".

Click to expand...

This is a good point in a general sense. Sharpness, grain, details in certain areas are simply characteristics. High sharpness and minimal grain isn't always better.

Stephen Benskin said:

Mark, I was speaking generally. It's a question of what is knowable. Zone System testing defines two points (both mistakenly). Even if they were accurately defined, there isn't any information with what goes on in between. Exposure isn't about that anyway. For black and white negative films, it's about placing the subject luminance range on a part of the film curve that will produce a quality print. There really isn't a correct exposure. That's why Zone System's EIs are usually half of the ISO and the old ASA speeds were half of the current and there's no problem in quality. The primary reasons to keep the exposure as short as possible is to keep printing times a short, limiting grain and light piping, and maximizing sharpness.

Click to expand...

The ZS "uses" two locations on the curve to establish the effective speed and to establish a "normal" development target density------in what way are those two points a mistake? Do you mean the value of those two points i.e., 0.1 and 1.3?

CPorter said:

The ZS "uses" two locations on the curve to establish the effective speed and to establish a "normal" development target density------in what way are those two points a mistake? Do you mean the value of those two points i.e., 0.1 and 1.3?

Click to expand...

I've discussed this thoroughly on multiple occasions, but yes, those are the two points.

Even if it is not precise, Zone System gives you a realistic expectation of how tones in a scene may translate to the print.

CPorter said:

... when I make a gray scale, the scale itself is centered around the exposure time that produces the Zone V negative to match the gray card. I'm only commenting on the production of a gray scale, ... I believe that power [of visualization] is derived by a fundamental grasp of the production of an accurate gray scale using ZS principles.

Click to expand...

I've been cogitating about this for a while and have a couple of thoughts: I agree wholeheartedly that having a grasp of the grey scale is one of the fundamentals of learning to visualize. The problem I have with centering around Zone V is the possible lack of "accuracy" of the scale, or more precisely, the lack of correspondence of grey scale tones to meter readings.

I spend a lot of time coming up with an E.I. that gives me satisfactory blacks and the desired shadow detail in Zone III. Finding this is done visually, using proper proofing, and is subjective and a practical compromise between the two variables. (Stephen, I don't use 0.1 over FB+fog, nor do I obsess over achieving D-max in the printing paper -- in essence, I agree with you about the vagaries of proper proofing; it is a subjective tool and requires practice and a certain flexibility in application.)

Arriving at my final E.I. is a process of tweaking development time and exposure and making Zone Rulers (grey scales). As mentioned, I strive for an E.I. and development time that gives me a benchmark of sorts at Zone I (erring a bit on the side of overexposure if there is any question), detail in Zone III and Zone VIII and as close to a paper-base white in Zone IX as practical (all this for "N," of course; other parameters guide tests for expansions and contractions).

Therefore, my Zone Ruler for "N" is keyed to those parameters, which directly correspond to exposure values, i.e., to meter readings. I proper-proof the Zone Ruler, printing all shades of grey at the same exposure. My result is a grey scale that shows me the print values I will get at a particular E.I. and placement/fall of subject luminances. I try to keep the accuracy of the Zone Ruler exposures at 1/3-stop or better (try is the key word here).

So, my Zone Ruler is not matched to Zone V = 18% grey density, but rather to the speed point I have subjectively chosen. This usually results in a Zone V density that is not exactly 18% grey. However, the values on the Zone Ruler do correspond rather closely (within a fraction of a stop if I've been careful) to actual print values for a given meter reading. That, in a rather bloated nutshell, is my reasoning for not keying the grey scale to 18% grey.

Enough about Zone Rulers...

Back to the negative density vs. print value discussion. I was out shooting yesterday and worked with a subject that may provide a good example of what I'm trying to say about the flexibility of subject value placement and negative exposure vs. print value and the role of visualization in the process:

Subject: an old storefront/facade in glancing but veiled sunlight. The marquee is jet black glass that is really inky in areas of no reflection. There is also weathered wood (an obvious mid-point in my visualization) and a large white sign surface with black lettering. I place the darkest area of the black marquee in Zone II- (1/3 stop less than Zone II) and see where the other values fall. Oops, the value I wanted as a mid point falls in Zone VI-, whereas I would like it in Zone V, and the white surface that I would really like in Zone VIII is VII+; a bit low. Now, if I expand to get Zone VII+ up to VIII, I raise the mid-point that I want in Zone V as well; no-go... And, the luminance spread between my Zone II placement and my desired Zone V "mid-point" is too great. (A good example of reality not matching visualization.)

Solution: I really want to compress the distance between Zones II- and V, and expand the distance between Zones V and VII+ in order to get my visualized print, which is not possible with exposure and development alone, however. I, therefore, base my exposure on Zone II-, keeping the lowest values down on the toe but still giving me detail in Zone III. I also really want the white sign front in Zone VIII or a little higher, so I decide on a bit of expansion; N+1/2 in this case. This gets me a bit more density in the highs, but my mid-point now falls even higher than I want it. But, I've decided on an approach to printing already as well, which I note on my exposure record: Center print exposure on the mid-tone (essentially printing Zone VI and Zone V, which gets most of the values where I want them). This, however, dumps the shadows and results in the high values being printed too grey, so I plan to dodge up the shadows to compensate (I'll have good detail there, since I based my exposure on the lowest value), and deal with the still-a-bit low high value by either dodging or bleaching or a combination of the two. Often, in cases like this, printing a tad dark and then using an overall bleaching in a weak rehalogenating bleach gets the whites where I want them without affecting mids and shadows too much.

Point of the entire example: Negative densities correspond to no particular print values, rather I plan to use print manipulations to alter the "natural" scheme of things and print negative density values in other print zones than they would "fall." This is only possible because I am able to make an informed visualization of the scene based on my knowledge of materials and techniques. And, even if my planned strategy doesn't work, I can further refine my manipulations in the printing process to maybe still get a great print. (No matter how carefully I work, there are many more failures than successes in achieving a really expressive print. I believe, however, that I have a much better chance of success because I know what I want before exposing and have a good knowledge of the possibilities and limitations of the medium.)

Print zones are fluid and subjective and subject to many variables, as Michael points out. I think we can, however, really plan, or at least try to plan, what print values we want and craft a negative to allow us to do that.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus, you take it further than I. The only notes I take are for processing and those are in 1 stop intervals. I feel that flare as well as other factors makes it unnecessary to be any more precise. I can also make an argument on the problematic nature of defining expanded and contracted development.

Good example though.

Good example Doremus, Even the lowly Zone Sticker on the Master II can't adjust for expansions and contractions like you do intuitively.

Early editions of Beyond The Zone System include instructions to cut a radial pattern of slivers into goldenrod masking paper to expose onto your print paper which would be the base for a PowerDial that would show the tones you get at the meter readings for expansions and contractions.

I don't know if anyone had completed that project, but it sure looks like a great project for a weekend...

I have not even bothered to read this thread. The reason? There is really no such thing, in practical terms, as paper zones. Now, you may not believe me, but this is so because you want to get the full gamut of the paper to reveal your image. And, You dodge or use VC methods to get them. Think about this. Please.

I give up though on this sort of stuff for the most part.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I have not even bothered to read this thread. The reason? There is really no such thing, in practical terms, as paper zones. Now, you may not believe me, but this is so because you want to get the full gamut of the paper to reveal your image. And, You dodge or use VC methods to get them. Think about this. Please.

I give up though on this sort of stuff for the most part.

Click to expand...

If you had bothered, you would had realized that was basically my point.

Stephen Benskin said:

Doremus, you take it further than I. The only notes I take are for processing and those are in 1 stop intervals. I feel that flare as well as other factors makes it unnecessary to be any more precise. I can also make an argument on the problematic nature of defining expanded and contracted development. Good example though.

Click to expand...

Stephen,

I don't think I'm really overly precise; I just use the 1/3-stop markings on meter and shutter as reference points for placement and exposure and use the intermediate stops when exposing. This kind of lends itself to thinking in third-stop intervals, which I indicate by plus and minus signs. When I test a shutter, I make a sticker with actual speeds rounded to the nearest 1/3 stop as well.

In my example, I didn't mind fudging Zone II down a third of a stop to try and get the mid-tone closer to where I wanted it. My point was simply that, by using the meter and my visualization skills, I am able to recognize where subject luminances didn't align with my desired result and then plan, somewhat at least, a printing strategy to achieve the desired print values. I realize that my attempt at precision is likely to be off by up to a stop. I like to think, however, that trying to be precise at least reduces the error somewhat. And I know that my printing strategy will likely change once I get going. But, at least I have a starting point, and, more and more often, I end up doing something rather close to the original plan.

I've been indicating paper grades in my exposure record for some years now. Some negatives like the smoother rendition of grade 2, but for many, I like the grittier look of grade 3 (or higher). This is basically just subtracting a zone of development for whatever would be appropriate for grade 2 and making the appropriate E.I. adjustment at the time of exposure.

It seems, however, that I may have misunderstood your original intent in starting this thread. It looks like we are basically saying the same thing; that print values can be achieved from many different negative densities and that, in practice, the choice of how to print a particular density depends on a number of more subjective and flexible parameters than the science of tone reproduction might suggest.

Although the example I gave may seem complex, it's really just about aligning the meter dial mentally to one's imagination of tonalities in a finished print. I think being able to generate a good idea of what tonalities I want in my final print and how I want the print to feel before I make the exposure helps me better choose which development scheme and paper grade to use, as well as point up the necessity for print manipulations. This, of course is subject to change as my idea of the print changes during printing and as I come up against the constraints of the medium. I think, still, that the initial visualization is important, and I like to note those things, partly as a guide and partly as a game to see how close I'm really getting.

I indicate N+1/2 development every now and then when a subject just seems to fall in the middle between N and N+1. I really don't like expanded development much, so I'm always trying to fudge toward N or less whenever I can.

Bill,

I have a Zone Dial on my Pentax meter, but that just helps me place the shadow values and see where the other values fall more easily than counting stops from Zone V. My visualization happens in my head. I really do hope I can get certain parts of the scene to be rendered with a certain shade of grey in the print that has a specific feel. A dark textured Zone IV has a real feel to it for me, as does an open Zone V shadow and a frothy white-water Zone VIII, etc. My plans are more hopes, and don't always work out. Like Ansel Adams recognized when he said "one good print a month" was a realistic expectation for him, I know that most of my negatives will not make it to the fine print stage. Without the attempt, however, there would be no result (who is it here that has the Wayne Gretsky quote in their signature, "You miss 100% of the shots you never take."? I like that quote).

I guess my entire point, after trudging verbosely through this thread, is that one can visualize print values and do it fairly well; and that without referring to numbers. I have the greatest respect for the science of sensitometry; I'm just not sure it is necessary to carry its quantification and data into the field any more than a good musician needs to dwell on frequencies and acoustics when performing.

Thanks all for putting up with, and even reading, my lengthy ramblings.

Best,

Doremus

Photo Engineer said:

I have not even bothered to read this thread. The reason? There is really no such thing, in practical terms, as paper zones. Now, you may not believe me, but this is so because you want to get the full gamut of the paper to reveal your image. And, You dodge or use VC methods to get them. Think about this. Please.

I give up though on this sort of stuff for the most part.

PE

Click to expand...

Stephen Benskin said:

If you had bothered, you would had realized that was basically my point.

Click to expand...

And I believe the same can be said of negatives and scenes. No single point or range can be defined as a specific anything for all cases but oh so many try.

Zones for me are a reasonable artistic concept that can help me express to someone "how". "They/we" ask the question "from this scene, what do I want to print and how am I going to get it there?" Zone talk is a reasonable way to try and answer that good question. That it is problematic to portray in mathematic models is irrelevant to the value or existence of zones.

There are zones in the scene and on the paper when I or whomever chooses to define how they want the subject matter to fall. Zones work in specific cases and can be defined for individual shots in artistic terms, defining them mathematically is irrelevant unless one is designing an assembly line.

Doremus Scudder said:

..............one can visualize print values and do it fairly well; and that without referring to numbers. I have the greatest respect for the science of sensitometry; I'm just not sure it is necessary to carry its quantification and data into the field any more than a good musician needs to dwell on frequencies and acoustics when performing.

Click to expand...

I agree very much, I don't make gray scales anymore, but I did early on, it's a fantastic way to become efficient at visualizing the desired final print.

Stephen Benskin said:

If you had bothered, you would had realized that was basically my point.

Click to expand...

Done come this far to conclude that it doesn't matter. It is true that sensitometry is often ignored in printmaking, but Zones do fall on the print. They aren't evenly spaced. But it's a fact, if you print, they get on the print. You do have some correlation between your plan and your result. Hopefully with practice you get better at calling your shots.

No, this thread should hold the information that someone interested in exploring Zone System more completely than others have carried it.

Tools exist to carry Zone concepts to the print. We just discussed a few: the Zone Sticker (which I applied to my Master II), the Mental image how subject will carry through negative to print after planned development and manipulation (which Doremus Scudder has explained), and the BTZS Power Dial (I have never seen one, and I don't believe more than a few exist, but a documented possibility to take you "Beyond the Zone System").

Bill Burk said:

Done come this far to conclude that it doesn't matter. It is true that sensitometry is often ignored in printmaking, but Zones do fall on the print. They aren't evenly spaced. But it's a fact, if you print, they get on the print. You do have some correlation between your plan and your result. Hopefully with practice you get better at calling your shots.

No, this thread should hold the information that someone interested in exploring Zone System more completely than others have carried it.

Tools exist to carry Zone concepts to the print. We just discussed a few: the Zone Sticker (which I applied to my Master II), the Mental image how subject will carry through negative to print after planned development and manipulation (which Doremus Scudder has explained), and the BTZS Power Dial (I have never seen one, and I don't believe more than a few exist, but a documented possibility to take you "Beyond the Zone System").

Click to expand...

I did say basically. So far in this thread I've been accused of being too technical and not technical enough. I propose certain concepts and sometimes act as devil's advocate to challenge people to re-evaluate their perspectives. I think I have a pretty good understanding of exposure and tone reproduction. Wouldn't you think that would include its nuances. Beginners tend see things in black and white. With experience it is more about shades of gray (not 50 shades though).

From a sensitometric perspective, the subject luminance range can be theoretically followed through to the print. This gives us information on how a scene will generally be presented. It's a way to understand what's going on, nobody expects a person to take curves into the field or that the scene will perfectly conform to the sensitometric models. This is a straw man type argument. Doremus doesn't require the Zone System to understand his materials nor is it only possible to understand the materials using the Zone System. The Zone System is a good way to help visualize this process, but exposure is place and fall, and there is a tendency to believe there is more control with the Zone System than there really is. As with most things, the reality is somewhere in the middle.

Stephen Benskin said:

If you had bothered, you would had realized that was basically my point.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but after all of this, I am tired of zones. It is just a simplified H&D curve. And in paper, the use of the term "zones" is meaningless and that just struck, it being so invalid. I meant no offense, but the tittle is a bit off-putting you must admit.

PE

Stephen Benskin said:

- ... Doremus doesn't require the Zone System to understand his materials nor is it only possible to understand the materials using the Zone System. The Zone System is a good way to help visualize this process, but exposure is place and fall, and there is a tendency to believe there is more control with the Zone System than there really is. As with most things, the reality is somewhere in the middle.

Click to expand...

Stephen,

Just to set the record straight: I do use the Zone System, just do the calibration without a densitometer (á la Minor White, Zakia, et al.). I think that applying sensitometry in an uncomplicated way helps make the system what it is, but its greatest advantage for me is as a visualizations tool. Extending that tool to include print controls seems only logical to me. Michael says it very well below.

Michael R 1974 said:

... The Zone System (Adams/Archer) is an introduction to visualization, spot metering and sensitometry with the goal of eliminating some of the guesswork involved in making negatives that contain the information required to make a print that carries the desired effect. Print controls are then they key to extracting the information from the negative, which is why they should be considered when making the exposure in the field. A careful reading of Adams and this becomes clear. You can't make great prints by trying to make negatives that print themselves.

Considering the Zone System is an introduction to the system of controls and sensitometric transitions from subject to print, to me the logical extension of it is tone reproduction theory. If one truly wants to be able to "place" subject luminances on expected print tones (and we can debate the utility of that), I believe a study of Jones, tone reproduction diagrams etc. is the way to go. That is how to extend the Zone System. Of course, that inevitably involves gaining a better understanding of exposure as well (film speed for example).

Click to expand...

But, Micheal, I must differ with you that the Zone System is "an introduction." It is a simplification, intended to do away with much of the numerical data, Cartesian graphs, curve mapping and logarithms that are such a part of sensitometry. It works to help make adequate negatives, and that's all we need it for. One does need the ability to target areas of a scene for particular print values if one is serious about visualizing and making finely-crafted prints. The Zone System is complete and adequate to the task. If one wants to study sensitometry and tone reproduction on the other hand (worthy endeavors by all means), one doesn't need the Zone System.

Best,

Doremus

Photo Engineer said:

Sorry, but after all of this, I am tired of zones. It is just a simplified H&D curve. And in paper, the use of the term "zones" is meaningless and that just struck, it being so invalid. I meant no offense, but the tittle is a bit off-putting you must admit.

Click to expand...

The Zone System is so widely used and is what many people are most familar with, that it is often necessary use it. The whole thing can be a minefield though as some people treat the Zone System as sacred.

Doremus Scudder said:

If one wants to study sensitometry and tone reproduction on the other hand (worthy endeavors by all means), one doesn't need the Zone System.

Click to expand...

I use it for visualization. What about BTZS?

Stephen Benskin said:

The Zone System is so widely used and is what many people are most familar with, that it is often necessary use it. The whole thing can be a minefield though as some people treat the Zone System as sacred.

Click to expand...

I agree with you totally. But, given the title of the thread, this is what can add to the danger of the minefield.

I spent most of today at GEH helping two interns learn how to conceive and design a new emulsion. This has resulted in many fine plates, and many fine prints. We didn't mention the zone system one time. We didn't even mention H&D curves. That will be for the near future though.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I agree with you totally. But, given the title of the thread, this is what can add to the danger of the minefield.

Click to expand...

What can I say, I like the challenge. I also like, as Michael calls it, setting up a rabbit hole.

Then let us, as I proposed earlier, for us to teach a joint course in this subject, ie, the design of photo neg-pos materials!

PE

Every time I hear about what you are doing at GEH, I think how trivial it is to talk about using emulsions, as you are creating emulsions...

No, don't talk Zone System at those workshops - that would be a waste of time.

Talk about Zone System during downtime.

Stephen Benskin said:

I use it for visualization. What about BTZS?

Click to expand...

Throw me in the briar patch...

As one who chooses not to use BTZS incident metering, my opinion of it will not carry the same weight as anyone who studies and uses it.

I mentioned the PowerDial. Black and white versions of it are available from the View Camera Store. I don't know of anybody who actually made a grayscale version, but where my Master II only has little chips of actual print, the originally-described PowerDial would have wedge-shaped grays of an actual print that show expansions (and contractions) appropriately for short and long scale subjects.

I come back to this concept because "we all know" Paper Zones expand and contract with development changes. Minor White's Zone System Manual explains it as the "third step in previsualization". If you develop to N+1 and place Zone VII meter reading on Zone VIII, then Zone V meter reading won't fall exactly on Zone V any longer it will be a little higher.

The PowerDial is convertible between Incident Meter use and Zone System use. I am intrigued by the Zone System side of the PowerDial which may be worthy of the name "Beyond" the Zone System (Where I consider the Incident Metering system of BTZS an alternative to Zone System).

I imagine most Zone System users have stickers that just have the Roman Numerals drawn on them. The "Zones" themselves are symbolic - Zone II shadow, Zone VI skin in sunlight, and so on... Minor White insisted that you had to memorize the list of subjects and Zones that are "generally realistic" for those subjects.

Bill,

I'm happy to see someone else referring to the Minor White, Richard Zakia, Peter Lorenz "Zone System Manual." The methods in the book are basically what I use to do Zone System calibrations. I like the idea of including the entire system, from metering through printing as a kind of "black box," and to be able to evaluate results visually.

I looked at BTZS rather seriously some years ago and came to the conclusion that it was not as useful a visualization tool as the ZS that it purports to go beyond, and requires a lot more time and trouble calibrating (not to mention that you have to carry a handheld computer in the field if you want to get the most from it). I didn't think that level of precision was necessary.

Best,

Doremus

I threw BTZS out there because it uses pretty standard sensitometry with the Zone System. It doesn't require incident metering or a handheld computer, and if you think about it, how much difference is there between using a PDA or a notebook? Plotting curves is a lot quicker, more accurate, and less complicated than the ZS in camera tests. I can confidently use an unknown film after doing a family of curves.

Herb Ritts' shooting crew were getting complaints from their printer. After a lot of back and forth accusations, they called me in to evaluate their process. They showed me a series of negatives they had processed by a number of local labs of a test subject they had set-up in the studio. They couldn't tell anything from the test. I took a look, then told them I'd do some sensitometric exposures for them for the labs process. The results showed that the lab they were currently using had lost control of the processing. Their normal was over +2. The testing was quick and decisive, and the lab lost Ritt's black and white business. Ritts was also having some trouble with their LVTs from a digital lab. It turned out the lab had calibrated their 0 to 255 range to a higher than normal negative density range.