Zone System - still relevant?

[lee]

I cannot speak for David but I will bet that is what he meant. There was a discussion of this subject several weeks ago. The issue is where you rate your film. If you rate your film and place the shadow at Zone IV, then, to me, this is the same thing as rating your film at half the box number and placing the shadow at zone III. If you half the box speed and place the shadow at Zone IV then you should have a pretty beefy negative. Do I understand the question or am I making a mountain out of a zone hill?


lee/c

 

[lee]

sorry David I did not see your post or I would have just said "Ditto".

lee\c

 

[jmcd]

I think placing one's shadows in Zone IV also has to do with what one meters as shadows,, that is, the darkest areas that you wish to print with full detail, and correlating these to the actual values as you desire them to be in the final print.

I find Zone IV easier to identify in a scene, so I meter for it, but intend it to be a Zone IV.

Knowing film speed is critical, of course. If you do know it, you can of course place your actual shadows in Zone IV, and being aware that this exposure will affect your highlights, adjust your development accordingly.

A properly exposed and developed negative should look quite good on a proof that is prepared on your standard grade, printed with the minimum exposure to achieve maximum black. Not that every one is going to be just right, but I think aiming for this allows you the leeway you need to make your best prints consistently.

As someone said above, there is little you can do to save a negative that is underexposed, but you can burn in the highlights from an overdeveloped negative. While this is true to a degree, it is much easier to get an excellent print with a properly exposed negative, that is developed to place the highlights where you want them.

 

[Donald Miller]

When I began to use zone system principals and procedures, I placed my low values on Zone III just as I have heard others doing. I later found that when I had the film speed accurately determined that by placing my low values on a Zone IV placement that my prints exhibited a greater sense of luminance. Besides, I soon discovered that there were most usually lower values that I hadn't observed or metered such as the intertices of tree bark to give a deeper black within the print itself. John Sexton was reported to have said at one time that "nothing lives on Zone III". I have always enjoyed the sense of light that appear within his prints of forested scenes. I have also found just as many have reported that the advertised film speeds are arbitrary at best. My tests of Kodak TriX Prof indicate a true speed of 160 as opposed to the advertised 320 and Bergger BPF 200 actually exposes at EI 64. I have no recent experience with Ilford products so I can not comment on their performance in this regard.

 

[jmcd]

Very helpful comments, dlmilikan, regarding Zone III, and how it reads on a print. What is your developer with Tri-X, with which you get film speed of 160?

I mainly use Ilford and find it to have film speed as follows: FP4+ at 125 in D-76H 1:1, and Rodinal 1:50; HP5+ at 320 in same developers.

Another potential pitfall that can throw things off, especially with smaller apertures, is that contrast increases with long exposures. So, with the longer exposures you have to take at least two things into account: reciprocity to get the proper exposure; and the predictable contrast gain, which will necessitate shorter development to keep the highlights where you want them. For instance, I use the following: if my meter calls for a 15 second exposure, I compensate for reciprocity with a 50 second exposure, and decrease development by 10 percent.

I got my figures from Steve Simmon's Using the View Camera. These follow a strict mathematical formula, depending on your film type. Kodak posts rough guidelines regarding contrast gain and development compensation on the back of the film box, at least on the box of Tri-X I have.

 

[lee]

Do you really see an increase in contrast with the Ilford lines? I have not. This is with PMK that I have most of my Ilford experience. I can rate it at the box speed and get away with that. When I shot a lot of the old style emulsions from Kodak I had to rate the film at half what the box said. I spent a year or so shooting everything at about double the box speed. I would shoot Tri-x at 100 and process in Microdol-x and lop off about 15% time. My Normal time is 10 in Microdol-X straight. Then I would use either Kodalk or Borax as a part two solution. For about 4 minutes. Nice Beefy negatives. LOTS of mid-tones. With Largeformat negs the Microdol-x does not display any loss of sharpness that some people complain about with Microdol-x. The complaint is mushy grain. I shot a lot of film indoors and would count on the film to increase in contrast so it was beneficial for me. When I changed to Ilford with PMK I never bothered reducing the development to compensate for the contrast increase.

your mileage may differ,

lee\c

 

[jmcd]

I have found the actual exposure times in Steve Simmons' reciprocity chart to be very generous, they play it on the safe side. With the combination of what might be a generous exposure and contrast gained from a long exposure, I have found the adjustment in reduced development time necessary. You have to get into a 853 second actual exposure to call for an N-1 reduction, or 20%. Of course, my experience is with D-76H and Rodinal used with Ilford.

 

[David Hall]

Yes,

I meant that you can do nothing to save an underdeveloped negative.

Something else just dawned on me...If you put the lowest shadow detail on zone IV, that bumps everything up a zone and means you will be doing plus development somewhat less and minus development a little more. Depending on what you shoot, of course. I find for myself that unless I am out at Noon, it's PLUS a lot more than it's MINUS. Usually +1. If I put shadow detail on Zone IV, it's not +1 anymore because that highlight that didn't reach high enough is now dead on. Right? Am I missing something?

dgh

 

[jmcd]

Respectfully, you might not be able to save a severely underdeveloped negative, but an underdeveloped negative can be printed on a higher grade of paper, or intensified, unless I am not understanding your point, David.

 

[David Hall]

Even more respectfully,

You're right. I meant underEXPOSED negative. Jeeze, I got it wrong twice in a row. You can't do anything with underEXPOSURE (now typing it slowly) so putting lowest shadow detail at Zone IV helps you prevent that.

And, I still wonder if it means less expanded development?

dgh

 

[Donald Miller]

David,
To answer your question, if I understand...If you are speaking of a negative that is one zone underexposed, then selenium intensification of the negative would get that one zone density back into your highlight density and have virtually no effect on the shadow density. The other option is printing on a higher contrast paper. There unfortunately is no way to impart detail in the shadow areas that underexposure would not have captured. Normally, however, if your film is properly rated (insofar as EI) then you should have detail down to Zone II. However at a Zone II value the detail will be minimal and basically more a matter of tonality then detail.

Now on to your other question about proper placement and the effects of a plus or minus development situation. Obviously, again, if you place your low value on a Zone IV placement that will move your highlights one zone higher in the process then a Zone III placement would have had. This would lead to a reduction in the amount of development that you will give the negative.

The one thing that I have learned and also has also been addressed in articles that Bruce Burnbaum has written is that there is detail on film above Zone VIII. So the hard and fast rules of Ansel Adams about the Zone System as he propogated is subject to further evaluation with todays materials.

How much detail? That depends on the film that you are using and is a matter of the characteristic curve of that film. I have found that Kodak Tri X Prof. film has a true EI of 160 rather then 320 as advertised by Kodak and that this film has an abrupt shoulder and so the highlights will tend to block because at that portion of the characteristic curve the density separation becomes more horizontal and less vertical. But there is still some separation. In the matter of another film, Bergger BPF 200 in this instance, the true EI is 64 rather then 200 as advertised. This film has a longer straight line then the TriX film and so the high value densities are separated to a greater degree and for a longer time then TriX and thus less susceptible to blocking up.

Developer choice also enters into this matter as well. If you have access to a copy of Ansel Adams "The Negative" he has in that publication an image of a lightbulb that was developed in Pyro developer and in that example the filaments of the bulb are visible wheras the corresponding example with another developer is totally blown out, with no definition of the bulb filaments.

Pyro has the ability to separate high value densities more effectively then other developers.

So in the quest of a better print, which is what this is all about, one uses all of the tools to the best of their ability. One chooses the best tools available as well. I hope that this, while lengthy, has answered your questions.

Regards,
Donald Miller

 

[David Hall]

It answers my questions and more, Donald. Thank you.

I am a Bergger user and a pyro user, for just those reasons. Maybe a question worth asking is: how many zones are possible using materials like that? Or Azo? I know Gordon Hutchings and Michael A. Smith have both written about getting zones into double digits...uh, triple letters... but as a practical matter, how much, really? Zone XII? Zone XX?

dgh

 

[Donald Miller]

David,

A very good question and one that I am not sure that I have direct experience based in testing that I can relate. I am more of Michael Smiths mentality on testing as opposed to making photographs.

However, I will try to answer on the basis of what I have understood others to relate. Bruce Burnbaum has stated that using his materials to gain tonal separation as high as zone XIV and XV. I do not doubt that with the use of pyro developer and the proper film that result can be accomplished. The other matter that then becomes pertinent and one which you addressed is can one impart this information to the print?

Bob Herbst has done some testing on density separation on both Pt-Pd and Azo and also the relative effects of D76 and Amidol. He shows that on grade 2 Azo one is able to gain a print reflection density in the range of .15 to 1.92 and on grade 3 Azo he shows by his testing that a range of .13 to 2.00 is possible using Amidol developer. By way of information his results are available on Unblinkingeye.com under the subject heading of Azo and Amidol, if you care to review those for yourself.

This would indicate to me that one can gain far greater tonal separation using these materials then what Ansel Adams indicated in his published works. It is important to mention, though, that this is really an "apples and oranges" comparison. Since Adams did not address the materials that we are discussing here.

I do know that in my work that Azo and Amidol can impart a greater tonality and by consequence a greater sense of luminence then any of the conventional enlarging papers. This is why I have the interest in developing a light source that will allow one to enlarge on Azo.

Good luck to you in your efforts.

Best regards,
Donald Miller

 

[David Hall]

Donald,

Hope you're sitting down...I am about to ask a question exposing remarkable ignorance on my part...

I have never seen a densitometer. I think in terms of zones, or when really geeky, I pull out the Pentax spot meter and meter reflectivity (like when making sure that the space in which I expose my azo prints gets even light covering the contact printing frame).

So those densitometry numbers you listed...are they translatable to zones, or stops, or something I could visualize or use in the field?

Sorry.

dgh

 

[Donald Miller]

David,
Another good question. The measurements of density or reflectivity that we find being used in discussion of photographic materials are expressions of logarithmic values. Logarithms are a type of mathmatical shorthand. Simply put they are the power to which another number is raised. A log of the number 1 would mean that it would be raised to a value of 10. A log of a number between 1 and 10 would mean that would be raised to a value of between 10 and 100. And a log between 10 and 100 would mean that it would be raised to a value of between 100 and 1000. There are incremental or more precisely fractional values expressed as decimals apart from those which I just mentioned. The actual value depending on the exponant being multiplied against itself.

If we look at how this applies itself to the field of photography. We find that the one log that is very important to remember is the log value of .30. This is the doubling of the value of transmission or conversly of opacity. In other words a .30 neutral density filter will reduce by one stop of light transmission ability. In the case of .60 it would mean a two stop reduction of the transmission or a reduction by a value of four the effect of no filtration at all. (Two halvings).

So when we then take this to the measurement of density as it relates to negatives and of reflectivity in the case of a print we can then interpret what is being said. If I, for instance, target my film negative development time to arrive at a target density of 1.20 over film base plus fog. I am actually saying that I am capturing on film the equivalent of 16 times the measure of light that a zero value would have. What we are doing is that we are taking the measure of light in the actual scene being photographed and compressing those within that range on film. The same evaluations would then also apply to the measurement of reflectivity on a print. It would be a measure of the relative amounts of light which are reflected. I hope that I have answered your question. Good luck.

Regards,
Donald Miller

 

[David Hall]

Donald,

I think I get it. If you capture 16 times the amount of light over zero, does that correlate to four stops?

dgh

 

[Donald Miller]

David,
Yes, that would be the other way of expressing it, four stops or zones is the equivalent of a factor of sixteen. Now, if you have not already asked the question...why is it that a seven zone light ratio in the scene that I photographed represented by only four zones on the negative? (density of 1.20)

The answer to that is covered in the characteristic curve of the film. The characteristic curve of the film is similar to an elongated S...with the lower portion being named the toe and in the toe portion of the negatives exposure very little density gain is realized, this is where the shadows are recorded on film, if one places their low values too low. The density gain in the toe section is not proportional to increases in exposure. Above the toe section on the curve lies an area called the straight line section. It is in this section that density gains are proportional to exposure increases (to the degree that the angle of the slope exists). Above the straight line section lies the shoulder and once again in this area density gains are no longer proportional to increases in exposure. If several zones of exposure exist on a film with an abrupt shoulder a result will be a blocking up of highlights. That is why the difference exists between TriX Prof and Bergger for instance.

So what one experiences in placing low values to low at the time of exposure is that very little differentiation occurs in tonalities at those zones. If one places low values too high then one can experience blocking up of highlights.

Forgive my longwinded answers.

Regards,
Donald Miller

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[jstraw]

At the risk of making a fool of myself I'm reviving this old thread.

One of the things I love about photography, relative to other art forms is that it's a technology. It's tools are largely predictable, quantifiable and controllable. The more one does to master the technology, the less the tools stand between you and arriving at your intention. Being a good technician does not make one a good photographer any more than mastering scales makes one a good musician. But facility is useful.

I'm returning to the analog fold and my predjudice for the Zone System is admittedly based on familiarity. I don't know enough about the alternatives. Of that, I am certain.

That stipulated, here's what the system holds for me:

For me the primary purpose for the entire system has to to with pre-visualization. It's about having the means to make a plan to create a photograph with intention. I'm making decisions in the field about how I want the final image to appear and taking steps to give myself every advantage towards achieving that end.

I presume that most reading this thread need no elaboration on that point. Other methods may provide this capability as well or better. That's not my point. My point is that I use the system not because I looked at Ansel's photographs and became an apostle, deciding that he had found the one true path...or that when I bought Mr. Picker's hardware I feared I would use it poorly if I didn't use it as he intended. I use the system because I read about it and it made sense to not leave the workings of meters, lenses, film, chemistry to either chance or charts.

In the end, after you learn how to do it, the Zone System is, after all, about the zones. I like the system because measuring values, translating them into zones and placing those zones where I want them with controlled exposure, development and printing techniques is a useful method for translating pre-visualization into a printed result.

 

[Loose Gravel]

Even electronic sensors use the zone system, except there are different terms like offset, gain, BLIP, and the like. It all comes down to 'expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights'.

 

[MikeM1977]

Even electronic sensors use the zone system, except there are different terms like offset, gain, BLIP, and the like. It all comes down to 'expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights'.

All I do is expose for the shadows and then use VC paper for controlling the highlights. Works most of the time for me, and the picture-taking process is much more enjoyable.

 

[Loose Gravel]

All I do is expose for the shadows and then use VC paper for controlling the highlights. Works most of the time for me, and the picture-taking process is much more enjoyable.

Mike, exactly. Same as I do. You can get all worked up about the exact exposure/film/development and then miss the photo because the other side of your brain went to sleep, or you can do the best you can and enjoy the moment. 99% of my roll film is 'Normal' development (compared to ab-normal?) and probably 85% of my sheet film is 'normal'. I can increase a frame's contrast a little by over-exposure of a stop. I use PMK, so my highlights are well compensated. The rest is VC paper. If it doesn't fall within this formula, there is some other picture that will. And as we have talked about on other forums, what is your hit ratio of good pix to all pix taken ...10%? So the odds of losing a good one are low.

Maybe that's a bad attitude, but that's the way it is.

 

[reellis67]

I do that too, but I know that some people get real prickly about conversations like this. I understand the Zone System process, and I see the value in it, but I haven't yet found that *I* need that much control most of the time. I have recently begun to find the occasional negative that I would have liked to have had more control of the shadows or highlights on, but either I'm not that picky, or I haven't reached a level of skill where it matters enough to me to warrant spending the money on a better light meter.

As Mike stated, the simplicity of photography makes it very enjoyable for me right now and I'm hesitant to allow too much technical tweaking into the process for fear that photography will stop being fun and start being stressful, which is the last thing that I would want. The adage that Loose Gravel stated has done a great job for me so far, and for now, I think I'll be sticking with it, while still keeping an open mind toward other options.

- Randy

 

[Roger Hicks]

Even electronic sensors use the zone system, except there are different terms like offset, gain, BLIP, and the like. It all comes down to 'expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights'.

Well, yes, except that the Zone System is a small subset of real sensitometry, a science that dates back to 1890. The naming of Zones is a work of genius; much of the rest is either over-simplified or over-complicated (and sometimes both).

Cheers,

R.

 

[JBrunner]

I have said this before somewhere, so forgive me, if you have heard it. I believe for most photographers who get involved with it, the zone system eventually becomes a point of departure for their own personal exposure evolution. There are many practitioners, but most end up practicing a personalized version that suits their style and temperament. Others develop methods that accomplish the same ends, but from different directions. The truth is most competent photographers practice some sort of zone system, no matter if they call it that or not. Even if it is not recognized as St. Ansels method, it is something of it. Ansel didn't really invent the zone system, because it is made up of inherent characteristics of the photographic process. He did something far more difficult. He wrote it down.