"The Negative" Appendix 2 - Film Test Data + Testing

[Marco S.]

In appendix 2 of "The Negative", Ansel Adams lists developing times using HC-110 for different films. Has anyone tried these times, or are they what he used for the curves he has listed? Would these times be good to use or are they outdated?

I print with using a 23c condenser enlarger. I have read here http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/testingm.htm that you should develop negatives to a density of 1.20 for condensor enlargers. OTOH, Adams recommends negatives should have the same density range of 1.20 for diffusion type enlargers, and reduce development by approx. 20% for condensors! :confused:

I'm trying to change my ways and learn the zone system. I recently picked up a 1 degree spot meter. Exposing film and dev. negatives has been pretty much hit or miss for me, mostly trial and error; I want to change that. I will be doing some film testing soon and have been reading on different ways of judging density without a densitometer.

There's a lot of information to digest between reading A.A.'s series, and the posts here. I've learned quite a bit, but need more without my mind exploding. Any pointers and/or suggestions will be highly valued!

 

[avandesande]

I wish that i never read the AA trilogy. The books give you a perspective that is not very helpful to someone that is getting started. 90% of the books are fuss-budgeting over details unimportant to learning photography.

 

[Donald Miller]

I wish that i never read the AA trilogy. The books give you a perspective that is not very helpful to someone that is getting started. 90% of the books are fuss-budgeting over details unimportant to learning photography.

I agree. What material is there is outdated and not pertinent to today, in my experience.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

I agree. What material is there is outdated and not pertinent to today, in my experience.

I disagree. Neither view is "right"; what helps one to improve their craft to fulfill their vision is what is "right". And that is the point ... technique is a tool to serve the vision, the images.

I use "the zone system" in every shot I take, yet 90% of the time I don't even think about it. First of all, it is instinctive. Second, it is usually a "modified" zone system.

As far as the actual times in the appendix go, use them as starting points, if you wish. Your water, your agitation method, your meter calibration, etc., will all have an effect on your results. Ansel would be the last person to say there is only one way to expose and process your film.

I also found Zone VI workshop to be a good guide to calibrating your film and developer combinations.

Let's not let this thread turn into a rant for or against the zone system, "pure" or modified. Let's not make it an ideological, dogmatic war. There are perfectly great photographers who know nothing of the zone system. There are also great photographers who have refined it to a science.

Peace.

Earl

 

[Earl Dunbar]

BTW, I used Ansel's books and they DID teach me fundamentals that are important to my work. It's not just the teacher, it's also the pupil.

Earl

 

[Donald Miller]

Earl,

The question that was posed was whether the times and densities were applicable today. I stand by my statement that those are not applicable with todays materials based upon tests backed by densitometric evaluations.

Like you I have no desire to make a rant out of this. But I think that you might be a bit overreactive here.

Donald Miller

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Donald: I stated in my reply that the times would only be good as a starting point. While HC-110 probably hasn't changed, film emulsions have. And then I listed a bunch of other factors that will cause one person's results to be different than anothers.

In your post, you quoted avandesande, who said, "I wish that i never read the AA trilogy." and you agreed. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning.

I have seen so many zone system flame wars on a variety of forums that I just wanted to speak out against it straight away.

Earl

 

[smieglitz]

MPOLO,

Before you go off testing film and developer combinations, test your paper first. Purchase a Stouffer 21-step transmission density stepwedge (~$9) and determine the exposure scale of the paper you will be using with your enlarger and standard print chemistry. Once you see how the paper responds, you can target the various densities of specific zones and personalize the sytem to your own materials and methods. For example, you might find that you need a density of 0.70 for zone V and 1.30 for zone VIII regardless of what AA's or other books state. The stepwedge will also help you determine film test densities visually without the need for an expensive densitometer.

Testing film before testing paper is putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

Joe

 

[df cardwell]

Re-read the Introduction to The Camera a couple times, and when you think you understand it, look at the Appendix of The Negative again.

The Zone System is about Visualisation, not film development times, or density.

When you have expectations different from Ansel's intentions, you will always get muddled up. Adams, White, and Davis all start with the paper. The difference is Davis gets you to a clinical approach quickly, Adams figures you know what you want to do, and White compelled you to get to know your materials. The danger of White is that you'll quit before you get it, with Davis, that you'll cripple your ability to actually see because you'll be tempted to fit everything neatly into the system. The danger of Adams is that we all want to do it the way he did it.

The Appendix was intended only as a reference, something to help you see what Adams did. He cautioned everybody that they had to work it out for themselves.

Which system you choose makes no difference in how long it takes to develop a mastery of the medium. One needs Vision and Technique. I really have no idea which is better for everybody, but I would guess, today, White's boring and repetitive method would be the most valuable because most folks today are looking for a shortcut.

To recap, read the Introduction. Figure out what he means by Vusualisation. The hint is: the things he photographed didn't really look like that.

Get a step wedge, and get to work.


.

 

[Donald Miller]

Donald: I stated in my reply that the times would only be good as a starting point. While HC-110 probably hasn't changed, film emulsions have. And then I listed a bunch of other factors that will cause one person's results to be different than anothers.

In your post, you quoted avandesande, who said, "I wish that i never read the AA trilogy." and you agreed. Maybe I misunderstood your meaning.

I have seen so many zone system flame wars on a variety of forums that I just wanted to speak out against it straight away.

Earl

Earl,

The thing that you fail to acknowledge is that you are the one who took exception to what I said. I did not address you. You addressed me.

A nice ending to this would be for you to admit that you reacted because you did not allow me to state my opinion about materials, times, and densities being inappropriate to today. And that furthermore you did not allow me the dignity to have my opinion about the Ansel Adams books.

I really don't have anything to prove. I used the Zone System for a lot of years. I use another system today.

You will notice at no point have I said that the Zone system should not be used. You might examine that example.

 

[Donald Miller]

MPOLO,

Before you go off testing film and developer combinations, test your paper first. Purchase a Stouffer 21-step transmission density stepwedge (~$9) and determine the exposure scale of the paper you will be using with your enlarger and standard print chemistry. Once you see how the paper responds, you can target the various densities of specific zones and personalize the sytem to your own materials and methods. For example, you might find that you need a density of 0.70 for zone V and 1.30 for zone VIII regardless of what AA's or other books state. The stepwedge will also help you determine film test densities visually without the need for an expensive densitometer.

Testing film before testing paper is putting the cart before the horse, IMO.

Joe

Joe,

Thank you for stating what is, in my opinion, the most logical approach to the matter.

Donald Miller

 

[Marco S.]

Thank you for your replies.

My current method of taking pictures is not working well for me. That is why I feel that learning to use the zone system would be a good start. I want the freedom of knowing most of the pictures taken are properly exposed and printable. (Good composition and subject matter aside, of course.)


I'll look into getting a Stouffer stepwedge, I have the Kodak print projection scale and was going to use that for the test, but is probably not as good.

Marco

 

[Donald Miller]

Thank you for your replies.

My current method of taking pictures is not working well for me. That is why I feel that learning to use the zone system would be a good start. I want the freedom of knowing most of the pictures taken are properly exposed and printable. (Good composition and subject matter aside, of course.)


I'll look into getting a Stouffer stepwedge, I have the Kodak print projection scale and was going to use that for the test, but is probably not as good.

Marco

Since you are starting out, you may want to explore BTZS. (Beyond The Zone System). It may save you duplicating some testing later on.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Well Donald, I think we both misunderstood each other. But I do apologize.

 

[smieglitz]

...
The Zone System is about Visualisation, not film development times, or density...(Other good stuff snipped)

DF,

Your entire post here has to be the most considered and intelligent comment I've ever read concerning the Zone System. If people would only realize the most important part of the ZS is visualization, as Ansel stated repeatedly, they would have a far easier time with it. The numbers are specific distractions. The general approach is what is important.

Thanks for putting it so lucidly.

Joe

 

[avandesande]

I think the zone system is overly complicated. Pretty much all you can do with film nowadays is n+1 or n-1, and even with the old thick films you were still limited by the callier effect, and the distortion of the midtones.
Really the key is picking subjects that will lend themselves to a decent representation on film/paper.
I will give you another example of why I don't like the books, they are very elitist. I will give you a rather silly example-- for the longest time I didn't think you could develop 8x10 prints in an 8x10 tray (because ansel said so, you should use the next size tray accoring to him). As any bathroom darkroomer knows 11x14 trays are considerable larger and more expensive than 8x10 trays. Last weekend I did an 8x10 print in an 8x10 tray, no problem! Of course I would like a super duper everything darkroom with big $%&dam trays, but if I wait for that I will never photograph.
Other things that stuck to me was he didn't like MG paper and RC paper isn't archival. Well i agree that may be true for a fine print, but he doesn't really talk about how useful those two items are for a new photographer.
I think his books are okay, but more for an experienced photographer that might pick up some hints and tricks.
Not for someone learning to photograph.
This year I will do 35mm with rodinal, bracket everything and learn to split print. Maybe next year I will get a spot meter.

Just an opinion from someone that turned something that should be fun into a chore.

 

[Marco S.]

Re-read the Introduction to The Camera a couple times, and when you think you understand it, look at the Appendix of The Negative again.

The Zone System is about Visualisation, not film development times, or density.

Understood. I was mixing them up.

The Appendix was intended only as a reference, something to help you see what Adams did. He cautioned everybody that they had to work it out for themselves.

Makes sense.

Which system you choose makes no difference in how long it takes to develop a mastery of the medium. One needs Vision and Technique. I really have no idea which is better for everybody, but I would guess, today, White's boring and repetitive method would be the most valuable because most folks today are looking for a shortcut.

No shortcuts here, just want to learn to do it right and well.

To recap, read the Introduction. Figure out what he means by Vusualisation. The hint is: the things he photographed didn't really look like that.

Get a step wedge, and get to work.

You Bet! Thanks for the clarification and everyone's suggestions. I'll be sure to post back my results. I'm so glad that I found this forum, I've learned so much here. Thank you for welcoming me!

Marco

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Joe: Ditto to that and to what DF said.

avandsande: I also found that most modern films didn't do much besides +/- 1. So it wasn't so much processing film as it was the visualiztion and placement of important values in the exposure.

I will be doing some experimenting with Rodinal at high dilutions to for more extreme minus development requirements, but there may be other side effects that make it undesirable even if it achieves more contraction.

As far as Ansel's "aversion" to MG papers, I think part of that may have been that he was dissatisfied with offerings current at the time. I suspect if there were an MG paper that he felt really duplicated graded papers, he would have embraced it. I seem to recall that he had liked Varigam, but Dupont was no longer making printing paper, so maybe that was his standard that wasn't being met.

Also, the zone system is really most useful with sheet film. For roll film you either sort of modify it or use really short bulk loads (for 35mm) and carry multiple bodies.

Earl

 

[avandesande]

Does placement mean deciding to push or pull a stop? Seems like alot of trouble for something that can be learned with a little experience. Frankly I learned more from Mortensen's "The Negative", and of course all the people here that contribute to these forums!

Joe: Ditto to that and to what DF said.

avandsande: I also found that most modern films didn't do much besides +/- 1. So it wasn't so much processing film as it was the visualiztion and placement of important values in the exposure.


Earl

 

[Earl Dunbar]

No, in the sense that I mean "placement", I just mean taking a meter reading on a specific area and then adjusting exposure to make sure it records "properly". For example, if you meter caucasian skin, it normally needs to be rendered as Zone VI, unless it's very dark such as a deep tan, etc.

So, if you use the meter reading without modification, in a proper print on a normal grade paper, the skin show as Zone V, too dark.

The idea of the zone system with sheet film (and it CAN be hard to understand until you get the hang of it) is to measure various parts of the scene and see if it has a wider contrast range than what the film can handle, or a very low contrast range. If so, you can compensate with development to either expand or contract the contrast range. The idea is to get the negative closer to a "straight" print on a normal grade paper. A fine art print often requires some additional manipulation such as dodging/burning, using a different grade or filter pack, etc. But the goal is to get as close as possible to a negative that prints "straight", thus minimizing the amount of work in the final print.

As Joe stated, it's all about visualizing the final print. And this is also why any calibration of film processing needs to be done in conjunction with a default or standard paper.

Once you start working with it, it becomes clearer. For roll film work I work out the film/paper combination that works for 80% of the shooting situations, and just deal with the other 20% or so with printing techniques. With sheet film, I can adhere more closely to Zone techniques.

Hope this isn't too confusing. I haven't read BTZS yet, so it may be a better reference tool. Lots of people seem to like it.

Earl

 

[smieglitz]

Does placement mean deciding to push or pull a stop? Seems like alot of trouble for something that can be learned with a little experience. Frankly I learned more from Mortensen's "The Negative", and of course all the people here that contribute to these forums!

Placement really has to do with setting the exposure to ensure adequate shadow detail in the negative. "Push" & "pull" (or "expansion" & "contraction" in ZS lingo) has more to do with development and changing overall contrast based on where critical highlight reflectance values "fall" in relation to the shadow exposure placement. If they aren't far enough from the shadows, you push. If too far, you pull. Visualization tells you when, and testing tells you how much.

Mortensen really has gotten a bad rap over the years. He was very good at what he did and his system worked extremely well for him under conditions he could control. I find it ironic that Fred Picker of Zone VI Workshop fame eventually came around to a Mortensen-like exposure system of placing highlights rather than shadow values.

Joe

 

[photobackpacker]

MPolo:

To answer your question, the film testing data is of limited use unless you are using the same materials. In fact, any published development data will give you only a stating point for refining your darkroom practices. The chemical composition of your water supply, your meter, shutter, thermometer, timer, development equipment and method will all serve to introduce small variables that you will need to learn if you are going to push the envelope of your film without losing detail on one end or the other.

As for the other observations, welcome to the PPP world (passionate personal preference world) of APUG. Read the Adams trilogy thoroughly, if you decide it is too anal, take the nuggets you find useful and search for an approach that better fits your personal style. The point is, you need to decide for yourself which "school" will be the best foundation for YOU. That is a match-up of your personality and a proven approach that shortens the learning curve for you.

The zone system IS about visualization. It is also about a framework you may use to achieve what you visualize. It is extremely useful, informative and totally pertinant to today - provided you have an affinity for a mechanically disiplined approach. Believe me, there is nothing artistic about film testing.

Know full well there are a great many pros who achieved their excellence via the Zone System. Know full well there are a great many pros who achieved their excellence via other approachs. In all cases, the approachs served one main function - to push the mechanical/technical issues into the realm of the automatic so the photographer could concentrate on the image they were trying to produce. Once this is accomplished, who cares what system they use. We judge them by their images.

 

[pelerin]

<snip>
The danger of White is that you'll quit before you get it, with Davis, that you'll cripple your ability to actually see because you'll be tempted to fit everything neatly into the system. The danger of Adams is that we all want to do it the way he did it.

<snip>
.

Well put, and very funny too.
Celac.

 

[Donald Miller]

While BTZS seems really involved at first reading, it really is less involved then the Zone System.

For someone starting out, it may be more then you want to digest. But, in my experience, it is a more cohesive system. BTZS begins with determining the paper characteristics and this allows one to arrive at a negative that will print as one would hope.

There are several film/developer combinations that will expand quite a bit more then the equivalent of a N+1 based on tests. (I have achieved a density range of 1.95 with Efke PL 100 and pyrocat). The equivalent of appr. N+ 2 1/2 for most enlarging papers in Zone speak. Tmax 400 is another film that will carry the mail in this regard.

 

[Earl Dunbar]

Joe: In strict zone system terms yes, placement is about expansion/contraction via development. But that doesn't translate really well when using roll film in most circumstances. So then it is important to <i>place</i> important values for propser exposure with your anticipated development protocol, such as N/normal development.

Donald: I haven't with the Efke and my experience with Tmax in the past was very limited. I may give them a try. Minus development is a more common situation for me, though.