Wish I could get my head around the Zone

[Donald Miller]

DRPhil,

I don't think this is true. The whole idea of the zone system is to calibrate it to correctly give an absolute value at grade 2 in reverse. If you get a .12 for Zone I and have confirmed it with the type of paper you are using, then every negative that is interpreted to Zone I will get a .12 and will print as zone I. Just like if you were to print off the film base, you're gonna get pure black, every time!!! The variables don't change. That's the whole idea of the zone system, not simply to make something acceptable, but to make it absolute.


If your negatives don't land on grade 2 (or normal grade for your enlarger), by printing it through a higher grade to make up for the underdevelopment of the negative, it will present deficencies in value preservation (grain increase, tonal separation)
.

I think that it may be advisable to review the basis of your post. I have not ever encountered .12 as the basis for a Zone I evaluation. Adams suggested .10 above film base plus fog. Film base plus fog will typically be above .02.

Additionally every printer of note that I have ever encountered, and there have been a number of them, will print to highlight placement first and use the paper grade or filtration (in the case of VC materials) as the determiner of the print low values. A .12 negative will not necessarily give "pure" black when a print is done in that manner.

On the subject of development to a targeted paper grade or filtration:

There is no established verifiable basis for the representation presented in the quote above based in sensitometry. In fact the reverse is true. Developing so that a negative prints on grade three will be with less apparent grain then when developed to a grade two placement.

 

[djklmnop]

Sorry Im not being thorough. A straight print for DMAX off film base normally will give you a direct positive of the entire image's interpreted values at a given grade. If highlights are required to be modified during enlargement, then that tells us that development time needs to be adjusted. If enlarging exposure is shorter than the determined DMAX time at FB+F then that tells us that the negative is overdeveoped at it's given EI. Vice versa. Yes, .12 is not an absolute value but merely an example. But film base will always give you Zone 0. The whole idea is, once you have everything calibrated, by printing for DMax at film base, everything else should fall into place: Film Base = Zone 0, then Zone I should show up as Zone I; Zone II as II, etc. That's the whole idea.. I guess I should say as close as possible to the interpreted value. Absolute is too strict I suppose

I guess I'm objecting to the concept of "just retain all the values and worry about the rest in the darkroom". As a true practitioner, the photographer should be able to creatively interpret all values as intended from exposure to negative to print. Rather than just believing the zone system is merely a method of retaining the range of light onto the negative without regard to creative value placement.

 

[Jorge]

Sorry Im not being thorough. A straight print at DMAX off film base normally will give you a direct positive of the interpreted values at a given grade. If highlights are required to be modified, then that tells us that development time needs to be adjusted. If exposure is shorter than DMAX at FB+F then that tells us that the negative is overdeveoped at it's given EI. Vice versa. Yes, .12 is not an absolute value but merely an example, just as printing film base will always give you Zone 0.

There are several problems with this scenario. First, minimum time for maximum black only works for a negative that is developed always at the same temperature and time. If you need to change development for contraction or expasion then your min time/max black test does not work any more, as the b+f changes.

I will quote Dr. Henry:

"It seems that, if one chooses to use the approach to printing of determination of a standard printing time, a procedure which I neither use nor recommend, it makes more sense and it would be more correct to define the standard printing time as the exposure in any given set up as that producing Zone V on paper from a Zone V D. "

Why does it make sense and would be more correct? For one, errors of change in b+f density can cause great errors in exposure. For example a change of .02 in b+f density would mean that an exposure based on a b+f value of lets say 0.04 and now is 0.06 would mean you are making an error in exposure of 50%. If the exposure time is based on a zone V, then 0.02 change in density is negligible.
Second, paper contrast is of outmost importance when using the vaunted min time/max black test. If you change papers, you then have to do it all over again. In contrast, within any given family of paper grade, even from different manufacturers, if they have similar speeds a Zone V time will always fall within an acceptable margin of error. IOW, it will be easier to correct the exposure difference between papers. In addition, if one knows the paper speed, one can make acceptable guesstimates as to the correction in exposure from a Zone V time, not so from a min time/max black test. You can change paper grades and make educated guesses that will be more likely closer to the correct exposure time than those obtained from the previously mentioned test.
Third, if you do expansion and or contraction, you have to make a min time/max black test for each exposure. You cannot just base your time on the time obtained from "normal" development.

Fred Picker had a clever idea, it was just not completely thought through.

 

[DrPhil]

I guess I'm objecting to the concept of "just retain all the values and worry about the rest in the darkroom". As a true practitioner, the photographer should be able to creatively interpret all values as intended from exposure to negative to print. Rather than just believing the zone system is merely a method of retaining the range of light onto the negative without regard to creative value placement.

First, what you say will work for sheet film; however, TPPhotog is using a roll film camera. It is difficult to adjust development to place the visualized zones exactly where visualized. Thus, with roll film the only choice is to get all the information on the film and work with it in the darkroom.

Second, sometimes you get a scene that has difficult illumination. TPPhotog's situation was an example of that. His scence had a hedge in deep shadow and a distant sky that was much brighter. Even with sheet film it is unlikely that one would have been able to produce a straight print.

I don't know anyone who produces straight prints. Some form of manipulation is almost always required. Regardless of whether you are using sheet or roll film.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Tony,

These days I use a hybrid of the zone system when I'm shooting B&W - use the exposure principles from AA and develop by inspection later. I also use the exposure methods for my trannies.

Here's a resource I found 5 years ago that might help you: http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/

It's an online tutorial to help understand placement and fall of zones.

Cheers,

 

[djklmnop]

DrPhil. My apologies, I should've read the post all the way through. I hope I didn't instill any hostility.

 

[TPPhotog]

Thank you everyone for your kind suggestions; links and also PM's. Sorry I haven't been back earlier but I spent from 8pm last night until 6am this morning burried in the Darkroom and only crawled out of my pit (bed) an hour ago

I think the old saying that once you know the rules you can bend / break them is very apt in my life. Once I can understand the Zone System and variations of it, I will be able to pinch the parts I find most useful and modify / simplify where I need. Looks like I'll have some interesting reading for those days when the weather isn't at its best for getting those pictures.

Once again thank you all for your kindness Tony

 

[Peter Hogan]

I see you're in Devon,and I get down there now and again. (In fact, I'm going there this evening) If you ever fancy meeting up when I'm there, or if you're ever in Buckinghamshire, I'm more than happy to spend time with you.....
Peter.

 

[DrPhil]

DrPhil. My apologies, I should've read the post all the way through. I hope I didn't instill any hostility.

None taken.

 

[TPPhotog]

I see you're in Devon,and I get down there now and again. (In fact, I'm going there this evening) If you ever fancy meeting up when I'm there, or if you're ever in Buckinghamshire, I'm more than happy to spend time with you.....
Peter.

Peter meeting up for a drink or two and a chat would be a pleasure Thank you for the kind offer Tony

 

[TPPhotog]

Thanks to all for the help here and the links sent to me. I feel I now have a basic grasp of the metering side and I already guesstimate push/pulling of developing times based on what I see at the shoot. So this will give me a good basis for reading of the more detailed books recommended

The part I couldn't understand looking back is that we have recommended development times which are provided by suppliers and most of us move that time slightly based on our own experiences. But hadn't taken in / remembered a table of standard times or percentages for processing each type of film for n+1 or n-1.

Now on a link I was sent I've found:
N-1 = 25% decrease in development time
N-2 = 50% decrease in development time
N+1 = 25% increase in development time
N+2 = 50 % increase in development time
After scribbling on lots of paper and constantly resharpening a pencil I think it makes a lot more sense now

Could be ditching the F100 and getting either a more conveniently manual one or a MF in the near future LOL

Kind regards Tony

 

[DrPhil]

Tony,

If you are wanting to stick with roll film and practice the zone system a bit further, you might try a MF camera with removeable backs. I've seen some guys that use 1 camera and 3 backs. One back is for N-1, another for N, and a third for N+1. I would suggest testing for your actual developing times. My N+1, N+2, N-1, and N-2 times don't agree with your above scheme. Several of the suggested books cover how to test your film. Les McLean's method is simple; however, there are those that prefer a more refined sensitometric approach which is covered best in Davis' BTZS book. Les McLean's book is where I would suggest that you start.

Phil

 

[DrPhil]

Of course, you could just step right up to LF. However, it's a lot different from your F100.

 

[TPPhotog]

Of course, you could just step right up to LF. However, it's a lot different from your F100.

Very true I think that's why I'm thinking about a MF first as although still very different it's not quite so much of a jump. But I could be wrong.

 

[gainer]

With roll film, I reserve my application of the Zone system of perception mostly to the printing stage. At the exposure stage, I am interested in preserving the shadows. Come to think of it, what else can you do at that stage? You can certainly look at a scene an know that it will be either easy or hard to print. Now, if you are using sheet film, you may certainly mark the film holder with the SBR or some other code to tell you how to modify development.

The problem is that even with sheet film, if you try to develop a very wide range scene scene to fit on normal paper, you will get to a point where you must still dodge the highs in order to keep the whole picture from looking drab. Painters do this, of course. So what do you lose by developing all negatives so that anything in perceived zones from 2 0r 3 tp 8 will print without effort? Then if some highlight is too high, you burn it in. If it's a narrow range scene, you can use a higher grade of paper.

If you think I'm crazy, go ahead and say so. In any case, the final application of the Zone system comes in making the print have the Zones you saw in the original, no matter what "zones" you measure in the negative.

 

[TPPhotog]

Well I can't comment on sheet film as I've never tried it, but with roll film I don't think your crazy at all. Your comments make perfect sense and this thread has been very useful to my understanding. Thank you