It is not be all and end all of photography.
""Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights", that's what it's all about right?
"Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"
What do you do with your mid-tones?
Well, those folks just don't understand the ZS, let them go on their way. ISO is not re-defined in the ZS, only discarded when the proper testing indicates it should be. Hell, my ZS test with TMX and D-76 1:1, gives me the box speed, but not with HC-110.
I've attached a graph by Jack Dunn from his book Exposure Manual which shows the distribution of exposure on a film curve. Please note how step 1 falls about one stop lower than step 4 which is 0.10 density point. Notice how there is tonal separation in the curve between the two which means there is usable density. You might also notice how there is some separation below step 1 but according the the fractional gradient method, exposure in that section wouldn't produce quality results. Also telling is how step 4 is labeled "film speed computation point" because 0.10 isn't necessarily where the shadow exposure is supposed to fall.
One other interesting thing I'd like to point out while the graph is here is the difference between step 4, speed point, and step 5, the meter exposure point. The difference is 10x or 1.0 log units. Imagine the difference between Zone System testing with this relationship. With the ZS, you stop down four stops, which is 1.2 log units. Notice where that would place the exposure. That's why people tend to find a difference in results between personal ZS testing and ISO speed on such a consistent basis.
"Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"
What do you do with your mid-tones?
...I don't feel like a prisoner at all...
...Most of all I have negatives that print with ease with very little dodging and burning required.
If I had a curve like that, I would increase the exposure, which will move all points up the curve and increases shadow separation without losing highlight separation.
Don't mess with film densities below 0.1. They are terribly hard to print, almost impossible to get contrast from, and plain not worth the trouble. Make your life easier and expose a bit more. It does not hurt your highlights, but it does wonders to your shadows.
...What are your thoughts about the relationship between step 5, exposure meter point, and step 4, 0.10 density, in regards to personal testing procedures?
I'll bet anything, you will like the prints from the 'overexposed' frames much better than the box speed frames.At lease as far as the shadow detail is concerned-------expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights------it's an unavoidable part of these type discussions, IMO, and benefits the novices that are tuning in. Hopefully, there are a lot of them!
Well, I think novices would have tuned out long ago after viewing the foregoing theses on such a rudimentary item as EI. Some of that stuff reads like Proust, and does it necessarily have to?
"Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights"
What do you do with your mid-tones?
So therefore the ISO box speed is correct.
Listen up Zone System advocates! Take another look at point 3 above. AA did not promise a negative that will give you a straight print, did he?
"Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights, and then print some 'life' into your images"
I'll bet anything, you will like the prints from the 'overexposed' frames much better than the box speed frames.
Well, I think novices would have tuned out long ago after viewing the foregoing theses on such a rudimentary item as EI. Some of that stuff reads like Proust, and does it necessarily have to?
No, it doesn't.
Oh Thomas, Thomas, Thomas!!
"Just when I think I'm out, I get pulled back in!! (Al Paccino, right?) I'm going to regret this, but....
A little primer first: For what I do that works so well for me (I just do the ZS "thing"), I control the lower limit (0.1 at Zone I, slight tonality with no texture) and upper limit (1.3 at Zone VIII, textured whites) of negative density to establish the range of densities I develop to in all cases (i.e. 1.3-.1 = a range of 1.2). This negative density range works well with MGIV FB paper, very well as a matter of fact. A quote that says it perfectly without a bunch of rambling from me:
"Once we control the densities at Zone I, II, and III (through exposure) and Zones VII, VIII, and IX (through exposure and development), we can be quite confident that the intermediate values will be readily printable with detail and "information" throughout the negative."------AA, The Negative, pg. 223.
It works man, perfectly, not much more I can say about it. Except, if I want to manipulate the mid-tone densities on the negative I can resort to my plus and minus times in some situations. Or, I can explore other developers to see how the mid-tones develop while maintaining my preferred density range. The Edwal developers, I believe, can have pronounced effect on the curve shape in the mid-tone area, but I haven't used them.
For what I do, so far these are good for me: I use D-76 1:1 (very linear mid-tone development) and HC-110 (curve is upswept coming through the mid-tones). Obvious different "toe" responses to exposure and development between the two, with the shadows developing contrast more gradually with each one zone increase in exposure through the toe region with HC-110. This is with 4x5 TMX.
I hope this is answers your question; it's what I do.
Chuck
Steve
If point 4 on that graph has a log density of 0.10, then a point with 3 1/3 stops more exposure is far from an average meter reading (Zone V) if developed for an average gradient of (0.57 - 0.61). An average Zone V exposure creates around 0.72 log density. 1.0 log exposure less is a Zone I**, which averages around 0.19 log density, and that is, by the way, very close to the 0.17 speed-point density, which I use in my film testing. In other words, I like a speed point at point 4, but I doubt that it has a density of 0.10. It is likely more around 0.17 - 0.19.
What are your thoughts about the relationship between step 5, exposure meter point, and step 4, 0.10 density, in regards to personal testing procedures?
Stephen, just my two cents, but I think the graph is interesting though I'm not familiar with "H" on the x-axis. But it's simple enough to convert that x-axis to zones separated by .3 log E units.
Since I don't develop for an average gradient like Ralph, I couldn't use point 4 (3 1/3 stops down from Zone V) because it essentially wastes 2/3 of a stop or zone of log exposure that could be useful between zone I and zone II. I try to maintain the subtle print tonal values at the extreme ends of the zone scale, essentially the dynamic range between zones I & IX. It seems using point 4 on your graph cheats the dynamic range by 2/3 of a zone----if, I've interpreted your graph correctly and I realize I could be missing something. That's almost a full zone of log exposure! It's interesting though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?