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.
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.
.