• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Zone System Testing

peoplemerge

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
406
Location
Hollywood, CA
Format
Medium Format
Hi all!

My first post here. I've been reading form posts here for some time and I think contributing to this forum is a brilliant way to share our knowledge for posterity.

I'd like to get more dialed in to the finer points of film and have some questions. Yes, I also want to get better at printing but one thing at a time. Besides, a lot of my work will be professionally scanned for digital consumption so getting the negative just right is a higher priority.

For some context, a mentor recommended that I choose one film and learn everything using just that one film. So over the last year, my go-to film has been Delta 100 developed in HC-110 (on 35mm, 6x6, 6x8, and 4x5). I figure lots of people in the past learned on Tri-X or Plus-X, why not learn on a super modern film?

On the advise of this mentor, I am rereading Ansel Adams' The Negative. I read it first about 15 years ago, which was before sheet film came into my life and the idea of developing a negative individually now has greater appeal. I have started 3 more challenging books on sensitometry recommended by posts here.

So my questions:

1. Adams describes Zone 0 as pure black, Zone 1 as the first hint of gray but with no detail, and Zone 2 as the first zone that has discernable texture, Zone 5 is middle gray on an 18% gray card, Zone 8 has texture, Zone 9 does not but is still dark gray, and Zone 10 is pure white. It's also described that each zone represents a difference of one stop. For example Ken Rockwell says "Ansel Adams chose to divide the range between white and black into about ten zones. Each is an f/stop apart." Doesn't it follow that the film he must be describing has the latitude of 8 stops (zone 9 - zone 1)? It seems like assuming normal development, every film has a different latitude, so I feel there is a discrepancy. Consider a slide film with 4 stops of latitude:if we assume one zone mean 1 stop, does that make Zone 0 pitch black, Zone 1 the first one with an image, Zone 5 the last one with image, and Zone 6 pure white? Or is Zone 5 always 18% gray? When people talk about Zone 8, are they really saying "Zone 8 on a 10 Zone range" (which implies zones don't in fact represent stops).

2. The Negative offers a lot of conceptual material. I've hear of "parametric testing" on all that can affect the the resulting negative, an idea which appeals to me very much. I'm having some trouble find cohesive material on this, but I gather it includes finding the actual film speed and N+1/N+2/N-1 using my current equipment and process, testing shutters and lenses, curve plotting, studying grain structure, and using different developers. Unfortunately I moved, so the mentor I spoke of earlier is no longer really available to me, but is there any step-by-step guide, ideally on the interwebs, or as a fallback a print book that covers parametric testing in the context of negative development? I have an Epson 4490 film scanner and access to a densitometer at the photo lab I frequent.

3. To undergo testing, what is a good subject to use? I have so far used our pugs and my wife (skin tones) along with a gray card and X-Rite ColorChecker. All charts I see have 10 zones on them, but it seem like when bracketing +/- 1/2/3/4/5 stops you would want more like 20 different stops; are different test charts so how to obtain? Are multiple sizes helpful to determine lens contrast and close focusing light falloff? Is measuring the brightness of various parts of the with a spotmeter sufficient to map "actual" zone 1 against the negative? I figure it'll make a big difference to have an efficient process given 6 cameras and 20+ lenses.

4. Some subjects are high contrast, and some are low contrast. Suppose you have a low contrast subject and want to produce a fine print that is true to that low contrast, how do you expose and develop the negative? In the past I would have used a 18% gray card or incident meter and used normal development. I'm not sure how to articulate this based on my confusion around question #1, but here goes. It seems if you knew the latitude of your film, you could expose the darkest point for Zone 2 (dark but with detail), and apply N+2 or more to raise the contrast on the negative so your brightest point is at Zone 8. Then in post-processing (using a #0 or #1 contrast filter in the darkroom or applying a curve in photoshop) you could re-compress the image back to it's original low point of contrast. Will that lead to a finer print? What are the pros and cons? I'd be inclined not to consider doing the reverse since it would be harder to distinguish tone in detail and would probably produce something muddy. I know I'll probably hear "try it and see" but I'd like to learn the whys.
 
When all is said and done it is possible to print with multigrade paper, develop for "N" and make the assumption that film speed is constant, irrespective of development.

If you like exploring stuff, you can deconstruct the Zone system with basic sensitometry. A good learning experience. Some references are Todd and Zakia "Photographic Sensitometry," Morgan and Morgan 1969, and the Kodak Sensitometry Workbook.
 
No disrespect to Mr. Adams, but in my 35+ years of shooting both 4x5 and 8x10 B&W film (mostly Tri-X...some HP-5+) I've found no real discernible texture in Zone II or Zone VIII. Sure, there can be some texture in these zones with careful and proper exposure/development, but when playing in the toe or shoulder of the curve things get dicey! That said, I've always found that I can get better texture in Zone VIII and, maybe, a hint into Zone IX with careful technique vs the other extreme ends of the curve. Of course, much of this is subject to personal technique, testing, and the results you expect in your photography.

Regarding transparency film... Middle gray is middle gray (roughly 18%, but that can be argued), but the range is much more limited vs color neg film and certainly B&W film. With slide film, 1 stop up will give good texture and color; 2 stops up and you're starting to loose texture and colors are getting very light and pastel in nature. Again, with careful technique and choice of film you may be able to go 2.5 stops above middle gray, but that's it. Going the other way down the scale? Well, I'm sure you can imagine what's going to happen--more than about 2 stops down and you're total black.

If you're shooting B&W film, my advice would be to forget Adam's books, White, sensitometry, etc, and pick up a little thin book by Fred Picker called the "Zone VI Workshop". Pick a film and developer, follow his testing guidelines, and then go out into the world and shoot A LOT. Change things only when you see unexpected results. Then, someday when you feel very solid and confident with your technique begin to experiment with other films and processes.

All of this, of course, is highly subjective and each photographer will have their own way of working; lots of "schools of thought" how to get there, too.

Good luck!
 
ic-racer said:
When all is said and done it is possible to print with multigrade paper, develop for "N" and make the assumption that film speed is constant, irrespective of development.
Click to expand...

I guess I need to read up on what it means to "develop for ['N']".

ic-racer said:
If you like exploring stuff, you can deconstruct the Zone system with basic sensitometry. A good learning experience. Some references are Todd and Zakia "Photographic Sensitometry," Morgan and Morgan 1969, and the Kodak Sensitometry Workbook.
Click to expand...

Outstanding. Photographic Sensitometry is one of the books that I was talking about (it just arrived last week); I find it dramatically more challenging a read than the Negative but I will get to that. Kodak Sensitometry Workbook I think is exactly along the lines I was hoping to find.
 

So what i'm trying to understand is what is the relationship to these stops and zones? In the scenario you are describing, 2 stops down and you have pitch black. Does that mean Zone 5 is still middle gray and in this scenario Zone 3 is pitch black? Or is Zone 0 always pitch black, even though we are only 2 stops down: ergo now we are no longer, and in fact, never were relating zones to stops because given films of different dynamic range (slide having fixed and small DR, negative having expandable and compressible DR). It seems to me that it's the former of the two and the way everybody including Ansel is talking about is inconsistent. What zone 2 is he talking about when he says he gets texture there? Certainly not with slide film. I hope I don't sound like I've found a flaw in a well-known and widely accepted method, it's me who is confused and seeking clarification on why I'm missing.


Cool, I'll get a copy. I've done deep experimentation shooting digitally with ETTR (Expose to the Right) but have little interest in becoming a better digital these days. If Zone VI covers that material I may not learn much, but I'm really looking for good testing guidelines which it sounds from your post is covered. Wish I could see the table of contents before ordering but at 1 cent for the book plus $4 shipping it's not a high risk.

Thank you for your help!
 
The Zone System came to existence about a hundred years after the invention of photography. By that time people had a pretty good idea of what made a good picture.

The hundred years of experience taught that, on average, you get about seven stops of subject luminance range to land as densities on the film after it's developed... and printed on a "Normal" grade of paper, to show up on the print as just about black to just about white.

Light meters were just coming on the scene. One of the more popular brands of light meters, the "Weston," distilled those years of experience into their dial. Their dial shows 7 stops from U underexposed to O overexposed for black and white negative film. That's pretty close to what the Zone System starts with as "Normal".

The manufacturers were focusing their attention on making it easy for the "average" photographer to shoot pictures with a high probability of success.

But some others were thinking about how to guarantee a perfect shot every time.

http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/cqp.pdf

The brilliant idea was to measure the actual light and tailor how long you develop the film so that you come out of the tank with negatives that are consistently likely to print well on your normal grade of paper.

Ansel Adams ran with the ideas in that article and added a layer or two of abstraction. He did not like "Gamma" so he got rid of it. Instead he defined "Normal" in terms of whatever it took to fit a normal scene on a normal grade of paper. He created the Zones and made them go from Zone I = U on the Weston scale, Zone VIII = O on the Weston scale... and he extended the range with Zones 0 and IX and X...
 
peoplemerge said:
So what i'm trying to understand is what is the relationship to these stops and zones? In the scenario you are describing, 2 stops down and you have pitch black. Does that mean Zone 5 is still middle gray and in this scenario Zone 3 is pitch black?
Click to expand...

To hopefully simplify, a given amount of luminance will produce what we're calling a Zone V (middle gray) density on film, regardless of the film. Therefore, it has been longed agreed that 18% reflectance will produce a specific Zone V density on B&W film all things being equal; that is, testing has been done and you're giving the negative N development (in Zone system parlance.) This same reflectivity value will still produce a Zone V density value on, say, transparency film it just won't necessarily be gray. For example, clear blue sky at the zenith, though obviously blue, is generally of Zone V value. Given that transparency film has a range of about 5 stops, then you're correct in assuming that 2 stops down from middle gray will be black or nearly so depending on the film. By extension, any Zone below that will certainly be pitch black. It's a matter of latitude with any given film. Negative film has more latitude, especially B&W film, ergo the increased SBR (subject brightness range) that Bill mentions. I think if you do a bit more reading these concepts will become more clear.


Trust me...you won't find any mention of digital in Fred's book. He was primarily a LF B&W film shooter with occasional use of 35mm and I think he toyed with a Pentax 6x7 once or twice. I attended his workshop in 1979 and was honored to call him a friend. My wife and I visited him on several occasions over the years where I nervously showed him my most recent work. He was always encouraging and a tremendous resource during my early years with LF photography. If you get the book and follow his guidelines EXACTLY, you'll be miles ahead of many photographers that have been working for years.

Good luck and have fun!
 
I think maybe that you are making this more complicated that it really is. All Adams tried to do was to systematize the well-known technique of exposing for shadows and developing for highlights. He has very simple procedures you can use to achieve predictable results. I have tried a number of different testing procedures over the years, some of which were very complicated and really beyond my understanding. All I really want is predictable contrast in my negatives. I don't really care about studying densitometry. I would rather shoot film. And after a long time, I realized that Adams' basic procedure is probably the most simple and effective. At the very least it will get you started with regard to controlling contrast through development. You can tweak everything as you gain experience. And if Adams' book doesn't work for you, there are others. Just don't get too complicated.
 

Stories! Tell some Fred Picker stories!
 
Hi there,

The various Zone System testing regimes all read very complicated and many require a sensitometer but, as I know from experience, trying to write a simple straightforward explanation of a simple test is a challenge and writing all the steps down makes it look really complicated. The system I teach can be found here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Please refer to my post no #3

Once you have done the tests (note that I do not recommend constant tests of materials but rather doing it once and then sticking to the equipment, film, development technique and methodology) all the beginner has to remember is either:
  • To go in close and meter the darkest shadow area where they wish to retain detail and adjust the meter’s recommendation by closing the aperture down by two stops, increasing the shutter speed by two stops or a combination of the two.
or
  • To go in close and meter the brightest highlight area where they wish to retain detail (excluding the sky and on a dull day this may in fact be a light grey wall or even wet brickwork reflecting the sky) and adjust the meter’s recommendation by opening up the aperture by three stops, reducing the shutter speed by three stops or a combination of the two.
Whether you meter the important shadows or important highlights is not important and generally simply a question of which is easiest to reach.

That is it, no need for years of wasting film and time trying to build experience of how to compensate for different lighting conditions. It also short circuits many of the suggestions given as to why people are ‘wrong’ to test for a personal EI, such as:

“they meter too much sky and have not learned to take a light reading correctly”
If you follow any version of the testing strategy, you will never meter the sky and will require 0 years experience of how to meter correctly because you either meter the important shadow area or the important highlight area. Absolutely no need to spend years building up knowledge and experience.

“the meter is out of calibration and needs adjustment”
It is really not necessary for a meter to be calibrated correctly. What is of fundamental importance is that it is CONSISTENT. Any inaccuracy will be compensated for by the real world testing method as described.

“the camera/lens is out of calibration and needs a CLA”
It is really not necessary for a camera/lens to be calibrated correctly. What is of fundamental importance is that it is CONSISTENT. Any inaccuracy will be compensated for by the real world testing method and how many people earn enough to pay for a CLA on a good quality camera?

If you undertake practical tests using your equipment none of the above matters because it will all be automatically compensated for during the tests. Even if your camera is working as per blueprint (highly unlikely given required production tolerances) it cannot be assumed that the box speed will suit your equipment, exposure and development technique.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
 
Last edited:

The Zones you are referring to here are print values. Adams tailored his "Normal" negatives to yield these results in a final print on middle contrast paper. One adjusts exposure and development time to arrive at these values for "Normal." N+ and N- developments have different arrangements of tones in the print. If you're planning on scanning and printing digitally, you'll have to calibrate to that.

Adams was referring to black-and-white negative film with his Zone System. For color, and especially for transparency film, there are very different considerations and considerably less flexibility in contrast manipulation.


All this stuff is what Adams (and most practitioners of the Zone System) are trying to avoid. Sure, sensitometry is fascinating and it is a strict scientific discipline. You don't need to know that much of it to make good negatives, however. Just make sure your film speed is not so high that you lose shadow detail and come up with a few different development times that allow you to develop normally for normal scenes, more for less-contrasty scenes and less for more-contrasty situations. Sure, there are some details to be worked out here, but you really don't need to delve into the nuts-and-bolts of sensitometry if you don't want to.


There are several ways to test. First, there are two parts to Adams testing; a film-speed test and then development time tests for N, N- and N+ developments. Although I have done them, film-speed tests are largely unnecessary. You can use box speed (which I would if using roll film) or, to give yourself a slight safety margin, you can use a speed 2/3-stop slower (this is just about where all Zone System film speed tests end up). More important are the tests for development times. For these, some like step wedges and denistometers, some contact prints, others like real-life subjects, etc. If you want to use a sensitometric approach, then you'll need ways to quantify and calibrate everything (densitometer, calibrated meter, etc., etc.). Search for posts by Stephen Benskin here if you're keen to go this way. I use a more empirical method: I shoot real-life subjects, placing shadows in Zones II or III and letting the highlights fall where they may, but noting where they are on the exposure scale. For a "Normal" scene, there will be a dark area that I'll want in, say, Zone III. This I'll "place." Ideally, there will also be a very black area, like an open window into a dark building, that will fall lower; I'll note where that value falls (say, Zone I). Then there will be mids and highs, ideally easily identifiable and large enough to meter easily. Those get metered and where they fall noted (say a Zone V and a Zone VIII). I'll make three or four negatives of this scene. These get developed for different times (shooting for "Normal") and then enlarged onto the paper I use most at a middle contrast setting. I do "proper proofs" here, i.e., making sure I print a clear area of the film along a strip of area with no film at all at the very edge. The object is to find the minimum time it takes to match the black exposed through the clear area of the film to the maximum black on the paper under display-strength lighting. Once this print exposure has been determined, I'll print the negatives using this time and see if my values end up where I noted they should. I'll choose the "Normal" developing time based on that or adjust accordingly. I'll also adjust exposure index if needed or, more likely, refine my visualization technique. I do the same for expansions and contractions. My method is purely visual, but takes all the variables in my system into consideration; meter, in-camera and enlarger flare, paper contrast grade, etc. This gets me way close enough to make good negatives that I can then spend time printing.


peoplemerge said:
4. Some subjects are high contrast, and some are low contrast. Suppose you have a low contrast subject and want to produce a fine print that is true to that low contrast, how do you expose and develop the negative? ...
Click to expand...

The Zone System is a visualization tool. It's pretty easy to expose film "correctly"; it's harder to decide what you want before you release the shutter. So, the answer here is: You expose and develop the negative to give you the best negative to work with to get the print you want. You just need to know what you want first... That said, low-contrast scenes printed low-contrast are usually disappointing; we generally want to see some dark values and some highlights in a print. More important is where you want the mid-tones to be emotionally. This takes some experience. Again, it's all about the final print; the negative is just an intermediate step. The Zone System is all about visualizing what you want before you make a negative and then ensuring that that negative gets the right exposure and development to yield the desired final print. More or less exposure/development is dictated by vision here. Too many photographers lack precisely this and just get hung up on the mechanics, kind of like the pianist that can only play exercises...

Best,

Doremus
 
Last edited:
Bill Burk said:
Stories! Tell some Fred Picker stories!
Click to expand...

Hi Bill,

One of my favorites of my experiences with Fred is more my story than his, but it does reflect somewhat on his personality...

On one of our visits to Vermont to do some photography, camping, and to see Fred I had brought along a sampling of my most recent prints; about 10-12, if I remember correctly. My wife and I took Fred out to dinner and following our meal I went out to the car and returned with my prints. I was sweating bullets because I was so nervous to show Fred my work. Some folks didn't respect him or his work much, but I did!

He quietly shuffled through the stack pausing for about a minute or two on each one, not saying a word, but placing the occasional print aside with most going into one large pile. When he was done, he had 1 or 2 prints in one pile and the rest in a separate pile. He placed his hand on the small pile, looked up at me and said, "I think you should keep doing this." Not another word was spoken about my work. I thanked him and returned my prints to the car. We finished our meal with dessert, coffee, and some lovely conversation mostly about things other than photography, and my wife and I were on our way.

Over the years, my wife and I made the decision to move to Vermont with this wild idea that I would be Fred's darkroom assistant, film holder loader, mop boy, and general gopher (he and I had a couple of conversations about this), but it didn't pan out. Moving to Vermont did, but we wound up in the central part of the state and I had a job ready and waiting for me before we even got there. Such is life! You know what they say about "best laid plans..."
 
Wow! All this great information! I'm overwhelmed with thanks to you all.


This is great! Very close to what I'm looking for. Now in addition to Picker's book, you provide a concise and efficient method.



This seems like the optimal approach concerning shooting roll films. It's true I'm fairly new to sheet films (new = I've been shooting 2 years rather than 20 on 35+120) and the added power of things like contrast control on an image-by-image basis. I'd like to incorporate contrast control on all of my future work, including the

I'm learning based on a plurality of agreement it's pointless to think about achieving an optimal negative in isolation of it's final destination, whether it be print, scan, or projection. Excellent.
 
I have Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop" and found it very readable. I had no knowledge of Fred Picker but my immediate impression on picking it up was that it was written by someone who wanted to improve the reader's understanding and skill and set out to do just that.

pentaxuser
 
Doc W said:
I think maybe that you are making this more complicated that it really is.
Click to expand...

Well, I have questions about some specific areas, but I don't think it's complicated.

Doc W said:
All Adams tried to do was to systematize the well-known technique of exposing for shadows and developing for highlights. He has very simple procedures you can use to achieve predictable results.
Click to expand...

Whoops! I just discovered Appendix 1 which covers this procedure. Reading it now. I got confused reading earlier chapters without realizing this existed.


I've never had trouble getting predictable results without contrast control, which were usually acceptable but rarely exceptional, at least until recently. I'm on a testing kick now because I have more ambitious and higher-stakes projects coming up and want to step up my game.
 
Perfect. Thank you!

Doremus Scudder said:
Adams was referring to black-and-white negative film with his Zone System. For color, and especially for transparency film, there are very different considerations and considerably less flexibility in contrast manipulation.
Click to expand...
Actually I was still referring to black/white transparency films, though the E-6 one I used back in the 90s is long gone and there is little if anything available now with the exception of reversal developers. I didn't explain that in my post, sorry for the confusion!

Doremus Scudder said:
All this stuff is what Adams (and most practitioners of the Zone System) are trying to avoid [...] Sure, there are some details to be worked out here, but you really don't need to delve into the nuts-and-bolts of sensitometry if you don't want to.
Click to expand...
Yes. It seems down that path isn't going to answer any zone system questions.


Alright! It helps seeing practical advice like film-speed tests like this. OK yes I do think step wedges might help me.

Doremus Scudder said:
If you want to use a sensitometric approach, then you'll need ways to quantify and calibrate everything (densitometer, calibrated meter, etc., etc.). Search for posts by Stephen Benskin here if you're keen to go this way.
Click to expand...

OK! Will look at that approach. I feel the scanner-as-a-densitometer would fit my calibration and production workflow.

Doremus Scudder said:
I use a more empirical method: I shoot real-life subjects, placing shadows in Zones II or III and letting the highlights fall where they may, but noting where they are on the exposure scale.
Click to expand...
This makes a great deal more sense to me now that you guys have cleared up my question #1.


OK! I understand most of the way. This seems like a simple, efficient, practical way to test alternative processing times; not wholly different from David Allen's post above and Adams but a slightly different workflow, communicated in a way I can understand! I suppose shooting for "Normal" means evenly represented densities for the subject matter that fit your aesthetics; or does "Normal" mean there is 1 f/stop difference between zones and you get roughly 8 zones of latitude or maximum latitude?


I think get it! More than before at least


Aha, that's super helpful. In particular what you're saying about the low contrast prints and the emotional effect on the viewers.

I guess where I was getting at with the question is if there are some good rules of thumb here. For example, does raising the contrast add grain, so are you better off developing simply for N and doing it in the printing phase? Or is there some detail you lose by doing so? I'm totally convinced now that it comes down to the final print (or other media) but just hoping I can cut down on the experimentation time by learning the mechanics once and being done with it.
 
Alan9940 said:
Hi Bill,

One of my favorites of my experiences with Fred is more my story than his, but it does reflect somewhat on his personality...
Click to expand...

@Alan9940 that's incredible. It sounds great to have the opportunity to learn from someone like that. Can you characterize what he saw with "I think you should do more of this"?
 
Edward Weston used a similar critiquing technique. Same as Picker separated into two stacks, selected one
and went with "these I like".
FWIW It's a more valid evaluation than going over several prints piecemeal
 
peoplemerge said:
@Alan9940 that's incredible. It sounds great to have the opportunity to learn from someone like that. Can you characterize what he saw with "I think you should do more of this"?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have no clue what he saw in those couple of prints he placed in the "do more of this" pile. Perhaps he appreciated the tonal relationships in those prints better; perhaps it was the compositional elements of line/texture/etc that caught his eye; maybe the play of light struck an emotional chord; who knows...

But, following my return home I took both piles of prints and placed them on a picture rail in a bedroom I used as a gallery. I spent quite some time over several weeks just looking at those prints and, slowly, I started to see characteristics in the couple of "good" prints that I'd seen before in earlier work. That gave me a few more clues! I just needed to keep building on those image characteristics that seemed to be slowly emerging from my work. It's a very slow process that IMO you (I) will never really master. But, I personally don't care! It's the journey that I've so enjoyed for 35+ years of trying to do serious photography, and another 10 or so years before that as more of a snapshooter.

I'll relay another short story--this time it's Fred's story--that I so enjoyed...

One day when Paul Caponigro (not John Paul) was visiting, Fred showed him a recent photograph from a brook series that Fred was working on. Paul quietly examined the print, handed it back to Fred, and said, "The water isn't wet. Go back into the darkroom and print it until the water is wet." Huh? Fred was like...How does one make water in print on paper look wet? After dozens of sheets of a few different paper types, various developer additives, various toners, etc, he had made a print where the water looked wet!

It's actually quite amazing to me how the relationship of gray tones in a photograph can affect a person. I clearly remember going to the MOMA to see an Ansel Adams show. Sure, all the classics--Moonrise, Clearing Winter Storm, etc--were on display, but the one that caught me off-guard was a rather small square image of a dead tree on a rock in the middle of some heavy rapids. No clue if this was somewhere in the Merced River or, maybe, near the base of Yosemite Falls, and it was probably taken with his Hasselblad, but I realized after standing there for some time looking at it that I was SALIVATING!! No joke. There was something about the gray tones of that water that was refreshing to me! I'll never forget it.
 
Fred also made a few videos that were good to see: "Photographing", "The Negative", and "Printing" for those of us that need the visual to reinforce the reading. I got my copy from Calumet years ago.
 
Those are the sort of questions that will drive you batty and never get you anywhere. If you've been shooting and developing that same film for a long time, then I assume that you have it down pat. If you're digitizing the negs for digital consumption ($100 words for low rez web photos, yuck), then it doesn't really matter too much, as everything can pretty much be fixed in post. There is no such thing as zone system for digitizing negatives, and zone is for LF w/ sheet films, or in some cases for enlarger printing.

It's really a waste of time reading Ansel Adams if you are scanning negs and simply posting them on web sites. Nothing he wrote applies to that.
 

I don't really understand what you are saying so let me try an example. Let's say you are shooting a very high contrast scene. Do you adjust your exposure or development because of the high contrast? If you are shooting a low contrast scene, are you increasing development to give it more contrast?
 
momus said:
It's really a waste of time reading Ansel Adams if you are scanning negs and simply posting them on web sites. Nothing he wrote applies to that.
Click to expand...

I would want to be able to control the contrast of the negative even in that situation regardless of how the image was to be displayed. Adams (and others) talk a lot about contrast in the negative.
 
I 2nd this recommendation and add the 'Zone System Guide ' by Minor White.
 
Doc W said:
Let's say you are shooting a very high contrast scene. Do you adjust your exposure or development because of the high contrast? If you are shooting a low contrast scene, are you increasing development to give it more contrast?
Click to expand...

Good question.

I never adjusted development because of contrast. I'm starting to do so now. Up until now, I've varied only the film and developer types. I've never tested film speed, just relying on box speed and getting acceptable results. Only recently have I attempted N+1, and that has been using the recommended times on the Delta 100 data sheet using HC-110 when rated at iso 50/100/200. So I haven't tested that either but plan to start testing this week. Fred Picker's book should arrive tomorrow.

In the beginning, I varied exposure based on contrast, sometimes using a reflective meter (in an advanced SLR like Canon EOS), sometimes using an incident meter, sometimes bracketing if I wasn't sure. As I improved, I became comfortable shooting color slide film using just the built-in advanced matrix meter, or spot meter. I used film choice as a means of contrast control. Then during the digital age, I used ETTR. Now that the digital age is over for me, I'm back to the incident meter for all work using studio strobes, now with the aid of the Light Meter app for convenience of the record-keeping. Put another way, I'd choose the medium based on contrast, and rely on the latitude to get me the range of values. I think I got locked into that mindset shooting slide on roll films.

Does that answer your question?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register