Placing Shadows on Zone IV question

[markbarendt]

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

I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[cliveh]

I like to just look at the final image.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

One reasonable reason to derate the film speed is to have a denser negative.

The testinestas would rather test and retest film and without actually going out and taking photographs. They do serve a purpose in that they continually purchase film to test, test and test and then test again. And for that Kodak blesses them, Ilford blesses them, Fujifilm blesses them, ...

 

[Bruce Osgood]

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.

Mark,
Firstly, More or Less correct isn't an option. It's either correct or not.

I was implying that I feel there is nothing to test. You can fool around in your darkroom doing all kinds of tests and that won't change the facts that the manufacturers have concluded. You can either learn and work within those limitations or go outside and re-invent the wheel. It won't be a better wheel but it will be a new wheel. You'll be able to over expose the film and under develop. This may be Zone System concepts and we know the Z.S. produced a great leap forward in photography and the Kodak's, Agfa, Ilfords, etc. rose to the challenge and the products of today are not the products of 40's, 50's and 60's.

So what I mean is that testing for E.I. does not make a better picture than knowingly shooting at ISO.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Michael R 1974

You say it so much better, thank you

 

[markbarendt]

Mark: my only objection is to your use of the word "standard" which implies a difference in quality. The Zone System is just a different measurement.

Absolutely.

 

[markbarendt]

Mark,
Firstly, More or Less correct isn't an option. It's either correct or not.

I was implying that I feel there is nothing to test. You can fool around in your darkroom doing all kinds of tests and that won't change the facts that the manufacturers have concluded. You can either learn and work within those limitations or go outside and re-invent the wheel. It won't be a better wheel but it will be a new wheel. You'll be able to over expose the film and under develop. This may be Zone System concepts and we know the Z.S. produced a great leap forward in photography and the Kodak's, Agfa, Ilfords, etc. rose to the challenge and the products of today are not the products of 40's, 50's and 60's.

So what I mean is that testing for E.I. does not make a better picture than knowingly shooting at ISO.

The wiggle room I was allowing for is that box rating numbers have been rounded. A 125 box speed film might actually be measured at 117 or 135.

After all the testing I've done I learned that I could have just started with the normal box numbers and ignored the speed testing. I could have even ignored all the advice to adjust film development.

What I could not have ignored is testing the limits of how much I could underexpose in normal real world shooting situations. I don't think lab speed tests accurately reflect the compromises any of us might be willing to make (or not) when we are shooting at night under a street light or around a campfire or the sun is going down and the clouds are perfect.

I need to know where I start compromising my print, to find that point one needs to underexpose a frame as a test next to a real shot.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

Mark,
I agree.

 

[michaelorr]

Well I am just confuzzed now. It was my understanding that the point of a personal ei was in order to determine the speed of a particular film (and format ie large or roll) when developed with a specific developer/dilution, under the conditions developed by the person. Conditions affecting outcome being mostly time, temp, agitation, tray or tube or whatever. Knowing this, the exposure in which the person can be confident in placing a shadow at a chosen zone (exposure) can be determined by the light reading. If this is not the case, please unconfuzz me. I had assumed box speed is good if the film is developed with the developer and conditions specified on the film's cutsheet. That also is probably a reliable assumption. I have not watched the barnbaum video yet but I will now. Many thanks to OP for bringing this discussion to the table, and MattKing for reminding us that barnbaum made some good points as to why he does it his way. As for me, I wish I had taken his workshop when I had the chance several years ago, and wish I had seen this video. My recent gallery upload Falling Waters - Swiftwater falls has been compromised irreparably from under-exposure of the rocks flanking either side of the bottom of the falls. If I had barnbaum's advice and followed, this would not have occurred. And there was sufficient head room in the highlights for more density to handle the SBR. I have not had a personal ei. I will never get back the shadow detail that I could clearly see at the scene, and will likely not return to take all three falls again, which I would need to do to keep the triplet in tact in near identical conditions. I am going to shoot in the future for a denser negative now, and check my light meter somehow. Zone III, or IV, is a personal choice. But, so is the development approach and the personal ei. >michael

 

[michaelorr]

I also want to say I am glad that there is an APUG to be a member of, for every one of the 35 reasons above. >michael

 

[markbarendt]

Well I am just confuzzed now. It was my understanding that the point of a personal ei was in order to determine the speed of a particular film (and format ie large or roll) when developed with a specific developer/dilution, under the conditions developed by the person. Conditions affecting outcome being mostly time, temp, agitation, tray or tube or whatever. Knowing this, the exposure in which the person can be confident in placing a shadow at a chosen zone (exposure) can be determined by the light reading. If this is not the case, please unconfuzz me.

That is a reasonable summary.

I had assumed box speed is good if the film is developed with the developer and conditions specified on the film's cutsheet. That also is probably a reliable assumption.

It is.

Developers do have some effect on speed but it's not that big of change.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628953322222.pdf see page 3 From "design speed" 2/3 down to 1/3 up at normal contrast. See bold numbers.

I have not watched the barnbaum video yet but I will now. Many thanks to OP for bringing this discussion to the table, and MattKing for reminding us that barnbaum made some good points as to why he does it his way. As for me, I wish I had taken his workshop when I had the chance several years ago, and wish I had seen this video.

There are good ideas there, just remember that cherry picking ideas may not help you.

My recent gallery upload Falling Waters - Swiftwater falls has been compromised irreparably from under-exposure of the rocks flanking either side of the bottom of the falls. If I had barnbaum's advice and followed, this would not have occurred. And there was sufficient head room in the highlights for more density to handle the SBR. I have not had a personal ei. I will never get back the shadow detail that I could clearly see at the scene, and will likely not return to take all three falls again, which I would need to do to keep the triplet in tact in near identical conditions. I am going to shoot in the future for a denser negative now, and check my light meter somehow. Zone III, or IV, is a personal choice. But, so is the development approach and the personal ei. >michael

Sure another stop might have helped, would it have really fixed it?

Have you tried an incident meter or a grey card with your spot meter. These would provide an objective metering result.

 

[RobC]

Well I am just confuzzed now. It was my understanding that the point of a personal ei was in order to determine the speed of a particular film (and format ie large or roll) when developed with a specific developer/dilution, under the conditions developed by the person. Conditions affecting outcome being mostly time, temp, agitation, tray or tube or whatever. Knowing this, the exposure in which the person can be confident in placing a shadow at a chosen zone (exposure) can be determined by the light reading. If this is not the case, please unconfuzz me. I had assumed box speed is good if the film is developed with the developer and conditions specified on the film's cutsheet. That also is probably a reliable assumption. I have not watched the barnbaum video yet but I will now. Many thanks to OP for bringing this discussion to the table, and MattKing for reminding us that barnbaum made some good points as to why he does it his way. As for me, I wish I had taken his workshop when I had the chance several years ago, and wish I had seen this video. My recent gallery upload Falling Waters - Swiftwater falls has been compromised irreparably from under-exposure of the rocks flanking either side of the bottom of the falls. If I had barnbaum's advice and followed, this would not have occurred. And there was sufficient head room in the highlights for more density to handle the SBR. I have not had a personal ei. I will never get back the shadow detail that I could clearly see at the scene, and will likely not return to take all three falls again, which I would need to do to keep the triplet in tact in near identical conditions. I am going to shoot in the future for a denser negative now, and check my light meter somehow. Zone III, or IV, is a personal choice. But, so is the development approach and the personal ei. >michael

You should be aware that barbaum used highly dilute HC110 for his neg development. Highly diluting HC110 puts a very long shallow toe into the film curve. Other developers and other dilutions put a much shorter toe in the curve. Some developers which give a very short toe will have zone 1 at the bottom of the straight line. Most developers will put zone 3 well into the straight line portion of the curve, especially if you have done a good personal EI test.

So you need to be very careful with what barnbaum (or anyone else) says about the best zone for shadows because without it being said with proper context of film, developer, dilution, developing time and temp it is meaningless and highly likely to confuse and/or mislead you.

 

[Bill Burk]

... My recent gallery upload Falling Waters - Swiftwater falls has been compromised irreparably from under-exposure of the rocks flanking either side of the bottom of the falls. ... I will never get back the shadow detail that I could clearly see at the scene, and will likely not return to take all three falls again, which I would need to do to keep the triplet in tact in near identical conditions. I am going to shoot in the future for a denser negative now, and check my light meter somehow.... >michael

michael,

I know you would have liked to see detail under those rocks. I have a shot of a large boulder in the middle of a fork in a creek that I love because I do have detail under such a rock. (Because under that rock is a tiny waterfall over some sticks that you can see in the print). Unless it were pointed out, nobody else would see that detail except you and I. So don't worry about the lost detail in that shot. It looks great.

But it might not be rare to find people on APUG who have something like that (underexposed/thin negative) in their history. In part I think that drove me into the position that I take now.

So my position is: Test for contrast. Film speed follows.

Consider that if you get 0.62 Contrast Index, you probably get very close to ISO speed. Then if you develop less, for example 0.50 CI is a common goal these days... you might choose a lower Exposure Index. You also have the option to choose a lower EI for shadows as you wish.

Last week, even though I aimed for 0.62 CI, I only got 0.46 CI. I was particularly careful to maintain 68-degrees F. So as a remedy, yesterday I picked up a bag of D-76. (My current batch was mixed 9/8/15 and now I don't trust it - because it is not giving me the contrast I want).

My pictures turned out just fine in spite of the low contrast. It was the family portrait, lit by a single tungsten bulb... and lights on the Christmas tree gave fill for the shadows. I printed on Grade 3.

 

[michaelorr]

Two hits now on meter. I am going to have to check my old pentax spot meter. May shoot the sky or large monochrome surface with meter and with my wife's pentax dslr, see if they correlate. I think Michael you are also pointing out my seeing luminance values, which I know I have not done well. I struggle every time I pick up the light meter. I do try to get the SBR figured out according to the meter, but the trick was where to put the exposure on the dial. If the SBR is greater than 7, I make a note and change developing factors. I will have to think through Bill Burk tutorial on CI, which I have never grasped. If I alter dev/dil to bring down highlights by a zone or two, I have not adjusted the ei. Right now, with no film testing, I have used massive dev chart and the film cutsheets to get the ei for the dev/dil I am using.

 

[michaelorr]

Yes, I was a little liberal with the attribution - but I am capturing what you are saying. I agree that I did not realize how dark it was under those rocks in swiftwater, in the shade already, when I could clearly see features that I had expected would be captured. I believe my eye compensated. At the scene, I have often realized that I just am having trouble judging the lighting as I fail to bring back to the darkroom what I thought I had. I also have come to the conclusion after studying the swiftwater negative, that there is far more headroom in the HP5+ to take up. The "blown" highlights at the top of the falls are rich in detail in the negative. Appreciate your patience and insight shared.

 

[markbarendt]

Two hits now on meter. I am going to have to check my old pentax spot meter. May shoot the sky or large monochrome surface with meter and with my wife's pentax dslr, see if they correlate.

Meters see different things unless you match the field of view perfectly. With your wife's DSLR using the longest focal length you have will probably help match but results should be taken with a grain of salt until the results, good or bad, are repeatable.

I think Michael you are also pointing out my seeing luminance values, which I know I have not done well. I struggle every time I pick up the light meter.

Actually the best "teacher" I have ever had with regard to learning how to spot meter, is my incident meter. Having an objective measurement tool allows one to consider why and how one is working with your other tools, and even with rules of thumb like sunny 16.

I do try to get the SBR figured out according to the meter, but the trick was where to put the exposure on the dial. If the SBR is greater than 7, I make a note and change developing factors. I will have to think through Bill Burk tutorial on CI, which I have never grasped. If I alter dev/dil to bring down highlights by a zone or two, I have not adjusted the ei. Right now, with no film testing, I have used massive dev chart and the film cutsheets to get the ei for the dev/dil I am using.

With regard to negative contrast adjustments the other thing that needs to be remembered is that adjusting film development is a printing adjustment. It's utility/value argument assumes a straight print on a fixed grade of paper is the target. If you are using and comfortable with VC paper results, or prefer snappier prints with a bit of dodge & burn to get at the details, or use an electronic VC printing system; that utility/value argument becomes moot.

 

[Bill Burk]

I highly recommend markbarendt's article on incident metering...

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

michaelorr,

You mention you use a Pentax spotmeter, do you have an incident meter? If you don't, you can use a gray card and still follow along his primer.

I haven't read any threads that confirm a DSLR makes a good meter for judging film exposures, so I'll consider that idea suspect until proven otherwise.

I still recommend using half box speed (or 2/3 stop less than box speed). It's like juggling three balls in the air... if you toss them just a little bit higher you'll be less likely to hit the ground.

 

[Bill Burk]

With regard to negative contrast adjustments the other thing that needs to be remembered is that adjusting film development is a printing adjustment.

Yes with variable contrast paper, it's less necessary to adjust negative contrast on a per-shot basis.

But it is still important (to me) to know what contrast you are developing to... to keep process under control (so you know when your developer is bad).

Another run of film a couple weeks ago came out with contrast index 0.43 when I was aiming for 0.62. Those negatives (my son's photo class shots) on 400TMAX all printed easily because we rated the film at EI 250. Again... I know if I had hit 0.62 I would have gotten 400... but the past couple tanks of film didn't reach ISO speed. So I'm lucky I gave a little more exposure. (And it's two bad runs, not just one, that made me suspect the developer).

 

[markbarendt]

Yes with variable contrast paper, it's less necessary to adjust negative contrast on a per-shot basis.

But it is still important (to me) to know what contrast you are developing to... to keep process under control (so you know when your developer is bad).

Another run of film a couple weeks ago came out with contrast index 0.43 when I was aiming for 0.62. Those negatives (my son's photo class shots) on 400TMAX all printed easily because we rated the film at EI 250. Again... I know if I had hit 0.62 I would have gotten 400... but the past couple tanks of film didn't reach ISO speed. So I'm lucky I gave a little more exposure. (And it's two bad runs, not just one, that made me suspect the developer).

Quality control is important to everybody I hope.

Part of the reason I like having a standardized way of working is that problems normally stand out and the variables are limited.

 

[tih]

Another run of film a couple weeks ago came out with contrast index 0.43 when I was aiming for 0.62.

I'm curious: how do you know it was 0.43? Do you include an exposure of a known gray scale or similar on each roll?

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm curious: how do you know it was 0.43? Do you include an exposure of a known gray scale or similar on each roll?

Not on every roll, but my son didn't finish his roll of film... and when I took the family picture I only used two shots... so on the "wasted" end of the film I exposed a step wedge.

I consider myself lucky to have an EG&G sensitometer in working condition, ready to use at any time. I have a couple of densitometers too. And I'm pretty well practiced at graphing and interpreting the results.

If you think you want to get into this kind of testing, I can point out plenty of information. It only takes me a couple minutes because I have the setup. But you can jury rig a setup in a half hour or so - it doesn't have to be a big waste of time and film.

 

[markbarendt]

I haven't read any threads that confirm a DSLR makes a good meter for judging film exposures, so I'll consider that idea suspect until proven otherwise.

It works fine in my experience, the practical real world proof is that incident metering (actually any objective measurement) works just as perfectly to set both digital and film exposure.

The digital expectation is (normally and) essentially the same as it is with slide film; going directly to a perfect positive. It is a reasonable expectation.

Dunn and Wakefield put this concept as (paraphrased), if an exposure setting will work for slide film it will work for negatives without question.

The difference IMO is that for a negative that "perfect" exposure from above is simply "the first excellent print exposure point plus a safety factor". There is no absolute perfect exposure requirement for a negative, just a workable range. What most people either ignore or don't get is that with negatives is 1- there is normally a lot more image info (more of the scene) on the negative than will be printed and 2- that to create a positive we must absolutely set exposure a second time and that second (printing) exposure choice is what defines what part of the original scene actually prints.

The first exposure with a negative, the camera exposure, only sets the limits of what can print, it does not define the final result.

 

[tih]

Not on every roll, but my son didn't finish his roll of film... and when I took the family picture I only used two shots... so on the "wasted" end of the film I exposed a step wedge.

Ah, cool! I do own a sensitometer (an X-Rite 334), and I think I'll take your idea to heart, and toss in a wedge from it from time to time, when I have a roll of film that's less than full -- or, for that matter, when I'm developing fewer than the six sheets of 4x5 that'll go in the MOD54 holder. I had lots of fun working out a good processing schedule for Foma RetroPAN in Kodak HC-110 using the sensitometer for exposure, my RH Designs Analyser Pro as a densitometer, and Ralph Lambrecht's spread sheet for the calculations. Yours is obviously a great way to make sure everything is still behaving as expected.

 

[michaelorr]

Bill Burk : michaelorr, You mention you use a Pentax spotmeter, do you have an incident meter? If you don't, you can use a gray card and still follow along his primer.
I haven't read any threads that confirm a DSLR makes a good meter for judging film exposures, so I'll consider that idea suspect until proven otherwise.

It works fine in my experience, the practical real world proof is that incident metering (actually any objective measurement) works just as perfectly to set both digital and film exposure.

OK - I have a grey card. Gossen Luna Pro unknown accuracy. Weston Master V meter with invercone calibrated in 2008 . Pentax SpotmeterV. Pentax DSLR K-x. First test. Metered grey card with spot meter, and the K-x in manual mode, 1A filter removed, no flash, meter center spot only. The two meters coincide well within the 1/3 stop resolution.

The Gossen was used to get an incident reading. Then read the grey card with spot meter. The spot meter reads about 1/3 stop lower reflected light than the Gossen reads incident light.

The Gossen and Master V coincide within 1/3 stop resolution for incident light. For fun, I also many years ago at a flea market found a laboratory Weston Industries incident light meter. Last calibrated 1990. The sensor paddle is rather directive, but when aimed toward the prevailing direction of light, and adding in a 10% adjustment per a sticker on the meter, the Weston reads 1/2 of a Cf below the measured Cf of the Gossen. That is pretty identical to me.

So my primary exposure problems are me, and lack of practice interpreting the scene and light meter readings taken to translate to the film. I did a read of and have now printed out the recommended primer of Mark Barendt. I have not forgotten that this does tie into making the print as pointed out. All I have been able to do so far is contact prints with a low watts bulb in a closet. The results so far have been horrid.

Thanks Michael Mark and Bill for the terrific input. All of this thread has had great input. I know now where to aim my learning and diligence when I take the lens cap off.

 

[markbarendt]

... So my primary exposure problems are me, ...

Same for me.

That's the way of the world, almost always.