Zone System - Find EI and dev time without resorting to sensitometry

[RalphLambrecht]

I think there have been quite a few people long before I formed my opinions that came to the same conclusion. Somewhere sometime someone said expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. That might be workable for sheet film users who can develop individual sheets but I don't think it works very well for roll film users. Unfortunately it has become ingrained in the minds of many who write books about b+w photography. Most books on b+w photography written by people who get their knowledge from other peoples books, fiddle with it, and regurgitate it parrot fashion. Result is everyone believes its the only way to do it.

And what are incident meters set to do by default and why do they do it?

The only trouble with your conclusion is that the old axiom ' expose for shadows and develop for highlights' is older thanmost photography books.It was already known to the pioneers of sensitometry such as Hurter and Diefield and was verified by countless practinioners. Otherwise, you are correct;There is very little truly new in new photography books, which is common for books on mature technologies.I tried my best in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' and sometimes a new approach to demonstrate the already known is new enough to make it worthwhile

 

[RobC]

The only trouble with your conclusion is that the old axiom ' expose for shadows and develop for highlights' is older thanmost photography books.It was already known to the pioneers of sensitometry such as Hurter and Diefield and was verified by countless practinioners. Otherwise, you are correct;There is very little truly new in new photography books, which is common for books on mature technologies.I tried my best in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' and sometimes a new approach to demonstrate the already known is new enough to make it worthwhile

And they all used sheet film back then and H&D were a pair of sensitometrists if ever there were a pair so what should we expect

 

[markbarendt]

And what are incident meters set to do by default and why do they do it?

An incident meter is designed to measure the incidental light falling on the meter's dome and use that to suggest a camera setting based on that amount of incidental light.

The suggested camera setting is designed to place, for example, the shadows appropriately on the film curve based on the ISO/EI setting and other factors chosen by the user.

By coincidence the suggested camera setting also places other subject matter at appropriate points on the film curve too, like highlights.

Contrary to the urban myths incident meters do not "average" the reading for a scene, or specifically peg the mid-tones, in fact when used in the typical manner, pointed at the camera, it can't even see the scene. If it can't see the scene it can't measure the scene's reflectance so it can't average it.

Used with an understanding of the zone system, and a tested EI, an incident meter can suggest a camera setting that will place any zone you please at an appropriate point on the film curve without the need for doing any math.

This works because a given amount of incident light will create a given reflectance from a given subject.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I shoot box speed, use the Zone System via the light meter, and skipped the testing garbage. The system works well, I have not been killed by the Zone System Police, and since I did not waste my time testing I still have a life. You can get over yourself and the testing garbage.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Rob, I have posted on another thread, that if your photos are so great due to technique, post them! They will all should shine as examples of your technique.

Others have.

PE

 

[ajmiller]

The 'Quick and Easy' method you describe on page 215 of your book Ralph worked a treat for me. Produced probably some of my best negatives ever, thank you!

.....I tried my best in 'Way Beyond Monochrome' and sometimes a new approach to demonstrate the already known is new enough to make it worthwhile

 

[RobC]

Rob, I have posted on another thread, that if your photos are so great due to technique, post them! They will all should shine as examples of your technique.

Others have.

PE

Please cite where I said that my photos are so great. No you can't can you becasue you just made it up. That tells us a lot.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I did some testing for the article I wrote on the discrepancy between Zone System speeds and ISO speeds. The tests consisted of using two sets of targets. One set had was white based and the other 18% gray. I then based the metering on the white and gray part respectively, made an exposure for each of the targets in the set, then stopped down four and made another series of exposures. Here are the targets. The test was repeated three times.



A sensitometric test was exposed on each of the three rolls of film and then processed. The sensitometric speed of the film for the first test was 119 and 115 for the second and third. Both would round to an EI 125. The difference is less than ¼ stop. The processing for the tests was close by not quite identical. For the first test, it produced a CI .62 and for the two additional tests, CI .63.

The table on the right shows the results of the second test. There's a small shift in W1 and W2 due to the f/stop getting nudged. For each of the targets it has the density at the metered exposure point, the density after stopping down four stops, the log-H difference between the two densities (this checks whether there is a four stop difference between the two points), and the far right column shows the log-H difference between the Zone I exposure and 0.10 over film base plus fog.

The table on the right is has the log-H differences from all three tests and their mean.



These tests show is a consistent 2/3 stop difference between the metered exposure point and Zone I exposed four stops down. Why the consistency with the Zone I densities with the different test targets. Shouldn't some of them be different because of the influence from flare?

 

[rbultman]

And this is where by head explodes... Is the zone system good or is it a delusion? Do people really have no control? Or, is it a case of, yes, there is control, but you have to understand the impact elsewhere of compression.

Signed,
Super Confused

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[RobC]

I agree with your opinions on compressing contrast producing quite undesirable results. I should say overly compressing / reducing development. There is a massive amount on the web and in books about using compensating developers to handle high contrast but I have long been of the view that compressing, for example clouds, just kills them and requires burning in at higher contrast later to get them back. In a nutshell over compressing a subject to fit paper which only has 7 stops usually kills the image and requires doing somersaults to try and retrive a decent print from the negative. I am thinking very largely of roll film where expsoures on a single roll may contain SBRs of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or more stops. You can't develop using N+ or N- to suit them all. IMO calibrating to 10 stops will deal with the vast majority of them with ease of printing if you expose for a highlight, set print time for a highlight and use Ilford Filters for increasing contrast to move the shadows down to desired value. It's a methodology for using zone system with roll film designed for ease of print contrast contrast which is simpler in practice than exposing for the shadows. Most subjects on a roll of film will be less than 10 stops so shadows will have very good separation until you adjust them by increasing contrast.

With roll film I never use N+ or N- minus development. I don't think in those terms. I think in terms that my negs will be on the soft side and will require additional contrast in printing. If I have extereme contrast in the subject I may decide to let the shadows go since they are NOT nearly as important as the mid to highlight values 99.9% of the time or I may just walk away if I think it would be a PITA to print.

There are times when using compression or compensation can be useful. For example shooting interiors with bright windows such as churches or where you want to retain what can be seen through the window instead of it being completely blown out. Compensating developers can be useful for these subjects but a lot of what is written is just padding for books and people trying to gain kudos by citing examples of what is theoretically achievable if you can jump through hoops. And compensating developers are only supposed to affect the highlights and not the shadows but I don't think thats entirely true either.

I think people should follow the example of colour photographers and go out when the light is right instead of the mid day sun. Waiting for the right light was something I think Adams did a fair bit.

 

[Photo Engineer]

yes it gives massive control so that printing becomes easy and not a rescue job.

It gives the control to put the exposure on the film where printing becomes much easier. As I outlined, if you expose for a highlight then you always place your highlights on a consistent highlight density. This allows increasing print contrast to get shadow densities where you want them without danger of blocking them. And without the need to reduce print time. This means you can get the optimum print time to get good blacks and good highlights very easily.

My L1200 enlarger out of the box has a contrast speed point on a middle grey. Ilford filters have a speed point on a highlight. I have never seen any filtration system which has its speed point on a shadow value. The usual advice is work out print time for a highlight and adjust contrast to get your shadows correct. Well this is nonsense if your filters speed point isn't in a highlight. What I suggest is that matching your film exposure to put it on the optimum density to match your filters speed point will make printing much much easier and allow you to concentrate on making a fine print instead of rescuing a negative with poor exposure.

If you expose for the shadows and SBR is only say 6 stops then you really need to adjust print time to suit the shadows and adjust contrast to suit the highlights. Well that will be a real PITA if your filter speed point is in the middle or a highlight because you will be having to adjust print time a lot more with a change in contrast than you would if your filters and film exposure are matched.

Importantly I am basing all of this on roll film usage not sheet film where you can do what you want. AND its based on the fact that we know Ilford filters are highlight speed matched. Your own enlarger may or may not be speed matched on any density so using Ilford filters takes the uncertainity out of the equation unless you want the hassle of trying to work out your own Y+M filter values which is another exercise in time wasting.

Again, if your SBR is greater than 10 stops then resort to exposing for the shadows just to get them on fllm but expect to do a rescue job in printing.

I think most people find it easier to work up to required print contrast rather than work down which is why I don't favour your "use manufacturers film dev time" approach. However this is really dependant on the type of subjects you typically make images of. If they are landscapes which tend to have higher SBR then I would certainly not use your approach. But if they were closed scenes without bright skies and lower SBR then maybe I might think about it. But I say my approach works for both whereas your approach will make printing high SBR subjects (upto 10 stops (and more) ) more difficult, you will need to work down to required contrast.

The ideal subject would probably have an SBR of around 5 stops. But they don't, they are usually all over the place and not ****** "normal".

Just my opinion. YMMV as usual..

Rob, I actually said this first :

"Rob, with such "fine" control of your negatives and prints, I would think that you would have posted at least one of these "prize winners"!

The majority of the rest of us have anted up! Come join us. "

I followed up with the other comment to reinforce my above comment, and it is based on the post you made and is quoted above. With such excellent control of your processes (exposure, negative and print) you must have some excellent prints otherwise your process is not good or you don't have any suitable results. This is all implicit in your comments of course.

Thus, following the logic of your post, you must make excellent prints from excellent negatives. It is just a matter of us seeing them and judging for ourselves.

PE

 

[RobC]

Rob, I actually said this first :

"Rob, with such "fine" control of your negatives and prints, I would think that you would have posted at least one of these "prize winners"!

The majority of the rest of us have anted up! Come join us. "

I followed up with the other comment to reinforce my above comment, and it is based on the post you made and is quoted above. With such excellent control of your processes (exposure, negative and print) you must have some excellent prints otherwise your process is not good or you don't have any suitable results. This is all implicit in your comments of course.

Thus, following the logic of your post, you must make excellent prints from excellent negatives. It is just a matter of us seeing them and judging for ourselves.

PE

I regard that as a veiled insult. Funny thing perception. You have been added to my ignore list. Bye Bye Bokeh.

 

[markbarendt]

And this is where by head explodes... Is the zone system good or is it a delusion? Do people really have no control? Or, is it a case of, yes, there is control, but you have to understand the impact elsewhere of compression.

Signed,
Super Confused

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

IMO the zone system is a very workable tool. It is a simplified "system" and as such is a more easily grasped description of "how to take and print pretty pictures" than say "The Theory of the Photographic Process" by T.H. James. I would though suggest that "The Theory of the Photographic Process" is more correct about the way things really work than say "The Negative".

For example Zone System adherents tend to favor certain assumptions, like minimizing exposure by metering with a spot meter to peg the exact shadow point in a scene to the lowest safely tested specific negative density point possible. This tends to minimize grain and keeps shutter speed up. Those are good things.

The Zone System works well for lots of people but it isn't the definitive answer to life, the universe, and everything.

For example, if instead of landscapes someone's primary subject matter is faces, then pegging zone VII may be the primary concern. When faces are the primary subject of a photo, where zone 3 subject matter falls may have a low priority.

As long as you understand that the zone system describes "one of many" practical applications of the theories involved rather than "the only one" or "the right one" you'll be just fine.

 

[markbarendt]

You have been added to my ignore list.

IMO you are aiming squarely at your own foot with that decision Rob.

 

[David Allen]

I regard that as a veiled insult. Funny thing perception. You have been added to my ignore list. Bye Bye Bokeh.

Dear Rob,

I think that PE was making a simple and fair request (albeit a bit 'tongue in cheek') - we would all like to see some of the results that you achieve with the system that you have presented in this thread. It was no 'veiled insult’, in my opinion, but rather a genuine request to see your images so that we can understand what you suggest your system delivers - after all we are all open to learning new ideas on APUG.

As to your comment

Please cite where I said that my photos are so great. No you can't can you becasue you just made it up. That tells us a lot.

Again your posts indicate that your system works well for you. Your pinning the highlights idea reminds me of my father’s Zone VIII methodology so I would also like to see what results your system delivers - especially as I have have had success with both my father’s system with landscape and general photography and also with the system I outlined in this thread now that I am photographing urban scenes that are challenging in terms of subject brightness range (particularly when I want to hold key shadow areas but also want visually ‘punchy’ prints).

In the discussion of photography in general, technique in particular and especially within the sharing nature of APUG, I do not think that you have to resort to such aggressive language. We are all on a journey and signposts are always welcome.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I think your last sentence is more or less correct. As Stephen quoted from Adams earlier, the Zone System was meant to be a practical application/expression of sensitometric principles (without the word sensitometry). The basic controls are exposure and development (ie contrast). The goal was a systematic (rather than guesswork) way of making negatives which would best support the artist's visualized print result. In the end it isn't complicated. What I'm saying is that I don't think people read Adams properly (or they read bad books, writings, articles), and they come away with a misunderstanding of what these controls do/don't do, and how they relate to the print. The Zone System isn't bad. I just don't think it is well understood, and that some basic sensitometry would help. It is a framework, but should be used intelligently (think about the print) rather than by rote.

Here are some things to keep in mind when applying sensitometric controls (Zone System etc.) to the negative:

1. The Zone System was meant to be a formalization of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". I've never been crazy about how that is phrased, because development affects everything. Maybe it should be "expose for the shadows, develop for everything". When you think about it that way, you might make different decisions.

2. The Zone System was developed when films were quite different. Many of them had significantly shorter exposure scales than current films, most of which can accommodate very high contrast subject brightness ranges

3. The Zone System was developed before the age of variable contrast printing (extremely powerful)

I did another test using a black box as described by Davis in Beyond the Zone System. Around the opening I placed different patterned targets. While the shadow box is not a precise indicator of flare factor, it does illustrate the comparative response of the film to differing levels of flare. This it did quite well. The results followed a predictable pattern with the density of the shadow box portion on the film increasing as the surrounding targets got proportionally lighter.

Michael, as you know, people can accept tonal compression as long as the mid-tones are reproduce greater than 1.11 compared to the original subject. Sorry Ron but this value is derived from the tone reproduction curve with is created by comparing the print densities to original subject luminances and is part of tone reproduction theory. While my program only goes up to a 10 stop luminance range, I have yet been able to achieve the greater than 1.11 with any approach. I suspect that there is a limit to the rule. Problem is I've never seen anything written on the subjective reproduction of extreme luminance ranges. Jones maxed out with a 9.5 stop luminance range with his seminal tests.

I've compared three different combinations from a 9 stop luminance range.

1. CI reduction
2. Paper LER reduction
3. Combination of 1 and 2

The results were combined on a tone reproduction curve, but it's hard to distinguish one curve from the rest so here are the results.



Test 2, reducing the paper grade, appears to produce the highest mid-tone gradients of the three tests. I know you frequently shoot in situations with extreme luminance ranges. What have you found?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, you can't say I didn't try to get to the heart of the matter. Rob has given us his method. It works or it doesn't and if it does, he should have some pretty good pictures. I gave him a chance to show it.

I'm sorry that he perceived my post as an insult. It was intended as a flat response to his request that I prove that I had not lied. That statement of his was an insult, which I ignored in the sense that I gave what I thought was the flat response.

I should add that my own emulsion work and experience at EK was doubted until I began posting the results of my hand coatings and the advice I gave turned out to be reasonable and good. This is how you do it. Hard work, but you gain by telling the truth from your own experience and show results!

As for my own work, I learned to use box speed or box speed + 1/3 stop because when taking aerial photos as shown in my gallery, you can't fiddle. One reading and shoot! Also, due to the many budget and time constraints, you cannot run these tests except at special schools to demo what is out there in terms of advanced tools.

So, I stick by what I said. Read the box, use that speed and use a good developer or add 1/3 stop and you cannot go wrong with any negative film. The attached figure from Mees shows this effect in the sense that the overexposure takes you out of the region of the "first acceptable print" and puts you into a region where almost all prints are acceptable up to the Dmax of the film or the actual shoulder.

PE

 

[removed account4]

thank you ron
the people at kodak
and ilford &c didn't put
the info on the box for nothing
is the pictograph in the box accurate too ?

 

[rbultman]

Thanks Mark and Michael. I think I have been making this too hard on myself, assuming that the zone system was THE system. A few pieces have now clicked into place for me in these few threads on/not on sensitometry. I now see that N+ and N- are really developing to a different CI, I.e. a different curve in the family of curves associated with a film and developer.

I suppose the zone system is a little like high school physics. You can get along in the world just fine knowing it at that level. You know that speed and acceleration are related, but you need the college calculus and differential equations to understand how.

Regards,
Rob

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Photo Engineer]

thank you ron
the people at kodak
and ilford &c didn't put
the info on the box for nothing
is the pictograph in the box accurate too ?

John, the pictograph is new to me. IDK.

PE

 

[Xmas]

Well some of the current Kodak boxes have a sunny side /16 set of pics concealed on box inner.
Think it was a Kodak Gold.

 

[radiant]

1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones

Dragging this old topic back to year 2020. The David's method is something I will try definely. But as we are only shooting shadows or highlights, why does the scene needs good range of tones in general?

 

[MattKing]

Dragging this old topic back to year 2020. The David's method is something I will try definely. But as we are only shooting shadows or highlights, why does the scene needs good range of tones in general?

Because you evaluate the print in its entirety, and the mid-tones are where the quality of the image mostly resides.

 

[cjbecker]

To find the EI, read the box!

To find development time to your satisfaction, run a test roll cut into parts and developed for different times. You can gain an approximation by developing small pieces of the film in room light to determine the time it takes to get a maximum black. Strip tests or dip and dunk tests.

Why make an easy job so complex. You know, when we have a new box of emulsion, we have no instruction manual but we can do simple exposures using the MacBetch color checker and center the gray scale on the film.

PE

I found the part about developing in daylight to find maximum black interesting. What would that time then be able to tell be about the developing time. Would it be a starting point for testing? Or start at 10% less time?

 

[Photo Engineer]

For starters it would give you a maximum development time. It would also give you a visual test of how fast the film develops. The benefits gained are only realized by experience.

PE