Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat.I think a big thing I've learned as a result of this post is that in a low contrast scene I probably should raise contrast, because it will be easier to manage while printing. I think coming from smaller formats, I would have done it earlier were it not from fears that N+ development would raise grain.
+1 on film has roughly the same effect as going from grade 2 paper to grade 3.
For me adjusting the paper grade is easier.
Surely there must be trade-offs to this approach; would an engineer say that would lower the signal-to-noise ratio? I'd like to learn conceptually what they are so I can study and identify them in my work. For example using grade 3 vs +1 film mean less grain at the cost of ... what, acutance?
Sorry for calling you Shirley.
Hey peoplemerge, Matt has answered for me quite nicely.Surely there must be trade-offs to this approach; would an engineer say that would lower the signal-to-noise ratio? I'd like to learn conceptually what they are so I can study and identify them in my work. For example using grade 3 vs +1 film mean less grain at the cost of ... what, acutance?
Sorry for calling you Shirley.
@MattKing on the contrary, I appreciate it! I come knowingly and openly confused and with questions.I'm going to say this hesitantly, and hopefully without offending you.
Your comment reveals an important misunderstanding about how this stuff works.
The film plus paper system is just that - a system. None of the various parts have a strictly linear response, but for each part the shape of that response (the "curve") is somewhat malleable.
The goal of the Zone System is essentially to create a response curve in the negative that matches/complements the response curve of the paper. The Zone System was developed when papers had fixed contrast responses (curves). So a user first picked a favourite paper and favourite (usually intermediate) grade. Then that user performed Zone System tests in order to calibrate their process to that paper.
All of that changes considerably when the fixed target - the fixed grade paper - is replaced with a changeable target - variable grade paper.
In that circumstance, it may very well be more desirable to to use the controls available with the paper rather than the controls available from modifying film development, because:
1) that approach is much better suited to roll films, where the character of the light may vary greatly from shot to shot; and
2) there is a real argument for leaving the most important controls to the very last step of the process, where corrections are most easily applied.
Yes, it seems to obviate that premise described in The Negative. I'm glad I asked the question, it's much more clear now!If you use the Zone System with variable contrast paper, your goal tends to become obtaining negatives that easily permit the best use of the flexibility of variable contrast paper, rather than negatives that print easily at a particular contrast filtration.
When it comes to evaluating print appearance, factors like grain and acutance will be essentially the same for most moderate combinations of negative contrast manipulation (through exposure and development controls) and moderate print contrast manipulation (through variable filtration controls).
Good grief - have none of the posters read here what went before?
I outlined a testing system that matched the OPs requirements.
Hey everyone, get a negative that you can interpret and you are there.
That's pretty much it.Seems the conclusion is to simply ensure your negatives are within a certain margin of safety so you don't need to apply contrast corrections in the extreme, especially you're either processing sheet film or know you have a roll with lighting of a consistent quality.
This is pretty well what I mostly do. The odd time I'll be working in consistently low contrast lighting, or consistently high contrast lighting, and will adjust development (and sometimes exposure) accordingly.That's pretty much it.
I develop my films normally all the time regardless of the contrast of the scene or the EI I shot at, the rest is done during the print process.
So, what does optimum negative mean? Optimum for grade 2 paper and ... or ... ? Optimum for your standard enlarger settings?In my experience, exposing film, without taking contrast into account, will give you the optimum negative only if you shoot under the same conditions every time. That almost never happens with me and I am always adjusting develop time to compensate for conditions. That is the reason for film testing.
Optimum = the negative which requires the least dancing around in the darkroom. Dodging and burning should be a creative tool and not triage. This becomes more important with LF contact prints. I want the negative to print easily on paper which has a contrast of around grade 2, more or less.So, what does optimum negative mean? Optimum for grade 2 paper and ... or ... ? Optimum for your standard enlarger settings?
Thanks,Optimum = the negative which requires the least dancing around in the darkroom. Dodging and burning should be a creative tool and not triage. This becomes more important with LF contact prints. I want the negative to print easily on paper which has a contrast of around grade 2, more or less.
Dodging and burning should be a creative tool and not triage.
Optimum = the negative which requires the least dancing around in the darkroom... I want the negative to print easily on paper which has a contrast of around grade 2, more or less.
OK so I've completed the Zone 1 exposure and development on 4 camera systems.
Picker & Adams agree at this point that you check these tests with a densitometer. Ansel says "the net density value closest to 0.10 represents the desired Zone I exposure." Picker says "find the negative with a density of .08 to .10 above film base and fog or send the film to me if you can't locate a densitometer."
Everybody agrees not to bother to proceed with the rest of the tests without nailing down zone I. So, I'm kinda stuck. There are a number of labs in the area who have densitometers but not many people around who know how to use them! My best lead is a photographer who took a zone system class and frequents the same darkroom space.
From what I'm reading, there are just way too many variables when trying to use a scanner, so plan B is out.
I kind of feel visual inspection of both proof sheets and flatbed scans suggest it *seems* to be somewhere around 5 1/3 stops under what the film is rated at (Delta 100 developed 6m in HC110, proofs using #2 contrast filter following picker's method of determining pure black print off film base+fog). That is, I can make just make out enough on the gray card that it's clearly distinguishable from true black but not sure where that is on the density scale without a reading. They do both roughly agree on that point. Caveat: it may be a tad lower still, my proofs were on RC paper, whereas I usually print FB.
Thanks Doc W and markbardendt for that clarity. This gives me hope that a visual method will be viable.
Ok, so to understand why 0.1 is important in the ZS you need to understand that two assumptions are being made.OK so I've completed the Zone 1 exposure and development on 4 camera systems.
Picker & Adams agree at this point that you check these tests with a densitometer. Ansel says "the net density value closest to 0.10 represents the desired Zone I exposure."
Practice is more important.Thanks Doc W and markbardendt for that clarity. This gives me hope that a visual method will be viable.
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
You can get an infinite amount of shadow detail - just adjust your exposure to match the light and the subject.So right away I'm confused as to why "meter the darkest area in which you wish to retain shadow detail" - isn't the purpose of the test to determine how much shadow detail you can get (rather than a precondition)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?