Pushing HP5+ to 3200

[StoneNYC]

I think this is an interesting read
http://www.iconicphoto.com/pdf/the_zone_system_1104.pdf

The Zone concept was conceived by Fred Archer, a photographer and instructor at
the Art Center College in Los Angeles. In a series of articles in U.S. Camera magazine in
1939-1940, he set out a unified approach to determine the degree of adjustment necessary
to improve contrast to remedy the effects of lighting differences in an image. Archer built
on the system of aperture f-stops that had been adopted by the photography industry. He
introduced a matrix that tied f-stop gradations to a virtual scale from absolute black to
maximum light, allowing photographers to map images for brightness using readily
applicable f-stop equivalents.
Ansel Adams read the material with interest, communicated with Archer and took
the project in hand. Adams went on to further develop and popularize the Zone System,
elaborating the framework in the terminology used today.

Sounds to me like another Tesla vs Edison story... Lol

 

[removed account4]

hi bill...

i had heard of fred archer and his work with the zone system ... but i was under the impression that that system had been used since the days of dry plates and he and adams stood on the shoulders of those before them
mainly because the emulsions used in the first days of the 1900s were extremely finicky and obviously seneitive to different colors in the spectrum compared to those used later on ... so people had to figured out a way to best use their materials so they wouldnt be wasting their time and energies

john

I think this is an interesting read
http://www.iconicphoto.com/pdf/the_zone_system_1104.pdf

The Zone concept was conceived by Fred Archer, a photographer and instructor at
the Art Center College in Los Angeles. In a series of articles in U.S. Camera magazine in
1939-1940, he set out a unified approach to determine the degree of adjustment necessary
to improve contrast to remedy the effects of lighting differences in an image. Archer built
on the system of aperture f-stops that had been adopted by the photography industry. He
introduced a matrix that tied f-stop gradations to a virtual scale from absolute black to
maximum light, allowing photographers to map images for brightness using readily
applicable f-stop equivalents.
Ansel Adams read the material with interest, communicated with Archer and took
the project in hand. Adams went on to further develop and popularize the Zone System,
elaborating the framework in the terminology used today.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

hi bill...

i had heard of fred archer and his work with the zone system ... but i was under the impression that that system had been used since the days of dry plates and he and adams stood on the shoulders of those before them
mainly because the emulsions used in the first days of the 1900s were extremely finicky and obviously seneitive to different colors in the spectrum compared to those used later on ... so people had to figured out a way to best use their materials so they wouldnt be wasting their time and energies

john

That's my understanding too, John, that they both evolved their method from knowledge shared by those before them. When I read the books of Adams' I am struck by the level of dedication and effort that went into understanding their materials.

As I progress and become more familiar with my tools, I begin to understand the value of working something out that is of use to me, as I'm sure Adams and Archer both had to do.
We're lucky today that we have to do, comparatively, so little work, with most of the footwork already done by others, (Ilford, Kodak, Agfa, etc). We just need a few rolls of film to get in the ball park for normal exposure. And then evolve from there by simply using, abusing, screwing up, and pushing the limits, and hopefully learning from our experiences.

 

[Chris Lange]

No substitute for shooting hundreds of rolls of the same 1-2 emulsions and working with the photographs up close and personal, be it digitally or in the darkroom. You can obtain extremely reliable and "good" results simply by maintaining good habits, on par with graph-lovers and zoners.

using delta3200 and tri-x almost exclusively for my medium format work for 3 years did that, just as using tri-x and hp5+ as my staples in 35mm for the past 6 years has.

it's good policy to buy film in batches when you are starting out, especially. Spending your film budget on 50-100 rolls of one emulsion, instead of 10-15 rolls of 10 different emulsions is far more conducive to improvement.

 

[cowanw]

Ansel Adams was quite clear that the system was based on the work of Hunter and Driffield and the experience of 70 years of previous work. What they did do was codify the concept. I.E. if you want to move this zone by this number of steps then you develop by this much more or less.
What struck me in this piece was the documentation of Fred Archer's role and the lack of his tooting his own horn. Even his portrait book does not promote the Zone system although it alludes to the expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights concept.
Considering Archer's publishing first, he must have been a modest man.
Considering Ansel Adams dislike of pictorialism, Archer must have been a likable man too.
And yes what with f stops, light metres and ISO ratings we have it pretty easy.
On the other hand it shows the enormous latitude for " I think this will be OK" that photography must have had in the first 75 years. ( and in truth exists today)

 

[removed account4]

thanks bill

we often forget how tall the giants were ...
im glad i wasnt duped all these years!

yup lots of the same film, lots of the same dev
lots of exposing and processing ... you said it chris and tom

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Personally I wouldn't bother with FOMA films, their reciprocity is terrible and they have emulsion issues with spots (or the stuff I've used has) but if it didn't, I would use it because it does give a nice look aside from those issues.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but do want to respond. It's been pretty well documented that Arista EDU is re-badged FOMA film. I use it because I love the look and it fits my budget, especially in 4x5. I've learned to work with the issues you've mentioned above.

Reciprocity failure is longer than other films, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible film, and it's not hard to adjust the exposure for it in practice. Again, it's worth it to me to have the look (and price) of the film.

I've had my share of emulsion defects too, which COULD mean it's a terrible film, but I've found ways to adjust my processing routine to mitigate them. Pinholes in negatives are fairly rare for me these days.

To tie back into the thread topic: Like others, I'm also reducing the number of different films I use. I have an occasional need to shoot in the ISO 400 and over range. I've seen that it's possible with Arista EDU/FOMA films. Knowledge gleaned from this forum (and others) has been very helpful, but it's wasn't until I worked through the process myself that I started getting results I liked.

 

[StoneNYC]

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but do want to respond. It's been pretty well documented that Arista EDU is re-badged FOMA film. I use it because I love the look and it fits my budget, especially in 4x5. I've learned to work with the issues you've mentioned above.

Reciprocity failure is longer than other films, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible film, and it's not hard to adjust the exposure for it in practice. Again, it's worth it to me to have the look (and price) of the film.

I've had my share of emulsion defects too, which COULD mean it's a terrible film, but I've found ways to adjust my processing routine to mitigate them. Pinholes in negatives are fairly rare for me these days.

To tie back into the thread topic: Like others, I'm also reducing the number of different films I use. I have an occasional need to shoot in the ISO 400 and over range. I've seen that it's possible with Arista EDU/FOMA films. Knowledge gleaned from this forum (and others) has been very helpful, but it's wasn't until I worked through the process myself that I started getting results I liked.

glad you've mitigated many of the issues, I know I could too, but it would mean changing a lot of my practices and chemicals I've been accustomed to using and I'm not willing to do that just for one film, though I agree I do like the look of FOMA at least the 100.

Although, ilford really isn't that costly compared to others and I TRY to stick to that, but sometimes there are just other films of interest to me. But I try

 

[StoneNYC]

Ansel Adams was quite clear that the system was based on the work of Hunter and Driffield and the experience of 70 years of previous work. What they did do was codify the concept. I.E. if you want to move this zone by this number of steps then you develop by this much more or less.
What struck me in this piece was the documentation of Fred Archer's role and the lack of his tooting his own horn. Even his portrait book does not promote the Zone system although it alludes to the expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights concept.
Considering Archer's publishing first, he must have been a modest man.
Considering Ansel Adams dislike of pictorialism, Archer must have been a likable man too.
And yes what with f stops, light metres and ISO ratings we have it pretty easy.
On the other hand it shows the enormous latitude for " I think this will be OK" that photography must have had in the first 75 years. ( and in truth exists today)

He may have been modest, OR he may have been selfish and didn't want to give away his secrets to just anyone, and shared them with his friend Ansel, who then shared it with the world, you never know really... History is funny that way

 

[erikg]

Archer was a teacher and he and Ansel taught the zone system as a part of their instruction in photography. Archer was also a great portraitist in Hollywood. He did a portrait of Edward Weston as well. He's worth checking out. That was an interesting period in history.

 

[cowanw]

He may have been modest, OR he may have been selfish and didn't want to give away his secrets to just anyone, and shared them with his friend Ansel, who then shared it with the world, you never know really... History is funny that way

As I said in Post 104, he published his system in the national magazine U.S. Camera, circulation 300,000.
He was the founding professor of photography at the Art Center School in Downtown LA. Later he had his own school of photography, not surprisingly named The Fred Archer School of Photography. It must have been a big place as it consisted of 7 buildings where Clarence White's School of Photography in New York was one building.

 

[StoneNYC]

Archer was a teacher and he and Ansel taught the zone system as a part of their instruction in photography. Archer was also a great portraitist in Hollywood. He did a portrait of Edward Weston as well. He's worth checking out. That was an interesting period in history.

I stand corrected, it was just a supposition, not a statement of fact, to be clear.

Anyway, I'll surely checking out at some point, thanks

 

[rjbuzzclick]

glad you've mitigated many of the issues, I know I could too, but it would mean changing a lot of my practices and chemicals I've been accustomed to using and I'm not willing to do that just for one film...

Not necessarily. In my case, a simple pre-wash of the film before development took care of it. Not every solution has to be difficult...

 

[StoneNYC]

Not necessarily. In my case, a simple pre-wash of the film before development took care of it. Not every solution has to be difficult...

For me I would have to change stop baths, and possibly fixer type, that's what I meant.

 

[StoneNYC]

The reason I am allowed to try to help answer your questions (which I did in post #2) without posting pictures in the gallery is that you are repeatedly in need of very basic information about things like film speed, contrast, agitation, properties of film developers etc.

Why don't you post your work? Or any link to your work? I would like to see.

Also, if it were so basic you would have done it already but you haven't so you can't....

 

[Chris Lange]

For me I would have to change stop baths, and possibly fixer type, that's what I meant.

Or just use water and a standard non hardening rapid fix. I use c41 fixer that I buy by the crate. Proportionately it's cheap as chips and I prefer it to most other commercial fixers.

 

[Chris Lange]

Good scanning is a very, very difficult undertaking. I have been scanning negatives for years and only now do I feel I can create a digital version of an image that is on par with a silver print. Indeed I am very pleased with my pigment prints, however it is not an easy task. A dedicated film scanner (not a flat bed) makes all the difference, but just as important is knowing how to scan. My scans give me files that are surpassed only by a drum or imacon, and even then not by much. I can produce a truly grain sharp 20x24 print from a full frame scan of my 35mm negatives. Grain sharp, not scanner noise/artificial sharpening noise sharp. With no interpolation I might add. With 6x6 I can go up to 40x40" without any artifacting at 300dpi. It's a total PITA to do the work on these files, but the results are worth it.

 

[StoneNYC]

Or just use water and a standard non hardening rapid fix. I use c41 fixer that I buy by the crate. Proportionately it's cheap as chips and I prefer it to most other commercial fixers.

Reread this statement, and tell me if that means changing procedure... Think hard...

 

[StoneNYC]

Good scanning is a very, very difficult undertaking. I have been scanning negatives for years and only now do I feel I can create a digital version of an image that is on par with a silver print. Indeed I am very pleased with my pigment prints, however it is not an easy task. A dedicated film scanner (not a flat bed) makes all the difference, but just as important is knowing how to scan. My scans give me files that are surpassed only by a drum or imacon, and even then not by much. I can produce a truly grain sharp 20x24 print from a full frame scan of my 35mm negatives. Grain sharp, not scanner noise/artificial sharpening noise sharp. With no interpolation I might add. With 6x6 I can go up to 40x40" without any artifacting at 300dpi. It's a total PITA to do the work on these files, but the results are worth it.

What scanner do you use?

 

[Chris Lange]

What scanner do you use?

a Minolta Dimage scan multi pro with a glass carrier that I have modified to mimic the carrier design of my Focomat V35 (glass only on top with a double mask to block flare on 35mm due to sprocket holes). That, combined with very careful tuning of scan exposure, as well as disabling all automatic correction/adjustment allows me to get the best results.

 

[Chris Lange]

Reread this statement, and tell me if that means changing procedure... Think hard...

One step is adjusted by a twist of the water tap, and you should be using non hardening rapid fix anyway.

 

[Chris Lange]

People posting to the gallery here seem to be doing ok enough with what I assume are fairly basic procedures and probably lower end consumer scanners. But in the end I guess I'm just not that motivated to post stuff.

By all means the work here is generally of quite good quality, but we are also only looking at small compressed jpgs. A far cry from what is necessary for fine digital print production.

EDIT: yes I know this is APUG and most here are not producing digital prints, therefore the capability is not necessary, but for me it is.

 

[removed account4]

Or just use water and a standard non hardening rapid fix. I use c41 fixer that I buy by the crate. Proportionately it's cheap as chips and I prefer it to most other commercial fixers.

exactly .. not much of a change .. water pre wet and nostop water bath instead
no pinholes or froubles with anything, less chems to deal with ..
a nobrainer
not to mention sometimes adorama has plain old hypo for like 1$/five lb jar or something equallly as inane
2 tbs per litre or something simple .. a year supply for 20$ ...

 

[removed account4]

When I first joined I tried posting a few scans of some prints but the scans never looked very good to me so stopped. I don't own a scanner so I haven't a clue how to do it properly. At the time I would try to scan them at the local library (no photoshop or anything, just whatever software came with the piece of crap scanner). I had no idea what I was doing but even on the occasion I'd get it to look half decent at the library, then I'd look at it the next day on my computer at work and it would be way too light or whatever. I'm insane about print quality, so I gave up on the scanning. It seemed like a waste of time.

michael
not saying my skaans r very good but they are on average less than 60k
savefor web 72 dpi images using a 7year thing ... the frst thing recorded is always huge then smallelred

 

[StoneNYC]

One step is adjusted by a twist of the water tap, and you should be using non hardening rapid fix anyway.

Yup, which means changing my procedure, I don't care how little the change is, I made a statement that I don't want to change my procedure. Call me stubborn, but everyone tells me to stick with the same procedures and also not to use multiple emulsions in one place and then tell me to change my film and procedure in another place... Hypocrites much?...,