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

Rob Skeoch said:

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

Click to expand...

If you meter using Zone System practice and place a shadow spot reading on Zone II as Minor White suggests in “Zone System Manual” - 1963, then a 2/3 stop or 1 stop downrating adjustment in EI matches “tone reproduction theory” speed and “Zone System” speed.

But if you place shadow reading on Zone III as Ansel Adams suggests in “Exposure Record” - 1964, then effectively you have snuck in a one stop EI downrating.

Bill Burk said:

If you meter using Zone System practice and place a shadow spot reading on Zone II as Minor White suggests in “Zone System Manual” - 1963, then a 2/3 stop or 1 stop downrating adjustment in EI matches “tone reproduction theory” speed and “Zone System” speed.

But if you place shadow reading on Zone III as Ansel Adams suggests in “Exposure Record” - 1964, then effectively you have snuck in a one stop EI downrating.

Click to expand...

And for some added confusion (i.e., my own), you could place your shadows on Zone IV, as Bruce Barnbaum suggests.

One of the advantages of the Beyond the Zone System is all you need is a incident meter to determine the Scene Brightness Range. Based on plotting a curve and other factors such lens coating, the numbers are entered into a app and exposure information is provided. I've thought about testing Delta 100 or PF4 with Acufine and buying the app, but too lazy.

Alex - There's a reason Barnbaum had to rely so much on Farmer's Reducer to clear up print highlights - shadow placement on Z4 is absurd. And then add cutting the speed of TMax100 down to 50 (TMax has quite a long straight line; so Z4 shadow placement ends up with something overexposed by 4 or even 5 stops more than necessary). Then to try to manage that monstrosity, the ole Zone approach would tell you to do minus minus minus development - drastically compressing the whole sandwich, and scrunching all the life and sparkle out it : a flat image.

A basic look at the characteristic curve or TMX tells one that shadow texture placement is safe even on Z2, unless your meter or metering technique is way off. TMax films are among the few I can confidently rate at full box speed due to the fact that the toe is relatively short.
It's a great film for high contrast scenes, but not if one wastes all that real estate lower down in the curve though unnecessary overexposure. That's how the highlights get blown out.

It's a subjective decision in the end, of course, but there are a few things worth keeping in mind when it comes to Barnbaum:

1. He uses Tri-X 320, which has a longer toe than other films and an "upswept" curve shape (amplified by HC-110, the developer he prefers). Medium/high speed negative films have lots of highlight latitude. He's also using sheet film, which makes any consideration of image structure in relation to exposure a moot point, so extra exposure can sometimes be a good thing. You can never really have too much shadow detail in a negative.

2. His sensitometry is flawed. If you read his books, he states he has never owned a densitometer, which is perfectly fine - except if you are showing people your film curves, which are then fictitious and only potentially illustrative of what's actually happening.

I think it's important to remember that while you don't need to do any exposure/tone reproduction theory or sensitometry to make wonderful prints (or negatives), you should probably do some if you are going to teach it or present it.

I've always found Barnbaum's assertions kind of odd in light of that fact he's a scientist by training. He seems to have fallen into the same trap as many - that is - he works on his prints, gets his desired results and then assumes it's because the exposure, film, development are doing X when in fact that may or may not be the case.

If someone likes the results they get by exposing detailed shadows on Zone IV, or Zone III, or Zone V or Zone II, there's nothing right or wrong about it. It's just that you might not be getting what you think you're getting.

As always, printing is where the real control is.

Alex Benjamin said:

And for some added confusion (i.e., my own), you could place your shadows on Zone IV, as Bruce Barnbaum suggests.

Placing Shadows on Zone IV question

found this video some time ago,and wondered if some people could help me. question:would this mean that this way exposed negatives should be developed N-? if my personal film speed is iso 50 for tmax 100 should i place still on VI,or can i expose III? can someone shed some light here? Thanks in...

www.photrio.com

Click to expand...

Barnbaum is obviously a skilled printmakers who ends up achieving the look he wants. But he sure does it the hard way. And yeah, he's a holdover of the old "thick negative" school of TriX 320, which worked a lot better in relation to long-scale contact papers and alt media like Pt/pD rather than typical silver gelatin enlargement papers.

Another person who bought into that old Tri-X thick negative technique with mixed results is Roman Loranc. The overexposure gives him wonderful shadow gradation; and then he brings character into the highlights by means of split toning. But when the sulfide step of the toning doesn't go so well (and it is somewhat unpredictable), then the highlights are just plain blank and disappointing. He too can make some wonderful prints; but I wonder how many he has to throw away.

DREW WILEY said:

Barnbaum is obviously a skilled printmakers who ends up achieving the look he wants. But he sure does it the hard way. And yeah, he's a holdover of the old "thick negative" school of TriX 320, which worked a lot better in relation to long-scale contact papers and alt media like Pt/pD rather than typical silver gelatin enlargement papers.

Another person who bought into that old Tri-X thick negative technique with mixed results is Roman Loranc. The overexposure gives him wonderful shadow gradation; and then he brings character into the highlights by means of split toning. But when the sulfide step of the toning doesn't go so well (and it is somewhat unpredictable), then the highlights are just plain blank and disappointing. He too can make some wonderful prints; but I wonder how many he has to throw away.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said earlier in the thread, the common denominator when it comes to print quality is work. You can assume it's because of something you're doing when you expose/develop your film if it makes you feel good, but it's really the work you did under the enlarger, and there can be several ways to the same endpoint. What you think is happening might or might not be happening, but it doesn't matter. If on the other hand you think precision Zone System calibration (vs giving a negative sufficient exposure and developing normally) is going to mean less printing work, you'll probably end up with the lousy prints and think they are better because you did less work. In photography it's sometimes easy to make the mistake of seeing what one wants to see.

DREW WILEY said:

Alex - There's a reason Barnbaum had to rely so much on Farmer's Reducer to clear up print highlights - shadow placement on Z4 is absurd. And then add cutting the speed of TMax100 down to 50 (TMax has quite a long straight line; so Z4 shadow placement ends up with something overexposed by 4 or even 5 stops more than necessary). Then to try to manage that monstrosity, the ole Zone approach would tell you to do minus minus minus development - drastically compressing the whole sandwich, and scrunching all the life and sparkle out it : a flat image.

A basic look at the characteristic curve or TMX tells one that shadow texture placement is safe even on Z2, unless your meter or metering technique is way off. TMax films are among the few I can confidently rate at full box speed due to the fact that the toe is relatively short.
It's a great film for high contrast scenes, but not if one wastes all that real estate lower down in the curve though unnecessary overexposure. That's how the highlights get blown out.

Click to expand...

Milpool said:

It's a subjective decision in the end, of course, but there are a few things worth keeping in mind when it comes to Barnbaum:

1. He uses Tri-X 320, which has a longer toe than other films and an "upswept" curve shape (amplified by HC-110, the developer he prefers). Medium/high speed negative films have lots of highlight latitude. He's also using sheet film, which makes any consideration of image structure in relation to exposure a moot point, so extra exposure can sometimes be a good thing. You can never really have too much shadow detail in a negative.

2. His sensitometry is flawed. If you read his books, he states he has never owned a densitometer, which is perfectly fine - except if you are showing people your film curves, which are then fictitious and only potentially illustrative of what's actually happening.

I think it's important to remember that while you don't need to do any exposure/tone reproduction theory or sensitometry to make wonderful prints (or negatives), you should probably do some if you are going to teach it or present it.

I've always found Barnbaum's assertions kind of odd in light of that fact he's a scientist by training. He seems to have fallen into the same trap as many - that is - he works on his prints, gets his desired results and then assumes it's because the exposure, film, development are doing X when in fact that may or may not be the case.

If someone likes the results they get by exposing detailed shadows on Zone IV, or Zone III, or Zone V or Zone II, there's nothing right or wrong about it. It's just that you might not be getting what you think you're getting.

As always, printing is where the real control is.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your imput on this, guys. Barnbaum states his Zone IV dogma with such authority that it was getting me confused and putting my Zone III habits out of whack.

Yeah Milpool, but the job is far easier when you've got a well-targeted negative to begin with, reasonably within a favorable range of exposure and development; let's say, at least a versatile negative. Too often Zonies get hung up in the supposition they're supposed to precisely peg all the variables in advance, which is simply unrealistic. And even if they did, papers themselves change. Then you've got those people like Barnbaum, trying to force every foot into the same shoe size. I'd rather select a specific film which better accommodates the scene contrast range than beat a less suitable film half to death.

Alex - even standardizing on Zone III for shadow textural placement makes little sense to me unless it's an especially long-toed film. With the right films, I'll do it even on Z 1 or 0 (though as I already alluded, I don't actually consciously think about the Zone System anymore). It all depends on the specific characteristic curve along with specific development.

But Barnbaum's hard-headedness is just that. There are plenty of people who can print every whit as good as he can who don't subscribe to his inflexible idiosyncratic methodology - I would say, print even better than him. To me, his highlight tonality often seem somewhat flat -
exactly what one would expect from an overexposed, highly compressed "minus" negative. In that little video, he acts as if all films behave the same way, and worse, he garbles up terms like tone and texture irrelevant of their more standardized usages, along with his ridiculous assumption that sensitometrists don't appreciate print tonality. Even among Zone gurus, he's something of an outlier.

If Milpool is correct about Barnbaum sticking with HC-110 - well, HC-110 is a highly versatile developer. BUT when used in a particularly compensating fashion, like Barnbaum's habit, it does tend to develop quite a sag to the middle of the curve, further complicating the whole dilemma in the case of Tri-X sheet film.

DREW WILEY said:

Alex - even standardizing on Zone III for shadow textural placement makes little sense to me unless it's an especially long-toed film. With the right films, I'll do it even on Z 1 or 0

Click to expand...

I only use HP5+ rated at 250, developed in Thornton Two Bath. Nothing else. I've tried placing shadows in Zone IV after listening to the video. Highlights aren't blocked, but contrast is high, even when I shorten the development time of both Bath A and Bath B. I don't dislike it for certain applications, but I wouldn't make a dogma out of it.

[Edit:] Not saying the high contrast is necessarily due to Zone IV placement. Might be some other factor involved.

Alex Benjamin said:

Barnbaum states his Zone IV dogma with such authority

Click to expand...

I have more than one friend who took courses from Bruce Barnbaum.
Apparently, everything he says is stated with such authority!
Of course, he isn't alone with that!
He makes really good prints. He does seem though to be an example of those people who know how to achieve excellence, but have explanations for why and how to get there that raise concerns.

Alex - I have a lot of experience with HP5 sheet film. It has a moderate toe, so does favor either modest contrast scenes, or else placing your shadow threshold a bit high, which you're already doing if rating it at 250. But Z3 might be overly cautious at that reduced speed, and Z4 would be ridiculous if you expect good highlight quality as well. We can get away with certain things using today's excellent VC papers which weren't so simple back in the days of mainly graded papers; but even that luxury has its limits.

That being said, my own approach to HP5 might initially seem contradictory. Instead of using traditional Zone System minus compression for contrasty subjects, I'd use a staining developer (PMK pyro) to help rein in the highlights. And seemingly counterintuitively, I'd develop rather strongly for a slightly "thick" negative. But the secret came afterwards : a supplementary contrast mask. That way I could have my cake and eat it too : excellent tonal expansion over the whole range, yet easy printability.

But when it comes to high contrast range subjects, life is much simpler if one adopts a different kind of film. Today the best choice would be either TMX 100 or TMY 400. In former days there were films with even longer straight lines, like Super XX or Bergger 200. Today you could also choose Foma 200 if you can put up with its idiosyncrasies.

Rob Skeoch said:

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

Click to expand...

Well then, ignore my long-winded post about my methods using averaging meters.

Spot metering and the Zone System were made for each other. Proper film exposure (E.I.) is simply that which gives you the shadow detail you envisage and meter for. There are a few guidelines: Zones I and II are featureless black (maybe a bit of detail in Zone II), Zone III is a "textured" black, Zone IV for luminous shadows, Zone V is middle gray and for shadows in snow scenes, etc.

You base exposure on a shadow value, placing it depending on how you want it rendered. After having decided on your base exposure, you meter other areas of the scene to see where they "fall." Zone V is middle gray, Zone VI is about the value of average Caucasian skin, Zone VII is textured light concrete, Zone VIII is a textured white, Zone IX is pure white at "N," i.e., normal development and print contrast. If a scenes values fall outside the "N" framework, either too flat (e.g., what you want as Zone VIII in the print "falls" in Zone VII or below) or too contrasty (what you want as Zone VIII in the print falls in Zone IX or higher), then you need to adjust contrast somehow for the final print.

In days past, when graded papers were the norm, most ZS users changed development times to make contrast changes. These days, that's not as necessary as before, since the high-quality VC papers we have can take up a lot of the slack. I find I only need to change development times for really extreme scenes; scenes that would be classed as N+2 or more and N-2 or more. In those cases, I develop N+1 or N-1 and deal with the rest of the contrast control with the paper contrast range.

The initial trick is to decide how you want a particular shadow to look in the final print, and base the exposure on that. When in doubt, or if you have no idea, use Zone III for shadow placement. I quickly found, however, that Zone III was too dark for the kind of luminous shadows I wanted in lots of architectural and landscape work, so I learned to place shadows I wanted to render more full-featured in Zone IV. Zone III is good for black clothing, for dark shadows in sunlit scenes that aren't going to be scrutinized, etc.

In any case, I think you can forego much of the testing. Simply rate your film 2/3 stop slower than box speed (which compensates for ZS metering techniques and shadow placement - you're really still using box speed) and go out and make negatives of a scene with a full luminance range where Zone III = textured black and Zone VIII = textured white. Develop one at the recommended time minus 10% and make a your best print on VC paper. If it requires more contrast than a #2.5 or #3 filter, reduce your development another 10% next time. If it needs less contrast, increase development time next time. If the shadows are too featureless for your taste, lower your film speed another notch and vice versa. Just keep good notes about your shadow placement and how you want them to look and the results you actually get. Tweak exposure to get the shadows where you like them and development to get your contrast for normal scenes to hit around #2.5-#3 filtration. That's N.

Use N for everything except scenes with extremely high or low contrast. For those, just start by increasing or decreasing development by 20% for flat and contrasty scenes, respectively. That's roughly N+1 and N-1 development; use your paper contrast settings to deal with the rest.

Best,

Doremus

Matt - It isn't just Barnbaum's authoritarian teaching method, but a bit of exaggerated self-promotion too which is questionable, like claiming he was the first one to open up slot canyons to the awareness of photography in 1980. Well, I guess he never heard of Eliot Porter and a number of others decades before.

And, a word or two about shadow placement, since what I often do has been termed "absurd."

All shadows are not the same. Plus the Zone System is based on personal visualization of shadow values and the corresponding exposure to get a particular average shade of gray, which can be different for different shadows.

How one places shadows and exposes depends on how one intends the shadows to be rendered in the final print. There is not a one-size-fits-all exposure formula for shadows. Yes, the object is to give the minimum exposure needed to accomplish your goal, so finding your personal film speed is important, so that Zone III and upwards (and especially the highlights) don't get overexposed. That said, underexposure is a worse enemy and, with today's meters and films, personal E.I.s are usually really close to box speed. When in doubt, overexpose a bit. A stop of overexposure with most modern films won't make a noticeable difference in the final print. I've overexposed by three stops (inadvertently) and have still been able to make prints with good highlight separation.

But, I digress... Knowing what shadows placed in different Zones will look like allows one to choose just how they want shadows to look and "feel" in the final print. This comes with experience. I metered and placed a lot of shadows in Zone III just because that was standard ZS procedure, which subsequently ended up being too dark for me in the final prints. I did a lot of dodging until I figured out that some shadows need more exposure. These I now place higher, in Zone IV (horrors, absurd!) or even Zone V. Now you may argue that I'm basing my exposure on things that aren't really shadows, and that shadows should be black. Still, I'm metering areas of the scene that are unlit, say the face of a building under an awning and lit by fill light from light concrete, or open shadows in a snow scene that have lots of fill, which look horribly unexpressive and too dark when rendered Zone III in a final print. So I place them higher just so they won't be "black."

On the other hand, if I want inky, featureless shadows that look graphically solid in a print, I'll place them in Zone II or even Zone I. It depends on the visualization. The point of the Zone System is to be able to visualize the possibilities offered by the distribution of luminances in a scene and then choose from these what you find best for the final print. Those of us who strive to make prints that express more emotionally than "realistically" often depart to a large degree from the conventional standards.

If you just want luminance values from Zone III to Zone VIII rendered correctly on the film, that's easy, provided you somehow know what Zone III should look like in the first place. Heck, just metering the darkest area you easily can with a spot meter and placing it in Zone III will get you a negative with enough information to make a good print in 90% of the cases. Making an exceptional print that has emotional impact just because of the distribution and relationship of its tones and textures needs a little more involvement. That's the visualization part.

Placing a shadow you want rendered as Zone III on the print in Zone IV will give you a one-stop overexposure. Maybe it's even absurd , but I'll bet I could still make a nice print from a one-stop-overexposed negative. However, placing a shadow that you want rendered as Zone IV in the print in Zone III will give you an underexposed negative that doesn't deliver the goods; you'll have to dig for those shadows by dodging, which might even prevent getting Dmax in those areas, in order to bring them into the relationship with the mid-tones and highlights in the print that you wanted. I think that's more difficult.

Best,

Doremus

A lot of gobbledygook and hyperbole gets thrown around about making negatives but the connections between visualization, exposure “controls” afforded by the Zone System, and magnificent, expressive prints are quite weak.

I do agree though there is nothing absurd about a Zone IV shadow placement. Any exposure method that results in full/max contrast recording of shadow areas for which full/max contrast is desired, makes sense.

... If you don't mind blowing out the highlights, or otherwise srunching the life out of them with a heavy boot on the sum sandwich. I'm speaking in general terms. There have been a few images where I wanted the upper tones blown to pure abstract white - just the opposite of those select images where I wanted a pure graphic black space without any detail. But all that has been competently done by people with no knowledge of the Zone System at all. Look at how eloquent some of the old blue sensitive emulsion work like that of Timothy O' Sullivan was - cookie cutter cutout white skies, fabulously rich low tones.

What I object to is making a hard doctrinaire manifesto rule out of any of this. And I don't think it helps beginners to teach Z4 placement at all unless they have the worst metering skills conceivable. It's like telling a tourist at a Grand Canyon not to walk too close to the right edge a rock platform or they might fall off; so it's, "more to the left, still more, still more" ... until they fall off a cliff on the left side instead.

Doremus - what film are you accustomed to using, and at what "personal" speed rating?

DREW WILEY said:

Doremus - what film are you accustomed to using, and at what "personal" speed rating?

Click to expand...

I've used lots in the past, but currently TMY and 320Tri-X are my go-to films. I rate them both at E.I. 250. For some reason, TMY seems to need that extra 1/3 stop compared to Tri-X

I'll overexpose Tri-X by a stop if I want more shadow separation to get the image up off the toe of the curve. Both these films hold detail well past Zone X, so I don't worry about blocking up highlights (even when I place a shadow in Zone IV )

Also, when I place something in Zone IV (or V, or whatever) it something that belongs in Zone IV, not a deep shadow placed too high, but rather a luminous shadow that needs Zone IV. I'm not overexposing when I do this.

Doremus

Doremus - I'm confused...are you shooting TMX 100 at EI250, or did you mean Tri-X when you referenced TMX?

David, Your confusion is understandable! I completely got things wrong. I use 320Tri-X and TMY (TMax 400). I'll use TMX in a pinch but really like the extra speed. So, E.I. 250 for Tri-X and TMY. TMX is E.I. 64 for me usually. I've amended my post to reflect the corrections. Thanks.

Doremus

Thanks for clarifying - what is your preferred developer for each of TMY and TMX?

(I don’t shoot large format, so 320Tri-X is “greener grass on the other side of the fence”.)

Doremus Scudder said:

All the Zone System testing that AA and Minor White, et al. call for is largely unneeded these days, especially if one uses VC papers.

Click to expand...

VC papers are certainly a big help. But a perfect print only comes from a perfect negative The ZS is still the best way to produce a perfect negative.VC printing is a convenient way to fine-tune the perfect print. They work best together; one does not replace the other!

Don't underexpose and don't over develop the film.

Keith Tapscott. said:

Don't underexpose and don't over develop the film.

Click to expand...

It can't be as símple as those 7 words, can it, Keith? Well not based on 174 posts it would seem. Mind you, Armaggedon begins with three lower case letters and a superscripted number 2 on the end letter "c", doesn't it?


pentaxuser