The Gospel According to St Ansel ?????

[roteague]

Just out of pure curiosity,how many of you test your films to find out YOUR individual effective speed in everyday use, and how many are content to trust the manufacturer in this respect ????????? J.B.

Yes, but only to a point, since I can't change my development times. However, based upon experience over the years, I have found that rating Fuji Velvia 50 at 40 works quite well for me.

 

[rhphoto]

remember the anti zoner here on apug...Scarpetti?

lee\c

Lee,

I think he's back:

Wrong forum! Wrong spelling also...

:rolleyes:

 

[David Brown]

Lee,

I think he's back:

:rolleyes:

Hmmm .... I thought the same thing.

 

[Robert Budding]

Thanks for taking the trouble to post your replies everyone. For what its worth,I am not a Zonie. Since having little time to do the full testing required to qualify as such. I do however take the time to adjust my ASA rating when using a film that is NEW to me, and then adjust development til my negs print good whites with texture on grade 2.5 Multigrade......Works for me,and thats what counts!! (Currently using Tri-x at 200ASA in Ilfosol 1:9 6 mins) J.B.

Well, that's testing, even if it isn't too intensive!

 

[pentaxuser]

Hmmm .... I thought the same thing.

I doubt it. I cannot see the other person offering info on obtaining Rodinal and certainly not without a barbed comment on its inferiority to say Paterson FX39 which was a favourite of the said Michael.

Sorry Petzi. It's just that the guy in question had a long history on this and other sites such as Ilfopro and has left us a little paranoic with good reason. A pity. I think he probably had a lot of useful experience but couldn't recognise when the useful discussion was over and it was time to agree to disagree and move on to other topics.

Pentaxuser

 

[juanito]

What I do:
If I use the same brand of film and dev.(well known brand) I folow the instructions. If not the same brand I make some test but not a hard one. I make some outdoor shots and develop to see how the negative comes out. I do some correction in the dev. time if necesary. I have found that the film ISO rating is quite acurate.

 

[Robert Budding]

What I do:
If I use the same brand of film and dev.(well known brand) I folow the instructions

Read the directions? I never thought of that!

Robert

 

[John Bragg]

NOW it is becoming apparent why this APUG thing is so much fun. A subtle mix of good humour, with a litle useful thrown in info along the way. I have only been brave enough to take part for the last month or so, but I no longer feel like the only one of my species left on the planet ! The biggest change in my usage of film came a few yeas ago when changing to a different enlarger. The light source on my new Kaiser printed about one grade harder than my worn out Jobo..... time for some tests to establish my new dev time. It took a short while to establish this and eventually things were rectified. The mixed Difuse Condensed head produces wonderfully sharp prints but my technique needed modification to get there.... J.B.

 

[Donald Miller]

The matter of published speed is misunderstood by most practioners of the Zone System. The published ISO speed is far more accurate then many believe, for the most part, when one uses the same measurement techniques that the testing uses. By that I mean the metering of light conditions.

I marvel at those who persist in doing all of the film testing without taking the time or the efforts to determine what the heck they are printing those finely calibrated negatives on. By that I mean the paper's characteristics.

So you determine Zone I density, Zone V density, and Zone VIII density and for what? Most then move the low values to Zone III or IV and end up using four or five "zones". In effect often times the published speed becomes a fraction of the published speed and this has absolutely nothing to do with the paper characteristics.

A case in point. Many expose Tri X at 200 then place the low values at Zone III. This effectively devalues the EI of the film to 25.

It is for that reason that I really began questioning my practices while using the Zone System.

I am not bashing the Zone System. It is better then no system but it misses the mark in some very important ways. It misses the mark by not involving itself fully with the characteristics of the materials used. Perhaps that is why published film speed seems to be overrated.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

A case in point. Many expose Tri X at 200 then place the low values at Zone III. This effectively devalues the EI of the film to 25.

I don't get the math involved here - could you elaborate some more on this?

 

[Gerald Koch]

I wonder about those who obsessively test and make pronouncements such that Tri-X is really an ISO 50 film. Evidently Kodak doesn't know it's own films. I have a densitometer which I haven't used in ages since it needs repair. But I have been taking photographs for almost 60 years and I know what I want in a print. I may make small adjustments in my EI but usually keep close to the rated ISO speed.

 

[Early Riser]

Film speed changes with the type of developer you use, the dilution of that developer, the age of the film, what methodology or definition of contrast that you use as your criteria, etc. That is why I choose to test film speed when I test film.

 

[Donald Miller]

I don't get the math involved here - could you elaborate some more on this?

Kirk,

If one establishes an EI of 200 and then places the low values at a Zone IV placement, the actual net EI of the film is further decreased by three stops. That comes up to a net EI of 25 the way I see it.

I stated a Zone III placement in my earlier post that would equate to an effective EI of 50. My error.

In my experience, the Zone System gets obsessed with a Zone VIII density of 1.25 - 1.35 with diffusion enlarging. I have found that the thing that makes the most sense to me is to determine what the paper characteristics are and then to arrive at a negative density range that matches the paper exposure scale at a given grade.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Kirk,

If one establishes an EI of 200 and then places the low values at a Zone IV placement, the actual net EI of the film is further decreased by three stops. That comes up to a net EI of 25 the way I see it.

I stated a Zone III placement in my earlier post that would equate to an effective EI of 50. My error.

That would depend on what you mean by "the low values." If you are placing what you expect to be the Dmax tone (i.e., Zone I) on Zone IV, this would be true, but if you place Zone IV on Zone IV, than EI 200 is still EI 200.

 

[Donald Miller]

That would depend on what you mean by "the low values." If you are placing what you expect to be the Dmax tone (i.e., Zone I) on Zone IV, this would be true, but if you place Zone IV on Zone IV, than EI 200 is still EI 200.

A lot of Zone System practitioners make their default darkest value placements at either Zone III or IV...irregardless of what the meter indicates. As John Sexton has stated "Nothing lives on Zone II".

It seems to me that this is serving to derate the EI of the film further.

So if one has a Zone III density of .30 and a Zone VIII density of 1.35 then the actual net density range is 1.05. This is a far cry from the 1.35 that Adams called for above fb +fog.

One of the problems with the Zone System is that a Zone IV placement is only a Zone IV value in the mind of the photographer. It is an arbitrary value. The meter will convert a given luminance to a Zone V value irregardless. The photographer determines where he wants this placed.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That just sounds like a bad application of the Zone System.

If one places the darkest shadow that should hold detail on Zone III, then one isn't changing the effective EI, because it still leaves room for Zone II "where nothing lives", as Sexton says, and Zone I, which is Dmax on the print.

If one places the darkest shadow that should hold detail on Zone IV, then I think you're right, but they are just compensating by one stop, usually for a film like Tri-X which has a longer toe, because they want to lift the shadows off the toe. In some ways this is just mental gymnastics for targeting Zone I for a density of .2 or some other value than Adams' original recommendation of .1, but that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do if that's the kind of film you're shooting.

I don't see it as a problem that Zone placement is in the mind of the photographer. That's where it should be, and if everything is tested properly, then what's in the mind of the photographer should appear in the final print. Isn't that the idea?

I also don't entirely agree with the criticism that usually comes from BTZS practitioners that the Zone System doesn't account for the characteristics of the output medium. It may not be very sophisticated, but that's the whole principle behind the density assigned to Zone VIII. If a Zone VIII density of, say, 1.2 on the negative, doesn't produce a visual Zone VIII density on paper with a given print process--i.e., the brightest highlight that holds detail--then one can adjust the target density for Zone VIII and development time accordingly. Perhaps this isn't so scientific as reading print densities from step tablets, but practically, it's not an unreasonable way to make printable negatives.

 

[Donald Miller]

That just sounds like a bad application of the Zone System.

If one places the darkest shadow that should hold detail on Zone III, then one isn't changing the effective EI, because it still leaves room for Zone II "where nothing lives", as Sexton says, and Zone I, which is Dmax on the print.

If one places the darkest shadow that should hold detail on Zone IV, then I think you're right, but they are just compensating by one stop, usually for a film like Tri-X which has a longer toe, because they want to lift the shadows off the toe. In some ways this is just mental gymnastics for targeting Zone I for a density of .2 or some other value than Adams' original recommendation of .1, but that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do if that's the kind of film you're shooting.

I don't see it as a problem that Zone placement is in the mind of the photographer. That's where it should be, and if everything is tested properly, then what's in the mind of the photographer should appear in the final print. Isn't that the idea?

I also don't entirely agree with the criticism that usually comes from BTZS practitioners that the Zone System doesn't account for the characteristics of the output medium. It may not be very sophisticated, but that's the whole principle behind the density assigned to Zone VIII. If a Zone VIII density of, say, 1.2 on the negative, doesn't produce a visual Zone VIII density on paper with a given print process--i.e., the brightest highlight that holds detail--then one can adjust the target density for Zone VIII and development time accordingly. Perhaps this isn't so scientific as reading print densities from step tablets, but practically, it's not an unreasonable way to make printable negatives.

David,

Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me where my position amounts to what you claimed as That just sounds like a bad application of the Zone System.. I am assuming that you meant that offhanded comment to be directed towards me since you responded to my statements. If that is so, I take offense at your characterization since I have been using the Zone System one hell of a lot longer then you have.

You failed to support your rebuttal with objective data substantiating your hypothesis and in disputing my statements. Additionally, you appear to have diminished yourself by declining into ad hominem comments. I don't like that, I view it as being degrading and abusive, and I don't feel that you have any basis from which to respond in that fashion.

If you would want to respond factually to my comments then I would be happy to discuss this with you. In lieu of that I think that an apology from you is in order.

 

[lee]

"and Zone I, which is Dmax on the print." David said.

I always thought of dmax as film base +fog and that it was called Zone 0.

zone I is .10 above film base + fog

lee\c

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Lee, fair enough. Sorry if I misspoke.

Donald, you've misread my comment. I wasn't saying that you were incorrectly applying the principles of the zone system, and my apologies if you took it that way.

Unless I've misunderstood your remark, I was agreeing with your criticism of those who move around their shadow reading to compensate for results they aren't happy with. When you said, "A lot of Zone System practitioners make their default darkest value placements at either Zone III or IV...irregardless of what the meter indicates," I was agreeing by saying, "that just sounds like a bad application of the Zone system," because it sounds like those practitioners are shifting Zone I or perhaps even 0 up to Zone III or IV.

My point was that the fact that there are people who use the zone system ineffectively is not a reason not to use the zone system.

 

[Donald Miller]

David,

Sorry for my misunderstanding. No problem on this end.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Donald.

 

[Robert Budding]

It seems that some folks think about the zone system differently than I think about it. I test to determine what film EI gives me zone III on the film when I expose for zone III. Then, when I'm out shooting, I look at a scene and I decide what tone I want to place in zone III. I then meter the part of the scene that I want in zone VII and I place it there by adjusting my development time. It's really quite simple.

Nothing that I do alters the EI that I have pre-determined for the film. I could just as easliy decide to place a middle tone in zone III and drop all of the darker values into lower zones.

For me, it's all about control and flexibility working to create the prints that I envision.

Robert

 

[Mateo]

I don't test...well I take that back I guess I've spent the last 10 years testing the two films I use.

I am a practioner of my own system, the VooDoo system and while it works very reliably for me it is near impossible to teach to anyone else. The BTZS and the Zone System are far superior in that they can be shared with the world at large, but they don't take into account important factors such as: my mood at the time, the fact that I switch developers according to the SBR and process I've got in mind (and they are many and varied), and how cool I look mumbling numbers to the air.

Probably Zone or BTZS testing is a shortcut to getting the negatives you want. I have a densitometer and it tells me the same thing that my prints do; that my negatives are the way I want them. Testing for me was the same as doing calculus homework - I went surfing instead.

 

[David Brown]

I don't test... Testing for me was the same as doing calculus homework - I went surfing instead.

Mateo, you're my hero!

 

[Tach]

I look at a scene and I decide what tone I want to place in zone III. I then meter the part of the scene that I want in zone VII and I place it there by adjusting my development time. It's really quite simple.

And what do you do with the 35 other exposures in your roll? Only shoot same luminance range subjects?

Regards,
Santiago