zone processing

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

bowzart
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 10:14 am
Location: Anacortes, WA

Post by bowzart »

What you say, Jon, is very thoughtful, and for me quite a useful and practical point of view. My differences with your statement would be only in some very fine points of understanding. I'd like to express that here just in case someone can use it.

I tend to look at the negative as something that can't even be perfect. Perfection is really not an idea that is very useful to me. I try to use the understanding that I have acquired over a long life in photographic practice to produce a negative that will give me the greatest flexibility in choices down the road, which provides me the best foundation for making a print. If there could be a perfect negative for me, it would be the one that gives me the greatest range of choices in subsequent work. What I really don't want is to be confined by the negative to a single hard-won interpretation. Negatives that have problems do that for us; we must work too hard to achieve something that isn't obviously wrong. A negative like that imposes a sort of a straight jacket on our capacity to create. It limits us.

I have just signed on to this site in the past few days, and I appreciate very much the free and open discussion that it provides between individuals who share common interests at all levels of skill and knowledge. Like my ideal negative, it allows one to move around in various ideas, learning some here, some there, and assembling the parts into one's own integrated whole. For something like this to work, it is very important that every individual in the group approach the community with patience, understanding, and an open mind.

In the past, I've known people who were so rigidly committed to the zone system, for one of several examples I can think of, that they lost any ability to respect the rights of others to think in ways that differed from their own. Of this, and I'm speaking here both in and out of photography, I cannot hold myself entirely blameless. Dogma, in any area of life, confines us in rigid modes of thought, sets up lines of division, and breaks down communication. I have seen discussion groups online go down in flames over doctrinaire issues, notably in photography but also in other fields. When this happens, everyone loses. It is not only your responsibility as an administrator to keep order here; it is the responsibility of each of us who participate to do our part.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, photography doesn't make a very good religion.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Post by Pim »

Thank you Bowzart, for these thoughtfull words.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Ornello
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

bowzart wrote:What you say, Jon, is very thoughtful, and for me quite a useful and practical point of view. My differences with your statement would be only in some very fine points of understanding. I'd like to express that here just in case someone can use it.

I tend to look at the negative as something that can't even be perfect. Perfection is really not an idea that is very useful to me. I try to use the understanding that I have acquired over a long life in photographic practice to produce a negative that will give me the greatest flexibility in choices down the road, which provides me the best foundation for making a print. If there could be a perfect negative for me, it would be the one that gives me the greatest range of choices in subsequent work. What I really don't want is to be confined by the negative to a single hard-won interpretation. Negatives that have problems do that for us; we must work too hard to achieve something that isn't obviously wrong. A negative like that imposes a sort of a straight jacket on our capacity to create. It limits us.

I have just signed on to this site in the past few days, and I appreciate very much the free and open discussion that it provides between individuals who share common interests at all levels of skill and knowledge. Like my ideal negative, it allows one to move around in various ideas, learning some here, some there, and assembling the parts into one's own integrated whole. For something like this to work, it is very important that every individual in the group approach the community with patience, understanding, and an open mind.

In the past, I've known people who were so rigidly committed to the zone system, for one of several examples I can think of, that they lost any ability to respect the rights of others to think in ways that differed from their own. Of this, and I'm speaking here both in and out of photography, I cannot hold myself entirely blameless. Dogma, in any area of life, confines us in rigid modes of thought, sets up lines of division, and breaks down communication. I have seen discussion groups online go down in flames over doctrinaire issues, notably in photography but also in other fields. When this happens, everyone loses. It is not only your responsibility as an administrator to keep order here; it is the responsibility of each of us who participate to do our part.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, photography doesn't make a very good religion.
With roll film the best approach is to make a fairly soft negative that can allows itself to be printed in various ways. This involves cutting the ISO speed by about 2/3 stop and decreasing development by about 1/3 from typical recommendations. With such a negative you will have optimum sharpness and the potential for superb tonality. All negatives should be developed the same all the time, and adjustments made in printing contrast. I do very little adjustment of contrast.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Post by Pim »

and again your quite dogmatic.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Ornello
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Pim wrote:and again your quite dogmatic.
To whom are you addressing this remark?

If it's to me you are quite wrong. 'Dogma' is not based on empirical tests. What I wrote is. If you experiment you will find the optimum negative is made the way I said. Increasing exposure slightly and decreasing development reduces the average grain size without reducing average density, though density in the shadows is higher and density n the highlights is lower. If you understand how film works you will appreciate how this technique improves the technical quality of your negatives.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Post by Pim »

What I mean is that your optimum negative is a dogma. I do like t-max 400 @ 800, you will say that's crap and that the effect of the increased contrast is not pleasing to the eye and that you hate the characteristic curve of t-max. Maybe the density is not perfect to some deffinitions and your empirical knowledge, but my print looks the way I want it to look and I like the way it prints split grade, based on my empirical knowledge. Now I will never say to anybody their way of developing or printing is wrong and only my way is good. Everybody is free to do as they want to and say what they want to, just like you are free to say the zs is crap, every time somebody has a question about it.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

Jim Appleyard
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:33 pm

Post by Jim Appleyard »

Ask him about the ZS with Rodinal. That should put some cricket in his crotch.

Ornello
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Post by Ornello »

Pim wrote:What I mean is that your optimum negative is a dogma. I do like t-max 400 @ 800, you will say that's crap and that the effect of the increased contrast is not pleasing to the eye and that you hate the characteristic curve of t-max. Maybe the density is not perfect to some deffinitions and your empirical knowledge, but my print looks the way I want it to look and I like the way it prints split grade, based on my empirical knowledge. Now I will never say to anybody their way of developing or printing is wrong and only my way is good. Everybody is free to do as they want to and say what they want to, just like you are free to say the zs is crap, every time somebody has a question about it.
No. the notion of an "optimum negative" is no dogma; it's a very concrete thing. Maybe you like spending hours trying to salvage something from a bad negative. I don't. I know what exposure and development will produce a good negative almost very time. By 'optimum' I mean in terms of sharpness and freedom from excessive graininess. Optimizing exposure and development with a new film and developer combo is not difficult, but it is kind of time-consuming. With small negatives (35mm), though, it is essential. It is a process, not a 'thing'. It is the process that brings out the best combination of sharpness and fine grain, and I can tell you exactly how to achieve this. A given degree of exposure and development is better than others, that's all I mean.

If you have empty shadows and burned-out highlights you cannot do anything with the negative. If the negative is soft and has nice shadow detail you can do anything you want with it.
Last edited by Ornello on Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

Pim
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 4:59 pm
Location: Alkmaar

Post by Pim »

Yes you're right.
Don't let your soul get digitalized, it just won't work!!

foolscape
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:01 am
Location: Fairview, Oregon
Contact:

Post by foolscape »

An addition to a previos comment: I had devloped Arista.edu.ultra 100 in HC110 for 9 minutes, and got good negatives. Only once. After that, I got horribly overdeveloped negs. I had apparently misread the chart on developing times for this film. I was lucky that first time because I has likely underexposed the negatives, or mixed up my FP4 and Foma film holders. The actual time is 3.5 minutes in dilution B, which would be horrible for Zone System controls. I've seen dilution H be taken down to 5 minutes with a very printable negative. The thread is on largeformatphotography.info.

For the Zone System argument:
There's the old adage: expose for shadows, print for highlights. I would add one more: develop for both. That's the zone system.

I like a higher contrast negative, as opposed to a softer negative. I like my blacks to be charcoal, and my whites to be brillient. I also like all of the tones in between. The zone system is one tool in the kit out of many. I find that when I'm out shooting, I don't always have the time to write the kind of notes that it requires. Here in Oregon, the light changes quickly and often.

I have a Pentax 1 deg spot meter, with the Zone System upgrade. For roll film, I find the darkest spot and the lightest spot, and place Zone 5 in the middle. Every frame has the potential to be printable. For LF, I adjust development times for contrast on occasion. Adjusting development times like this can alter high or low contrast scenes to make them more pleasing.

Benet Pols
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:01 pm

wow

Post by Benet Pols »

Holy cow. A simple question quickly answered by a couple of folks suggesting a different dilution of the developer, but it ignites a firestorm with overtones of religious zealotry. Kind of cool.

Here's what I've found: the zone system is a useful tool and it does work, but like any tool it has a couple of niche uses. There are plenty of times when it is still ok to follow what your meter tells you and then follow what the massive development chart says.

But that's the beauty of the whole black and white darkroom isn't it. If it was all straight up formulas we might as well let our souls get digitized.

bowzart
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 10:14 am
Location: Anacortes, WA

Re: wow

Post by bowzart »

Benet Pols wrote:Holy cow. A simple question quickly answered by a couple of folks suggesting a different dilution of the developer, but it ignites a firestorm with overtones of religious zealotry. Kind of cool.
Photography lacks something as a religion. It always amazes me.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

religion and photography

Post by pirateoversixty »

Just as there are many tools in photography, there are probably more religions; pick the one that floats your boat.

Jim

Post Reply