Zone system question

I was out in Saturday making some landscape images. I used a spot meter to measure the area I visualised as zone III and set an exposure of two stops less on the camera. To make the initial print, I exposed a test strip of the film rebate against a portion of empty carrier to determine maximum black. I then made the print at grade 2 using the same time for max black. The zone III came out too dark, more like zoneII. Assuming my choice of Zone III was sound, does this suggest my meter is prone to over, or under exposure? I have tried, but can't figure this out in my head! Alex

I was hoping my zoneIII would be dark, but with full texture/detail. It was a large piece of brown sandstone. I do have two shots of the same scene, one stop apart. One is too light, and the other too dark. Perhaps a new EI between the two would be the answer? I thought I had my EI sorted out for this film, but maybe further testing is needed.

Did you expose at box speed or a personal speed? I know one of my camera's shutter is consistently 1/3 less than it should be. Most advocates of the zone system (myself included) stress the need to test equipment/development routines prior to "fully embracing" the zone system to account for just such things. Thus, I know (from testing) that my 90mm lens will require a slightly different setting from my 65mm lens when shooting the same scene (and wanting the same zones).

It is possible your meter is wrong or your equipment is faulty - it is also possible your development routine is different than what the film actually requires or that the box speed of the film is more optimistic than your situation warrants. Either adjust the meter for next time, remember the difference and adjust the exposure next time or test another camera to make sure it is not a mechanical issue with the first camera. The simplest answer is to adjust the speed of the film, as Michael suggested.

As you probably already know, the foundation is expose for shadows and develop for highlights. You probably under exposed your film. Did you test out the true speed of the film with your developer?

Try cutting your film speed in half - meter again for Zone III and see if you like the results. If so, you've found your personal film speed for that film, camera and meter.
juan

alex, from my experience, this is a very commoninitial result. i think it has to do with the fact that it is not easy to visualize a Zone III.IT IS MUCH DARKER THAN MOST PEOPLE THINK. JOHN SEXTON AND OTHERS HAve suggested to visualAND FIND A ZoneIV Instead.without testing much,just half your film speed and try again.don't give up. it's not easy but you'll get there,and then, the rewards of the zone system are great.all the best and good luck.

Thanks for the prompt replies. I was using Tri-X rated at 200. I had previously carried out an EI test which suggested 200. I used the method described in a Kodak publication which requires a densitometer. Developer is Ilfosol 3 for 7.00mins. Recently, despite my test results, I felt that my negatives of real life scenes were overexposed. I was bracketing, therefore at personal EI and one stop under. The 200 negs print too light at the maximum black time, and look quite dense. The 400 negs lack detail in darker areas. Perhaps this is not a good developer choice for this film. I use it largely out of convenience.

If you have already worked out an EI which you are satisfied with, I suggest the problem is either as Ralph suggests, that Zone III is actually darker than you are visualizing or that you are measuring the real life scenes incorrectly. For example, Canadian winters are full of snow and if I meter for shadows while taking a winter shot, all of my highlights are blocked up because the snow is so bright. I could reduce the development (N-1, N-2), try a compensating developer (stand development or a water bath) or I can accept the fact that the scene exceeds what my film/paper is capable of reproducing and make a decision as to what the most important zone in the scene is and use that as my baseline. Often (in winter snow scenes), I use the snow as my zone VIII basis and let the shadows fall where they may. I do this as snow without texture/detail looks worse than shadows with insufficient detail for a winter scene, in my opinion. For summer scenes, I can't live without the shadows.

Thus, I am not trying to criticize your method but if you slavishly adhere to zone III being the only important zone (as many "zoners" are apt to do), I think you miss the point of the system. You need to decide what the final print is supposed to look like, what tones are going to be important in that print and then meter for what is important. While "expose for shadows, develop for highlights" is a good start (and end point), it is not a final methodology in itself. No one here is advocating having too rigorous a mindset that photographers too often fall into. If you read St. Adams books and printing methods, he often metered for something else besides zone III because that was what he wanted the final print to emphasize.

That said, zone III is much darker than most people realize.

Kevin Kehler said:

That said, zone III is much darker than most people realize.

Click to expand...

amen to that

I'm re-visualising zone III as a darker tone in future. I will also try metering different zones, depending on subject matter. There was some fast-flowing water in some of my scenes, and this has come out virtually white. I suppose this is similar to snow, and requires to be carefully rendered in order to avoid large, featureless white areas in the print. Metering tones above zone V, and adjusting accordingly may have given better results. Thank you for all the helpful advice.

Alex, One thing that has helped me in my recent film tests is to shoot a white brick wall at my tested film speed, expose for 10 zones, and then print a 4x5 of each one of the negs, using the film base/max black time for every single frame. In the New Zone System Manual, they suggest a white towel as the subject. Adding some relatively uniform area with texture gets you out of thinking of the zones as solid patches of gray.

Wow! Bind them together and you have a portable Zone Book that shows the exact tone you will get when you meter and shoot that film/dev combo. It's pretty cool.

Alex Muir said:

Thanks for the prompt replies. I was using Tri-X rated at 200. I had previously carried out an EI test which suggested 200. I used the method described in a Kodak publication which requires a densitometer. Developer is Ilfosol 3 for 7.00mins. Recently, despite my test results, I felt that my negatives of real life scenes were overexposed. I was bracketing, therefore at personal EI and one stop under. The 200 negs print too light at the maximum black time, and look quite dense. The 400 negs lack detail in darker areas. Perhaps this is not a good developer choice for this film. I use it largely out of convenience.

Click to expand...

I've no idea what the toe of the curve looks like with a Tri-X / Ilfosol combination........a long toe or a short toe, the shape of the toe will influence the tone reproduced at a given low zone, with a long toe on III being darker than a short toe on III. You're being given so many things to think about, but here's something, straight out of The Negative. You can know what the tone should be at Zone III with the film/dev combo you state (rated EI 200) by making a Zone V exposure of a uniformly textured surface that is evenly and diffusely illuminated, also make a Zone III exposure too. Do all zones if you like.

Develop the film normally, print the Zone V frame so that the dried print precisely matches the tone of a gray card. Now print the Zone III frame for the same printing exposure time----this is the tone value for that combination. I would definitely do this for Zone II as well, if you have the "slightest suggestion of texture" in that printed frame, then an effective speed of 200 is good for that combination and your process. In the II frame, if the rendering of texture is more akin to full texture, then perhaps the EI is too low, bump it up by 1/3or so. It does not take long, I've done it and it works wonderfully.

Have you tried less print exposure or a different grade?

Alex Muir said:

I was out in Saturday making some landscape images. I used a spot meter to measure the area I visualised as zone III and set an exposure of two stops less on the camera. To make the initial print, I exposed a test strip of the film rebate against a portion of empty carrier to determine maximum black. I then made the print at grade 2 using the same time for max black. The zone III came out too dark, more like zoneII. Assuming my choice of Zone III was sound, does this suggest my meter is prone to over, or under exposure? I have tried, but can't figure this out in my head! Alex

Click to expand...

Hi Alex,

the key to your problem is the method you are using to test for minimum black exposure. The rebate of a film has not received any in-lens flair and is generally totally clear whereas a true Zone 0 area of a negative will have received flair during exposure and this is compounded by the affect on this tone during development. In effect your minimum black time is too long resulting in your Zone III coming out too dark.

As you are clearly aware, the key to achieving consistently good negatives is the correct placement of your shadows when exposing the film and ascertaining the correct development time for achieving good separation without losing the highlights. A simple and relatively quick way to way to pin all this down for the future is to do the following (WARNING: reading these instructions is more time consuming and a lot more laborious than actually doing it!!):

1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
2. Using the box speed, meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail
3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this shadow area
4. From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated

5. Process the film

6. Using the frame that was exposed at -3 stops less than the meter indicated (which should be practically clear but will have received lens flair and fogging - i.e a real world maximum black rather than an exposed piece of film that has processing fog) and do a test strip to find out what is the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black - Print must be fully dry before assessing this
7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc
8. The time that achieves full black inclusive of compensation for dry-down is you minimum exposure to achieve maximum black for all future printing sessions - print must be fully dry before assessing
9 You now know the minimum time to achieve full black inclusive of exposure reduction to accommodate dry-down
10. Using this minimum exposure to achieve maximum black exposure time, expose all of the other test frames.
11. The test print that has good shadow detail indicates which exposure will render good shadow detail and achieve maximum black and provides you with your personal EI for the tested film/developer combination

12 If the negative exposed at the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 400)
13. If the negative exposed at +1 stop more than the meter reading gives good shadows, your EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/2 the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 200)
14. If the negative exposed at +2 stops more than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 1/4 box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 100)
15. If the negative exposed at -1 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) double the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 800)
16. If the negative exposed at -2 stop less than the meter reading gives good shadows, you EI is (when metering shadows where you wish to retain good detail) 4x the box speed (i.e. for 400 film you need to set your meter at 1600)

You have now fixed your personal EI but there is one more testing stage to go.

1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
2. Using your EI, meter the brightest area in which you wish to retain highlight detail
3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this highlight area
4. From the meter's reading open up the aperture by 3 stops or decrease the shutter speed by three stops
5. Expose the whole roll at this setting
6. In the darkroom, process one third of the film for recommended development time

7. When dry put negative in the enlarger and make a three section test strip exposing for half the minimum black time established earlier, for the established minimum black time and for double the minimum black time.
8. Process print and dry it.
9. If the section of the test strip exposed for 1/2 the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% more development
10. If the section of the test strip exposed for the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film is correctly developed
11. If the section of the test strip exposed for double the minimum black time gives bright highlights with a trace of detail then the film requires 20% less development
12. You can use the rest of the exposed highlight test film to fine tune the development time.

YES - it is VERY boring but . . .for the investment of minimal materials and a few of hours you will have pinned down so many variables that it is really worth doing.

Back in the real world, all you need to do in future is meter the shadows that you wish to retain good detail with meter set at your EI and then stop down the aperture 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by 2 stops (i.e. what you have previously done but with an incorrect minimum black time). In the darkroom start your first test print with the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black (inclusive of dry-down compensation) and go from there.

Hope this is of some help and can I suggest that you try using Barry Thornton's Two-Bath developer as this will ensure that your highlights (such as the fast flowing water that you mentioned in a later post) always remain printable

David
www.dsallen.de

Michael has a good point. I think you had two issues. One you understood. 3 is pretty freaking dark. The second is the printing technique you used. You say you printed at grade 2 but did not say if that was on graded of VC paper. When I shot and printed 35mm (I assume you shot 35mm b/c your profile says 35mm shooter) I discovered that grade two never really gave me what I wanted but grade three did when using VC papers. When I split printed the angels began to sing. 35mm is not super conducive to zone system exposure, and when I realized this I began to aim for maximum information on the neg and split printing in the darkroom.

In the darkroom you lose contrast as the image is enlarged. Not only do you make the image larger you make the spaces between the silver crystals larger as well. Tri-X was the biggest culprit of this and one of the reasons I stopped using it. Because of this contrast loss you need to bump the paper grade up one as the image gets over say 4x5, or you split print and get better overall more successful prints. JMT on the matter.

juan said:

Try cutting your film speed in half - meter again for Zone III and see if you like the results.

Click to expand...

I did something similar. I read a lot of articles about finding your personal film speed and almost all of them came to the conclusion that half the box speed (double the exposure) combined with a 20% reduction was the ideal method.

So rather than do the tests myself, I just tried out that method and liked the results.


Steve.

The Zone System is an approximation model only, allowing you to get a ballpark worthy negative,
and not a religion! Zone III can mean completely different things with different films, depending on
the lower part of the characteristic curve. With straight-line films appropriatedly developed, it can
be quite open. I've gotten good shadow separation clear down to Zone 1 or even 0 with some films
at box speed! With something like Trix-X or HP5, you've got a substantial toe, so either have to rate it at a lower speed to get the exposure further up on the curve, or else end up with III and below relatively blocked up in shadow. But overdo it, and you'll get problems reproducing the highlights.
There are way too many variables to make an oversimplified explanation here. Just experiment and
practice based on all the advice you're getting until things make sense. Then perhaps look at other
film and developer options if you're still having issues.

DREW WILEY said:

The Zone System is an approximation model only, allowing you to get a ballpark worthy negative,
and not a religion!

Click to expand...

I completely agree. Just like a religion, it must be useful and approach it in our own way and don't be dogmatic about it.

Michael R 1974 said:

It is also worth noting Richard Henry's tests showed that (at least for graded paper) the "maximum back" exposure time is not a reliable way to determine the proper print exposure to produce the expected print densities from negative densities.

Click to expand...

Michael,

I assume you are referring to Henry's "Controls in Black and White Photography." Can you briefly recap the methodology/logic here? Thanks.

P

Thanks for all advice and suggestions. A number of points have been made which clarify things I have read, but perhaps not fully understood. I went back into the darkroom tonight and worked on a couple of the negs, trying to achieve prints that expressed what I had originally intended. I'm pleased to say that I had some success. I used the split-grade printing technique and managed to get sufficient detail into my highlights, without turning my shadows flat black. I had been using a faster than normal film because I was working with a medium format camera. I will now be examining the curves of other film/dev combos to see what may be more appropriate for my images. I'm also trying to concentrate on the images and not getting too tied down with technical issues. Alex

Alex Muir said:

I'm also trying to concentrate on the images and not getting too tied down with technical issues. Alex

Click to expand...

In the end, this is all that matters.

The zone system (and split grade printing, and different developers, and...and...and) are all there to help you create the image you want in the simplest way possible. As St. Ansel said "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". One of the reasons I like film is I find it simpler (even when using a 5x7 camera) since I am less tempted to play with settings and more focused on the image itself. For me, I want to know enough to make the images I want without knowing enough to worry if I am doing it right. I got into the technical aspects so it would be easier to make images, not because it would make better images - that only comes from doing photography.

Kevin Kehler said:

In the end, this is all that matters.

The zone system (and split grade printing, and different developers, and...and...and) are all there to help you create the image you want in the simplest way possible. As St. Ansel said "there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". One of the reasons I like film is I find it simpler (even when using a 5x7 camera) since I am less tempted to play with settings and more focused on the image itself. For me, I want to know enough to make the images I want without knowing enough to worry if I am doing it right. I got into the technical aspects so it would be easier to make images, not because it would make better images - that only comes from doing photography.

Click to expand...

these are wise words, but let's be honest, we love our tools and all the gadgets too

David Allen said:

Hi Alex,

the key to your problem is the method you are using to test for minimum black exposure. The rebate of a film has not received any in-lens flair and is generally totally clear whereas a true Zone 0 area of a negative will have received flair during exposure and this is compounded by the affect on this tone during development. In effect your minimum black time is too long resulting in your Zone III coming out too dark.

As you are clearly aware, the key to achieving consistently good negatives is the correct placement of your shadows when exposing the film and ascertaining the correct development time for achieving good separation without losing the highlights. A simple and relatively quick way to way to pin all this down for the future is to do the following (WARNING: reading these instructions is more time consuming and a lot more laborious than actually doing it!!):

1. Find a scene with with a good range of tones
2. Using the box speed, meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail
3. Move the camera so that you are only photographing this shadow area
4. From the meter's reading close down the aperture by 2 stops or increase the shutter speed by two stops and then expose 6 frames at: the given exposure then +1 stop, +2 stops, -1 stop, -2 stops and -3 stops less than the meter has indicated

Click to expand...

Please let me know if I've got this correct or not. Meter your shadow area and stop down 2 stops. That would put your shadow area in zone III. Then:

1. Use the setting above.
2. Open 1 stop to zone IV.
3. Open 1 more stop to zone V.
4. Starting with settings in step 1, close down 1 stop to zone IV.
5. Close down one more stop to zone III.
6. Close down one more stop to zone II.

5. Process the film

6. Using the frame that was exposed at -3 stops less than the meter indicated (which should be practically clear but will have received lens flair and fogging - i.e a real world maximum black rather than an exposed piece of film that has processing fog) and do a test strip to find out what is the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black - Print must be fully dry before assessing this
7. Do another test strip with the first exposure being what you have selected for achieving maximum black minus your dry-down compensation then plus 1 second, 2 seconds, etc

Click to expand...

Part 6 and 7 I'm really confused about. For part 6, how do you know which exposure on your test strip is maximum black? For step 7, is "dry-down compensation" something for fiber paper? I'm using RC paper. I'm also confused as to why making a second test strip is necessary, when maximum black was already found in step 6.

Thanks for any assistance.

Alex Muir said:

I was out in Saturday making some landscape images. I used a spot meter to measure the area I visualised as zone III and set an exposure of two stops less on the camera. To make the initial print, I exposed a test strip of the film rebate against a portion of empty carrier to determine maximum black. I then made the print at grade 2 using the same time for max black. The zone III came out too dark, more like zoneII. Assuming my choice of Zone III was sound, does this suggest my meter is prone to over, or under exposure? I have tried, but can't figure this out in my head! Alex

Click to expand...

Of course there is no rule, but the print exposure time is generally based off the time that renders the important highlight values at the right density on the print. If, after establishing that, you find your Zone III area too dark you can try to change print contrast or if you like the overall contrast, dodge the Zone III area. With the negative, exposure for the shadows is key while controlling the high values with development------------in printing, exposure for the high values is key, while print contrast is controlled through development i.e. dodge/burn, VC filtration choices, print developer choice, and toning choices.


I don't try to make an expressive print of every negative I make, but I do like to make a quick "proof" print of all my negatives:

I sometimes like to make an enlarged proof print to 8x10 or 5x7 on RC paper (make note of your enlarger height), and I have used the minimum time for maximum black for that exposure; and you should determine that time through just the fb+f. It's just a quick way to get a positive image on paper to examine for more expressive printing later. Rather than a maximum black time, I now use my "proof" printing time based off a Zone V exposure of a middle gray matt board (totally blurred, no focus on the negative), I call it the MTMG time, minimum time for middle gray. Find the time in the enlarger that prints the Zone V negative to precisely match the tone of a gray card. Now, when I may get a few fresh negatives, I'll put each in the enlarger at a predetermined enlarger height, expose at the MTMG time, process on RC for a set of proofs, generally they are at a low contrast filtration so that all the info on the negative can be seen in the shadows without too much density. I find that this gives good insight to possible expressive printing options to meet the visualization.

Please let me know if I've got this correct or not. Meter your shadow area and stop down 2 stops. That would put your shadow area in zone III (yes this is correct BUT only if the box speed is correct for your working methods and this is why you make the other exposures to check for your own exposure index). Therefore, you should ignore Zone System terminology at this point and just view the tests for what they are - tests to provide you with the information that you need to discover your personal exposure index.

The tests at this stage are simply:

1. Use the setting above.
2. Open 1 stop.
3. Open 1 more stop.
4. Starting with settings in step 1, close down 1 stop.
5. Close down one more stop.
6. Close down one more stop.

At this stage they have no relation to Zone System placings until you have completed the other stages 5 -16 of the testing sequence.

At test stage 6, you discover your maximum black by doing the following:

Use a permanent marker to make 10 equally spaced lines on a piece of paper and then do a test strip with varying exposure - i.e. give the whole paper say 4 seconds, cover the paper up to the first line and give another 2 seconds, cover the paper up to the second line and give another 2 seconds, repeat until the whole paper has had varying increased exposures. Process and wash test print and then dry it. You will find a point where the paper has reached black and the additional exposures have made no difference. The point at which this occurs is the minimum exposure required to achieve a maximum black on the paper you are using.

Dry down is a problem with fibre papers. If you are using resin papers you can effectively ignore this BUT you still need to judge your test print when it is fully dry. The second test print is merely to double check for dry down on fibre papers - this is because the time that you found on your test might be a bit longer than necessary due to the dry down being unknown at that stage of the testing.

Hope that clears the situation.

Best,

David
www.dsallen.de