Zone System Question

[gainer]

So what EI would you use for Tmax-400 and N+3?

400 of course. What contrast index would you need to get N+3? What scene brightness range would require that C.I. ? What paper would you print it on? How much would you overdevelop to get that C. I.?

Suppose you had an ideal film with straight line characteristic curves all intersecting at 0 density? There would be no change of ISO with change of development, but you would still have to change development to make the negative density range fit the paper density range for each different scene brightness trange.

There is no direct connection between C. I. and effective film speed. Please, get that fixation out of your head!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So what EI would you use for Tmax-400 and N+3?

clayne

gainer is right, it is EI 400 for N+3 in my case. I posted the details and all other EIs for my setup in post #27 and #29. However, these are my test results and cannot be transferred to other film/developer/dilution or darkrooms.

As gainer says, one needs to realize that there is no fixed relationship between CI and EI. There is however a fixed CI/N relationship, which in turn means that there is also no fixed relationship between N and EI. Rules of thumb, yes, but no fixed material-independent, mathematical relationship. Testing is the only reliable way to get to your EI.

 

[dancqu]

N+1 means to extend the development to lift the
highlights by one zone (VII goes to VIII).

N, N+,N-, which ever is needed, there are other
ways of achieving a specific CI than varying the
time. I can think of a few. So I wonder at the
preoccupation with time as THE variable
for arriving at the correct CI. Dan

 

[gainer]

N, N+,N-, which ever is needed, there are other
ways of achieving a specific CI than varying the
time. I can think of a few. So I wonder at the
preoccupation with time as THE variable
for arriving at the correct CI. Dan

When you arrive at your darkroom with a bunch of film holders marked N+1. N+2, N-1, N, etc., it may happen that developing their contents for different times in the same large tank may be the most convenient way to give them different CI's.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

N, N+,N-, which ever is needed, there are other
ways of achieving a specific CI than varying the
time. I can think of a few. So I wonder at the
preoccupation with time as THE variable
for arriving at the correct CI. Dan

I can't think of a simpler way than just modifying the development time either. Which other ways are you thinking of?

 

[gainer]

Unsharp masking comes to mind, but it's not what I would call simple.

 

[mikebarger]

I guess you could change the temp, that would require the same testing as finding the time.

Mike

 

[RalphLambrecht]

N, N+,N-, which ever is needed, there are other
ways of achieving a specific CI than varying the
time. I can think of a few. So I wonder at the
preoccupation with time as THE variable
for arriving at the correct CI. Dan

I'll add agitation and different developers and their dilutions to the above list of unsharp masking and temperature control.

But looking at this list, the Zone System and its standard method of varying development time seems dead simple to me.

 

[dancqu]

I'll add agitation and different developers and their
dilutions to the above list of unsharp masking and
temperature control.

But looking at this list, the Zone System and its
standard method of varying development time
seems dead simple to me.

The way one works and subtle differences in EI,
grain, and resolution may favor one method of CI
control over another. Likely the founders of the ZS
had replenishable tank developers in mind. 1930s.

Now take those who use developer one-shot. An easy
matter to increase the developer's strength thereby
the processing is finished sooner. Also one-shot
allows for tweaking by way of ph adjustment.
A same developer's activity may be made
plus or minus.

One-shot or reused, a change in agitation can make
a big difference.

Now take all those + time additions and forget them.
How much is YOUR time in processing reduced? Dan

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The way one works and subtle differences in EI,
grain, and resolution may favor one method of CI
control over another. Likely the founders of the ZS
had replenishable tank developers in mind. 1930s.

Now take those who use developer one-shot. An easy
matter to increase the developer's strength thereby
the processing is finished sooner. Also one-shot
allows for tweaking by way of ph adjustment.
A same developer's activity may be made
plus or minus.

One-shot or reused, a change in agitation can make
a big difference.

Now take all those + time additions and forget them.
How much is YOUR time in processing reduced? Dan

I don't mind testing and I always use one-shot developers, but this sounds like too much testing even for me. I stick to time adjustments ala AA. It sounds like the far simpler method.

 

[wogster]

The way one works and subtle differences in EI,
grain, and resolution may favor one method of CI
control over another. Likely the founders of the ZS
had replenishable tank developers in mind. 1930s.

Now take those who use developer one-shot. An easy
matter to increase the developer's strength thereby
the processing is finished sooner. Also one-shot
allows for tweaking by way of ph adjustment.
A same developer's activity may be made
plus or minus.

One-shot or reused, a change in agitation can make
a big difference.

Now take all those + time additions and forget them.
How much is YOUR time in processing reduced? Dan

I think a lot of other ways of changing the CL have a lot more trouble with consistency. Part of the advantage of the Zone System is that by having a consistent method of determining exposure, and processing, you get a collection of negatives where there is little variance in printing time development and paper grade. If you go out and shoot 50 exposures (say over a week), and process them in batches based on time (all the N together, all the N+1 together, etc), that the level of consistency means a consistent exposure and development for the prints as well. This would save a considerable amount of production time, and when time is money.....

People tend to forget that a lot of the systems like ZS were borne of commercial photographers who needed to produce a lot of reasonably quality work, quickly, efficiently and cheaply, and that was their primary purpose.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Well, I use SLIMTs for most of my Zone System contractions now, and simply develop at my "N" time. Also, for expansions I will often change the amount of the metaborate solution in PMK, or even add ascorbic acid. Time changes happen too. For me, it is a combination of changing developing time and other elements.

Ralph seems to have the ideal system for rollfilm Zone System. For those not willing or able to carry three camera bodies or backs around with them, I would refer them to my modified system on page one of this thread. It uses printing controls to deal with the different contrast ranges on one roll of film with some compensations for possible loss of shadow detail.

Just a comment about "push" processing while I'm here. Although the Zone System traditionally focuses on achieving detail in important shadows, the concepts and techniques involved apply equally well to available light photography and "pushing." "Pushing" describes a technique to get usable images from intentionally (or occasionally unintentionally) underexposed film for which the shadows are knowingly sacrificed. The situation that usually requires "pushing" is trying to photograph in inadequate light where camera and/or subject movement would cause blur at the "ideal" shutter speed. The aperture/shutter speed combination needed to avoid blur won't give enough light to expose the film "properly," i.e., deliver shadow detail. When confronted with this scenario, one simply makes the photos at the aperture/shutter combination needed to avoid blur and attempts to compensate for the resulting underexposure by increasing development time, changing developer, or a combination of the two.

"Pushing" consists, then, of two elements. underexposure and overdevelopment. It is the underexposure element that takes "pushing" outside the traditional Zone System structure. True, the shadow detail gets lost when "pushing," but the overdevelopment raises the underexposed highlights to the desired level, allowing one to make a full-range print. Indeed, done right, it does ensure that the negative has a contrast range that matches that of normal-grade paper. One could think of it in Zone System terms, e.g., "the shutter speed I need to avoid blur makes the highlights fall on Zone VI. I need to expand that to Zone VIII, so I'll indicate N+2 development. Anything below values that fall on Zone III (which are mid-tones in this scenario) will print as black without detail, but I understand this, can live with it, and might even like it. At least I'll get an image that is not blurry, even if the entire scale of the print consists of blank shadows, dark "mid-tones" and contrasty highlights stretched out from black to white in the print. Although "pushers" think in terms of increased E.I. and "push processing" (which is nothing more than extended development), the results are nevertheless the same.

Zone System users use expansions to get more contrast out of low-contrast scenes. Shadow detail is maintained. "Pushers" settle for more contrast from already high-contrast scenes in order to optimize shutter speed and aperture by letting shadows go black and "pushing" the highlights up to a negative density that prints as a highlight while letting the low density areas of the negative still print black. Much the same effect can be had to some extent by using a higher paper grade, but in extreme situations, "pushing" the film is the better solution for many. Still others like the look of underexposed and overdeveloped film and "push" in situations where it might not otherwise be necessary for aesthetic reasons.

I happen not to like the look of "pushing" and do not use it except when I think the image itself is worth what I consider the "technical inadequacy" of being able to capture it on film. That said, many good and even famous documentary, news, and other low-light photographs would not have been able to be made otherwise. Pushing, therefore is a valuable, but different tool than traditional Zone System expansion. It is still applied senitometry, which, after all, is what the Zone System, BTZS, and many other systems are as well.

Down from the soapbox now...

Best,

Doremus Scudder
www.DoremusScudder.com

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I happen not to like the look of "pushing" and do not use it except when I think the image itself is worth what I consider the "technical inadequacy" of being able to capture it on film. That said, many good and even famous documentary, news, and other low-light photographs would not have been able to be made otherwise. Pushing, therefore is a valuable, but different tool than traditional Zone System expansion. It is still applied senitometry, which, after all, is what the Zone System, BTZS, and many other systems are as well.

That's exactly it! They are different tools for differnt purposes.

 

[Ian Grant]

Back in the mid 80's when I switched to Rodinal for my personal work I went on a workshop with the late Peter Goldfield. One thing we discussed was using the dilution of Rodinal as well as time to control contrast using the Zone System. I used this technique until I switched to Pyrocat HD about 4 or 5 years ago.

Essentially I used Rodinal 1+25 for N+2, 2+75 (1+37.5) for N, N-1 & N+1 and 1+50 for N-2, I don't have the times on hand, this was quite common back in the 80's/90's in the UK.

I would do the same with Pyrocat HD, but it's rare I need to do N+2 or N-2 development.

Ian

 

[Brandon D.]

If you don't want to hear a rant, read no further...

Bought the Chris Johnson book several weeks ago. And today, I finally got around to starting my tests. Fortunately, I was able to put together a scene with plenty of tonality from Zones III through VII. But, boy oh boy, I never could've imagined the amount of meticulous work that goes into actually doing the tests.

First, it was tough trying to find a scene with reasonably consistent lighting. Second, it was challenge to make sure that the meter readings of each zone/texture in the scene were correctly proportional to the other zones/textures (e.g., Zone VII should always be two stops brighter than Zone V, Zone IV should always be one stop darker than Zone V, Zone III should always be four stops darker than Zone VII, and so on.)

My mind was moderately nervous and anxious. But after running the whole testing procedure through my mind over and over, and after re-metering the whole scene about thirty times, the lighting in the scene finally stabilized. And then, everything really started coming together! Most importantly, every zone remained consistently proportional to the other zones in the scene. In other words, both of my concerns were eliminated.

Next, I started burning through the film. I made mistakes shooting the first two rolls, but they should still be usable. The third roll turn out perfectly. The forth roll was fine until my Hasselblad jammed. And after that, the lighting darkened 2/3 of a stop. But all of a sudden, I gained quite a bit of confidence in what I was doing, and I started to feel very relaxed. While burning through the final five rolls, I felt like somewhat of a turbo charged machine! Everything felt natural and flawless.

All in all, I now have six perfect rolls to work with. Thank God!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Fortunately, I was able to put together a scene with plenty of tonality from Zones III through VII. But, boy oh boy, I never could've imagined the amount of meticulous work that goes into actually doing the tests.

Brandon

Next time you're looking for the perfect scene, consider a Stouffer transmission step tablet. It has all the tones you need. Tape it to a window and take a picture of it. You only need one picture to get all the shutter or aperture increments. When I do a film test, I take five rolls or 4x5 frames of identical Stouffer exposures and develop them at 4, 5.5, 8, 11 and 16 minutes. The results from this test will tell you everything you need, from the right exposure for N-3 to N+3 and the exact development time to get there.

 

[Brandon D.]

Brandon

Next time you're looking for the perfect scene, consider a Stouffer transmission step tablet. It has all the tones you need. Tape it to a window and take a picture of it. You only need one picture to get all the shutter or aperture increments. When I do a film test, I take five rolls or 4x5 frames of identical Stouffer exposures and develop them at 4, 5.5, 8, 11 and 16 minutes. The results from this test will tell you everything you need, from the right exposure for N-3 to N+3 and the exact development time to get there.

Awesome! That sounds great! I'll definitely have to check into that for next time. Because for future tests, I definitely want to speed up the amount of time it takes to do the test.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Ralph - do you take into account lens extension when you photography the Stouffer tablet?

 

[gainer]

Another approach I have used is to get the 35 mm size of step tablet, trim it to fit a camera frame and tape it into the frame of a 35 mm camera with focal plane shutter so that the film runs bteween the tablet and the pressure plate. Use it without the camera lens by using an enlarger as light source. set the head high enough so that a fairly small part of the light field falls on the film frame. You can do some eerudite calculations or you can do trial and error for several frames to find the proper exposure.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph - do you take into account lens extension when you photography the Stouffer tablet?

No. The results from this test are relative measures. They return five relative log exposures and their average gradient values. The exposure index (EI) in ISO units of film speed for all developments are determined with one final exposure test, developed for the new normal development time. This turns the relative measures into absolute values.

Sounds more complicated than it is, but is an improvement over Phil Davis' method who related it to the box speed, assuming that all box speeds are measured for an average gradient of 0.615, which they are not.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Another approach I have used is to get the 35 mm size of step tablet, trim it to fit a camera frame and tape it into the frame of a 35 mm camera with focal plane shutter so that the film runs bteween the tablet and the pressure plate. Use it without the camera lens by using an enlarger as light source. set the head high enough so that a fairly small part of the light field falls on the film frame. You can do some eerudite calculations or you can do trial and error for several frames to find the proper exposure.

Very creative! I think that will work. Make sure the step tablet stays put while the film is advanced.

I did a similar thing by mounting a large-format camera lens with its shutter into a diffusion enlarger and exposing the film on the base board.

 

[gainer]

Trim the tablet just enough so that it fits between the rails. A tiny dab of sticky tape at each end will keep it from wandering.

 

[Brandon D.]

For my test, I shot Ilford Delta 100, and developed it in Kodak XTOL 1+1 for 8 minutes and 56 seconds at 68F. Agitation was three initial inversions for 5 seconds, and repeated every 30 seconds thereafter.

Here are the results from my test (straight scans, with no retouching or spotting):

Ilford Delta 100 @ 100 - Dead Link Removed

Ilford Delta 100 @ 125 - Dead Link Removed

Ilford Delta 100 @ 160 - Dead Link Removed

Ilford Delta 100 @ 200 - Dead Link Removed

I definitely achieved more shadow detail using XTOL.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For my test, I shot Ilford Delta 100, and developed it in Kodak XTOL 1+1 for 8 minutes and 56 seconds at 68F. Agitation was three initial inversions for 5 seconds, and repeated every 30 seconds thereafter.

Here are the results from my test (straight scans, with no retouching or spotting):

Ilford Delta 100 @ 100 - Dead Link Removed

Ilford Delta 100 @ 125 - Dead Link Removed

Ilford Delta 100 @ 160 - Dead Link Removed

Ilford Delta 100 @ 200 - Dead Link Removed

I definitely achieved more shadow detail using XTOL.

Very nice, I enjoyed the comparison.

Steve