Books on Zone System with modern films and developers?

[leicaglow]

<p>I wanted to do more exploration of the Zone system with modern materials. Until now, I've always done the Tri-X and D-76 routine, but with better films and developers, I need to adjust my workflow. Has anyone read any good books (or websites, I suppose) on zone system development with different films?</p>

<p>In other words, how do you nail the compression and expansion of the tonal range given that T-Max (for example) has a longer tonal range than Tri-X? And what would be the proper times for N+1, N-1, with XTol or a Pyro developer, for example? Thanks for any suggestions.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I've personally done this topic as much as I want to, but suffice it to say that there are apparently unusually strong feelings about whether the "zone system" applies at all to modern situations (<a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00Vm4S">link</a>).</p>

<p>I remain convinced that the general principles of the zone system as I see it (which <em>I</em>, of course, think is how Adams saw it too) apply analogously to both modern digital and film photography.</p>

[carpo_diem]

<p>Michael, You do nice work from what I've seen on your Photonet pages!<br>

The classic books by AA i.e. <em>The Negative, The Print</em> are still valid even with today's films and developers. AA outlines a testing procedure that can be used to determine the true film speed with your particular camera and lens(es), film and developer combination. A densitometer is most useful if you are willing to go that far. Heiland in Wetzlar makes a reasonably priced one for around $1k and there used to be several sources for it here in the US. You might do a search b&w film densitometers.<br>

But the real key here is you have to do the tests yourself to determine N, N+1, N-1 etc for your particular work flow and equipment.</p>

 

[jim_norman4]

<p>If you can find a copy of The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum, you'll find it's packed with some of the best and easiest to understand discussions of the "what and why" of the zone system. Once you have an idea about how it works, I agree with the notion that you've got to test your own workflow and make adjustments. It's well worth the time and effort. One comment I'd give you is that Pyro developers tend to resist being "zoned" in the same way that traditional developers behave. Start with a traditional developer in learing the zone system before you become a Pyro-maniac.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Thank you for all the great feedback. For regular shooting, I use stand development, almost exclusively, but I'm yearning to <em>control </em>the tonal range of many of the images I'm shooting. I'm wandering heavily into LF work again (been doing mostly MF for the last couple years), and know far more than ever before about visualization and zone techniques. I.e., I think after 20 years of studying the zone system, I've finally got it.</p>

<p>But to get B&W prints that turn out the way I want them, I need to adjust the development time of various films, like Acros and TMax, and I don't have a good starting point. I'm thinking about buying a densitometer and just doing a bunch of testing to see where the densities of films are falling for a given length of development, but hope I still might find someone who has done all the work already. The closest I've found to what I need is at DarkroomMagic: http://www.darkroomagic.com/DarkroomMagic/Darkroom.html, but still, the films and developers are not the ones I would be using.</p>

 

[User_5888660]

<p>My favorite book on the zone system is The Practical Zone System by Johnston. Recently updated. Gives very practical advice on how to test any film with any developer. Relies on printing on paper, not a densitometer. </p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>The whole idea of the Zone System is to calibrate your entire image making process so you can bend it to your needs. IMHO, no new books needed. I don't think anyone can do the work for you. Back when I was fooling with this I learned some tricks to speed things up, mostly shooting very short pieces of film from a bulk roll. My experience with TMX was mostly bad and it has a certain tonal signature with common developers that's very recognizable to me. It would be interesting to see if a good Zone calibration would make it a more friendly film. If you get a densitometer, get a transmission/reflection unit, as printing is at least half the battle. Are you wet printing? The Adams books are good, and I recommend Photographic Sensitometry by Todd and Zakia. It's not a Zone System book, but will help with overall understanding. If you run across the little Minor White Zone System book, use it to level the legs of your enlarger table so it doesn't rock.</p>

[randy_johnson5]

<p>The best explanation of the Zone System for me was the video "Photographic Technique" by Fred Picker of Zone VI Studios. Calumet now sells it on DVD with the other two he made. I think you only need a densitometer or the film speed test. Everything else is done with an enlarger and paper. I have all the books everyone else has mentioned, and I still prefer the video. I think all of those tests will work with any of today's films and developers. A classic combo is Tri X with HC110 solution B. If you can't find anyone else to do the film speed test, contact me, if you can. I can do it for you with my densitometer. Good luck.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Has Michael Axel written any good books on the Zone System with modern films and developers?</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Michael, I cannot answer from myself, but the best black and white technician I ever knew, who was indeed remarkable in skills, used HC110 at various precise times and "temps" in a JOBO processor. He said it was the most precise way to manage T-MAX because he found it (the film)incremently very sensitive to temp change and was too difficult to get absolute control otherwise. I used an immersion heater to control the temps, later I dabbled with the JOBO, but never matched (more like touched) his results, so obviously he was being modest about the results. Do you know the commercial "your not that guy", well "I'm not that guy", so what I say is second hand story that he could explain in his sleep in the greatest of detail. Hope this adds benefit to your quest.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>John Sexton famously uses only Tmax films, and TmaxRS developer (I believe). John was assistant to AA, in some capacity, and a ZS user. These are truly excellent films by any measure, and I find them very responsive to input (exposure and development) parameters. Personally, I find Phil Davis' BTZS methodology is much more logical and straightforward than traditional ZS methods. <br>

On Pyro:<br>

Stained negatives complicate sensitometry, especially when printing on VC papers. That being said, when using graded printing papers as the basis for calibrating film development, as in standard ZS practice, modern pyro developers, like 510-Pyro, will not differ practically from non-staining developers, like Xtol. Trying to calibrate a staining developer to VC paper is literally trying to hit a moving target, and I'm not surprised many photographers have been frustrated by trying to do so.<br>

The reason AA, and others had difficulty controlling pyro developers was because the formulas they used, like Kodak D-1 (ABC Pyro), were made in three separate stock solutions that each exhausted at a different rate, resulting in wild inconsistencies. Weston could tolerate these inconsistencies, partly because he used a more dilute working solution with longer development times, but mostly because he developed by inspection, and used nothing like ZS methods. It's an interesting counterpoint. 510-Pyro is a single solution with a VERY long shelf life, for dead consistency from one working solution to the next. Ansel Adams wrote many times that pyro is the greatest of all developing agents, but he used HC110 for its consistent performance. 510-Pyro represents the best of both worlds, and I'm sure AA would have been happy to have it. </p>

 

[Tony Evans]

<p>Try "The Practical Zone System for Film & digital Photography", another by Chris Johnson. I got mine from Amazon.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>John, I assure you that in 20 years, I <em>might</em> have the slightest clue about the zone system to write a book about it... if they still make film then.<g></p>

<p>These are all great answers. Thanks for your ideas and information.</p>

<p>Jay, I am trying to find time to take one of Sexton's workshops. I wasn't aware he used Tmax. I keep reading mixed reviews about BTZS. Those are good points about Pyro, and you've enlightened me about Pyro. I have always liked HC110, ever since I first started using for semi-stand development.</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Michael, </p>

<p>When the ZS was devised as a sensitometry teaching aid, graded papers predominated. The entire system is based on working backwards from the printing paper; a fixed value, relating to the Exposure Scale/ grade of the paper. With the advent of VC papers, the underlying principles of sensitometry on which the ZS and all similar systems are based, remain relevant, but the specific methodologies of these systems are subject to revision. </p>

<p>If the primary utility of the ZS was to fit the tones in the scene as neatly as possible onto the printing paper, we should let it recede quietly into the deep shadows of history, along with factorial development by inspection, and similarly outmoded techniques, but this would be a mistake. The importance of the ZS methodology lies in its value as an aid in the photographer's interpretation and translation of tonal values from the scene, and onto the print. VC papers and hybrid work flows afford a degree of flexibility undreamed of by photographers working at the inception of the ZS, but without a fundamental understanding of the principles on which the ZS is based, much of that flexibility is wasted, or worse, become an obfuscation. </p>

<p>I don't know if there's a book on the ZS that addresses these issues in a meaningful way, but I think there should be one. </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Jay, I think you are over stating the impact VC papers have on the zone system. After all, even when graded papers predominated, the graded papers came in different grades. With water bath development or using a soft developer with a standard paper developer, photographers could "adjust" the contrast of a single grade by half a grade, so a grade two paper could be printed at 1 1/2. </p>

<p>Using VC papers means simply that the photographer can keep one box of paper and print from grade one to five on that paper using different filters. With graded papers, the photographer would have to have five boxes of paper, one each for each grade. </p>

<p>The under lying concepts of the zone system still apply. If you like grade two prints, you target your negative to print on grade two whether you are using a VC or a graded paper. If you miss, you use a different grade, again whether it is VC or graded. </p>

 

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Allen,</p>

<p>I hope I haven't confused my point. I meant to say that the underlying principles of the ZS apply to VC papers, but the methodologies, ie, testing procedures, etc., are subject to revision. When conducting calibration testing for the ZS, one tests for each grade of paper independently, based on the Exposure Scale of that particular grade of paper. The ES's of VC papers are ....variable, so some revision of the calibration methodology is necessary. </p>

<p>If the goal is simply to scale one's negatives to fit on a middle grade of paper, and adjust print contrast with filtration to compensate for errors, ZS controls are superfluous. If, however, one aspires to command the full palette of one's materials' expressive potentials, a great deal more than making average negatives scaled to average grades of paper is required. The ZS was intended as a pathway to these higher purposes, and not as a means to secure adequate results without much fuss. The majority of ZS practitioners, it seems, rarely achieve the former, or aspire to the latter. I mean that last statement as an explanation of how the ZS has come to be so widely misinterpreted, and not as a criticism of those practitioners whose goals and competencies vary widely. </p>

<p> </p>

[User_5888660]

<p>Jay, I still don't get the underlying difference between graded and VC. A graded paper will have an exposure scale for each grade. For example, grade 2 of paper X may be 1.05, grade 3 of paper X would be .93 and grade 1 of paper X would be 1.18. Using VC paper, you can still test it the same way. The VC paper Y with grade 2 filter would be 1,05, paper Y with grade 3 filter .93 and and paper Y with filter 1 would be 1.18. The only difference is that with graded paper you use paper from different boxes. With VC, you use one box of paper, but use different filters. </p>

<p>The exception to this is printing on one sheet with different filtration--not spit printing, but dodging or burning at a different filtration. But still, in calibrating negatives, the testing would be the same. You would find the exposure scale of the paper at a set grade--whether that grade is set with the paper as in graded paper, or set with a filter as in VC. </p>

<p> </p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Allen,</p>

<p>Again, <em>the underlying ZS principles remain constant for graded and VC papers,</em> but the methodology used for graded papers is subject to revision for the use of VC papers.</p>

<p>You've described one simple revision to standard ZS methodology to incorporate VC papers, using contrast filters on a B&W enlarger, and one complicating factor (split grade printing). Provided you always use the same filters, it doesn't really matter how closely they approximate on VC paper the actual Exposure Scales of graded paper grades. For users of color heads (like me), or VC heads, further revisions are required. To intelligently use these heads with VC papers requires calibration before any ZS testing can be conducted. Moreover, If one uses a staining developer, VC papers complicate ZS calibration to a degree significant enough to discourage many from the use of either the paper or the developer, or the ZS. These revisions are critical for the accurate translation of tones in the scene, as interpreted by the photographer, through the negative, and to the printing paper, which is the primary intention of the ZS. There are at least two ways to consider these revisions:</p>

<p>1) as preliminary to ZS testing<br>

2) as an integral part of ZS testing</p>

<p>If you subscribe to #1, then VC papers have no direct influence on ZS testing. I'm more inclined to inclusive/integral view #2.</p>

<p> </p>

[sanjoy_chakraborty]

<p>I second the recommendation for the book <strong>The Practical Zone System</strong> by Johnson (available at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Zone-System-Digital-Photography/dp/0240807561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279730368&sr=8-1">Amazon</a>). The classic zone system is extrapolated for use on digital systems, and the author provides his personal recommendations regarding development times and preferences for commonly available emulsions and developers, which is invaluable for those of us who do not have a lot of time to experiment. An excellent read whether you are an amateur or a professional with many decades of experience. The book reinforces fundamental metering and processing concepts which can be used just as well on modern dSLR systems as traditional view camera systems using sheet film.</p>