Zone System for the 21st century

[markbarendt]

The OP's question does bring up a good subject--one of which is directly related to APUG criteria. How does the Zone System fit in the 21st Century? The reality is, this is a critical issue and the scanning part of his question became noise in the discussion.

I agree that scanning is important in relation to film's survival and a significant part of how many of us use film.

For paying work, weddings etcetera, my work is scanned.

A scanner is effectively a very limited version of enlarging paper, except you have no ability to dodge and burn during the scan itself. Also, the scanner, unlike paper emulsion, has no effective toe or shoulder. Learning how to optimize to the hard limits a scanner has is where applying the Zone System is welcome.

I do agree that zone system principles can be applied to digital tools but there are so many variables that a general discussion of that zoning to scan borders upon meaninglessness. Switching scanners is like switching paper. Switching software adds another layer of possibilities.

Scanning, to be blunt, is simply a specialized version of digital photography. That is not an insult, it simply is what it is, and it requires a "slightly" different set of skills and tools than the traditional materials and processes APUG specializes in.

APUG also isn't a "film site" per se.

APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes. We are an active photographic community; our forums contain a highly detailed archive of traditional and historic photographic processes.

But what does this have to do with APUG? Several things come to mind:

1. The same techniques used to calibrate the scanner is the same techniques used to calibrate normal paper. Very very few of us use just one film and one paper. I ask this question: When is the discussion of techniques that improve our ANALOG process ever off-limits? Some people believe that once done, that there is no reason to ever explore using it again. If that's the case, why don't we just always use the same settings we've used for 75 years?

2. Some of us use the digital realm for image experimentation. We scan the negative to figure out what we want to do with it or figure out a way to handle a complex dodge, burn or gamma adjustment. 20 minutes in the computer and I've got a guide print from the computer to use in the darkroom for the final print on very expensive fiber paper.

I have nothing against people experimenting with digital. But, how does digital experimentation improve my skills in traditional and historic processing?

Finally, there is an issue with DPUG. It's getting a little better, but the culture over there is not like it is here. Where we are open to discussing a rehashed topic over and over again. Makes sense, really, since nothing is really new in decades. But over at DPUG, you ask a question like this and you'll get two answers. Use the stinking "search button" or "buy the book".

The other problem I see with DPUG is that, to this point, it is neither truly unique in theme, nor necessarily the best place to get info. NAPP's community is such a huge resource for the pittance of $100/year that that I can hardly imagine why anybody with PS bothers with any other forum for their digital questions , including on scanning.

 

[Bill Burk]

I feel like in my quiet way I didn't make my point clear -- much of this thread talks of making negatives good for scanning.

I'm recommending making the negatives good for analog - using the scanner only as a densitometer.

Kind of like the old instructions telling us how to turn a spotmeter into a densitometer.

Now you can use a scanner as a densitometer to read your densities. Then take those numbers to the darkroom. Adjust your film development time so the next negative better fits your silver gelatin paper.

The negative will not be optimized for scanning.

 

[holmburgers]

I feel like in my quiet way I didn't make my point clear -- much of this thread talks of making negatives good for scanning.

I'm recommending making the negatives good for analog - using the scanner only as a densitometer.

Kind of like the old instructions telling us how to turn a spotmeter into a densitometer.

Now you can use a scanner as a densitometer to read your densities. Then take those numbers to the darkroom. Adjust your film development time so the next negative better fits your silver gelatin paper.

The negative will not be optimized for scanning.

In this light, how is a scanner any different than a densitometer? (that's a rhetorical question)

I'm impressed by the posters that answer the OP with a thoughtful & useful response. Any parrot can tout the company line, but to approach an inquiry that brings up digital from an analog perspective is a much more constructive way to keep the discussion APUG appropriate.

That's my opinion.

 

[Bill Burk]

In this light, how is a scanner any different than a densitometer.

It's no different at all.

Since the OP has a scanner, there's no need to go out and buy a densitometer.

I think when how-to books were being written, nobody thought scanners would be readily available to hobbyists. Of course they didn't think densitometers would be easy to come by either.

Well, I guess in some senses a scanner is better...

It is almost like a microdensitometer. Don't know if it's good enough for edge effect studies, but you could read very small areas.

It's also nice that you don't risk scratching the negative by touching it with the reading head like you do with a regular densitometer.

But on the con side, it is a pain having to load the negative in a carrier, and go through the motions of scanning. A densitometer is more convenient in that respect.

 

[holmburgers]

It's no different at all.

With that in mind, I think that discussing the ability of a scanner to act as a densitometer should be fair game.

Any argument against it would ultimately be rooted in stubbornness, and an irrational fear that allowing such words as "Photoshop" & "scanner" to be used on APUG would somehow erode its integrity.

APUG's mission is to be a place for the discussion of completely analog photography processes, but there is nothing explicitly stated that bars us from talking about digital computation, or using digital diagnostic devices. There are a number of cameras, light meters & other devices that we as film users utilize that would fall into this category.

Sorry to keep pushing this issue, but I think that this thread touched on an interesting gray area that at first glance appears off topic, but is fundamentally in tune with the purpose & intent of the Analog Photography Users Group.

 

[ic-racer]

I agree that if one is asking about using a scanner as a densitometer then that is fair game here. To do it one would scan a step wedge with known values. The file is then can be opened in some graphics software like Photoshop. In Photoshop, each sector of the step wedge image can be interrogated with the "Information" window. The readout will be in "K" and it will be a percentage from 1 to 100.

You will then plot the "K" value against the known density. Then you can use a graphing program to analyze the relationship between the two sets (ie derive an equation) and use this to convert from the "K" value to Log D.

Densitometers are inexpensive, so it might be better to just get a densitometer.

 

[markbarendt]

Is a scanner a specialized digital camera?

Is a scanner a traditional non-digital method?

Do you guys expect Sushi at Mexican restaurants?

APUG is special and successful because it is unique.

Scanners don't read a spot and tell you it's at x density. The scanned file has to be prepped/fixed before it can even be measured. Are we going to allow tutorials in PS to make that workable for APUGers?

Are we going to have tutorials for each model of scanner and brand of software and brand of film?

The skill sets and tool sets required for traditional photographic processes and for digital are hugely different.

 

[holmburgers]

Is a scanner a specialized digital camera?

Is a scanner a traditional non-digital method?

Do you guys expect Sushi at Mexican restaurants?

APUG is special and successful because it is unique.

Scanners don't read a spot and tell you it's at x density. The scanned file has to be prepped/fixed before it can even be measured. Are we going to allow tutorials in PS to make that workable for APUGers?

Are we going to have tutorials for each model of scanner and brand of software and brand of film?

The skill sets and tool sets required for traditional photographic processes and for digital are hugely different.

I can't say that I disagree, or that you're wrong. I can understand your perspective. I think that the tools of the darkroom are always evolving though.

My intention is definitely not to step on toes, or trample hallowed ground. I just want this community to thrive.

A quote from Ansel Adam's introduction to The Negative, 1981 edition:

I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.

 

[Bill Burk]

Scanners don't read a spot and tell you it's at x density.

Hi Mark,

I agree that it is difficult to discuss scanners in APUG because of the risk of going off-topic. While I am contradicting this point, I don't expect you to know this in context of your analog commitment. So I'm just saying a scanner can do this.

About a dozen years ago I bought a scanner which spends most of its time collecting dust. I was bothered by the user interface and found the software VueScan Professional solved my complaint (I have no relation to company). It works on many scanners.

I thought it would be a cool feature request, so I asked if there was a way to use it as a densitometer and the answer I got surprised me. It can.

Go into Prefs, choose Enable Density Display and press control key while moving mouse over the preview.

Sure enough, it works adequately. The steps are: 1. Put neg in scanner 2. Launch VueScan 3. Preview 4. Read densities.

So here is a chance for a piece of otherwise useless junk, to have a second life in the analog darkroom.

The money that might have been spent on a densitometer, could be used towards another useful piece of analog equipment, a sensitometer.

 

[Bill Burk]

The skill sets and tool sets required for traditional photographic processes and for digital are hugely different.

Mark,

You are right on target here. My scanner trick is only good if you already have the skill and tool. Maybe since it's in my blood it's so obvious to me.

Buying a junk scanner can be a money and time pit. For example the plug typically doesn't fit a printer port.

---

I too come here for sanctuary from digital, so having made my point about scanners, I'll drop it (unless further clarification is needed) and just say that it is very satisfying for an analog darkroom worker to have functional equivalents of "sensitometer" and "densitometer" tools.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

This all reminds me so much of my local Country Music Club. Try to play Blues or anything else not perceived as fitting the genre and there is always some Nazi who'll call out "That's Not Country". Needless to say the club consists of a rather small number of musical purists and has experienced no growth in recent years. Just sayin'.

 

[Diapositivo]

Talking about music, that reminds me of certain Alpine choirs which would object not just to performing non-Alpine popular songs (from Abruzzo, Sardinia, Latium etc.) but even to performing Alpine songs with modern harmonization. If one tights his trousers too much, he's going to end up suffocating, I say.

 

[JamesDean]

Agreed. I like to think of the group as united by a common interested rather than a common list of topics which cannot be mentioned.

This thread is a good example. Despite a chorus of take it to DPUG, I have learnt some cool ideas about using a scanner as a densitometer. I intend to use this information to start calibrating my relatively obscure film stock and improve my (once calibrated) entirely analogue workflow. Sounds like an ideal APUG conversation...

 

[markbarendt]

My intention is definitely not to step on toes, or trample hallowed ground. I just want this community to thrive.

We have the same goal.

A quote from Ansel Adam's introduction to The Negative, 1981 edition:

I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.

Adams' goal was different. IMO he wasn't into "preservation of process" it was just about getting the output he wanted.

Nothing wrong with that or with tools being updated.

My point is not that the world shouldn't change. Metaphorically though if I want Sushi today choosing my favorite Mexican restaurant is asking for disappointment even if I think the place is a stellar restaurant.

 

[richard ide]

You could also use a light meter as a densitometer. A spot meter is ideal but one could make a mask so that only a small area would be read by a meter with wider angle of view. Reference to step wedge readings should be very accurate.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Scanning is like making and interneg, it is an intermediate step towards image creation.
Bad interneg, bad print
Bad Scan , bad print

 

[markbarendt]

Scanning is like making and interneg, it is an intermediate step towards image creation.
Bad interneg, bad print
Bad Scan , bad print

And I would add; bad scan, bad density readings.

 

[Bill Burk]

...bad scan, bad density readings...

Just re-asserting. VueScan drives the scanner at a low level, without significant adjustment the numbers appear accurate and in density form (for example 0.22 - 0.85 for a very thin neg of my grandfather that my densitometer confirmed is 0.26 - 0.64 it can't measure the small 'highlight') and I go no further than Preview.

---
If it weren't for the standards upheld by APUG mediators and self-mediation, my vision for my own darkroom processes (I'm opening up the faucet) would not be as clear as it is today.

I use Zone System for silver gelatin prints that are done fully analog, with a couple electronic devices used for specific purposes. I may possess devices that would be useful in a hybrid process, but I choose (I'm getting out my trays) analog.

I use the Zone System with adaptations for the 21st century (I'm opening up Notepad on my computer just to get a white screen to examine negatives by) because I can reflect back on all the advice learned and taught over the years.

Today I am doing a 4x5 print on 11x14. Thanks to Bob Carnie's advice, I am doing 3 prints. I do not have a 4x5 scanner so although I talked in this thread of using scanners for the job, I am reading densities with a real densitometer. (B+F 0.15 Placed shadow 0.55 Clouds 1.77 Typical high values 1.16).

There they are, three spots in the sky. Out comes the Adams and Bausch and Lomb. It's hard to treat black spots on prints so I am going to opaque them out. They'll be easy to spot on the print later.

 

[Bill Burk]

I just have to report. I went to print two sheets of "PRINTS - Darkroom Session Notes" and after the first sheet came out (the one I need today), I got the dreaded pop-up "color and black ink cartridges need to be replaced."

Another reminder why I come here for sanctuary.

 

[MattKing]

(I'm opening up Notepad on my computer just to get a white screen to examine negatives by)

Bill:

Try Blank.org in your browser

 

[Bill Burk]

Blank.org

Another site to spend hours a day at...

So there I was this morning. Kids fed, sink ready, neg retouched and in the enlarger.

My 9-yr old boy urgently tugs at my arm and asks me to set his clock for him. He said it just started blinking... after sister spilled her root beer on the VCR.

After cleaning up the mess and repairing the VCR I finally got back into the darkroom and made my 3 prints. They're toned and drying on screens now. I was thinking Grade 2 but pulled out a sheet of Grade 3 instead. 7 seconds burn-in on the sky and 5 seconds dodge on the trees.

 

[Bill Burk]

I looked over at DPUG and see they have a pretty good thread going on this topic of scanner-as-densitometer. The responsible thing would have been for me to actually run a series of sensitometer tests and compare the graphs from densitometer to graphs of same negatives using scanner-as-densitometer.

I might rise to that challenge next time I develop some 35mm. Until then, sorry I should have provided some more useful information and gone further than making the trivial statement "yeah it can be done".

 

[holmburgers]

It sounds like, in general, a scanner can't handle the density of an analog negative; having posed the quesiton on DPUG.

That makes sense, given the horrible exposure capabilities of most flat-beds.

So in the end, it might be a moot point, but any investigation would be worthy nonetheless.

Here is the thread I assume you're referring to, though it was originally created to discuss calibrating negatives for papers/print processes. Is this it, or is there a better one?