Who says “Use half box speed for ZS”?

[Vaughn]

I rate My FP4+ (5x7 up to 11x14 sheets) at 100 because that is a nice round number and it written on the dial, as opposed to 125 which is just a tick on the dial between 100 and 200. Totally uncool. TMax400 I get to set right on 400. Kodak Copy Film gets 16 or 25 depending on the contrast I want...it's the odd one out.

Question -- I have an 8x10 negative that has a DR of 3.1 that made a lovely print until I messed it up. How many 'zones' is that?

 

[john_s]

Everybody knows that even if every light meter is accurate, how they are used makes as much difference as what ASA is set on the dial.

 

[bluechromis]

View attachment 274351

Ha, ha!

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, not one of we photographers have a science background. We're just all stubborn rustic pragmatists who make up our own rules as we go, and blindly pass along old fables about film. Not much difference between us and moonshiners who distill old shoe polish in lead-soldered vats previously used for sheep dip. We can't even think for ourselves, but hey, that's in vogue these days!

Barnbaum, well .... His prints sometimes get awfully baroque for me. Perhaps he listens to Wagner in the darkroom. What I've seen looks a bit flat. Maybe that was just because those prints were made at a time the ideal papers weren't around anymore. But it also might be because he ridiculously overexposes, then has to tame the animal by driving over it with 2-ton highway asphalt roller (heavy-handed compression development). And then to bring life back to into it, he hits the highlights with Farmer's reducer, his routine panacea. I guess that's a legitimate substitute for real moonshine, but is itself detectable. He gets what he's after, and does a very good job of it, but the hard way.

 

[Bill Burk]

I always assume that the manufacturer rounds up by a third of a stop, and assume that the shutter/aperture will only be within half a stop, and my developer choice probably isn't the most speed producing. Knowing that the worst thing you can do is under expose film, based on that, I generally bias towards over exposure, and half box speed is a nice starting point for a film that is new to me. Once I've run a bit of it, I adjust to my liking.

They round to the nearest third stop, not necessarily always up.

I don't have evidence of this next thought but maybe @laser can confirm. I believe Kodak tunes the film to exactly hit that ISO. In other words, rather than simply rounding, they tune up or down to hit the mark.

I also really enjoyed working with you on your colorful film curves Adrian, like this one, that clearly show the speed point differences between ISO and ZS.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...nished-xtol-for-8-45-at-24c-in-a-jobo.175940/

 

[bluechromis]

I appreciate that this thread was started. I can understand the desire to provide a new user with a good starting point with exposure. If we are talking about photography as art form, I have trouble with that as a long term solution. Every recommendation about film speed carries with it values proposition about what is important to the photographer. It, might, "maintaining maximum shadow detail is sacred." But very often the values proposition is left unstated and the conversation drifts off in to morass of technical machinations, as those there could be a scientifically derived formula of the best film speed apart from a subjective value system. If there can be a scientifically established "best" film speed, it is only the best in terms of certain aesthetic values. I find frustrating that this often treated differently than other parameters that are manipulated for artistic intent. What if a new user asked, "How many diagonal lines elements should I have in my compositions?" It would seem laughable that the would be pat formula for that. What if a new user asked, "What is best f stop and shutter speed to use?". If someone said, "f/8 and 125/sec are good, you should ALWAYS use them." I think most people would think that was silly. Almost everything can be manipulated for artistic effect. Some people intentionally burn and crack their negatives. There is a portrait photographer that says they like to use Tri-X 400 at EI 800. Oh, my god are they insane? They have everything totally controlled in the studio. Why would ever intentionally underexpose their film? Good heavens, some precious shadow details might lost forever in this mad approach. Why would they do such a thing? They do it because they like the look of it. Beyond giving beginners a reasonable starting point with speed, I don't grasp why, as they progress, this is much different than any other parameter for artistic intent or how it can have a universal objective answer. Artistic intent is what I find missing many conversation. Ansel Adam's exposure of of "Herandez" was a bit flawed in exposure and he went to great extents to remedy that like dunking the lower part of the negative in an intensifying solution. But it all because he had an artistic intent, he saw the potential in the scene. Brett Weston, unlike his father, often had images with deep shadows lacking in detail. Was because he was competent? Clearly not. It was because he was going for more abstract artistic effect that his father. If one twentieth of the effort put into arguments about the perfect film speed were redirected to helping others establish their artistic intent we would further ahead. Although newbies may say they have no artistic intent, often they do but can't state it. If they really do not ,they can be encouraged to look examples of great photography as see what moves them. Hopefully they can get a glimmer of intent. From there, they need to really experiment, just as music student must practice scales, playing with ALL the variables to understand how they work, so they can harness them to achieve their artist vision. So for film speed, they need go out and freaking practice and do shots with a huge range EI exposure/development times to the understand the effect of manipulating those variable so they can gain command of them to achieve their artistic vision.

 

[bluechromis]

Should our advice always go to obsessive lengths on the the proposition there should always be details in shadows?https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-brett-weston-dunes-oceano-1934-5600520/?

 

[DREW WILEY]

bluechromis - there is no set rule. I have long admired Brett Weston's prints. And there have been cases I myself have deliberately underexposed and overdeveloped TMax for sake of the graphic effect of fully blacked out shadows. I got precisely what I wanted because I had a very good understanding of what specifically happens in relation to that film's characteristic curve, especially nearing the toe. But more commonly I use the same understanding to carefully separate deeper and deeper levels on what constitutes a shadow. It's an entirely esthetic decision in each case, and I treat every single image as its own challenge, and never generically.

This whole thread has involved stereotype after stereotype. If you are a camera collector who never shoots them, why not be a stereotype collector too? Just useless bookends, either way.

 

[Huss]

No, not one of we photographers have a science background. ..

Speak for yourself.
I have partaken in numerous medical studies. And got paid for them too!
Ergo I am a professional scientist. Or lab rat. I forget which.

 

[wiltw]

I seem to recall that the rated ASA/ISO was stated to always be a GUIDE, and not a rigid hardfast rule, yet we have so many machinations about computation of where what falls in sensitometric testing and precise curves, as if it were a rigid rule to adhere to.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The whole point of using tools is to use them intelligently, and knowing which is right one, and when. That fact doesn't hinder creativity; it facilitates it.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I would agree with Michael_r that there seems to be a lot of suspect written material in photo technique books by photographers (as opposed to scientistic papers) that does mean a lot of us (def including me) have ended up with a load of nonsense in our heads as facts.

Agreed. Most general photography books are filled with bad information. Adams' The Negative was ubiquitous in the days before the internet. It was practically the only technical photography book available to the general public. Even my corner bookstore in my home town in Colorado had a copy, and in those days, if the bookstore didn't have it, it didn't exist. The only other books they had on photography were of puppies. This can lead to a sort of mild Kugger Dunning effect for those only exposed to one perspective.

There is a line from the comedy television show "The Good Place" where two of the characters are in an Arizona library because they need to be in a place without people. One of them commented that the only book in the sex ed section was the Bible.

Phil Davis' book was the only other book that was generally available, but all I heard was how it was full of math and photographers don't like math.

Anyway, in this one thread, I've listed four papers that were pivotal in establishing the modern photographic process. Sorry, there is some math.

 

[removed account4]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/determining-emulsion-iso.23775/#post-332664

In my experience, a very, very small number of photographers make good prints, or are even interested in print quality.

might be true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ where you live? I. wouldn't judge people's print quality through internet scans.
I have seen plenty of "high quality" prints made by hobbyists, artists, professionals labs, students.
maybe you weren't looking in the right places.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. Piles and piles of good books were available to the public; not only serious photographic chemistry and theory texts, but for decades Kodak printed whole series of excellent well-illustrated consumer data guides, easily read soft-backs on all kinds of photo topics, along with more intense graphic arts guides. Mountains of exposure information in them, though the specific films choices have obviously changed over the years, and they had their own ideas of how to best cook your negatives. I have a pile of their guides myself, going clear back to the 1930's.

Darkrooms were once popular, and plenty of introductory darkroom guidebooks were published, with plenty of specific film and development information. AA might have done a good job popularizing his own version of the Zone System, but he wasn't the only one doing so long before Phil Davis. Around here, used bookstores often have hundreds of old how-to photography and darkroom books. Entire magazines were once dedicated to this, and I don't mean doofey ones like Popular Photography. And there's nothing technical about AA's,The Negative. It was tailored to beginners. And for those of you who apparently think writing didn't even exist before the keyboard, the web is a place you can go for tons of valuable archived older material, if you know where to search.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, John, there are apparently a lot of poor web printers! Some of the worst images I ever saw on the web had the name Edward Weston attached to them. He was probably rolling over in his grave. In this area of the West Coast there are many many superb printmakers, both today and in the past. No, you're not going likely to find that kind of quality on the walls of a photo lab or even average gallery; but it seems everyone knows someone who takes their printmaking seriously, whether photographically or in other kinds of media. Amazing work is being done in alternative processes, and still lots of serious traditional silver printing. Yeah, we color printers too (that's what I mainly did for quite awhile).

 

[removed account4]

No, you're not going likely to find that kind of quality on the walls of a photo lab or even average gallery; but it seems everyone knows someone who takes their printmaking seriously, whether photographically or in other kinds of media.

Lol. Pretty huge generalization…. I’ve seen plenty of beautiful photographs even at my local mom and pop mini lab. As a matter of fact I have had her do all my printing for the last IDK. 10’yeare. And I am sure there are plenty of little and big lags and regular people who make high class prints… and while I haven’t been to galleries in a year I rarely saw poorly printed stuff, even at cafes….

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Lol. Pretty huge generalization…. I’ve seen plenty of beautiful photographs even at my local mom and pop mini lab. As a matter of fact I have had her do all my printing for the last IDK. 10’yeare. And I am sure there are plenty of little and big lags and regular people who make high class prints… and while I haven’t been to galleries in a year I rarely saw poorly printed stuff, even at cafes….

I think Michael was saying as with everything the list gets smaller as you approach the top.

Kind of related. I happened to be in Tucson while the Center for Creative Photography was having an Arron Siskind exhibit. Siskind has always been one of my favorite photographers and an early influence. The prints were large 16x20 and 20x24. Unusual for Siskind's work. But the printing was amazing. Also unusual for him. It was an unforgettable treat. From my experience with his work, I found his style to have darker and more muted tones. Turns out Siskind didn't do the printing which I found out a few years later when I met the assistant who printed the show.

 

[Craig75]

Gosh. Piles and piles of good books were available to the public; not only serious photographic chemistry and theory texts, but for decades Kodak printed whole series of excellent well-illustrated consumer data guides, easily read soft-backs on all kinds of photo topics, along with more intense graphic arts guides. Mountains of exposure information in them, though the specific films choices have obviously changed over the years, and they had their own ideas of how to best cook your negatives. I have a pile of their guides myself, going clear back to the 1930's.

Darkrooms were once popular, and plenty of introductory darkroom guidebooks were published, with plenty of specific film and development information. AA might have done a good job popularizing his own version of the Zone System, but he wasn't the only one doing so long before Phil Davis. Around here, used bookstores often have hundreds of old how-to photography and darkroom books. Entire magazines were once dedicated to this, and I don't mean doofey ones like Popular Photography. And there's nothing technical about AA's,The Negative. It was tailored to beginners. And for those of you who apparently think writing didn't even exist before the keyboard, the web is a place you can go for tons of valuable archived older material, if you know where to search.

That is also true. There were lots of excellent books too. But as a lay consumer it was (personally speaking) very hard to know which were accurate and which were unsubstantiated or incorrect. I think AA is a perfect example. The book became a standard text but its full of incorrect information because materials changed and the information was not updated to reflect this. The book is also very confusingly written in my opinion; its poorly edited. Likewise you see Henry pull apart a lot of publised theories by other authors and in some cases show that what is being taught is demonstrably the worst technique possible.

It's very much like the hifi industry where there is a lot of snake oil and a lot of good info. As a lay consumer though start at the wrong entry point and before you know it you are obsessing over £10k cables and plinth designs.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Likewise you see Henry pull apart a lot of publised theories by other authors and in some cases show that what is being taught is demonstrably the worst technique possible.

Reading Henry's book gave me more confidence in using a Jobo for my black & white film. I've not seen anything wrong with Jobo B&W processing, although some sources seem to suggest rotary processing is going to cause huge problems with sharpness and acutance.

 

[removed account4]

I think Michael was saying as with everything the list gets smaller as you approach the top.

Kind of related. I happened to be in Tucson while the Center for Creative Photography was having an Arron Siskind exhibit. Siskind has always been one of my favorite photographers and an early influence. The prints were large 16x20 and 20x24. Unusual for Siskind's work. But the printing was amazing. Also unusual for him. It was an unforgettable treat. From my experience with his work, I found his style to have darker and more muted tones. Turns out Siskind didn't do the printing which I found out a few years later when I met the assistant who printed the show.

hi Stephen
wild generalizations made by some in this thread don't really make much sense .. maybe its because I live in the north east near RISD and MASSART and the SMFA and there is no shortage of gifted printers and labs that know what they are doing ... the claim that one won't see well printed photographs in a regular lab or gallery is kind of unreal because you don't have to look far to see all these things he claims don't exist, at least where I live
I met Aaron Siskind's printer back in 1988 seemed like a capable guy. Aaron wasn't very nice though ... I won't speak ill of the dead but I met him once and am happy I never met him again, made a huge and embarrassing scene at a café where we had lunch and then basically threatened me.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

hi Stephen
wild generalizations made by some in this thread don't really make much sense .. maybe its because I live in the north east near RISD and MASSART and the SMFA and there is no shortage of gifted printers and labs that know what they are doing ... the claim that one won't see well printed photographs in a regular lab or gallery is kind of unreal because you don't have to look far to see all these things he claims don't exist, at least where I live
I met Aaron Siskind's printer back in 1988 seemed like a capable guy. Aaron wasn't very nice though ... I won't speak ill of the dead but I met him once and am happy I never met him again, made a huge and embarrassing scene at a café where we had lunch and then basically threatened me.

Sorry to hear that about Siskind. I guess we can admire the art and not the man.

I agree that labs can have quality printing. I was the film supervisor at a couple professional labs in Los Angeles. We did work for pretty much all of the top commercial photographers and frequently had prints hanging in the LA galleries (and around the world). The labs also had their own exhibitions.

 

[Craig75]

Reading Henry's book gave me more confidence in using a Jobo for my black & white film. I've not seen anything wrong with Jobo B&W processing, although some sources seem to suggest rotary processing is going to cause huge problems with sharpness and acutance.

Yes same here. I treated that book as the final statement on a number of issues for me personally

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Yes same here. I treated that book as the final statement on a number of issues for me personally

Henry's quality testing to confirm aspects of the photographic process definitely makes his book unique. It's a must resource for the serious photographer. Definitely envious how he built his own micro-densitometer. There are parts I have a few concerns with. If I remember correctly, his interpretation of the K factor and flare are two that come to mind. You can't expect to agree with everything.

My Bible was Photographic Materials and Processes,. Used it so much, the binding fell apart. Now it's The Theory of the Photographic Process. I have three of the four editions and the one I don't have is available online. Can't go wrong with the original scientific papers either. George Eastman and CE Kenneth Mees decided early on that they wanted their papers written in a language that could be understood by the general public. So they are accessible.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

(and he resorts to using the Zone System)..

Funny, I actually wrote something like that but deleted it to avoid sounding like a ZS basher. Didn't we have a discussion on Henry a few years ago?

BTW, I didn't agree that you were making wild generalizations. Just that some labs can do good work.

 

[mike c]

Inaccurate shutter speeds would certainly have an effect, but that would be camera-specific, would it not?

The three camera's I most use have different shutter speeds , so most of the time its box speed, but some times not, I figure am safe cause I've had both my covid shots !!