Who says “Use half box speed for ZS”?

[BrianShaw]

Didn't we have a discussion on Henry a few years ago?

I’m having a “slow thinking morning”... who is Henry? I’m feeling left out of the conversation.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I’m having a “slow thinking morning”... who is Henry? I’m feeling left out of the conversation.

https://www.amazon.com/Controls-Black-White-Photography-Richard/dp/0240517881

 

[BrianShaw]

https://www.amazon.com/Controls-Black-White-Photography-Richard/dp/0240517881

thanks!

 

[DREW WILEY]

John - you slightly misunderstood me. This is the Bay area of the Calif coast, and the home to many famous photographers. There are a number of galleries dedicated to serious print collectors, galleries which are themselves known worldwide among that overall circle, and we have museums with huge collections of photographs from local photographers going well back into the 19th C. But there are also dozens of upstart galleries, most temporary and unsuccessful financially, art cooperatives (fire traps), street fair venues of course, in-lab display walls, and glitzy galleries with high pressure sales people in tourist mecca locations peddling overpriced kitch. Yes, one does sometimes encounter nice photos on restaurant walls, but nobody seems to notice them - they are there for food and conversation instead. Local hospitals have a lot of framed reproductions of well known local work, like that offered by the AA trust; but nobody seems to pay much attention to that either, and have other things to be concerned about. Therefore photographers around here who take their own prints seriously simply don't use those kinds of venues, although they might have once done it starting out.

Real estate is extremely expensive, as are leases in good locations. Alternative methods of sales, like word of mouth, along with intermittent serious exhibits fill in, self-publication of books in some cases ... you know the mantra. Most derive most of their income from alternative means, photographic or otherwise. The general public is much better informed around here than in most areas about what fine photography might look like versus the deluge of what is now possible with the proliferation of inkjet printers. It is part of the local heritage spanning a century and a half. One might stumble into a well-recognized photographer at the local produce store, or to a family member of a past famous one. We printmakers chat and have a loose network of our own, and know to a certain extent who each other are. Word gets around, sometimes far and wide. I've had people fly across the country to buy a print from me personally. Print sales have at times really boosted me when I most needed it; but I too made my living primarily by other means. In this region, a lot of people admire fine photography, but nowhere near as many collect it as in certain areas of the East Coast. So it's always been an up-and-down game for nearly everyone.

 

[Horatio]

I have evidence that it was our inimitable Mr. Glass who postulated 1/2 box speed for the Zone System:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/calculating-ei-with-an-incident-meter.156661/#post-2033797

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I have evidence that it was our inimitable Mr. Glass who postulated 1/2 box speed for the Zone System:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/calculating-ei-with-an-incident-meter.156661/#post-2033797

He said most people do it. An example for the ad populum column..

 

[Vaughn]

So, is Who correct?

 

[wiltw]

So, is Who correct?

EIm ≠ EIn ≠ EIp ≠ EIq
yet all of them achieve 'my personal best results'

You rmileage will vary.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I thought an incident meter was how the local police determine the difference between a firecracker or auto backfire from the sound of an actual gunshot and potential homicide.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can’t agree with any of this I’m afraid, including the underlying assumptions. Basically I would say the prevalent practice of rating films at lower than ISO speed is based on a combination of nothing, and tradition (also based mostly on nothing, along with the desire to emulate the working methods of some good photographers who also didn’t really know why they were doing what they were doing, and were using totally different materials). It has nothing to do with better results. In my experience, a very, very small number of photographers make good prints, or are even interested in print quality. This is not surprising. All artforms are like this.

OMG WTF We agree.. I use a spot meter and the Zone System metering.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Empirical testing by a largish group of people, aka common knowledge, can be mistaken, but can also reflect real trends and phenomena. I think that holds true more for modern times, where the "scientific method" of hypothesis-testing-evaluting results is widely accepted

Absolutely, but it can’t represent how the majority of the population came to such a similar conclusion in the adjustment. There is good testing and bad testing. Two of the tenets of the scientific method is to eliminate bias and experimental error in testing. Smart people can believe in a lot of things that aren’t true. Isaac Newton believe in alchemy. And what about the methodology? I wonder would all the independent testing come to similar conclusions or should they vary more as they reflect the individual's personal approach? Or could the reason be because they followed the same testing methodology they read somewhere?

We don't have gentleman scientists anymore. How realistic is it to think that each step of the Zone System testing procedures is properly vetted by each tester? Isn't it more realistic that they will simply accept the word of an authority figure? Take the idea of using an optical system, camera, for the test.

What percentage of the testers believe Zone System testing using a camera will incorporate flare? Have they evaluated the concept per the scientific method, or just accept that it will because a well known photographer wrote that it will? I seems logical until it's more closely evaluated. The subject is the primary cause of veiling flare. The highlights from the subject will create non-image forming exposure that will disproportionally influence the shadows. Now, where are the highlights coming from to cause the flare and where are the shadows to be affected by the flare if the test involves shooting a gray card?

I can't see how the speed rating change came about due to an informed decision.

It's more likely, most people probably rate their film ½ to one stop below the ISO rating due to a recommendation from an authority figure or an appeal to ad populum. Since the difference in exposure would make little to no change in perceptible quality (especially if there wasn't a comparison) how would they ever know one way or the other if there was a difference.

I have a tendency to think that the experience of lots of photographers, who are interested in getting as much speed out of their film as possible while at the same time being able to make excellent prints from their negatives, would have a tendency to push to the limits of the system in order to optimize these two variables. Many of these same photographers are skilled lab workers with willingness and ability to do lots of non-technical testing.

In other words, why would the practice of rating the film slower than box speed be so prevalent if it didn't have an advantage, especially when it comes at a cost, i.e., needing to use slower shutter speed and/or larger apertures, which is rarely convenient in LF work?

Short answer. The paper that reviewed and recommended the change to the standard is literally called Safety Factor. People aren’t generally bold, especially when there are potential risks. Better to be safe and have the image. The cost of a missed opportunity can be very high.

You're also making the assumption there is a conscious choice to under rate to film for quality purposes. The claims of true film speed disproves that. You can't be shooting at the real film speed and under rating it at the same time. Doesn't that eliminate Zone System testers from knowingly underrating their film?

I could also make a case that for the rating change is really needed to recalibrate the meters for Zone System photographers. ZS assumes the exposure meter “sees” an equivalent 18% reflectance while it really “sees” 12%. The difference is a familiar ½ stop. In this scenario, it's not a 1/2 stop extra exposure, but compensation to prevent underexposure.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Does anyone see the logical fallacy? If "all B&W film manufacturers [are] fake", then taking the fake data point and divide by two is fallacious.

a valid point!

 

[Stephen Benskin]

a valid point!

Most of the reactions seem like defensive rationalizations against perceived slights by non-believes and the powers that be. Their rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies remind me of religious apologists or something from climate change deniers or creationists. How similar are "manufacturers over rate their film to make it look more appealing" and "climate scientists are in it for the money?" I'd love to see a list of all the Zone System conspiracy theories.

Anyone hear the one where Ansel stormed Kodak to stop them from changing the reflectance of the 18% gray card? I heard that when the light was bad, Ansel Adams would wrap his dark cloth around his neck and fight crime. Z-Anon.

 

[Horatio]

Faith, in anything, does not require proof. Just sayin'...

 

[Bill Burk]

Actually I think Zone System testers believed they were finding the film’s True Speed, and having found it around half box speed started to etch that speed in their minds with that film.

When they spread that news widely, people (fans of Ansel Adams) started using lower ratings and their great results reinforced their belief that the lower rating gives best results.

So now the advice still gets widely shared but with a bit of “I like greater shadow detail” to rationalize giving greater exposure than required.

I do like the ability to reveal some detail (like a waterfall under a rock) by dodging a shadow a third stop. 2/3 stop greater exposure supports that plan.

But a couple weeks before starting this thread I started to realize I was confusing the Zone System speed with the Greater Shadow detail speed. I have to make an effort to separate the two.

It’s like driving the speed limit to avoid tickets and then saying you do it to save gas.

If I was really using half rated speed to give greater shadow detail, then when doing Zone System metering, I should use one and two-thirds stop lower rating than ISO, half box speed because the metering technique is different, and the two-third additional to get the additional shadow detail.

In practice I use 2/3 stop below rated speed so that I can use Zone System metering without underexposing, I can get better shadow detail when using camera meter. When I get into low light handheld I change to as much as 2/3 stop above rated speed because it is not that much of a push.

And sometimes I will use rated speed because it is really the film’s true speed.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Faith, in anything, does not require proof. Just sayin'...

“Is there anything that one couldn’t believe based on faith? Faith is not a path to truth.” Matt Dillahunty

 

[Vaughn]

Of course there is stand development......

with pyro developers, too,,,,,,,

 

[wiltw]

My religion believes the the Redeemer has not come
My religion believes the Redeemer came in Jesus Christ
My religion doesn't give a sh*t about a redeemer ever coming!
Religion....oh that's where they all believe in something or other being their God(s), isn't it?!
And they all tolerate one another.

I believe in the Zone System and get good results
I could not care in the Zone system and get good results.
I follow Zone System thinking in setting exposure, but that's where it ends. I use Box Speed.
I follow Zone System thinking in setting exposure, but that's where it ends. I use Box Speed/2
I follow Zone System thinking in setting exposure, but that's where it ends. I use Box Speed -2/3EV
I follow Zone System thinking in setting exposure, but that's where it ends. I use Box Speed -1/3EV
I follow Zone System thinking in setting exposure, but that's where it ends. I use different EI for different film emulsions.
And they all tolerate one another.

And then there is Politics! The two extremes simply hate each other and get little done because of it. and the great Moderate majority have little influence on the insanity.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Some fun facts that might help to put film speed ratings into perspective. We are all familiar with the three main ones for general purpose photography. But there are different needs for different uses. Here are some other speed rating systems:

 

[wiltw]

Some fun facts that might help to put film speed ratings into perspective. We are all familiar with the three main ones for general purpose photography. But there are different needs for different uses. Here are some other speed rating systems:

View attachment 274561

View attachment 274562

Shows the parallels between Film Speed determination and Religions of the world. One for everyone, and there arise great conflicts over it. and unlike Politics, everyone gets something done to their individual satisfaction!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Most of the reactions seem like defensive rationalizations against perceived slights by non-believes and the powers that be. Their rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies remind me of religious apologists or something from climate change deniers or creationists. How similar are "manufacturers over rate their film to make it look more appealing" and "climate scientists are in it for the money?" I'd love to see a list of all the Zone System conspiracy theories.

How about the Zone System approach to disprove Climate Change?

 

[wiltw]

Well, there are climate zones.

I prefer climate Zone V, and i venture to climate Zone VI for recreation, but for residential purposes I prefer Zone IV over Zone VI. The problem is that Zone V is becoming Zone Vi and Zone VI is becoming Zone VII, and there is not compensatory means of getting comfortable exposure apart from use of a long soak time in a temperate bath.

 

[Vaughn]

We are in Zone IX...we're the bright ones...best in the west for living and pleasure...who needs all the details?

Although riding the bike home from the big city yesterday afternoon, I was hoping to leave the coastal fog behind...but it just got thicker...must have been Zone IV thru the trees. (I'll turn on the light when it gets to Zone III.) The redwoods were loving it. I would truly love the fog of 40 years ago...thick all summer...as long as I can catch some heat inland occasionally.

 

[wiltw]

We are in Zone IX...we're the bright ones...best in the west for living and pleasure...who needs all the details?

Although riding the bike home from the big city yesterday afternoon, I was hoping to leave the coastal fog behind...but it just got thicker...must have been Zone IV thru the trees. (I'll turn on the light when it gets to Zone III.) The redwoods were loving it. I would truly love the fog of 40 years ago...thick all summer...as long as I can catch some heat inland occasionally.

Humbolt Co. the weed crop must be good to make those claims! The fog normally puts you in Zone IV, doesn't it, although if you compensate enough you get Zone IX, detailless hightlight.

 

[Vaughn]

I'm lost in the 0 Zone again!

Otherwise all the maps have us in 9b.