Zone System film development

[DREW WILEY]

The gist of the Zone System is that there are all kinds of Zone Systems out there. It's like a rubber band which you can stretch to fit your own needs, capable of being adapted to just about any black and white film. Another common characteristic is that people seem to do their best to make it a lot more complicated than it really needs to be. The odds of someone needing to go much beyond N+1, or N-1 the opposite direction, are pretty low, unless you've chosen a completely wrong film for the job.

I doubt that anyone really "previsualizes" the end result fully accurately. Certainly the old gurus like AA didn't; he fiddled around quite a bit in the darkroom to bag the look he wanted. Not until you start working with a negative does the best look really gravitate a certain direction or another. The whole point is to arrive at a versatile enough negative to get you onto first base at least. After that, all kinds of tricks can be used. Films have changed, and some of the old tricks don't work all that well anymore; but now we have even more tricks potentially in the tool box, plus predominantly newer style VC papers, which make life easier.

But one has to start somewhere. Shoot, develop, print, then repeat that a few hundred times. Practice makes perfect. Expect some mistakes at first.

 

[jvo]

TMY-2 ..... TMax 400 is a superb film....no matter how you work with it.....

I concur... also the best advice I was ever given when starting out, (for the second time!), is "use one film, one developer, and one paper" for the first year."


Enjoy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It takes awhile to learn how to optimize any given film, paper, and their respective developers. I tend to recommend a somewhat forgiving middle of the road film like FP4 to beginners, although what I personally use the most are TMax films.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have a resource here where I suss out the various N numbers by sensitometry

Divided Attention

This is my approach to the Zone System and Sensitometry The working title, Calling Your Shot, refers to the promise and appeal of the Zone System. Divided Attention refers to the two sides of the brain, and how I tried to divide the duties...

www.photrio.com

 

[xtol121]

@Bill Burk that's a great resource and funnily enough matches my exact thoughts and understandings on the subject to a T. There's a moment of clarity to the Zone System where you realize it can be so simple if you just let it. If I may just quote a part that I think is of significant importance: "You can trust ISO. But you do not have to. You can define your own standards of quality."

 

[Chuck_P]

I have a resource here where I suss out the various N numbers by sensitometry

Divided Attention

This is my approach to the Zone System and Sensitometry The working title, Calling Your Shot, refers to the promise and appeal of the Zone System. Divided Attention refers to the two sides of the brain, and how I tried to divide the duties...

www.photrio.com

I enjoyed that Bill, thanks for sharing it and the resource links provided. I particularly liked the distinction you drew about not mixing systems that would potentially lead to making "two corrections in the same direction", I thought that was perfect. By way of comparison to your statement regarding your NDR, I rate TMX at EI50 based on my testing with a 4x5 step tablet contacted to the film, but I am targeting a Zone VIII density of 1.2 for my "N" density for a NDR of 1.1 from Zone I to VIII. I know from past threads that you like to aim or target your "N" and +/- development times to CI, that is intriguing to me. I currently am doing it as I learned it in The Negative...........meaning I simply target the one zone separations between N and the +/- development times and let the CI fall where it may. However, it's hard for me to argue with my results so far.

So my target NDR relates to the ISO paper Range Number of 110 for a low grade 2 contrast. But these days I don't usually use a single filtration setting on my LPL VCCE (variable contrast constant exposure) enlarger. But I know through paper testing (Anchell), that includes selenium toning, that my LPL filtration setting of 1 provides an LER of 1.06, basically a middle grade 2, with MG RC Deluxe paper, and that would be my starting point for single filter printing. These days, however, I am printing just about everything split-grade.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks for the kind words @xtol121 and @Chuck_P

I like to think this is distilled here on Photrio on countless threads, @Stephen Benskin especially made those ideas possible with his feedback and gear.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I thought the whole point of the ZS was to simply get from Point A to Point B more efficiently. But threads like this one make it sound like a complicated inflexible taskmaster. I'm about as nitpicky about the look of my own prints as anyone else. Nonetheless, I don't see how placing two dozen technical hurdles on the track is going to make you run it any faster; quite the opposite, I'd think.

But frankly, I left the Zone System behind quite awhile ago. Everything is a lot more intuitive now.

 

[BHuij]

...except for the real purpose the Zone System was invented, namely being able to visualize in your mind's eye what results are possible from a specific scene and then being able to choose from among those myriad possibilities that which you find most expressive and then being able to realize that goal through appropriate development and printing methods.

Exposure and development are fairly simple; knowing what you want and how to achieve it - less so.

Best,

Doremus

I think this is the real soul of what Ansel Adams really meant when he used the term "zone system." These days people think of it as a technical and sensitometry-heavy set of exercises you have to do in order to make perfect negatives.

In reality, my $0.02 is that the zone system is about having some sort of idea of what you want a final print to look like before you press the shutter. Visualizing how the scene could be rendered in print (or indeed even on a screen if that is the final intended destination for your photo), that's the important part. All the stuff about luminance range and spot metering and expanded or contracted development were things Adams found necessary in order to travel from point A (standing before the scene to be photographed) to point Z (holding the final print in hand). His tools and materials were more limited than ours.

I do spot meter my scenes when shooting anything larger than 35mm film, and I do use expanded and contracted negative development when applicable, but these days, even in my all-analog, non-hybrid workflow, there's so much flexibility in the printing step that Adams didn't really have access to for most of his life. Even a negative where I have made significant mistakes in metering and/or development can be printed to a great standard with enough effort. I like to avoid those darkroom heroics and produce negatives that generally print well at grade 2 on Ilford MG fiber paper, but my available materials are more forgiving of sloppy technique than Adams' were. And it's a good thing, too, because even after nearly a decade of large format work and having my own darkroom, I still make boneheaded mistakes more often than I care to admit.

To answer OP's question - T-grain films will indeed respond to expanded and contracted development (to an extent). I regularly develop Delta 100 at (N), (N-1), and (N+1) in Instant Mytol.

Most developers available today could be used to expand or contract film development to help match it to your target paper grade or other standardized amount of contrast. I've had success with Mytol (an XTOL clone), Rodinal, HC-110, and even Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer.

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, it seems you may be worried that Adams' procedures for expanding or contracting negatives are reliant on having access to older/discontinued film emulsions. Don't worry - it's not. I suspect you can calibrate most any modern B&W film and developer combo for N+1, N, N-1 etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

T max films are actually more malleable to wide ranges of contrast than most films. But you have to understand how to use the correct developer for the desired degree. Merely more or less development time might not do it if you need to go to extremes. I even use TMX100 for very low contrast straight line masking purposes.

But for pictorial applications, I can't even remember the last time I developed film even for "minus 1". I'm not particularly fond of minus and compression development anyway; it's the weak point in the whole Zonie system. I'd far rather pick a film which properly fits the contrast range to begin with. And there always the masking option, which allows you to keep your cake and eat it too, tonality-wise.

 

[Arvee]

Another common characteristic is that people seem to do their best to make it a lot more complicated than it really needs to be.

Nailed it!

 

[pbromaghin]

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, it seems you may be worried that Adams' procedures for expanding or contracting negatives are reliant on having access to older/discontinued film emulsions. Don't worry - it's not. I suspect you can calibrate most any modern B&W film and developer combo for N+1, N, N-1 etc.

Yes, that was a big part of my concern.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I now use Foma 400 I have used Tmax 400 and 100 with the zone and had no trouble with -1 to +2, just don't recall if I ever had to use a -2. Although not a T grain Foma is a thin elumsion, next time I'm out I will shoot a -2 to see how well the shadows hold.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The gist of the Zone System is that there are all kinds of Zone Systems out there. It's like a rubber band which you can stretch to fit your own needs, capable of being adapted to just about any black and white film. Another common characteristic is that people seem to do their best to make it a lot more complicated than it really needs to be. The odds of someone needing to go much beyond N+1, or N-1 the opposite direction, are pretty low, unless you've chosen a completely wrong film for the job.

I had to study the Zone System for a while to simplify the metering part and use it only. My experience is with the right film choice to begin with, there is no need to change the development.

 

[Paul Howell]

What most people either ignore, forget or don't care is that Adams and Archer did not develop the Zone System to simply shoot what Admas called a "record" shot. Both AA and Minor White started their workshop with a day or 2 of visualization exercises. In the later version of AA's The Negative and Whites Zone System Workshop both start with visualization. The propose of the Zone was enable to photographer to go beyond the record shot and visualize the scene and capture his/her emotional experience. For what ever reason folks become obsessed with the mechanics of senotomery and downplayed the real core of the zone, visualaton. To simply determine a personal e.i or personal ISO for a given camera, lens, film and developer use a densitometer or shoot a ring around, no need to fuss with zones. For those who desires a very technical approach to exposure and development then Phil Davis' Beyond The Zone System may be more useful.

 

[pbromaghin]

Just a couple days ago, while doing some junk clearing on the basement, I came across my copy of Henry Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" that somehow avoided inclusion in my library bookshelf. In it he has a very clear explanation of the Zone System and its use.

As a beginner in the Zone System, on his recommendation, using a Pentax Spot Meter V, I will start by measuring the darkest important shadow and increasing the indicated exposure by 2 stops. Then I will develop normally and handle the brightest important highlight via multigrade printing paper. At any time in the future, I can still decide to complicate it further.

Many thanks to all of you have taken my question seriously and contributed to this thread.

 

[Chuck_P]

As a beginner in the Zone System, on his recommendation, using a Pentax Spot Meter V, I will start by measuring the darkest important shadow and increasing the indicated exposure by 2 stops. Then I will develop normally and handle the brightest important highlight via multigrade printing paper. At any time in the future, I can still decide to complicate it further.

I assume that you meant to say you would "decrease" the indicated exposure by 2 stops, this would place the metered value two stops lower in negative density for the most important textured shadow area (Zone III).

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Just a couple days ago, while doing some junk clearing on the basement, I came across my copy of Henry Horenstein's "Beyond Basic Photography" that somehow avoided inclusion in my library bookshelf. In it he has a very clear explanation of the Zone System and its use.

As a beginner in the Zone System, on his recommendation, using a Pentax Spot Meter V, I will start by measuring the darkest important shadow and increasing the indicated exposure by 2 stops. Then I will develop normally and handle the brightest important highlight via multigrade printing paper. At any time in the future, I can still decide to complicate it further.

Many thanks to all of you have taken my question seriously and contributed to this thread.

I assume that you meant to say you would "decrease" the indicated exposure by 2 stops, this would place the metered value two stops lower in negative density for the most important textured shadow area (Zone III).

Indeed, you must underexpose two stops from the meter reading to place a shadow in Zone III.

That said, doing so is not really using the Zone System; it's just placing shadows in Zone III. The idea of the Zone System is to a.) know what Zone III (and all the other Zones) look like in the final print and b.) choose an area of the scene to place in Zone III that you want rendered in Zone III in the final print.

Not all shadows are Zone III shadows. Placing every shadow in Zone III will likely keep you from underexposing so much, which is a good thing. But, if you really want to use the Zone System, start imagining what all those values you are metering will look like in the final print. Then, after placing your Zone III shadow, meter other values and see how they will relate to that and if you think you'll like how they look being rendered in the Zones they fall in. You may find out that your shadow placement needs adjusting, or you might want to plan a contrast increase or reduction when printing, etc.

Really, it's the visualization aspect of the ZS that sets it apart from just metering so you don't underexpose.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Chuck_P]

Indeed, you must underexpose two stops from the meter reading to place a shadow in Zone III.

That said, doing so is not really using the Zone System; it's just placing shadows in Zone III. The idea of the Zone System is to a.) know what Zone III (and all the other Zones) look like in the final print and b.) choose an area of the scene to place in Zone III that you want rendered in Zone III in the final print.

Not all shadows are Zone III shadows. Placing every shadow in Zone III will likely keep you from underexposing so much, which is a good thing. But, if you really want to use the Zone System, start imagining what all those values you are metering will look like in the final print. Then, after placing your Zone III shadow, meter other values and see how they will relate to that and if you think you'll like how they look being rendered in the Zones they fall in. You may find out that your shadow placement needs adjusting, or you might want to plan a contrast increase or reduction when printing, etc.

Really, it's the visualization aspect of the ZS that sets it apart from just metering so you don't underexpose.

Best,

Doremus

Of coarse, no disagreement, just putting forth the understanding for the beginner to know that setting the metered value at two stops lower, not only results in two stops lower density in the metered shadow area but that it is also where Zone III is on the scale of zones. This, just in case he decides to go deeper with it. I certainly encourage that though, but I don't agree it's complicating it either, just a refinement of the system aiding in visualization.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I have said, if you are not into visualization or previsualization and want a well exposed negative that controls for all the variables then Beyond the Zone System is worth the time and effort to learn.

 

[pbromaghin]

I assume that you meant to say you would "decrease" the indicated exposure by 2 stops, this would place the metered value two stops lower in negative density for the most important textured shadow area (Zone III).

Yes. Senior moment. I also neglected to say that for now I will be using roll film, so custom development for each exposure won't be possible. Hopefully, by next summer I should be ready for that added complication and will start using the Speed Graphic.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

@Chuck_P
No disparagement of your comment intended! I just wanted to point out to pbromaghin that visualizing where values should be placed is the heart of the ZS, and that not all shadows should be Zone III.

@pbromaghin: That said, when using roll film, I rarely do a lot of visualizing. Nor do I spend a lot of time metering shadows and placing them. Most roll film cameras these days have center-weighted or matrix TTL meters. When using these, I just find an E.I. that gives me well exposed negatives in normal-contrast situations and then guard against underexposure in high-contrast situations by adding a stop or two of exposure with the exposure compensation knob.

When I do go out with, say a meterless 120 camera and my spot meter, I'm careful to place shadows according to where I visualize them and I do keep track of the extremes of contrast on the roll so I can tweak development a bit if possible. Otherwise, it's just find a normal development time that allows me to print the extremes with the controls available when printing.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Chuck_P]

@Doremus Scudder, I didn't think your comment was disparaging......I was just following up with clarification. I agree too that all shadows don't have to be placed on III. I'm not shy in the right scene brightness range to place a lesser important shadow lower than ZIII if I can get my most important textured shadow to fall on at lease ZIII and that the important high value falls where I can manipulate with development. That situation doesn't arise a lot, but I look to do it to hold back some density at the upper zones. Placing on ZIV also has it's benefits as I know you know.