- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,974
- Format
- 8x10 Format
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!
Since AA did not have access to MG paper and split grade printing, can we assume that much better prints can now be achieved?
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.
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
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.
Which format do you use? What sort of subject matter? What do you expect the zs to do for you?
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.
AnselMy methodology is:
I previsualize before I visualize, then I visualize.
After that, I postvisualize what I visualized.
MortensenThen I expose for the nightmares and develop for the dreams.
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.
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.
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.
Rob,I just want to get the exposure and dev. times really nailed down. It's a good question though.
I just want to get the exposure and dev. times really nailed down. It's a good question though.
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 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
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
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?