Jump to content

Zone system with digital workflow?


kaiyen

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I've been slowling becoming a Zone System disciple over the last few

months. I'm curious as to whether it's possible to do Zone System

testing of films, determining film speeds and normal development

times with a digital workflow of scanning negs. I have no access to

an enlarger. My filmscanner (Nikon IV with Vuescan) seems to

compensate enough when scanning that it's hard to tell the

difference in exposure and density between test frames.

 

Is there a way for me to do this without having to do wet prints?

 

thanks,

allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exactly. If you get a step wedge, and scan it with standard Analog Gain, and the shadow and highlight exposures set at 0 and 255 (the ends), you will have a reasonable mapping between density and RGB values.

 

But you will not have as large a density range as a real densitometer. You will rapidly discover that the Dmax of 4.2 for the CoolScan IV is marketing exaggeration.

 

I suppose you could run the Analog Gain all the way up, and make another scan of the dense part of the step wedge, and get more range to play with.

 

At any rate, if the settings on the scanner are manual, and the same when scanning the negative as they were when you scanned the step wedge, you have a rough densitometer.

 

If ViewScan won't go fully manual, you may have to use Nikon Scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>Is there a way for me to do this without having to do wet prints? </i>

<p>

Yes, there is. You need a way to measure the density of the negatives, however. Clearly the easy way is to use a densitometer. If you can't find that, you might be able to use a calibrated step wedge and a light table. But trying to match by eye is difficult at best, and isn't going to be terribly accurate.

<p>

Basically, what you have to do is just what the books tell you. First, you establish your film speed. That is, you find the exposure index (EI) that gives you a density of .1 over film base + fog. To the eye, this is a density that you can just see compared to the clear edge of the film.

<p>

Then, you establish a normal development time. This time will give you a zone VIII density of around 1.2 or so. This is a density that you should be able to literally read a newspaper through. This level of density is just about right for printing conventionally. It just so happens that it works really well for scanning too. It maximizes sharpness while minimizing grain, which is valuable to both techniques.

<p>

If you can establish these two "end points," you are golden, IMHO.

<p>

If you were doing conventional printing, you would certainly need to worry about N- and N+ development, because you have to do a good job of matching the dynamic range of the negative to the dynamic range of the photo paper. One of the joys of scanning is that you don't really have to worry about N- and N+ development, because the dynamic range of the negative is almost always less than the dynamic range of the scanner. If you want to shoot positive film, check to make sure that your scanner can handle the increased dynamic range of the transparencies you make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Tim O'Brien , jan 13, 2004; 02:15 a.m.

Don'tcha think this might be a better place to ask such an irrelevant question? "http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1701"

 

>We do real processing here in this forum, not 'digital workflow', whatever the hell that is.

 

Ohh, big man. Try not to look like such an ass when you can't comprehend what other people are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool it, guys. I specifically set up a category for questions about scanning b&w negatives last year to accomodate questions like this. I scan my 35mm b&w negs, tho' not with the goal of working toward finished prints. I simply use the method in place of contact sheets to make it easier to evaluate negs before printing.

 

Don't worry - I don't believe the b&w forums will deteriorate into a mush of quasi-digital photography over this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Allan,

 

Look at your negs under a powerful magnifier. If you have adequate shadow detail, you're OK. If you don't, drop the film speed in 1/3 stop steps until you do -- or drop it a stop, then creep back up in 1/3 stop increments. This of course does not require the Zone System.

 

Next, shoot a subject with a really long tonal range: a bright sunny day with important detail in both the shadows and the highlights. Shoot another, two stops over. Scan both. If the scanner can handle the maximum densities, you're not over-exposing or over-developing either. If it can't on the 'normal' neg, cut dev times until it can. The 'over' neg is merely to get some REALLY high densities -- and even those will probably scan on many scanners. Once again, no need for the Zone System here.

 

After that, the 'N+' and 'N-' developments that are used in wet processing are substantially irrelevant, as they are designed to make sure that all scenes fit on grade 2 graded wet paper -- which is meaningless in a digital context. Tone repro curves are completely different with digital scanning/output and can in any case be altered at will.

 

Put it this way: if you're already getting good prints, the Zone System is unlikely to improve them, and if you're not, I'd look at electronic solutions and hardware solutions (printers & inks) before chemical ones (assuming you're not making gross errors in development).

 

What, incidentally, do you have against XP2? The dye image exhibits no Callier effect, which can have a major influence on scanning.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

First, I guess I should've said this in my first post (though I'm not sure Tim read it anyway) - I posted this here because I felt that this forum, as a whole, would have a much stronger feel for my Zone System questions than the digital darkroom one. My question is really about the Zone System in a different context. I do apologize if I offended anyone. And that I really had a hard time figuring out which category to put it under. Sorry.

 

Anyway - thanks to everyone for the help. I think my biggest problem was that my scanner seemed to be obviating the need for such tight development control (as a few of you have already alluded to), which, in turn, made it hard to figure out those development times. I'm glad that I can still apply many of the concepts, but perhaps in a simplified manner. And, more importantly, the suggestions on actual testing procedures is very helpful (I never really know where to start whenever I deviate from stuff in books).

 

thanks for those that helped. apologies to those that I apparently offended.

allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah - about XP2. I don't have anything against it. At least not definitely. I've tried a few rolls so far, and can't quite seem to get the contrast the way I want, and the weird grainless-ness kinda freaks me out.

 

I've shot it so far at 200, just as others have recommended. Contrast of the negatives still seems low, even after fiddling in Photoshop it just looks different than what I'm used to. I'm not sure if it's just the contrast, the lack of grain, or what. I'm going to try some more this weekend, though.

 

I also have some of the kodak stuff - both 400CN (?) and the Portra stuff. should I rate those down at 200 as well? I'll move that question to a different thread later if warranted. Sorry to go off-topic on my own thread...

allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Jon,

 

I know what digital workflow is. I is a computer engineer. Degreed. A real NERD.

 

And this is still the wrong place for the discussion about scanning and digital workflows.

 

I certainly wasn't aware that digital oriented people don't have a clue about the zone system as has been presented. Perhaps our visitor is right to come to a place where not only are pitchers taken but photography is understood. From start to finish.

 

May the discussion roll on.

 

tim in san jose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**I apologize that I feel compelled to respond. I just feel a little insulted. I will refrain in the future***

 

"I know what digital workflow is. I is a computer engineer. Degreed. A real NERD."

 

then exactly what did you mean when you asked what a digital workflow was? Were you merely caught up in the act of flaming me?

 

 

"And this is still the wrong place for the discussion about scanning and digital workflows. "

 

It wasn't just about scanning and digital workflows. It was about how the Zone System fit in under a specific set of circumstances. I don't get it - why are you so hostile about someone who is interested in doing processing correctly, and being able to apply tools and techniques that you clearly espouse but within a different context? Again, I _do_ "real" processing, too.

 

"I certainly wasn't aware that digital oriented people don't have a clue about the zone system as has been presented."

 

So, in other words, I'm an idiot? Does this thread feel better now that you've implied that about me? So maybe I don't know as much about the zone system as you do - that's why I'm asking questions. Or do you feel it's not appropriate for anyone (digitally-oriented or otherwise) to ask questions about things they don't know?

 

"Perhaps our visitor is right to come to a place where not only are pitchers taken but photography is understood. From start to finish."

 

Perhaps? Perhaps? In what way would it not be right for me to come here to gain some insight, to learn more about how _pictures_ and the art and craft of photography is conducted?

 

And I hope I am merely misinterpreting the haughty use of the word "visitor." I contribute when I can, I pay my subscription fees to support the site. If you are the host, then perhaps I am merely a visitor - one who is going to leave right away at such rude treatment. But I _thought_ this forum was about sharing knowledge. Apologies that it's only "maybe" about learning and sharing things. Let me know when you decide if it is indeed a place for such activity.

 

sheesh.

allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Allan, I wasn't the one who posted in this forum because you didn't think the people in the digital darkroom would have the answers, you were. I never implied that you or anyone else was an idiot. As far as 'not knowing' what a digital workflow is, I do know and I have little interest in anything of that ilk. I do chemical process, I love chemical process, and I like this forum to be about chemical process. And yes I was a bit testy.

 

As I said, let the discussion continue, not the jabs back and forth.

 

tim in san jose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, folks, as I asked before, please cool it and stick to the topic.

 

Once again, I've already decided on accomodating discussions related to scanning b&w negatives because the issues kept coming up anyway and I don't have the ability to simply move them to the Digital Darkroom forum (I can only move threads within the three b&w forums).

 

When necessary I'll encourage folks to limit these discussions to a fairly narrow range or else take the questions to the Digital Darkroom or other appropriate forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would guess that you could if you wanted to but it may serve little purpose. I suppose that you could use more development in flat lighting and less development on sunny high contrast days. You could place skin tones on zone 6 or make decisions on what should be placed on zone 5. You would need to find a away to stop the scanner making any correction so you could see the effect. Is there some kind of full range setting that you could use. I think that many people use parts of the zone system without really thinking about it even Hans, his technique of more exposure and less development is what some zonies might call n-1 development.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is germane-how do I best expose and develop my conventional film

negatives that will be scanned. As far as I can tell, all "mediums"Ñfilm, scanning and

digital camera exposureÑlead to the same conclusion: expose for the shadows and

don't over-"develop." As others have indicated, the same negative that makes for

outstanding traditional printing also suits scanning-minimally exposed shadows, don't

block up the highlights. What digital has introduced to our understanding is the

histogram-i.e. the distribution of tones or densities that is the heart of the Zone

System. There is a reason the program is called PHOTOSHOP. GOOD Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have written its tough or impossible to do strict zone system tests with a scanner just like you would with a wet darkroom. The requirements of your scanner and computer are different from those of paper and chemicals but similar in principle. Your negs need to have a density range that your scanner can "see" Too dense in the highlights and you'll get nothing from them. Too thin in the shadows and there's nothing on the film for the scanner to capture. Between these extremes is the range you want to work in. If you make negatives that are a treat to print in a wet darkroom you'll probably have good luck scanning them given the overall requirement in the first sentence. XP2 will scan better than most any other B&W film - it gives you lots of info in a density range that you can get into the computer easily. And its transparent dye clouds are better to scan than opaque silver grains. No aliasing. Otherwise for real B&W films and normal scenes N-1 is a good starting point for scanning. Ultimately, if you can get the scene on the film so that your scanner can see it you have done about all that is needed. Most all else can happen in Photoshop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

I want to say thanks again for all the input, and insight, on my question(s). I appreciate very much getting additional perspectives and expert opinions on what I am doing and thinking.

 

I have a lot of experimenting to do now. At least I have a better idea of what I need to do and get. I wanted to just say thanks one more time for all the help.

 

thanks,

allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...