ZS question about reducing development

I've read St. Ansels book The Negative. I am not sure if I understand everything, hence my question:
If the contrast range exceeds 5 stops, then compress the tones by the reducing the development and add some exposure to add for the consequent loss in the shadows.
However, if I study the characteristic curve of a modern film, the film is able to record easily more than 7 to 8 stops contrast range, so why considering a reduced development ?

Thanks for any insights.

So that your negative "fits" the paper on which you plan to print. You take into account your paper developer, the paper curve, and other printing variables when you choose which film density range fits the paper.

Lee

Marc Leest said:

I've read St. Ansels book The Negative. I am not sure if I understand everything, hence my question:
If the contrast range exceeds 5 stops, then compress the tones by the reducing the development and add some exposure to add for the consequent loss in the shadows.
However, if I study the characteristic curve of a modern film, the film is able to record easily more than 7 to 8 stops contrast range, so why considering a reduced development ?

Thanks for any insights.

Click to expand...

THAT is the question of the day. Besides fitting the SCALE ( or entire brightness range of the image: from black to white ) there is the primary requirement of sufficient fidelity between significant visual elements, and that is usually called LOCAL CONTRAST.

Most importantly, and this is what Ansel taught everyday, the function of the ZS was to make a picture that compelled the Viewer to experience what Ansel experienced when he was motivated to make the picture.

The ZS was never intended as a mere technical exercise, but as the transformational creative tool. I cite as a source his life, his work, innumerable lectures, conversations and books. If you have any doubts, re-read the Introduction to The Negative.

The primary function of the negative was therefore to establish tonal relationship of the picture elements, departing from the objective realities of the subject in order to produce an Image faithful to his visualisation.

He considered each step in the process, as well as he could, before pushing the button.

Today, we have a remarkable assortment of materials; at the same time we have lost much of Adam's perspective.

To make an image of a scene where the subject needs to retain its shadow detail and midtone contrast, while lowering the value of the bright areas to become glowy whites instead of running off the top on the scale, we conventionally reduce the development of the negative. This lowers the midtone contrast, and even with extra exposure the distinct shadows must be printed on a higher grade paper, resulting in the need to burn and dodge the image.

As you suggest, using a long scale film such as FP4 or TMY, whose straight line creates a density in direct proportion to the brightness of the subject, is a possibility. Many workers choose today, instead of giving N- development, to simply let the highlights fall on the film and then compress them in the printing process by using a soft paper developer, two bath developer, a water bath, or variable paper grades, factorial paper development, or a combination of techniques.

The results are simple, predictable, and generally easier. And because one can test and KNOW what effects are possible, it is possible to Visualize these controls prior to exposure.

It is therefore completely viable to shoot for years and use Normal development, and follow Ansel's outline of the Zone System.

A contextual note: in Ansel's day it was typical to develop film to a gamma of .8 as normal. His notions of a good negative were radical, although he was simply incorporating what he learned about a good negative from Weston, Strand, and Stieglitz. Today, we think a negative that rises .15 density units for each unit of exposure is common. In the '30s and '40s, a 1 to 1 relationship was considered ideal ( a gamma of 1 ! ).

I somehow think Ansel would have looked at the curve TMY produces with Xtol and licked his chops:

http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/xtol-tm400.gif

In short, for many of us, most of the time, we need no more than a couple filters and normal development, with a suitable film and developer combination, to fulfil Ansel's criteria for the Zone System.



.

Lee is right, but let me clarify what I think he means by 'other printing variables': a metered scene may exceed the range of your paper, but you can always burn in the hightlights, depending on how much grain you want to deal with - the more highlight burning, generally speaking you increase the grain.

If you reduce development, you'll reduce both the overall and local contrast, which implies that you may have to print at a higher grade to maintain the appearance of the original scene's contrast. So you'll probably end up burning in the hightlights anyways. However, by reducing development you'll make it easier to get the detail onto the paper.

You can also burn in highlights at a softer grade, letting you get the detail down onto the paper. There are lots of things you can do in the printing stage to get what you originally 'saw' down onto paper.

In other words, think about the final result when you determine film, exposure, development, and yes, the paper.

Hope that makes sense (it's still early )

One other point, implied in what's been posted so far, is that Adams didn't see a "straight", unmanipulated print from the negative as the final product. The negative is only a "score" and the final print is a "performance", an interpretation of what you have in the negative, with nuances (or perhaps heroic efforts) at the printing stage that make it work. The point of working to make the negative appropriate to the expected printing method is to make it easier at the printing phase to produce a final print that matches your intentions when you pressed the shutter release.

Lee

This confirms my actual practice: a normal developed (N) negative reveals highlight detail available in the negative, but i do not manage to get it right in the printing stage: local burning-in and even pre-flashing the paper does not give the desired result.

Come to the church of Rodinal. You can check in but you'll never check out.

Marc Leest said:

This confirms my actual practice: a normal developed (N) negative reveals highlight detail available in the negative, but i do not manage to get it right in the printing stage: local burning-in and even pre-flashing the paper does not give the desired result.

Click to expand...

What I am about to say is based in my personal experience backed in a lot of years as a Zone System practitioner and having used all types of light sources in my darkroom making prints and not simply parroting what someone else said in the past.

Both burning and preflashing have the effect of compressing highlight tonal scale. While you may preserve the local contrast in the mid tones...that is about all that you preserve. Reduced development will compress highlight tonal scale too but it will proportionally compress the midtone scale more yet.

Nothing that Adams said indicated a method of dealing with this.

The only method that will allow the negative density range to be represented on paper is to first and foremost determine the exposure scale of your paper. From that you can develop your camera negative to match the scale of the materials and not some arbitrary value that Adams published.

Even though Adams was a man who capitalized on his work and that of others, he failed to adequately address the entire reality in the way that is possible to address it today.

The one way of retaining midtone and highlight tonal value separation (local contrast), when the negative density range exceeds the paper's exposure scale, is to get rid of the cold light head, print on a condenser enlarger, and mask the negative.

avandesande said:

Come to the church of Rodinal. You can check in but you'll never check out.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean
But the negative i was speaking about was a Tri-X 320 @ 320 in id11 1:1
Rodinal is a favorite developer (usually APX100 or Neopan 400 in R 1:50)


M.

Marc, all of the above, and a close look at Donald's writing. If you assume a negative to have an increase in contrast of 1 zone (for example from zone 7 to 8) with added development, you may be correct, but this is not very useful in the print. The problem is that a negative can "see" more contrast than the paper. Paper is very "flat" in what it sees, about 5 stops as we think of light in a scene. So, now we are trying to put 8 stops of light on a 5 stop paper, oops! It won't fit will it?

This is an over-simplification, but it will serve as an example. Lets say you have a "normal" scene which worked well, printed well and looks just right to you. You are going to do a similar scene, but the meter tells you that it is about a stop more in contrast than the last one which worked. Ok, no problem, just give one stop less development, right? WRONG! If the original scene was 8 stops and the paper sees 5 stops, you have a relationship of 8:5 or 8/5 or actually something like 1.6 times as much light as you thought, time to burn down those highlights! Your development would be n-1.6, not n-1. This is where the zone system starts to become more difficult. Ansel understood this, but his number system didn't relate these numbers very well.

There is another system used which accounts for this difference. It uses sbr (scene brightness numbers or ranges) to deal with the relationship. Aside from the mumbo-jombo of numerical confusion, it directly relates the paper's scale to the film's development scale. There is no n- and n+ used, until the actual relationship of values is taken into consideration. I use it as zone 3 and zone 7 being full texture in a print with normal development. If I want zone 8, I add a stop of development to the paper's scale, not the film's scale. This is what the great debate is which rages among and between the differing schools of photography and light.

Since the print is what we want, why develop the film as if there were no paper in the mix? We develop film to print it, not to view negatives, so we have to look at film development as a function of the paper's scale. This is why development numbers for one paper, type of process or printing type don't always work for another.

Marc, Try metering like this. Take the range of light and then add 5 to it (meter reads from ev 10 to ev 14, or 4) so you have a value of "9" as your development time. Develop the film for this number to get zone 3 and zone 7. When you have a scene with a range of "10" you now need to have a new development time to match zone 3 and 7. Do the same for any value the film "sees" and you will have matched the film to he paper, not to itself. Hope this makes sense. It will take a bit of trial and error without a densitometer, but this is closer to a zone system which works each and every time. tim

Try compensating development with pmk, rodinal, or pyrocat hd (there are many others). This will reign in the highlights without glumping all your tonal values together like n-1.

It is debatable if you really need to use the zone system beyond a general understanding of where values are going to end up in the print.

Marc Leest said:

I am not sure what you mean
But the negative i was speaking about was a Tri-X 320 @ 320 in id11 1:1
Rodinal is a favorite developer (usually APX100 or Neopan 400 in R 1:50)


M.

Click to expand...

For Donald Miller,

In your post above you allude to "some arbitrary value that Adams published".

I don't understand this statement. Could you elaborate or reference in Adam's writings what you mean.

Allen Friday said:

For Donald Miller,

In your post above you allude to "some arbitrary value that Adams published".

I don't understand this statement. Could you elaborate or reference in Adam's writings what you mean.

Click to expand...

Allen,

Ansel Adams published 1.25-1.35 Zone VIII density as optimum for diffusion enlargers and 1.15-1.25 Zone VIII density as optimum for condenser enlargers. According to his dissertation on this in "The Negative" this was based on his results printing. I don't see anywhere where he took the time to evaluate the exposure scale of any paper using densitometric testing of the material. Therefore I say that the values he assigned were an arbitrary value. Today I hear a lot of people who seem to want to emulate Ansel Adams and they continue to quote these values

I have taken the time to test present day papers and it is from this evaluation that I have determined that the values that Ansel published are not valid today...I am not sure that they were ever optimum. Since I don't have old papers, other then Azo, it is impossible for me to determine his accuracy today.

Donald Miller said:

According to his dissertation on this in "The Negative" this was based on his results printing. I don't see anywhere where he took the time to evaluate the exposure scale of any paper using densitometric testing of the material. Therefore I say that the values he assigned were an arbitrary value.

Click to expand...

I think that you are supposed to understand that when he says that the values are based on this results from printing, that WAS his evaluation of the exposure scale of his printing paper, and not some arbitrary assignment.

Kirk Keyes said:

I think that you are supposed to understand that when he says that the values are based on this results from printing, that WAS his evaluation of the exposure scale of his printing paper, and not some arbitrary assignment.

Click to expand...

I understand that.

I assume that with your background that we can agree that subjective evaluations are worth just about the value that someone assigns to them. There is nothing objective about Ansel Adams statements that would substantiate his assertions. For instance I would be more inclined to believe a reflective densitometric evaluation that shows the paper requires that density range in a negative.

That is one of the reasons why I take his statements on the matter of density as arbitrary. Especially when my tests of current materials indicate that they are not valid.

I don't want to get into a pissing match over the validity of the Zone System, Ansel Adams or any of the other assorted and sundry stuff that contentious people can find to argue about. My original post was to inform the original poster of the consequences of certain courses of action. Nothing more, nothing less.

" I think that you are supposed to understand that when he says that the values are based on this results from printing, that WAS his evaluation of the exposure scale of his printing paper, and not some arbitrary assignment." Kirk

I think this is a pretty fair statement of Adam's working system and numbers, and it is a correct statement based on his qualification of a specific paper as the print medium. I think that is the point Donald is making here. Not that Adams was necessarily wrong in any way, but that there is another step involved in this whole process which may not have been addressed in the overall system's approach. There is certainly a lot of leeway in the development of paper and film, on that we can agree.

The basic problem I can see in this whole process is the concept of the "normal" scene and how it relates to the paper's scale. If you meter any scene, there is a "normal" range of light which it may or may not fall into. Here in the southwest, where skies are blue and clouds are the exception, it is about 4 2/3 stops of light from shadow values placed at zone 3 and highlights at zone 7. This does not hold up in coastal areas where haze is the rule, or some areas where fog is the norm in morning light, so how can we agree on what a "normal" light scenario actually is? Is it 3 stops, 4 stops or 5 stops?

Since light varies so drastically in many parts of the world, we would have a difficult time finding agreement on a "normal" development time for a "normal" scene and contrast range. Add to this mix differing films, papers and developers (let's leave out rotary processing or stand development) and you have a rather large can of worms. To me this is the crux of the great debate about metering and development systems. We must first understand what a "normal" scene is, a "normal" development time is, and then define a "normal" print in terms of contrast. This is where some of us can get bogged down in our understanding of light, contrast and printing. What happens when one's only paper is discontinued? Are all bets off, or do we just change our paper and developmnet times accordingly and move on?

Personally, I've found the SBR numbers to be more flexible in their use than the concept of a "normal" scene in the zone system. Trying to relate everything to a "normal" concept is confusing at times, because light is not normal and scene brightness can change so much in a few minutes that "normal" has no meaning. tim

I have tried to duck this conversation in the past but... I will state that I am a Zone System user. It was the system I learned and have never felt the need to move off the dime in that regard. Some questions come to mind that I don't think have been addressed yet and they are: Wasn't Adams writings about the Zone System from the 1940's or so? Haven't the materials changed since then? There was no multi-contrast papers available then and if I am wrong I am sure someone will point out that fact.

Everyone I knew in the middle 60's used graded papers and when the first multi-contrast papers came out and the ones I tried to use were horrible. My thinking is that when Adams wrote what he wrote wrt densities in films and papers the info was valid to his time and the papers available to him. Since I have previously stated that I do use those guide lines as a starting spot, I am a happy camper if I do a zone VIII test the densitometer tells me my density is 1.30 >fb+f. Will it print on paper as a very light tonality? I don't know at that point and I am not sure Adams would have known either. Fred Picker (a follower to Adams Zone System techniques) wrote in his procedures to take that zone VIII negative to the enlarger and make a print of that tone and SEE if it fits the paper using a tested standard time. If it does not fit, adjust the time in developer or in the enlarger. Again graded paper and not multi-contrast as near as I can recall. Remember that the zones Adams talked about are not fixed points. That can mean that they can be different values within the Zone. The idea can be carried to the speed point. .10>fb+f only relates to a Normal 5 stop scene (Zone III to Zone VII) After that the speed point slips up or down the scale wrt what kind of exposure is given with what amount of developing time.

Now after saying all that, I can make a case that using Pyrocat HD and a the multi-contrast paper available to us now days, one may not need to use all those controls on exposure and film development. Using split grade printing techniques also helps get us to the proper look on the print. Also, remember that these procedures are just to get you into "the ball park" and get all information on the film that the photographer wants when s/he makes the exposure. The work does not stop at the film development stage it has to be carried on to the printing stage. Also, remember that this is a VISUAL medium. We look at tones on paper that can represent visual ideas not density readings.

For my way of thinking the Zone System or BTZS will work and it is up to the individual to carry out the craft part so that the artistic part can be realized.

lee\c

Both systems work and it is not an either/or situation. In determining exposures in the field I may use either the Zone system with reflected readings or the SBR method with an incident meter. Some circumstances favor one or the other of these two systems.

On the other hand, BTZS is clearly the easiest and most precise method of film testing, and the data derived from it can be used for either Zone reflective metering or BTZS incident metering as the situation may dictate.

Sandy

lee said:

For my way of thinking the Zone System or BTZS will work and it is up to the individual to carry out the craft part so that the artistic part can be realized.

lee\c

Click to expand...

I think Sandy hit the nail on the head above when he stated, “Some circumstances favor one or the other of these two systems.” Both the Zone System (ZS) and BTZS are systems comprised of two parts: (1) Testing Procedures, (2) Metering System-which aids the photographer’s visualization. They are both designed to allow the photographer a way to produce negatives which print well on the photographer’s chosen paper.

I disagree with Donald in his characterization that Adam’s created a standard which must be met to produce such a negative. I pulled “The Negative” off my book shelf and found the page to which Donald refers. On Page 220 Adams lists 1.25 to 1.35 as his Normal Development value for a diffusion enlarger. The last paragraph of the page is illuminating:

“I must stress that the density values are approximate and relate to materials available at this writing. You may have to establish somewhat different standards if you find these do not suit your working method. What is important, however, is determining the appropriate range of densities on the negative so that your normal negative can be expected to print satisfactorily on your standard paper in most instances.” Adams, “The Negative”, p. 220.

It seems clear to me Adams is simply listing the density values that worked for him to match the negative of his day to the paper of his day. This is far from a universal standard. He clearly states that this applies only to “materials available at the time of this writing.” Also, the values expressed apply only to the grade 2 silver paper he was using at the time. Obviously, if you were printing on Azo in 1945 (a grade 0 paper by objective testing) you would need a much different negative than the one described above.

The wonderful thing about the ZS, however, is that by doing the testing on different papers, you could craft a negative to fit that paper. The ZS applies to grade 2 silver, Azo and platinum all of which have different exposure scales.

Today, we also have BTZS. This system developed by Phil Davis is wonderful. It does what the ZS does regarding testing in a few easy steps, and it is more objective as it does not rely on visual assessment. It has its downside, however. It requires access to a densitometer. Adams fully understood densitometry and he used it. Hence the published density figures in his book. He discusses densitometry on pages 84 to 97. He developed the ZS to be a practical expression of the principals of densitometry. In other words, he developed the ZS so that photographers who did not have access to a densitometer could test their films and papers and approximate the results they would have obtained using a densitometer.

Today densitometer are much less expensive and more readily available to the average GWP--Guy/Gal With Camera. But, they are still expensive. If one does not want to buy one, the photographer can still get good, repeatable results using the ZS. If you can afford one, then BTZS is a much easier way to test. Neither system is inherently better than the other. It depends on the circumstances of the photographer.

I also disagree with Donald when he says the ZS in not concerned with the exposure scale of the paper. He is correct in that the ZS never makes an independent determination of the exposure scale of the paper. You never put a step tablet down on the paper and measure it to come up with a number. But, a given ZS test is valid only for the paper you are testing. The maximum black test only works for that paper. The zone V print test only works on that paper. The determination of how zone VII prints is valid only for that paper. (Although, one can extrapolate the data and apply it to other papers with the same characteristics.) By crafting the negative to fit the paper, you are in fact crafting it to fit the paper’s exposure scale, whether a separate determination of that scale is made or not.

In the past, I have done ZS testing to match negatives to grade 2 silver paper (ES 1.05) and to platinum (ES 1.80). If the tests ignored the difference in these papers, then the tests would not have been possible.

Today, I do all of my testing using BTZS. I find it much simpler and quicker than the ZS testing. For me, it made sense to get a densitometer. If my circumstances were different and I could not afford one, I would use the ZS.

For my metering, I tend to use ZS metering (spot metering) most of the time, but I do use BTZS (incident metering) on occasion. I find that the ZS metering helps me to visualize better than BTZS. Another photographer (Sandy for example) may prefer the BTZS metering. Use what works best for you. One thing I like about the BTZS software is that it will provide zone numbers for you to use.

As Sandy said, both systems have merit. It is not an either/or situation. For those who avoid ZS metering because it is inaccurate or out dated, I leave you with the words of Phil Davis, the man who literally wrote the book on BTZS:

“Although these two systems are based on very different technical concepts, they’re both capable of dealing successfully with SBRs of any reasonable length, and both permit prediction and control of image density and contrast. The Zone System provides more direct comparison between subject luminance values and print tones and facilitates free interpretation, but it also allows the careless or inexperienced photographer to make potentially serious mistakes. The incident System is conceptually simpler and relatively foolproof, but beginners may find it less supportive of visualization and manipulation. In other words, both systems have strengths and weaknesses; you’ll be more competent and versatile photographer if you learn to use each of them for what is does best.” Davis, “Beyond the Zone System,” Fourth Edition, 1999, p. 133.

Allen - good post. It's always nice to go back to the original sources.

I do a mix of each. I'm ZS based when it comes to metering and BTZS for film testing as it gives so much info in just a few tests.

I wrote an article that addressed the seemingly incompatibility between the ZS definition for paper LER and Tone Reproductions. It was supposed to be a companion piece to the flare and film contrast article. PT felt one paper on the subject of flare was enough tech for them. It wasn't published. Now, I can't even find it on my computer. I hope it's archived some where.

Basically, factoring in flare seems to solve the discrepancy. I had graphs and everything. I've actually found flare to be the cause of most of the misunderstandings and / or confusion with tone reproduction.

Allen,

I'd like to make just a few comments. Donald isn't all that off about is conclusion with the neg DR suggested by Adams. No it wasn't arbitrary, but it might as well be based on what Adams wrote in The Print. He rejected using "numbers" with printing. I found this strange. Without having a at least the relationship between the negative and the print, the negative density values will exist in a vacuum where they might as well be arbitrary.

Based on many misconceptions and inaccuracies in Adams writings I have to conclude he really didn't have a full grasp of sensitometry or more precisely tone reproduction. What I do find interesting is while his conclusions or interpretations of the conditions are wrong, the results tend to work. Consider the aim 1.25 density range as Normal. When you plug it into the gradient formula along with the 7 stop zones, you get 1.25/2.1 = 0.595 which is damn close to Kodak's normal of 0.58. Now, it you consider that the statistically average scene is 7 1/3 stops, the gradient becomes 0.57. So, even though his idea of a LER 1.25 doesn't correspond to tone reproductions 1.05, it still works. Why? 2.1 or 2.2 are the scene averages for a normal scene, but tone reproduction factors in flare which reduces the SLR from 2.2 down to approx. 1.86 or with the revised flare value, down to 1.80. So 1.05 / 2.2 -.40 equals 1.05 / 1.80 = 0.58. Both get you to the same point, but only one actually explains it correctly.

The idea that Adams was correct at the time and it's the papers that have changed misses the fact that tone reproduction existed at that time. The basic aim values of subject luminance range, flare, and paper LER have remained rather constant. Sandy's interesting exchange about old AZO papers in another post, I think, supports the idea of the consistency of paper contrast over the years.

Stephen Benskin said:

Now, I can't even find it on my computer. I hope it's archived some where.

Click to expand...

Steve - did you send me a copy of that one? If so, I'm sure I've got it in my email. Do you remember the title?

Kirk

Hey Kirk,

It was something like "Print Contrast: Flare, Zone System, and Sensitometry."

Steve

I'll try to look for it tonight or tomorrow.

Later

Kirk