Zone simple for t grain films

[herb]

I read a thread by Charles Lemay, which is quite simple on using the zone system. He says his method, thus (by inference) the zone system of modifying developer times to push or pull contrast density, won't work with TMax films. I don't have an email for him to ask him why, but it does not seem logical. I use it with Delta from Ilford, and get pretty decent results using either Xtol or Pyrocat Hd.

Any words from the wizards?

 

[markbarendt]

Got no context with out a link to the post you are talking about.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I read a thread by Charles Lemay, which is quite simple on using the zone system. He says his method, thus (by inference) the zone system of modifying developer times to push or pull contrast density, won't work with TMax films. I don't have an email for him to ask him why, but it does not seem logical. I use it with Delta from Ilford, and get pretty decent results using either Xtol or Pyrocat Hd.

Any words from the wizards?

Actually, both TMax-100 and 400 works very well with the Zone System. Films respond differently to changes in development time. Traditional emulsions work very well. Modern films less so, but are still fully usable with the Zone System. Whenever you read 'forgiving emulsion', it's a good sign of less response.

 

[Lee L]

You have misread the Lemay webpage. http://zonesimple.com He doesn't say that T-Max films don't work with the Zone System. He says that his simplified version, which he calls ZoneSimple, doesn't work with T-Max film. That's an entirely different thing. I haven't read his whole web site (it's full of typos and unsearchable because the text is actually made of composite images). The reason for his statement may be that he makes the larger development adjustments usually needed by more traditional emulsions. Speaking generally, T-Max films require less adjustment for Zone System expansion and compression of contrast, so his posted adjustments for traditional films would overshoot the mark with T-Max films.

BTW, the typical Zone System density standard for Zone I is not 0.1 net density, it's 0.1 greater than film base + fog.

Strike this quote from my original post. See Michael R's posted correction to my misreading.

Lee

 

[herb]

Should one be concerned with the differences (if any) between Ilford Delta and Tmax films? I am reluctant to use Kodak films as I see the company as run by accountants, which is usually the death knell of most manufacturing enterprises.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... Do you calibrate film speed based on the traditional zone 1 net density of 0.1? ...

I don't. Zone I is typically thought of as having a negative density of 0.1, and that's fine, but I move my speed point To Zone I.5 and calibrate my films to a density of 0.17. This gets the speed point off the toe and more onto the straight line of the characteristics curve, giving more consistent results in tonality.

 

[2F/2F]

Any black and white film that can be made to conform to a relatively standard curve shape can be used with the Zone System. The initial testing tweaks the film into that standard mold that prints well onto the paper you are calibrating to. The thing about T-Max is that your process must be more tightly controlled to get consistent and predictable results; the film is very sensitive to processing variations (though it can survive exposure screw-ups extraordinarily well). But it is great film, so this is thoroughly worth it IMO.

 

[herb]

I don't disagree about the film quality, but I have seen them cut the size of their product line over the last ten years to make me think it is only a matter of time until it is decided to do away with b/w film all together. In other words, I don't trust their committment to b/w films.

 

[Lee L]

In other words, I don't trust their committment to b/w films.

And if you and others quit buying their films for that reason, they will question your commitment to film (at least theirs) and certainly quit making them, leaving you with even fewer choices. Besides, calibrating a film/developer combination isn't that onerous a task if you're worried about any kind of forced switch in the future. In the meantime, why deny yourself access to some of the best films around?

Avoiding Kodak for emotional reasons may seem the thing to do, but will it serve your photography if they happen to make the best film for your purposes right now (or in a year or two) and you don't use it and contribute to its demise? Whose purpose does it serve to help drive Kodak from the film market?

Lee

 

[markbarendt]

Most film buying decisions are purely emotional.

 

[Puma]

I've recently started using the zone system with TMax and have gotten results far beyond my expectations.

Why would any company make a film that didn't have latitude or the ability to adjust for variances in luminance? I sincerely don't know that much about photography, I've only been doing it for fourteen years, but I doubt there'd be much use for a black and white negative film that would be so limited. TMax works great!

I strongly suggest getting several books on the subject and reading them to understand the concept of the zone system, once you wrap your mind around the concept of anything it becomes very easy to see all the possibilities, blindly following directions doesn't help. Concepts are useful and can be applied to anything. I apply things I learned in high school chemistry to how I phrase my thoughts when speaking to people which is probably the single most valuable thing I've ever learned.

The best and most convincing reason to keep buying film is very simple; take your best negative and print it till your satisfied, then scan it and print it on an inkjet printer, put them next to each other on the wall and you tell me which one has depth, character and is worth even looking at? Prints are what matter and I have never personally seen an ink print that had a poetic light within.

I seriously doubt film is going away.

-Puma

 

[2F/2F]

I mostly agree, but I disagree about all the reading and study of various manuals.

One of the greatest attributes of the Zone System is its utter simplicity, and that it is just plain logical once you know a few things about the characteristics of films. All you need to do is read one short chapter out of "The Negative," and a few of the procedures in the appendices section. You don't need to go out and buy 50 books on the matter and memorize them all. The Zone System shouldn't take a lot of your time and energy, and certainly shouldn't require a massive study effort.

But I think this also means that if you aren't getting it, or if it seems complicated, maybe it just isn't for you; it doesn't mesh well with your mind and/or your work, and you can find another method that simply "clicks" with you. We all work in different ways inside our noggins. Some people just don't get the Zone System and never will. They just cannot visualize it. It doesn't mean they are dumb are or bad photographers. It is not the be all and end all. It is just one of many tools out there. Don't get stuck on the idea that you have to learn it and use it or you are not a "real" or "serious" photographer.

Again, the purpose of the System is to simplify your life as a photographer. The second it ceases to do this, put it down and use a more suitable method for the task at hand. I would say that if you are spending hours upon hours studying and rereading it, and it still doesn't click, then forget about it. Don't spend a bunch of time reading all the books about it because you feel you must learn it or else....

 

[Puma]

I was just suggesting reading several books so that the information is presented in different ways and thus easier to grasp the conceptual nature. The zone system is really simple but it matters how the information is presented to an individual reader. I used to teach anatomy and physiology to learning impaired students, which is a very complex subject, I learned that when I made real world comparisons that the student was familiar with the understanding was immediate and easily recalled, if I used technical language I was wasting my breath. Other students grasped technical concepts easily so it is the audience and how the presenter delivers the information.

Whenever I don't understand something I just get another source until I get it. Photography is certainly a house with many churches and there are so many ways to achieve results, so many ways to look at methods and concepts. Can you visualize in your mind how the zone system works? Like learning another language all you have to do is visualize the functions and you've got it.

I'm also an information junkie who will read any book about a subject that interests me more than once.

I've stuck my toe into lots of different modes of thinking from making pinhole cameras from cardboard boxes to digital to the zone system mostly because I love photography in all its forms and I enjoy learning about it. Right now I'm thrilled on my zone work and am working on calibrating my other lens. Next I'm going to start playing with alternate visualizations of tones that vary greatly from reality. I've got some more ideas for the zone system that are unconventional that I'm going to try. The zone system isn't required to make great pictures, in fact I think that there are far more great pictures in history that aren't zone system based. The zone system is just one method for (allegedly) advancing the technical aspect if you have great content the technical aspects don't matter, Capa's pictures from Normandy come to mind and if anything the botched job of those negatives make the pictures even more powerful.

Best of luck to you in your quest for the images you wish to create.

Shine on,

Puma

 

[Ronald Moravec]

T Max films were developed expressly for zone system work.

So yes they work quite well.

 

[2F/2F]

What facts is that statement based on? They work well with the Zone System, but I highly doubt that they were developed expressly for it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I was just suggesting reading several books so that the information is presented in different ways and thus easier to grasp the conceptual nature. ... Whenever I don't understand something I just get another source until I get it. Photography is certainly a house with many churches and there are so many ways to achieve results, so many ways to look at methods and concepts. ...

Exactly.

People learn and understand in different ways. What seems simple to one individual, seems unnecessary complex to another and vice versa. There is no universal learning method. I read quite a few books on the Zone System, and to me, Ansel's is not the easiest to understand nor is it necessarily suited for everyone to be the first to read on the subject. In some cases it is too brief and leaves too many things unanswered, but after reading a few others on the subject (including Minor White), it makes a lot more sense. 'The Negative' should not be missing in any Zone System worker's library, but it does not have to be the first or the only one.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

T Max films were developed expressly for zone system work.

So yes they work quite well.

Absolutely! I have no trouble to get anywhere from N-2 to N+3 out of TMax100 or 400.

 

[herb]

Zone Siimple etc

And if you and others quit buying their films for that reason, they will question your commitment to film (at least theirs) and certainly quit making them, leaving you with even fewer choices. Besides, calibrating a film/developer combination isn't that onerous a task if you're worried about any kind of forced switch in the future. In the meantime, why deny yourself access to some of the best films around?

Avoiding Kodak for emotional reasons may seem the thing to do, but will it serve your photography if they happen to make the best film for your purposes right now (or in a year or two) and you don't use it and contribute to its demise? Whose purpose does it serve to help drive Kodak from the film market?

Lee

As I said before, I don't rely on their corporate philosophy- I have been a loyal Kodak customer for many decades until I saw how they were cutting back product lines.

Check out the latest post by Photo Engineer, a retired Kodak engineer giving Kudos to Ilford for supplying uncoated baryata paper.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

What facts is that statement based on? They work well with the Zone System, but I highly doubt that they were developed expressly for it.

The answer is Kodak`s own literature when it first came out.

People were complaining the current film was not responding like the older thick emulsion film did. When T Max was developed, they made sure it responded like some of the older thick emulsion films.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

TMax films work well with the Zone System! What more than the facts presented in post #3 is required?

 

[2F/2F]

What facts is that statement based on? They work well with the Zone System, but I highly doubt that they were developed expressly for it.

The answer is Kodak`s own literature when it first came out.

People were complaining the current film was not responding like the older thick emulsion film did. When T Max was developed, they made sure it responded like some of the older thick emulsion films.

Of course they made sure it responded well when used with the Zone System. That does not mean that they were developed "expressly" for Zone System users. Kodak developing the films expressly for Zone System users would mean that the film was only developed because other films were not working well with the Zone System, and that they did not intend the film to be used in any other way...which is very far from what they intended.

 

[hrst]

The zone system is a numeric or even rhetoric tool that is based on the basic principles on film sensitometry and densitometry. It is very useful and intuitive for some people and less so for others.

Comments online on the zone system show that many of the users don't understand anything either about the zone system or the basic principles and are totally lost in a complex world they have created from a simple tool. The zone system can sometimes become a hindrance to learn what it is meant for. IMHO, it's better to start with the basics as they are "traditionally" taught, and THEN see if the Zone System, which is an "extension" or "tool" based completely on that theory, is helpful or not. From the number of discussion concerning the system itself more than the results or the properties of the products, I can guess that many people find it confusing; but because they are told it's important to understand and use the ZS, they don't dare to find their own ways. But, the major premise of the ZS is that it is a new abstraction level or naming convention Ansel Adams used because it was intuitive and easy-to-understand for him!

For example, for me, it is not so intuitive and thus I don't use it, but I have learned the basics of it, so that I can understand when people talk about it...... just to see that in most cases, they did not understand it, so why did I use my time on it, either?

 

[Usagi]

Whenever I don't understand something I just get another source until I get it. Photography is certainly a house with many churches and there are so many ways to achieve results, so many ways to look at methods and concepts. Can you visualize in your mind how the zone system works? Like learning another language all you have to do is visualize the functions and you've got it.

I'm also an information junkie who will read any book about a subject that interests me more than once.

I am too information junkie so I have read a lot of books of ZS, sensitometry etc.

As someone wrote here, I too have found that the Adams writings are one big reason for all puzzling around the ZS.
The old serie was really bad, the lastest was cleaner. But for better explaining of ZS can be found from Adams basic photography series, wrote by Alan Ross.

When reading pile of ZS books or books touching it, I have found that it is not uncommon that even authors of these books has get it all wrong...

No wonder that ZS has become a kind of mystic silver bullet which requires a lot of endless calibration, testing, ... Instead of being simple and very powerful tool.

I am sort of graph junkie also, so I tend to do some testing just for fun or hobby, not to get better results as photographer.

The ZS has created some different school of thoughts. One is strictly with a idea that the visualized negative must be printed with a fixed printing exposure and paper grade. As they have it all calibrated..
One has only adopted ZS as tool for fitting whole subject contrast range to be printable of that magic grade #2 etc.

Right now I'm thrilled on my zone work and am working on calibrating my other lens.

Perhaps I didn't understand that very well, are you really calibrating ZS for each lens?
Is the contrast or flare of the lenses that great that it need to take account during development (and exposure) and it can be corrected during printing phase?