Zone System - who has an easy to follow - simple guideline to setting it up

[DREW WILEY]

Alex - Yep, MG papers have been around a long time; but they were pretty disappointing compared to the classic graded papers of the same era. AA unquestionably fooled around with Polymax. It wasn't a good match to his own style. Others liked the relative muteness of that particular paper; but it probably wouldn't sell today, facing a league of far more versatile and punchy VC papers.

But don't confuse all this with drunken Fraternity sprees - discussing the Zone System is real war; and if you have to resort to the nuclear option, just mention "pyro".

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Regarding colour prints, Christopher Burkett's pin registered sharp & unsharp masked prints from large format colour slide film look amazing.

Have never seen them in real life, but sure want to!

Welcome to Burkett's Hand-Made Cibachromes | Christopher Burkett

 

[DREW WILEY]

Chris had a quite different masking protocol from my own, and both styles are a bit too complex to explain here, and both worked well. I have no idea what he is doing now. I successfully switched over to Fujiflex Supergloss once the handwriting on the wall spelled out the doom of Cibachrome. You can't stockpile Ciba paper; it has a rather limited span of darkroom usefulness. I just hope the same demise won't happen to Fujiflex - it's an even better product.

Masking for color film employs the same kind of punch and registration gear as serious black and white film masking, but other than the logistical basics, is quite different, even between different versions of color printing. Ciba masks need to be tailored differently than color negative masks; and masking for dye transfer is yet another thing. But the one tool you can leave out entirely and not miss at all is the Zone System. A transmission densitometer, on the other hand, will be prized.

Oh, and if the mention of pyro raises the tension of the ZS discussion to a nuclear war threat, speaking of "masking" means the former Zonie world has already been destroyed. But perhaps some surviving apes will reinvent the ZS after they've made their first camera and film.

 

[Milpool]

Not that he needs me to, but I can vouch for them. I have a print of Blue Glacial Ice. It is amazing.

Unfortunately several years ago his Ciba stash finally started to go bad so he had to stop printing certain images. I imagine gradually more and more will be discontinued as the color shifts get worse.

As far as masking goes, he is the king.

There are other fantastic color photographers out there, doing superb inkjet prints.

Regarding colour prints, Christopher Burkett's pin registered sharp & unsharp masked prints from large format colour slide film look amazing.

Have never seen them in real life, but sure want to!

Welcome to Burkett's Hand-Made Cibachromes | Christopher Burkett

 

[Paul Howell]

Since AA did not have access to MG paper and split grade printing, can we assume that much better prints can now be achieved?

He did have both, in the last of middle edition of the print he discuss using different fillers to burn in different areas of a print. By the 70s Kodak Polycontrast was in common use, available with different surfaces. Until 1977 both GAF and Dupont offered MC paper as did Ilford and Afga.

I think that modern films may have altered his approach to the technical aspects of the ZS. Tmax 400 and 100 are a different breed of cat than TriX. Phil Davis who developed Beyond the Zone System concocted a low contrast developer for Tmax 100.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Milpool - there were once a number of people doing very high end Ciba work. If you want to study a master of masking, it was Bob Pace. Dye transfer masking was much more complex than for Ciba. Between the color separations and the masks, it was routine to use up to 15 or more sheets of different types of black and white film to be employed for a single DT image, not counting the printing matrices themselves. The greatest number of sheets I ever used for a Ciba was 12; but most of the time a single mask sufficed. I had a system combining both contrast and hue correction on the same printing mask.

 

[Milpool]

I’ll have to take your word for it - I only know the basic procedures for dye transfer. I know Burkett’s Ciba masking can get quite complicated as you pointed out. I remember asking him some questions about how he developed his mask films and he referred to various things he has to do beyond contrast masking like red isolation masks etc. We’re off topic though. This would have fit better into the thread about the quality of RA-4…

Milpool - there were once a number of people doing very high end Ciba work. If you want to study a master of masking, it was Bob Pace. Dye transfer masking was much more complex than for Ciba. Between the color separations and the masks, it was routine to use up to 15 or more sheets of different types of black and white film to be employed for a single DT image, not counting the printing matrices themselves. The greatest number of sheets I ever used for a Ciba was 12; but most of the time a single mask sufficed. I had a system combining both contrast and hue correction on the same printing mask.

 

[DREW WILEY]

More of an antique thread if Ciba or DT is in play. Thankfully, all my punch and register gear still comes in handy not only for RA4 printing if needed, but also for those special tweaks to black and white originals which simple exposure and development controls like the Zone System aren't fully up to. But I was being facetious by implying masking is the doom of the ZS. It should rather be conceived as a supplemental tool kit capable of fine tuning all kind of film originals for sake of printing. The range of possibilities does properly deserve a long thread of its own, and there are some past threads; but it never has been mutually exclusive of any fashion of the Zone System.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

In real life, the scene looked like this, but not identical to this - the drama was there, but muted:
View attachment 377149
However, while I stood there on the foot bridge looking at the water, the trees, the brightly lit clouds, the dark foreboding clouds, the mountains in the background, the reflections in the foreground, and in particular the hydro poles and lines, I visualized the print I could make, if I exposed the (35mm) film carefully, and printed it interestingly.
The Zone System is all about being able to, in your mind and with the photographic tools at your disposal, envision what the final results can end up to be if you make some of the photographic choices available to you - sort of like having Photoshop adjustment sliders in your head, and a viewing screen in your mind (to stretch an analogy a bit).
The System part is merely the part that attempts to make the result predictable, when you choose certain exposure, film development and eventually printing options.
FWIW, once I have a darkroom work print I like, I go another step down the visualization road - I envision how toning might enhance the result. Sometimes that mandates a slight change in the printing as well. In the case of this image, different toning choices and different printing choices result in subtly different results - which as much as possible you want to be able to visualize before you make the print. Here (from Postcard Exchange number 36) is the result of some of those changes:
View attachment 377151

Thanks Matt for showing samples with your explanations. I wish others would provide samples as well so we can see what they're saying.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Rob, I'm a bit curious why you would now find it useful to learn the zone system. You're not exactly new, after all.

I just want to get the exposure and dev. times really nailed down. It's a good question though.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Which format do you use? What sort of subject matter? What do you expect the zs to do for you?

120 film. I have different backs for different contrasts.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Just dawned on me how much asking a question about the Zone System here is a lot like John Belushi yelling "Food fight!" in Animal House: gets real messy real quick but in its own way hilarious nonetheless .

You are right about that.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

The reason I'm asking is that I'm switching camera systems. I've also decided to switch from Kodak X-Tol back to Ilford ID-11. Since I'm switching these things, I might as well move back into Delta 100 film. So I'm starting fresh so to speak.... so why not really nail down the exposure/development.
I've also found I might be too generous with exposure compensation when using 040 and 090 filters, so again let's figure it out once and for all.
Have I had good results in the past? Yes.
Can it be better, again yes.

I'm going to youtube the process for my channel, Still shooting in black and white.

 

[AnselMortensen]

My methodology is:
I previsualize before I visualize, then I visualize.
After that, I postvisualize what I visualized.
Then I expose for the nightmares and develop for the dreams.

 

[BrianShaw]

My methodology is:
I previsualize before I visualize, then I visualize.
After that, I postvisualize what I visualized.

Ansel

Then I expose for the nightmares and develop for the dreams.

Mortensen

Completely makes sense.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Just dawned on me how much asking a question about the Zone System here is a lot like John Belushi yelling "Food fight!" in Animal House: gets real messy real quick but in its own way hilarious nonetheless .

Or, asking what stop bath to use...

 

[Film-Niko]

The reason I'm asking is that I'm switching camera systems. I've also decided to switch from Kodak X-Tol back to Ilford ID-11. Since I'm switching these things, I might as well move back into Delta 100 film. So I'm starting fresh so to speak.... so why not really nail down the exposure/development.

From my decades long experience I can highly recommend to buy a densitometer. One of the best and most useful tools I have ever used in my BW darkroom work. A huge step forward in quality!! And very time saving.

With that you can evaluate / find the absolutely perfect Exposure Index / real, effective film speed of any film and any film-developer combination you want to use.
You also have than the Charcteristic Curves of your combinations, so you get all needed informations about the tonality and specific behaviour of your used materials.
You also can determine N-1, N-2, N-3 or N+1, N+2 etc. development options. As you like it.

Another benefit:
When you have optimised a film-developer combination that way, you will find that there are some combinations (especially with [semi-]compensating developers) which give you a range of 12-15 stops. Which means that you even don't need a N- exposure and development in higher contrast situations.
And that makes photography live much easier.

As densitometer I can highly recommend the Heiland TRD-2. Perfect tool.

 

[Milpool]

 

[Paul Howell]

The reason I'm asking is that I'm switching camera systems. I've also decided to switch from Kodak X-Tol back to Ilford ID-11. Since I'm switching these things, I might as well move back into Delta 100 film. So I'm starting fresh so to speak.... so why not really nail down the exposure/development.
I've also found I might be too generous with exposure compensation when using 040 and 090 filters, so again let's figure it out once and for all.
Have I had good results in the past? Yes.
Can it be better, again yes.

I'm going to youtube the process for my channel, Still shooting in black and white.

As you shoot 35mm look for copy of The Zone System for 35mm Photographers by Carson Graves. There are 2 or 3 editions.

But, unless you are learning to visualize there are approaches to "nail down exposure/development" that are less work. I have not shot a lot of Delta, but I found that Delta 100 to work at at ISO 100 in stock D76 and MCM 100. Using Box speed of 100 with ILford's recommended time 81/2 m, shoot a roll and bracket each shot +1 and + 2 then -1 and -2. Shoot in bright sun, open shade, with and without filters. Develope then print a contact sheet or scan to find which ISO suits your needs the best. By the way ILford recommends DDX for Delta, which makes sense as Delta has fine grain an acuance type developer will work just fine.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I just want to get the exposure and dev. times really nailed down. It's a good question though.

Rob,

The real question is how you will be metering. Unless you have a spot meter or some other way to reliably base your exposures on a shadow value, the Zone System becomes less usable and the visualization aspect is harder to practice.

If you will be using an in camera meter (averaging or center-weighted or the like), then here's my advice:

Shoot two exposures of a subject with a full range of luminances, from deep textured shadows to bright textured whites, but not too contrasty; you want a "normal" subject. Use the meter's suggested exposure and make one exposure at box speed and one 2/3 slower than box speed (i.e., 2/3 stop overexposed if you're using exposure compensation). Develop at recommended time minus 10%. Make your best print from both negatives with VC paper, using whatever contrast setting you need. Concentrate on getting the shadows and highlight values you need.

After you have your prints, evaluate. If the shadows and midtones are better on the print from the "overexposed" negative, you should likely rate your film that 2/3 stop slower going forward. If not, then use box speed.

If you needed significantly more or less contrast than a #2.5 or #3 filter (or equivalent) when making your best print, you will need to tweak your development time. If you used a lower contrast filter like a #1 or thereabouts, reduce development 20%. If you needed a #4 or #5 filter, increase development by 20%.

Now you have a starting point for "N." Subjects with normal contrast and even things that a ZS practitioner might call N+1 or N-1 can be dealt with with that exposure and development regime. Just use the contrast controls available when printing to make up the difference.

When photographing, use whatever film speed you arrived at above unless the subject contrast is high. Use the meter reading. For higher-than-normal contrast subjects you need to overexpose from what the meter reads (seems counter-intuitive at first, but averaging and even center-weighted meters will underexpose in contrasty situations). This included scenes with really bright skies, which trick the meter into underexposing too. Use your judgement to decide whether the scene is really contrasty (add one stop extra exposure) or really, really contrasty (add two stops).

Don't worry about flat scenes; you may end up overexposing a bit, but that's not a problem.

For really, really contrasty scenes (which a ZS user would call N-2 or more), use a separate back and develop at N-1. For starters, just develop 20% less than normal. Keep good notes and tweak from there. Testing isn't really needed. For really, really flat scenes (which a ZS user would call N+2 or more), you can develop 20% more. Then just use the contrast controls afforded by VC paper to make up the rest.

That will not only get your started, it will work in 99% of the situations you encounter. You can deal with the other 1% later.

Best,

Doremus

 

[pentaxuser]

I just want to get the exposure and dev. times really nailed down. It's a good question though.

Not sure íf these videos will be useful to you but I think both are better presented than most in terms of visual and verbal presentation.






pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

The above is over complicating something that is very simple. It has nothing to do with zones. All you need to do is match the ISO rating of the film with your developer time/temperature.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

My methodology is:
I previsualize before I visualize, then I visualize.
After that, I postvisualize what I visualized.
Then I expose for the nightmares and develop for the dreams.

I use visualization filters with fuzzy edges.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am a little confused now. Is this not the same thing? If I have a 400 speed film then I just rate it at 250 which is two x one thirds slower than box speed

If there a difference here between rating your film 2/3 slower than box speed and 2/3 stop?

Thanks

pentaxuser

just rate the film 1/3 stop slower than box speed. 100,200,400 become 80,160,320 selectively.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Rob,

The real question is how you will be metering. Unless you have a spot meter or some other way to reliably base your exposures on a shadow value, the Zone System becomes less usable and the visualization aspect is harder to practice.

If you will be using an in camera meter (averaging or center-weighted or the like), then here's my advice:

Shoot two exposures of a subject with a full range of luminances, from deep textured shadows to bright textured whites, but not too contrasty; you want a "normal" subject. Use the meter's suggested exposure and make one exposure at box speed and one 2/3 slower than box speed (i.e., 2/3 stop overexposed if you're using exposure compensation). Develop at recommended time minus 10%. Make your best print from both negatives with VC paper, using whatever contrast setting you need. Concentrate on getting the shadows and highlight values you need.

After you have your prints, evaluate. If the shadows and midtones are better on the print from the "overexposed" negative, you should likely rate your film that 2/3 stop slower going forward. If not, then use box speed.

If you needed significantly more or less contrast than a #2.5 or #3 filter (or equivalent) when making your best print, you will need to tweak your development time. If you used a lower contrast filter like a #1 or thereabouts, reduce development 20%. If you needed a #4 or #5 filter, increase development by 20%.

Now you have a starting point for "N." Subjects with normal contrast and even things that a ZS practitioner might call N+1 or N-1 can be dealt with with that exposure and development regime. Just use the contrast controls available when printing to make up the difference.

When photographing, use whatever film speed you arrived at above unless the subject contrast is high. Use the meter reading. For higher-than-normal contrast subjects you need to overexpose from what the meter reads (seems counter-intuitive at first, but averaging and even center-weighted meters will underexpose in contrasty situations). This included scenes with really bright skies, which trick the meter into underexposing too. Use your judgement to decide whether the scene is really contrasty (add one stop extra exposure) or really, really contrasty (add two stops).

Don't worry about flat scenes; you may end up overexposing a bit, but that's not a problem.

For really, really contrasty scenes (which a ZS user would call N-2 or more), use a separate back and develop at N-1. For starters, just develop 20% less than normal. Keep good notes and tweak from there. Testing isn't really needed. For really, really flat scenes (which a ZS user would call N+2 or more), you can develop 20% more. Then just use the contrast controls afforded by VC paper to make up the rest.

That will not only get your started, it will work in 99% of the situations you encounter. You can deal with the other 1% later.

Best,

Doremus

I have a spot meter and no in-camera meter. So that's the plan.