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

[Milpool]

Yup. I'd add don't under-develop, but that's about it.

Making great negatives is dead easy no matter what sort of print you visualize.

Of course that's not going to help OP much as far as the Zone System is concerned, but since a simplified Zone System set up is what was requested it is perhaps worth repeating - downrate your film by 2/3 stop and you're basically done. The rest is imagining how subject luminance values transition to print densities.

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

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

It can't be as símple as those 7 words, can it, Keith? Well not based on 174 posts it would seem.


pentaxuser

I would like to think photography is straight forward, but I have a feeling that there will be more posts to follow.
Here's post #177

 

[BrianShaw]

I would like to think photography is straight forward, but I have a feeling that there will be more posts to follow.
Here's post #177

Photography can be straight-forward. In fact, good photography can also be straight-forward... unless one reads phoptography forums and then it can get really complicated.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Did you forget the title of the thread? - Simplifying the Zone System. That's like expecting a short course in herding cats. Each has their own mind.

 

[Rob Skeoch]

This thread reminds me of the time I tried to get the wasp nest out of the shed.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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”.)

David,

I've been using PMK almost exclusively for the last several years. Before that it was largely HC-110. I switched to PMK because of the grain masking properties and the highlight rendering. I'll still develop expansion negatives in HC-110 every now and then. I use large-format film, so don't worry much about grain, so no real fine-grain developers for me.

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

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 misunderstand me, Ralph. I strive for the best negative possible all the time. It's just that it seems to me that an empirical approach to ZS testing is adequate and a lot less time-consuming. Film-speed testing is really easy to do without a densitometer or a calibrated step wedge, etc. I do do speed tests with every new film I try and make occasional checks on what I'm currently using by making negatives and proper proofs. The OP wanted a simple approach, so starting out 2/3 stop slower than box speed without testing will get most people really close to their ideal E.I.

I do development tests for N always, using proper proofs and the paper I use most to establish it. I then use a "zeroing-in" method to find N+1 and N-1 by simply extending or decreasing my N time by 20% and making proper proofs and prints. If I find I need to refine my N+ and N- times, then I do. Again, no extensive testing, no densitometer, no calibrated step wedges needed. I feel I get better results with extreme expansions and contractions by only developing to N+1 or N-1 and then dealing with the remaining contrast needs with the range of contrasts available with VC papers and printing techniques.

Often, for me, the "perfect" negative is one that takes more work to print than one tailored for a particular contrast setting and that prints at that setting with a full range of tones. If you want more mid-tone separation than the rest of the scene allows, you have to develop too contrasty and then use print manipulations to get the highlights and shadows to behave, or develop normally, but then use a lot of split-contrast printing techniques to get extra contrast where you need it, or a combination of both.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

This thread reminds me of the time I tried to get the wasp nest out of the shed.

You asked...

 

[Paul Howell]

Doremus Scudder
"Often, for me, the "perfect" negative is one that takes more work to print than one tailored for a particular contrast setting and that prints at that setting with a full range of tones. If you want more mid-tone separation than the rest of the scene allows, you have to develop too contrasty and then use print manipulations to get the highlights and shadows to behave, or develop normally, but then use a lot of split-contrast printing techniques to get extra contrast where you need it, or a combination of both."

Although I did not take the AA Yosemite workshop, from I understand from Minor White is that in their view the perfect negative has the information to print a given image as it was visualized or previsualized as the shutter was clicked. From Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System the perfect negative is as Domeus descripts, a print with a full range of tone. As I read BTZS first edition that means making sure the dramatic zones, 3 to 7 are captured including the mid zones. Both methods produce remarkable images.

In terms of OP question, 8 pages on and a lot of information and opinion that that does not address a simplified zone system for a 35mm photographer who does own a denistormer. Well maybe I missed it.

 

[Hassasin]

There is no such thing as simplified (or not) zone system for 35 mm. Any car salesman will swear there is though. It's not just about roll film and multitude of image types on a single roll. It is simply a total waste of time trying to milk ZS ideology into 35 mm film and get nothing more out of it in the end. We might as well start discussing zone system for 110 film.

 

[Paul Howell]

Both Minor White and Phil David would have agreed with you. AA included images takes with 6X6 and 35mm in his texts, but the 35mm was taken prior his development of the Zone System. In general I would agree with you. As I have posted earlier it is p;ossible to roll short rolls of 35mm so a single scene can be developed for the highlight. With matrix metering I shoot very close to box speed, or use the spot meter to meter for zone III and develop for zone VII. The best text I have found 35mm is The Zone System for 35mm Photographers by Carson Graves. It will provide what I called a crippled zone system. It I was not so lazy I would invest the time in learning BTZY to see if bring anything to the party that I cannot achieve with the traditional zone system.

 

[Milpool]

Not correct, since (effective) control of negatives with respect to tone reproduction/visualization comes down basically to exposure choices whether one uses the Zone System or any other system. The N+/N- part does little, unless your goal is simply to fit a negative density range to a paper LER, which is not how great prints are made anyway.

There is no such thing as simplified (or not) zone system for 35 mm. Any car salesman will swear there is though. It's not just about roll film and multitude of image types on a single roll. It is simply a total waste of time trying to milk ZS ideology into 35 mm film and get nothing more out of it in the end. We might as well start discussing zone system for 110 film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Since my own MF cameras don't have interchangeable backs, I develop each roll with respect to the preponderance of images on it. Often it is the case that most of them were taken under similar lighting. There may be one or two outlier shots which simply have to be strategized differently during printing, if I choose to print them at all.

35mm obviously involves considerably more shots per roll; so I try to keep in mind which shots are likely to be the most important. No big deal, since 35mm is my least used format. But instead of different backs, 35mm camera bodies are portable enough that one could carry more than one if they feel Zonie addicted.

I rarely do minus development, so am not a real Zonie. But there frequently are situations where I want more contrast in a negative, so will segregate those shots for plus development (easy to do when sheet rather than roll film is involved). Simply resorting to higher contrast light when using VC paper is not always an ideal solution : it will also accentuate the visibility of any little discrepancies in the carrier glass or any tendency toward Newton rings. And the nature of the film curve sometimes irons itself out more (straighter) with extended development. There are a number of potential reasons.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yup. I'd add don't under-develop, but that's about it.

Making great negatives is dead easy no matter what sort of print you visualize.

Of course that's not going to help OP much as far as the Zone System is concerned, but since a simplified Zone System set up is what was requested it is perhaps worth repeating - downrate your film by 2/3 stop and you're basically done. The rest is imagining how subject luminance values transition to print densities.

I send my film out to a pro lab to develop normally. Do your words hold for me too?

 

[Milpool]

I send my film out to a pro lab to develop normally. Do your words hold for me too?

Yes, Alan. Basically for the average B&W negative film there is very little if anything to be gained by modifying development (especially if you are scanning negatives and editing digitally).

Downrating the film’s ISO speed by 2/3 stop (ie set your meter to 64 for a 100 ISO film) gives you the exposure index a Zone System “personal EI test” should result in, and that will give you some extra shadow detail or a safety factor. This is independent of development so no need to tell the lab to do anything different.

The main idea is that when you use your spot meter and figure out what exposure you need to give the film for a particular scene, you picture the kind of print you want and make sure you give enough exposure so that you can print as much detail in the dark areas as you might want. The film will literally do the rest and then it’s up to you in editing/printing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, Alan. Basically for the average B&W negative film there is very little if anything to be gained by modifying development (especially if you are scanning negatives and editing digitally).

Downrating the film’s ISO speed by 2/3 stop (ie set your meter to 64 for a 100 ISO film) gives you the exposure index a Zone System “personal EI test” should result in, and that will give you some extra shadow detail or a safety factor. This is independent of development so no need to tell the lab to do anything different.

The main idea is that when you use your spot meter and figure out what exposure you need to give the film for a particular scene, you picture the kind of print you want and make sure you give enough exposure so that you can print as much detail in the dark areas as you might want. The film will literally do the rest and then it’s up to you in editing/printing.

Thanks for keeping it simple.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Milpool appears to be a mole sneaking into the Zone world in order to blow it up. Take away minus and plus development, and it simply ain't any kind of Zone System anymore. But that brings up the dilemma in what a "zone" even means.

A) To some, you've always got a dynamic model of textural value assigned between Zones 2 and 7, so in effect have to stretch the space occupied by each intervening segment if the scene contrast range exceeds 7 stops (or 9 stops if you include pure black and pure white).

B) To others, each Zone represents one distinct stop of exposure value. Therefore, if the scene contrast range has 12 stops, you need to think of 12 zones to accommodate it; and if a low contrast scene of, say, only 4 stops, you've only got four zones to contend with.

Therefore, those little gray scale Zone stickers people put around spot meter dials are inherently misleading with respect to how films differ in relation to one another and how scene contrast can also widely differ. So should those little gray scales be elastic like a rubber band (scenario A) or rigid with potentially differing quantities of centipede segments (scenario B) ?

Now I've complicated things even more, but actually not me at all, because there are in fact so many competing, even contradictory,
variations of the Zone System. That doesn't bother me at all because I tend to visualize actual specific film curves when out shooting, rather than what species of segmented centipede is involved. And yes, one of the most useful tools is how those curves can be tweaked by thoughtful development variations, despite what Milpool claims.

But I've spent a lot of time doing densitometer plots, so realize my own manner of visualization might not be practical for others. Tools are just that - tools. Good tools make life in the darkroom a lot easier. But no tool is more important than your own eyes.

 

[Milpool]

It’s not my intention to blow up the Zone System. It’s fine, but if you know a little sensitometry/tone reproduction you know it can be substantially simplified and get you the same results with as much visualization and previsualization as you can muster. Actually when you get down to brass tacks the Zone System isn’t complicated in the first place.

The key is exposure. If you need a lot of contrast, ok extend development. Aside from that, development modifications are basically a zero sum game barring more extreme procedures aimed at changing the curve shape. In many of those cases, however, what people assume is happening isn’t happening.

Anyhow, sorry if I’ve contributed too much to this thread having gone off the rails. I’ll stop now

Milpool appears to be a mole sneaking into the Zone world in order to blow it up. Take away minus and plus development, and it simply ain't any kind of Zone System anymore. But that brings up the dilemma in what a "zone" even means.

A) To some, you've always got a dynamic model of textural value assigned between Zones 2 and 7, so in effect have to stretch the space occupied by each intervening segment if the scene contrast range exceeds 7 stops (or 9 stops if you include pure black and pure white).

B) To others, each Zone represents one distinct stop of exposure value. Therefore, if the scene contrast range has 12 stops, you need to think of 12 zones to accommodate it; and if a low contrast scene of, say, only 4 stops, you've only got four zones to contend with.

Therefore, those little gray scale Zone stickers people put around spot meter dials are inherently misleading with respect to how films differ in relation to one another and how scene contrast can also widely differ. So should those little gray scales be elastic like a rubber band (scenario A) or rigid with potentially differing quantities of centipede segments (scenario B) ?

Now I've complicated things even more, but actually not me at all, because there are in fact so many competing, even contradictory,
variations of the Zone System. That doesn't bother me at all because I tend to visualize actual specific film curves when out shooting, rather than what species of segmented centipede is involved. And yes, one of the most useful tools is how those curves can be tweaked by thoughtful development variations, despite what Milpool claims.

But I've spent a lot of time doing densitometer plots, so realize my own manner of visualization might not be practical for others. Tools are just that - tools. Good tools make life in the darkroom a lot easier. But no tool is more important than your own eyes.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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!

What do you mean? I have made some outstanding prints from marginal negatives.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I send my film out to a pro lab to develop normally. Do your words hold for me too?

It depends on how your negatives turn out. If you are using the ISO/ASA rating and the negatives are good, continue doing that.
If the negatives are a little on the thin side and lacking detail, drop the ISO number a notch. Your pro lab should be able to advise. Don't alter anything if you don't need to.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

What do you mean? I have made some outstanding prints from marginal negatives.

Yes and you have many decades of experience behind you to know exactly what works for you.

Some photographers swear by the zone system while others get by just fine without it.
Whichever way, it's the end results that matter.

 

[Castrillo]

If you are using 35 mm film, you can combine the film sensitivity and normal development tests on the same roll
(The Negative Ansel Adams)

 

[pentaxuser]

. The best text I have found 35mm is The Zone System for 35mm Photographers by Carson Graves. It will provide what I called a crippled zone system. It I was not so lazy I would invest the time in learning BTZY to see if bring anything to the party that I cannot achieve with the traditional zone system.

Yes I found that book to be a pretty good text on what to do and why to do it but as Doremus says "the reduce film speed by 1/2 to 2/3rd stop and reduce development time by 15-20%" maxim probably gets you very close

pentaxuser

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

35mm ZS testing is a natural for an Exakta with its film knife and cassette-to-cassette film feed. Take several 'rolls' of your standard subject with each roll having a range of 'film speeds'/shadow zones/what-have-you. Develop the rolls at -20%, -10% ... in your usual developer. Print on your usual paper and pick the result you like the best.

Another method is to use a slide duplicator, taking a picture of a transmission step tablet. This lets you cut off the various test strips in the darkroom and put them in, oh, old black plastic 35mm film 'cans'. Again process each strip at various development times.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't think much of the Zone System is left intact after all the shortcuts and abbreviations necessary to those 35mm renditions of it. Sounds more like generic advice to statistically improve your luck, that's all. That's fine if it does the job for you. I have no problem bagging consistent "Zoneless" 35mm results myself, but like I said earlier, I try to use any given roll under similar lighting conditions. I print 35mm so seldom that only a few negatives get selected each year anyway.

120 film rolls are a lot less problematic in that respect. My 6X9 RF's only do 8 frames per roll, my 6X7's, only 10. But with separate roll film backs on the 4x5, I could obviously do classic Zone technique fully targeted for specific development lengths, but rarely need to. The extra stretch of today's VC papers take up the slack, along with associated tricks like split printing or supplemental masking.