Placing Shadows on Zone IV question

[monk]

found this video some time ago,and wondered if some people could help me.
question:would this mean that this way exposed negatives should be developed N-?
if my personal film speed is iso 50 for tmax 100 should i place still on VI,or can i expose III?
can someone shed some light here?
Thanks in advance!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlnt5yFArWo

 

[David Allen]

Bruce Barnbaum's recommendation to place the shadows - where you wish to retain some detail (in his terminology textures) - on Zone IV is wrong. In his writings and the video he divides up the characteristic curve into three sections and then indicates that by not placing the shadows on Zone IV your lower tones will fall on the toe area which has less contrast / tonal separation. Then to cope with the fact that the brightest highlights - where you wish to retain some detail - fall onto the shoulder of the curve he recommends N- development.

At first glance (and especially with his guru type of delivery) it looks plausible BUT if you have correctly tested for your personal exposure index and development time you will already have placed your Zone III on the 'straight line' section of the curve.

So if your established EI of 50 for T-Max 100 (and related development regime) is correct then you have no need to place your shadows on Zone IV and no need to do N- development. If you are unsure about your EI and processing time, I have previously posted the testing regime I use with my students. This uses a combination of very sophisticated testing devices: your eyes, your equipment and your way of doing things. You can find the methodology in post #3 in this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[markbarendt]

Camera exposure (which effects negative subject placement) and development (which affects print contrast) should really be decided on separately.

The video is basically suggesting that extra camera exposure should allow printing shadows "better". In short he's saying don't underexpose whatever you do.

See page 15of this TechPub http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Notice that on your film there is no shoulder shown. There's lots of room for extra exposure on the negative. Another way of putting Bruce's advice is to shoot your TMax 100 at 25 all the subjects/zones move right away from the toe, no harm done.

Try this yourself, pick a "normal for you" scene and in rapid succession shoot one frame at 100, the next at 50, and the next at 25. Develop all three exactly the same way.

When you print you should be able to print three nearly exact same prints from those differing negatives by adjusting enlarger exposure alone.

The print has a much shorter visual range than the negative. N,N-,N+ allows you to change how much of the negative info straight prints but it also changes the "snappiness" of the print.

The next test is to print those three negs at harder or softer paper grades to see what you like. The paper grade adjustment does the same thing as the N,N-,N+ adjustment.

 

[monk]

Bruce Barnbaum's recommendation to place the shadows - where you wish to retain some detail (in his terminology textures) - on Zone IV is wrong. In his writings and the video he divides up the characteristic curve into three sections and then indicates that by not placing the shadows on Zone IV your lower tones will fall on the toe area which has less contrast / tonal separation. Then to cope with the fact that the brightest highlights - where you wish to retain some detail - fall onto the shoulder of the curve he recommends N- development.

At first glance (and especially with his guru type of delivery) it looks plausible BUT if you have correctly tested for your personal exposure index and development time you will already have placed your Zone III on the 'straight line' section of the curve.

So if your established EI of 50 for T-Max 100 (and related development regime) is correct then you have no need to place your shadows on Zone IV and no need to do N- development. If you are unsure about your EI and processing time, I have previously posted the testing regime I use with my students. This uses a combination of very sophisticated testing devices: your eyes, your equipment and your way of doing things. You can find the methodology in post #3 in this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Thanks David!
that cleared it All out for me!
Thank You!

 

[monk]

Camera exposure (which effects negative subject placement) and development (which affects print contrast) should really be decided on separately.

The video is basically suggesting that extra camera exposure should allow printing shadows "better". In short he's saying don't underexpose whatever you do.

See page 15of this TechPub http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Notice that on your film there is no shoulder shown. There's lots of room for extra exposure on the negative. Another way of putting Bruce's advice is to shoot your TMax 100 at 25 all the subjects/zones move right away from the toe, no harm done.

Try this yourself, pick a "normal for you" scene and in rapid succession shoot one frame at 100, the next at 50, and the next at 25. Develop all three exactly the same way.

When you print you should be able to print three nearly exact same prints from those differing negatives by adjusting enlarger exposure alone.

The print has a much shorter visual range than the negative. N,N-,N+ allows you to change how much of the negative info straight prints but it also changes the "snappiness" of the print.

The next test is to print those three negs at harder or softer paper grades to see what you like. The paper grade adjustment does the same thing as the N,N-,N+ adjustment.

Thanks Mark!
this was really assuring and supperhelpful!(like all your answers before as well,that i didnt forget )
thanks for taking the time to answer to a mortal passionate student
Thanks Folks!
Wish you ALL a Happy New Year!

 

[Alan Klein]

Do most people meter Tmax 100 other than at 100?

 

[markbarendt]

Do most people meter Tmax 100 other than at 100?

I'd bet that most use 100 as the EI. I'd bet their prints come out just fine too.

 

[pdeeh]

come come, mark, next you'll be telling us that manufacturers know better how to expose their materials than random internet strangers ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do most people meter Tmax 100 other than at 100?

I'd bet that most use 100 as the EI. I'd bet their prints come out just fine too.

I shoot at box speed. Many use EI as a crutch because

• they meter too much sky and have not learned to take a light reading correctly
• the meter is out of calibration and needs adjustment
• the camera is out of calibration and needs a CLA
• the lens is out of calibration and needs a CLA

 

[monk]

come come, mark, next you'll be telling us that manufacturers know better how to expose their materials than random internet strangers ...

i run a film test and came out with my 50..
for me they can say 400,if for me 50 works i will use the 50

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot at box speed. Many use EI as a crutch because

• they meter too much sky and have not learned to take a light reading correctly
• the meter is out of calibration and needs adjustment
• the camera is out of calibration and needs a CLA
• the lens is out of calibration and needs a CLA

Yes, I shoot with 3 different 35mm systems, 2 MF systems, and 3 LF camera with different lens, 3 different meters, so rather than try and keep up calibration on so many cameras testing works for me.

 

[markbarendt]

come come, mark, next you'll be telling us that manufacturers know better how to expose their materials than random internet strangers ...

Well... yeah.

 

[David Allen]

I shoot at box speed. Many use EI as a crutch because

• they meter too much sky and have not learned to take a light reading correctly
• the meter is out of calibration and needs adjustment
• the camera is out of calibration and needs a CLA
• the lens is out of calibration and needs a CLA

If you undertake practical tests using your equipment none of that matters because it will all be automatically compensated for during the tests. Even if your camera is working as per blueprint (highly unlikely given required production tolerances) it cannot be assumed that the box speed will suit your equipment, exposure and development technique.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[monk]

i made the film test that a large format photography forum member(Doremus Scudder) recommended,it uses less film,and it worked out well for me..
here you go,i hope it might help someone:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97016-Film-speed-testing/page2
(but for the development test i used the book "the negative" from Mr Adams.)

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you undertake practical tests using your equipment none of that matters because it will all be automatically compensated for during the tests. Even if your camera is working as per blueprint (highly unlikely given required production tolerances) it cannot be assumed that the box speed will suit your equipment, exposure and development technique.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I guess that I do not have enough experience. I have only been using box speed and getting great shadow detail for sixty years, maybe at 120 years I will know better.

Hint: I worked at Kodak.

 

[MattKing]

Bruce Barnbaum makes really good prints.

And his approach to exposing and developing negatives gives him negatives that result in those really good prints.

If you follow his suggestions, you will take photographs under certain lighting conditions and your negatives will end up with generously exposed shadows and highlights that retain lots of detail but you will then need to approach printing those negatives in the same way he does. If you are as skilled at printing as he is, and you choose subjects like he does, you too will end up with very good prints.

Just be sure to take his explanations about why you should do things the way he does with a large grain of salt. The "science" doesn't really withstand much scrutiny.[/COLOR]

"Box speed" metering has excellent science behind it, because it allows you to squeeze out the maximum amount of density range - shadows to highlights - on your negative materials, with a statistically supportable margin for error at either end. There is nothing wrong, however, with making a subjective choice to favour one end of the range (shadows or highlights) over the other. That choice should be made though based on your printing preferences and your choice of subject matter, not based on internet "wisdom".

By the way, it seems to me most EI and development tests seem to me to be biased in favour of shadow detail. That seems to make more sense in a world where films have a more restricted range than current films, and where the norm is fixed contrast grade papers rather than variable contrast grade papers.

I stand to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that the current ISO ("box speed") standards take highlight rendition more into account than the older ASA standards. That would make sense to me because, with respect to the subjective evaluation of the appearance of prints, the appearance of highlights often has more effect than the appearance of shadows.

 

[monk]

sometimes here(as well as in other forums)some questions turn into nearly a riot
let love-help each other,after all,we are all film jukies
nobody sad that you havent got enough experience Glass,im sure David didnt mean that..
if box speed worked out for you thats excellent.i made my test to know where i get some kindof information start to develop on the film,and base everything on that.
and to give me confidence in what i do
to me it was 50.
maybe im too young

 

[Bill Burk]

Well, just be sure that you don't double-correct...

If you have chosen 50 as EI for a 100 speed film...

Then you don't need to place your shadows on Zone IV.

You have already effectively done that.

 

[monk]

Well, just be sure that you don't double-correct...

If you have chosen 50 as EI for a 100 speed film...

Then you don't need to place your shadows on Zone IV.

You have already effectively done that.

David and Mark pointed it out before,but Thanks Bill!
a reminder is always welcomethink twice do it once,
(or meter twice expose once )

 

[markbarendt]

i made the film test that a large format photography forum member(Doremus Scudder) recommended,it uses less film,and it worked out well for me..
here you go,i hope it might help someone:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97016-Film-speed-testing/page2
(but for the development test i used the book "the negative" from Mr Adams.)

Doremus is great. That's a very workable approach.

I did similar testing and other styles too. These tests have real value in understanding what you are doing and how things work.

One of the other styles of testing I played with was purposefully trying box speed in relation to my incident meter and normal development in normal shooting situations.

This is on going and I've been playing with this almost continually since 2006, my intent has been to find out where this method doesn't work. To date I haven't found a situation where it fails, period.

The only times I've ever had an exposure failure using box speed and an incident meter it has been from sheer and utter stupidity or pure lack of thought on my part. Truly "Doh!" moments like taking meter reading but not setting the camera to match. Every failure has been all about my failings.

My point here is not to convert anyone to incident metering but to encourage people to do real world tests.

One of the benefits of my real world tests is that I can generally and reliably use faster shutter speeds than when I apply the zone system spot metering and tested EI principles.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Has anybody run a film test that confirms the manufacturers rating? I think not.

 

[BrianShaw]

Has anybody run a film test that confirms the manufacturers rating? I think not.

Why would you ask that - hypothetical, Socratic, or do you question manufacturers testing results? Not challenging you but truly curious. Manufacturer ratings have been generally acceptable to me over the past 40 years.

 

[markbarendt]

Has anybody run a film test that confirms the manufacturers rating? I think not.

I'd take that bet.

If you use the ISO standard as the basis for the test you should get the same numbers as Kodak would.

The zone system uses a different standard for testing.

If you had said "Has anybody run a Zone System film test that confirms the manufacturers rating? I think not." you would have been more correct.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Be pragmatic. Place your shadows in zone III and zone IV. Process your film as usual and make a standard print. Which works for you? For me, I place shadows with detail in zone III.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Why would you ask that - hypothetical, Socratic, or do you question manufacturers testing results? Not challenging you but truly curious. Manufacturer ratings have been generally acceptable to me over the past 40 years.

Exactly, and that's my point. To change the manufacturers rating is much easier than learning how to meter accurately.