Zone VIII, densities and film development

[axettone]

Good morning, everyone.

I'm trying to improve my knowledge of photographic materials, unfortunately without the use of a densitometer. So, I'm conducting development tests using Foma's Rodinal with FP4+, experimenting with different times and dilutions. I use a condenser enlarger with a warm LED bulb.

I have two main issues:

1. I don't have a densitometer, so I use a Sekonic 308x. I project light from the enlarger at a fixed height onto the light meter's cell (without the dome) and take a reading through the film. The base+fog density readings are around 0.3, and overall, this method seems to give me reasonable readings.
2. After checking thermometers, lenses, shutters, etc., I still notice that my developments tend to be quite energetic. When developing for times between 5 and 8 minutes at a 1:75 dilution, with an EI of 64 or 80, I still find that the Zone VIII densities are unprintable at the exposure time required to achieve black. Depending on the method, the densities I get range from 1.02 to 1.26 above base+fog. I use Fomabrom Variant 111 paper and Ilford contrast filters. Zone I gives me densities around 0.06 - 0.09 depending on the EI, and Zone II is visibly lighter than black.

I create the exposures using two adjustable LED lights with "daylight" color temperature, pointed at a wall, and determine exposure values for different zones by adjusting shutter speed and aperture. My spot meter is a Gossen, which I have verified and provides correct readings.

Now, my question is: Is it possible that, at grade 2, I need to lower the densities this much to get a visible Zone VIII?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Your results are strange. With development times between 5 and 8 minutes at the 1:75 dilution, I would have expected under-development, as these seem quite short. Even Bob Schwalberg, whose Rodinal times are on the short side, suggested between 8 and 11 for FP4 (old version) in 1:75. How did you reach your development times?

 

[bernard_L]

1. Densitometer versus enlarger baseboard. Not measuring the same thing, because different angles of acceptance for the detector. In other words, the Callier effect results in higher vaues with the enlarger method.
2. Even so, IMO, a negative with ZVIII b+f+1.02--1.26 should be printable on grade 2.
   
   
   
   Yes, the ISO range for grade 2 is "only" 0.95. But the definition is between points at D=0.1 and 90%xDmax. So there is extra room between pure black and pure white
3. The values you give for zone VIII do not seem too high. This photographer, author of a well known book, states that he aims for 1.29.
   
   

   correct exposure to get a Zone VIII negative

   I'm working with a panoramic pinhole Holga and I want to know if I'm on the right path to expose a negative in zone VIII to determine the development time and know if I'm getting the proper density. I take the reading of the exposure meter against a flat even surface, a piece of gray...

   www.photrio.com

Side note: you might be better off with a "4000K" bulb in your enlarger.

 

[axettone]

Thank you @bernard_L . The angle of acceptance is entirely covered by the negative frame: I use the enlarger as a controlled source of light, I could use any light. I just project the light and put the negative directly on the light meter, over the cell. However my goal is not to have a "true" reading, but have some kind of reference. My real goal is to print zone VIII :-D
Isn't the 4000K more blue and more contrasty?

 

[axettone]

Your results are strange. With development times between 5 and 8 minutes at the 1:75 dilution, I would have expected under-development, as these seem quite short. Even Bob Schwalberg, whose Rodinal times are on the short side, suggested between 8 and 11 for FP4 (old version) in 1:75. How did you reach your development times?

Yeah, I agree, they're strange. But... I started with common times found on the web and I got very dense negatives, so I started reducing the time and then, close to the 5 min "safe-area" treshold, I started diluting more.
I have a similar problem with home-made D76 (too much density for highlights, too thin for shadows). But it's "home-made" so it's not a solid reference and I switched to a commercial alternative (at least my shadows are ok now).
I tested my thermomters and they're fine.... so... I don't know :-(

 

[Alan9940]

You don't mention if you're shooting roll or sheet film, but I'd do the following:

1. Shoot a roll of Zone VIII negatives at 1/3 or 1/2 box speed, leaving one negative unexposed.

2. Cut the roll into a few sections and develop one strip using your preferred developer, time, temp, etc. Or, use a time as shown on the MDC.

3. With the unexposed negative (representing Zone 0) in your enlarger, make a test strip on your preferred paper at grade 2. Dry this strip and look for the first time revealing black. This will be the segment whereby you can't make out any other segments as your time got longer. At this point, you have your SPD (Standard Printing Density.)

4. Without changing anything, put a Zone VIII negative in your enlarger and expose a piece of paper using your SPD. Cover half with a card. Dry and evaluate. What you're looking for here is a very slight density between the exposed and unexposed sides.

5. If the whole piece of paper from #4 is blank white, you've over-developed your film. Decrease development time by 25% and try again. If you see a density that's darker than very slight, then you've under-developed your film. Increase development time by 25% and try again.

6. Rinse-n-repeat until you get it right. By your second or third test, you should be so close that your can extrapolate a nearly perfect development time. Take pictures and make minor adjustments, if needed.

Hope this helps. If you want or need these steps stated more precisely, get a copy of Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop".

 

[ic-racer]

I don't have a densitometer,

In that case, print the zone VIII negative on your paper with a coin on the paper, you would want to see just the outline of the coin. Your print exposure time is the minimum time for max black on the rebate.
If you can't see the outline of the coin, decrease development of the next negative. If the coin outline is very obvious, increase development of the next negative.

 

[xtol121]

My first enlarger was an old Omega B22 condenser from a flea market. I followed the directions above to learn my exposure/development time which ended up somewhere around 5.5 mins in D76 1+1, and even that was quite contrasty to print at grade 2 with that enlarger, but I didn't know any better. Fast forward 7 years and I am now a nerd with a densitometer and I can tell you these negatives are severely underdeveloped for printing with a diffusion enlarger, most require grade 4, and if I'm using a softer paper like Foma 131 I will have to print at grade 5 and even then it's a low contrast print.

I'd seriously consider if this is the enlarger you plan on using for the long run before you commit to tailoring your negatives to such a low contrast. And if so, I'd think about using grade 1 as your target instead just in case you ever end up in a diffusion/soft paper situation.

But that's really neat the you've worked out a way to use a Sekonic 308! I've used my 558 as a makeshift one before but never thought to try my incident meter.

 

[xkaes]

I just project the light and put the negative directly on the light meter, over the cell.

That's the way to do it. I'd add extra exposures -- each f-stop or 1/2 f-stop -- and then plot the results on a graph. That will indicate where the line is "going off".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Yeah, I agree, they're strange. But... I started with common times found on the web and I got very dense negatives, so I started reducing the time and then, close to the 5 min "safe-area" treshold, I started diluting more.
I have a similar problem with home-made D76 (too much density for highlights, too thin for shadows). But it's "home-made" so it's not a solid reference and I switched to a commercial alternative (at least my shadows are ok now).
I tested my thermomters and they're fine.... so... I don't know :-(

I would suggest you recheck every parameter in your methodology. I'm not that as much an expert on zone-system film/development testing—and those who are can correct me—but my understanding is that a zone VIII that's too dense and is indistinguishable from zone X is a sign of over-development. With a 5-minute development in Rodinal at a 1:75 dilution, over-development seems highly improbable.

 

[Paul Howell]

Is it possible that, at grade 2, I need to lower the densities this much to get a visible Zone VIII?

It is, you can try 1.5 to see if you get the shade of white you want, remember that ZIII is without texture. Second is to adjust time of paper in the developer, less time might give more separation. In Phil Davis's Beyond the Zone System first edition he outlines how to use a spot meter as both a densitometer and a reflective densitometer. He test both paper and film, but BTZS is a dense read, and to work with it you need the smart phone app. In your situation all you want are the densities. In BTZS Davis is only concerned about the zones with texture, III to VII. I have used the Zone System for nearly 60 years and do not own a densitometer, in the 60s we were taught to use a ringaround, in the 70s when the price of good quality densitometer came down testing with densitometer become much more affordable. For a shoot around, open shade, light skin tone model, gray card, swath of white cloth with texture, (VII) dark cloth with texture VIII) roll film shoot two stops down and up from Box speed, shoot a blank between exposures. First is find the E.I or either Z II of III depending on your preference to set your shadow zones. Then look at for Z VII or VIII, if your highlight are washed out shoot another roll at your E.I and extend development by 10 to 20%. If your highlights are blown out reduce development time by 10 to 20%.

 

[bernard_L]

Second is to adjust time of paper in the developer

Hrrmmm...

 

[Doremus Scudder]

...

3. With the unexposed negative (representing Zone 0) in your enlarger, make a test strip on your preferred paper at grade 2. Dry this strip and look for the first time revealing black. This will be the segment whereby you can't make out any other segments as your time got longer. At this point, you have your SPD (Standard Printing Density.)

4. Without changing anything, put a Zone VIII negative in your enlarger and expose a piece of paper using your SPD. Cover half with a card. Dry and evaluate. What you're looking for here is a very slight density between the exposed and unexposed sides.
...

In that case, print the zone VIII negative on your paper with a coin on the paper, you would want to see just the outline of the coin. Your print exposure time is the minimum time for max black on the rebate.
If you can't see the outline of the coin, decrease development of the next negative. If the coin outline is very obvious, increase development of the next negative.

My first enlarger was an old Omega B22 condenser from a flea market. I followed the directions above to learn my exposure/development time which ended up somewhere around 5.5 mins in D76 1+1, and even that was quite contrasty to print at grade 2 with that enlarger, but I didn't know any better. Fast forward 7 years and I am now a nerd with a densitometer and I can tell you these negatives are severely underdeveloped for printing with a diffusion enlarger, most require grade 4, and if I'm using a softer paper like Foma 131 I will have to print at grade 5 and even then it's a low contrast print.

I'd seriously consider if this is the enlarger you plan on using for the long run before you commit to tailoring your negatives to such a low contrast. And if so, I'd think about using grade 1 as your target instead just in case you ever end up in a diffusion/soft paper situation.
...

I can see several possible ways your calibration is going off the rails.

First, unless you have a really reliable way to measure Zone I density, you're stuck with using the visual method referred to above, which is based on your finding the minimum exposure time for maximum black on an unexposed but developed area of the film and just a hint of difference for Zone I. This is much harder to do correctly than it might at first seem. The lighting for print viewing is critical; too much light and you'll see separation that you wouldn't in "normal" lighting, causing you to give more exposure to get max black. Too little light and you won't see the separation you need to, causing you to give too little print exposure. You can see what that will do to the highlights; too dark in the first case, too light in the second.

Plus, if you're using a paper with a shoulder slope that is not very steep, there will be lots of steps of separation to see, just not much density difference between them. This means that max black can be quite elusive.

So, try your printing the other way around once. Print your Zone VIII so that it is correct and see what the blacks look like. Even print your Zone I and clear negatives at your Zone VIII time and compare those.

Also, try to use lighting that you consider ideal for print viewing in a gallery; not too bright (don't walk outside and evaluate the blacks in the sunlight!) or too dim (regular living-room-level lighting). The whole point is to make prints with acceptable blacks and fine highlight detail and separation, Don't obsess about max black (you can always burn), but rather how the middle Zones are rendered and how the separation and local contrast seem to you. Really important is the rendering of Zone III and Zone VIII.* (see below!)

Second, realize that a condenser light source prints a lot more contrasty than a diffusion light source would. If you ever plan on getting a diffusion enlarger, xtol121's advice about using a lower contrast grade than grade 2 as your target might make life easier for you in the future.

And, since we have VC papers with such a wide range of contrast control nowadays, you don't need to obsess about hitting your target grade exactly every time. You can always tweak contrast a Zone or two either way as long as your negative density range is within the paper's limits.

And, a third thing: Do make sure you are developing your paper long enough. If you're using fiber-base paper, 2..5 to 3 minutes is the minimum you need to develop optimum separation in the low-density areas of the print (highlights). A minute or so longer won't hurt; it's basically like adding a bit more exposure time. If you're in doubt, develop a print for five minutes. If there's a significant difference in highlight separation for what you can get with shorter development times, you need to develop longer.

And finally, be aware that using LEDs for your exposure tests will likely result in different results than using daylight. Go outside and find a real-life subject with the Zone distribution you want and photograph that, keeping good notes. Use an E.I. of 2/3 stop slower than ISO speed. Pay special attention to placing Zone III, but have some darker areas there that meter Zone II and Zone I. Also make sure you have a textured white that you want in Zone VIII, but also some middle Zone V - VII values. Keep notes. Make several negatives. Develop one at your trial development time and print it so Zone VIII is where you like it. Then compare mid tones and shadows to what you metered. If you need more separation between Zone VIII and the shadow values, develop the next negative longer and try again.

Yes, I know this seems backwards from most of the recommendations to find a max black time and then see what the highlights look like, but, if you rate your film 2/3 stop lower than box speed and your meter is halfway accurate, you will not be underexposing your film. What you need then is a development time that gives you the desired contrast between Zone III and VIII. This eliminates the need for the max black visual assessment, which is the point at which most print exposure mistakes are made. Give it a try.

* Warning: There are at least two versions of the Zone System commonly described, one in which Zone I is essentially max black, Zone VII is a barely-textured white and Zone IX is essentially paper-base white and another in which Zone I is close to max black, but Zone IX is a barely textured white and Zone X is paper-base white. Make sure how you want your Zone VIII to look. For me, Zone VIII is the lightest Zone with some texture, e.g., textured snow, bright sand, and Zone IX is a textureless very, very light grey.

Hope this helps.

Doremus

 

[axettone]

Good evening, everyone, and thank you for all the advice—it's all very much appreciated.
In particular, I want to thank @Doremus Scudder because I think he has touched on a couple of interesting points, and I’d like to respond to them one by one.

First of all, my ideal zone scale should be structured as follows:

• 0 – Maximum black of the paper
• I – A "buffer" zone where everything that is not quite a "very dark gray" can be placed and may blend into black
• II – Very dark gray (distinguishable from black as a separate tone but without texture, only tonal value)
• III – Very dark gray with texture
  [...]
• VII – Light, but with texture and detail
• VIII – Light, tonal value only, no texture
• IX – A "buffer" zone for tones too bright to be distinguishable from white
• X – Paper white

I like the idea of trying to print a Zone VIII and defining the standard exposure time from there. In fact, I was very surprised to realize that determining the maximum black is not as simple as it seems—it always feels like a deeper black can be achieved, although many of these differences disappear once the paper dries. I will give this method a try. Maybe Zone XIII is not far. By the way, while comparing the data, I also noticed some oddities, such as densities that tend to increase more in the highlights with a shorter development time compared to a longer one. Perhaps, at these dilutions, developing film strips of different lengths becomes an issue for the repeatability of the results.

Fomabrom Variant 111 should have a rather steep shoulder, allowing for good separation in the blacks. Highlights are a different story (and perhaps this explains the difficulty in bringing out Zone VIII). By the way, the ISO-R for filter 2 is 90, not 95 as with the Ilford paper, so the negative density range must be very compressed... and this looks reasonable to me.

I don’t want to become obsessed—I simply want to apply a logical approach to prove to myself that I understand and control the process. Sure, I could try printing at half a grade lower, but that would feel like giving up.

I develop the paper using the factorial method, applying a 10x multiplier to the emergence time. Since my darkroom is at 19°C, my development time ends up being around 200 seconds (10x factor).

I also considered the difference between LED panel lighting and sunlight, which is why I decided to take a "real" photo as well (without any artistic ambition!). This shot was exposed with the sole purpose of placing the sky in Zone VIII, and indeed, its density appears visually comparable to the Zone VIII test frame.

EDIT: Forgot to attach the file... that's it:



The issue with lowering the EI too much is that I’ve noticed it tends to increase highlight density even further, whereas with a higher EI, I seem to control it better (or at least that’s my impression). This might also relate to another issue I’m facing: my developments seem too energetic. I really have no idea why. Maybe I should try a different developer... perhaps I could test with D76-H.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don’t want to become obsessed—I simply want to apply a logical approach to prove to myself that I understand and control the process. Sure, I could try printing at half a grade lower, but that would feel like giving up.

Zone type thinking becomes obsessive, every film, every developer comb needs to be tested to determine the curve. I took the Minor White Summer course in the 60s before the Zone became a thing. By the 70s it had become a cult, the cult of sensitometry. Folks had forgotten that the purpose of the Zone was to visualize a scene, exposure so your visualized scene is capture in the negative then print it, using all the printing tools of the trade to enhance the image. I stayed in touch with a co student of the workshop. One year early 70s she spent days and days testing TriX, maybe 10 different developers, then Kodak changed the emousion and the curves did not match. With roll film it makes little difference as you cannot contract or expand development times to matched your visualized highlights as you can with sheet film. As you shoot roll film I recommend that you find a copy if available on your side of the world of Carson Graves The Zone System for 35mm Photographers. A very pragmatic approach no densitometer needed.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Ciao Axettone!

A couple of things more from me, if you don't mind.

Here's the Zone System as envisioned by Ansel Adams and as I use it (thanks to Wikipedia):

Zone	Description
0	Pure black - no detail
I	Near black, with slight tonality but no texture
II	Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded
III	Average dark materials and low values showing adequate texture
IV	Average dark foliage, dark stone, or landscape shadows
V	Middle gray: clear north sky; dark skin, average weathered wood
VI	Average Caucasian skin; light stone; shadows on snow in sunlit landscapes
VII	Very light skin; shadows in snow with acute side lighting
VIII	Lightest tone with texture: textured snow
IX	Slight tone without texture; glaring snow
X	Pure white: light sources and specular reflections - paper white, no detail

​

So, when doing the max-black test, you should look for a slight separation (the very slightest, but in lighting that approximates good print viewing lighting) between FB+fog and Zone I density. I'd still try printing for Zone VIII and see if that didn't solve your problems.

All of your evaluations should be done after the print has dried. Get a hair dryer out to speed things up if you need, but drydown is real and makes a big difference in the highlights.

As you see from the Zone descriptions above, Zone VIII was originally envisioned as the last Zone with texture.

Now for the spoiler:

If I were using 35mm film, I wouldn't bother with the Zone System at all. If you really want to base your exposure on a shadow value, then just rate your film 2/3-stop slower than ISO (this compensates for the difference in metering technique), and then find a developing time that gives you good prints in "normal" lighting at grade 2 or thereabouts. With your condenser enlarger, I'd likely aim for 1.5 so I could get a diffusion light source in the future and not have to struggle with the negatives.

That said, I likely wouldn't even bother spot-metering a shadow value with small film, I'd just use the in-camera meter and add exposure with the exposure compensation dial for contrasty situations where the meter gets tricked into underexposing.

Then I'd just adjust on the fly: if shadow separation was consistently too weak, I'd use a lower E.I. I'd refine development time to get "normal" subject-brightness-range negatives to print well at an intermediate grade while still leaving enough room for the extremes at the ends of the paper contrast scale. (I hope that's clear.)

If you really want to rely on the ZS, remember that you can always adjust E.I. and development time later based on your actual results. Good notes help.

As for development: Developer activity depends on your agitation scheme and temperature (and developer dilution, of course). If your developer is too active and your times are too short, a higher dilution can help.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Good morning, everyone.

I'm trying to improve my knowledge of photographic materials, unfortunately without the use of a densitometer. So, I'm conducting development tests using Foma's Rodinal with FP4+, experimenting with different times and dilutions. I use a condenser enlarger with a warm LED bulb.

I have two main issues:

1. I don't have a densitometer, so I use a Sekonic 308x. I project light from the enlarger at a fixed height onto the light meter's cell (without the dome) and take a reading through the film. The base+fog density readings are around 0.3, and overall, this method seems to give me reasonable readings.
2. After checking thermometers, lenses, shutters, etc., I still notice that my developments tend to be quite energetic. When developing for times between 5 and 8 minutes at a 1:75 dilution, with an EI of 64 or 80, I still find that the Zone VIII densities are unprintable at the exposure time required to achieve black. Depending on the method, the densities I get range from 1.02 to 1.26 above base+fog. I use Fomabrom Variant 111 paper and Ilford contrast filters. Zone I gives me densities around 0.06 - 0.09 depending on the EI, and Zone II is visibly lighter than black.

I create the exposures using two adjustable LED lights with "daylight" color temperature, pointed at a wall, and determine exposure values for different zones by adjusting shutter speed and aperture. My spot meter is a Gossen, which I have verified and provides correct readings.

Now, my question is: Is it possible that, at grade 2, I need to lower the densities this much to get a visible Zone VIII?

What is it you are trying to do?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Good morning, everyone.

I'm trying to improve my knowledge of photographic materials, unfortunately without the use of a densitometer. So, I'm conducting development tests using Foma's Rodinal with FP4+, experimenting with different times and dilutions. I use a condenser enlarger with a warm LED bulb.

I have two main issues:

1. I don't have a densitometer, so I use a Sekonic 308x. I project light from the enlarger at a fixed height onto the light meter's cell (without the dome) and take a reading through the film. The base+fog density readings are around 0.3, and overall, this method seems to give me reasonable readings.
2. After checking thermometers, lenses, shutters, etc., I still notice that my developments tend to be quite energetic. When developing for times between 5 and 8 minutes at a 1:75 dilution, with an EI of 64 or 80, I still find that the Zone VIII densities are unprintable at the exposure time required to achieve black. Depending on the method, the densities I get range from 1.02 to 1.26 above base+fog. I use Fomabrom Variant 111 paper and Ilford contrast filters. Zone I gives me densities around 0.06 - 0.09 depending on the EI, and Zone II is visibly lighter than black.

I create the exposures using two adjustable LED lights with "daylight" color temperature, pointed at a wall, and determine exposure values for different zones by adjusting shutter speed and aperture. My spot meter is a Gossen, which I have verified and provides correct readings.

Now, my question is: Is it possible that, at grade 2, I need to lower the densities this much to get a visible Zone VIII?

FWIW, your densities seem quite reasonable. I use the attached chart as my standard.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ciao Axettone!

A couple of things more from me, if you don't mind.

Here's the Zone System as envisioned by Ansel Adams and as I use it (thanks to Wikipedia):

Zone	Description
0	Pure black - no detail
I	Near black, with slight tonality but no texture
II	Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded
III	Average dark materials and low values showing adequate texture
IV	Average dark foliage, dark stone, or landscape shadows
V	Middle gray: clear north sky; dark skin, average weathered wood
VI	Average Caucasian skin; light stone; shadows on snow in sunlit landscapes
VII	Very light skin; shadows in snow with acute side lighting
VIII	Lightest tone with texture: textured snow
IX	Slight tone without texture; glaring snow
X	Pure white: light sources and specular reflections - paper white, no detail

​

So, when doing the max-black test, you should look for a slight separation (the very slightest, but in lighting that approximates good print viewing lighting) between FB+fog and Zone I density. I'd still try printing for Zone VIII and see if that didn't solve your problems.

All of your evaluations should be done after the print has dried. Get a hair dryer out to speed things up if you need, but drydown is real and makes a big difference in the highlights.

As you see from the Zone descriptions above, Zone VIII was originally envisioned as the last Zone with texture.

Now for the spoiler:

If I were using 35mm film, I wouldn't bother with the Zone System at all. If you really want to base your exposure on a shadow value, then just rate your film 2/3-stop slower than ISO (this compensates for the difference in metering technique), and then find a developing time that gives you good prints in "normal" lighting at grade 2 or thereabouts. With your condenser enlarger, I'd likely aim for 1.5 so I could get a diffusion light source in the future and not have to struggle with the negatives.

That said, I likely wouldn't even bother spot-metering a shadow value with small film, I'd just use the in-camera meter and add exposure with the exposure compensation dial for contrasty situations where the meter gets tricked into underexposing.

Then I'd just adjust on the fly: if shadow separation was consistently too weak, I'd use a lower E.I. I'd refine development time to get "normal" subject-brightness-range negatives to print well at an intermediate grade while still leaving enough room for the extremes at the ends of the paper contrast scale. (I hope that's clear.)

If you really want to rely on the ZS, remember that you can always adjust E.I. and development time later based on your actual results. Good notes help.

As for development: Developer activity depends on your agitation scheme and temperature (and developer dilution, of course). If your developer is too active and your times are too short, a higher dilution can help.

Best,

Doremus

good practical advice!

 

[xkaes]

Get a copy of Richard Henry's "Controls in Black & White Photography". He explains how to make your own tests to meet your own needs with your own equipment. If you ask a dozen photographers the "best" way to do it, you'll end up with 20 approaches -- at least.

 

[axettone]

I think I spotted the cause of one of the two problems: my negative readings are affected by Callier effect. This has an increasing impact on negatives more dense than 0.6 - 0.7 and almost no effects on the thinner ones. By diffusing the light, it looks like the highest densities decrease by a little. So there's no overdevelopment. The other issue, the zone-VIII missing tone on the print is probably due to the hard problem of spotting the maximum-black priting time as many people suggested. I'll try again.

 

[bernard_L]

I think I spotted the cause of one of the two problems: my negative readings are affected by Callier effect.

Congratulations ! You found all by yourself the solution of your problem.

 

[axettone]

Congratulations ! You found all by yourself the solution of your problem.

Yeah, film photography is both a source of big frustrations and satisfactions. I still have to do my tests, but I also found the solution for Zone VIII. I carefully read the Fomabrom Variant 111 datasheet and it states that grade 2 filtration has an ISO-R of 90, which is slightly lower than Ilford's; without filtration (the "special" grade) ISO-R is 100, which should be better-suited for my type of enlarger. I look forward to write here my results.