piu58
I’d like to add a few words to the ongoing discussion regarding the use of the zone system.
The zone system was developed for large format; its application to 35mm or medium format is rather limited. For me, it was important to have *understood* it and to draw my own conclusions from it.
Of course, the advice is to limit yourself to a few films and developers. Unfortunately, you can’t keep that up in the long run. I used to think ‘APX 100 is God’s film’. Unfortunately, Agfa went bust and my stocks of Mirko’s Surrogat are running low. So I have to start experimenting with new materials.
So how do I proceed? The manufacturers’ specifications for speed and development are usually impractical. I don’t want to say they’re wrong, because someone has measured and tested them. But the practical speed is usually lower than the printed value, and the development time is often too long.
I buy 10 rolls of one type and then I’m off. I increase the exposure of the first roll by half a stop, and then take additional shots one stop over and one stop under. I use Rodinal exclusively as a developer. OK, that’s disappearing from the market too, so I’ll just go back to R09, or Adox09, or whatever it’s called now. It’s practically the same. This developer has the following advantages for me:
- cheap
- a single-use developer. Consistent quality of the developer, easy to maintain water temperature (except in the height of summer, when the tap water is sometimes only 21°C)
- its properties can be adjusted within wide limits through dilution.
The first film is developed at 1:50 (R09: 1:40), with the time from the table reduced by 20%. I adjust my films so that they tend to be on the soft side. My standard paper gradient for overcast skies is 3. When the sun is shining strongly and casting sharp shadows, I can usually manage with gradient 2 as well. And when it’s overcast, I use gradient 4, which works too. I don’t like gradient 5, however; it’s difficult to work with.
On the first film, I check:
- Are the shadows well-defined? With normal exposure or a different one? You have to do this with several subjects. -> This gives the effective speed if you estimate intermediate values with half-stop accuracy.
- Are the highlights too dense? To check this, I look at the sky. If so (which is often the case), I need to reduce the development time further. At the start, it’s not so easy to tell when the highlights are too dense. Perhaps it’s also a matter of personal taste. I get suspicious when, under a bright but cloudy sky, no detail appears in the upper part of the image despite moderate over-exposure.
Nevertheless, the images from the first roll are perfectly usable; you get usable results straight away. Perhaps with a bit more fiddling in the darkroom, but definitely usable.
I then expose the second roll using the determined speed and the new development time, if necessary. That should be almost right by now. However, I’m now going to focus once more on the deep shadows. It has often happened to me (e.g. with HP5+, FP4+ and their ADOX equivalents, and Foma 100) that everything looked great, with good grey-tone distribution right down into the shadows. Only the very dark shadows then wash out and become, so to speak, suddenly crystal-clear like the support. In this case, it helps to increase the dilution of the developer, for example to 1:100. With Rodinal, you can easily calculate the development time:
Time(1:100) = Time(1:100, table) * Time(1:50)/Time(1:50, table)
The 1:100 time is therefore reduced by the same factor compared to the manufacturer’s specifications as was correct for the 1:50 time.
So, that was the third roll of film, and that concludes the trial. And all using only proper photos, no grey cards, no spot meter. Simply using the camera’s automatic mode or the method you use for manual exposure.
In very overcast weather, I increase the development time by 20% and reduce exposure by half a stop. If I think about it afterwards, I can manage without the half-stop exposure.
That is my conclusion, what remains after all the zone experiments; I have simplified it to this extent for my own purposes. The most important rules were already known before St Ansel:
- Exposure for the shadows (Film 1) and development for the highlights (Film 2)
- A diluted developer produces better shadow detail (Film 3)
I often arrive at results quite different from those given in any tables. Overall, things improved when I trusted my own experience rather than books, internet articles and development instructions. And the Zone System encourages you to make your own experiences purposeful. That is the greatest benefit.
By the way: even here in the godless East, I have to admit that ‘HIM up there’ probably does exist. As a replacement for the APX 100, HE has sent Foma 100. It does have to be developed quite differently, though....
silberkorn
APX 100 is still available, though – it’s now called Rollei Retro 100 and is made by Maco. What Maco will do with this film once they’ve sold off the remaining stock of Agfa film relabelled as Rollei is anyone’s guess.
Best regards,
Jo
Wolfgg
Right, so now I’ve joined the illustrious circle of ‘registered’ users :ph34r:.
Having dared to mention the ‘zone system’ here—a topic that clearly evokes quite a bit of love-hate sentiment—I really must show you what my approach to calibrating the chain looks like in practice. After all, Adams was simply trying to make the subject of “theory” – which has probably always been unpopular amongst photographers – a bit more palatable. Because the Zone System is really nothing more than theory standardised in a certain way.
Many years ago, I had the feeling that my results might be ‘suboptimal’ despite a great deal of effort – and ultimately they were – and whilst investigating the causes, I came across Adams, amongst others. From this, and the theoretical knowledge I already possessed, I then cobbled together my own system. My current favourite combination is APX100/Rodinal, so a recalibration is now inevitable. I will proceed as follows:
1) Determining the development times for the gradients N-2, N-1, N, N+1, N+2:
That may sound like a lot of work, but with the right routine it takes just one afternoon. First, the light panel is set up and adjusted with dampening paper so that the light meter, when measuring the subject and using the speed printed on the film, reads 1/4 sec at f/22 (which, during processing exactly according to the manufacturer, should result in Zone V (correctly 5); light meters are calibrated this way). Then the test zones -1 to 11 can be exposed without any black-shield problems. To do this, I take the camera and photograph the light panel 7 times as follows:
Zone 11: 1 sec Aperture 5.6
Zone 9: 1 sec Aperture 11
Zone 7: 1 sec Aperture 22
Zone 5: 1/4 sec Aperture 22
Zone 3: 1/15 sec Aperture 22
Zone 1: 1/60 sec Aperture 22
Zone -1: 1/250 sec Aperture 22
This creates 7 fields on the film. Only every second zone is exposed; this is sufficient to determine the characteristic curve with adequate accuracy. The exposure zone numbers above are initially only target zones. Their exact position is only known after measuring the developed film, and they are then marked with the correct numbers.
I produce three film strips of this type straight away, as these are then developed with three different development times.
First, one film strip is developed using the time assumed for the gradient N. Until more precise information is available, simply use the development time specified by the manufacturer. After fixing, a brief rinse is sufficient, followed by quick-drying with F. Now you can start measuring. You certainly do not need a densitometer for this; a digital light meter set to EV is sufficient. Every change of 1 in the EV value corresponds to a density change of 0.3 (higher density -> lower EV value). Simply place the film with the area to be measured on the light meter’s sensor and illuminate it from above, e.g. with a desk lamp.
First, locate the start of the usable part of the characteristic curve; this is the zone whose density is approx. 0.1D (in EV: 0.3) above the fog, i.e. an unexposed area. That would then be Zone I (correctly 1). Next, locate the zone that lies 1.6D (in EV: 5.3) above the fog, i.e. 1.5D (suitable for Special Paper Gradation) above Zone I. This zone should lie 8 zones above Zone 1 if the development was adjusted for N, and would then be Zone IX (correctly 9). Usually, you’ll be slightly off the mark, i.e. 1.6D isn’t exactly 8 zones higher, but perhaps 7.5 or 8.5. But that doesn’t matter, because once the other two strips of film have been developed, there’s enough data to estimate the optimal development time for N accurately. Based on this first development test, you can now see how the remaining two strips of film should be developed. First, I try to estimate the correct time for N from the deviation of the already developed strip of film; then the other two strips are developed using this time multiplied by 0.75 and 1.3 respectively. Once all three strips of film have been developed and dried, it is best to plot the three characteristic curves graphically (density across the zones). With a little experience, one then has no problem reading the development times for N-1 (after 9 zones above Zone I to 1.6D), N (after 8 zones above Zone I to 1.6D) and N+1 (after 7 zones above Zone I to 1.6D), which might mean, for example, that you need to adjust the development time by another 1–2 minutes. It is by no means the case that the zones mentioned must be exactly 1.6D; if they are 1.65D or 1.55D, so be it – the rest can be compensated for during enlargement. The most important thing is that you now know very precisely what dynamic range the film can handle at which development.
In my view, the gradients N-2 (=Zone XI at 1.6D) and N+2 (=Zone VII at 1.6D) are only of interest to flat-film users, as they occur too rarely and many films also perform quite well at N+2. If you want precise data here too, two more test strips are required, to be developed, for example, with the development time for N multiplied by 0.5 and by 1.8 respectively. Alternatively, you can estimate from the data for N-1, N and N+1, but this can lead to errors of up to 1 stop, as films and developers react differently to greater under- or over-development.
2) Determining the ISO sensitivities for the gradients N-2, N-1, N, N+1, N+2: First, examine the characteristic curve corresponding to N. Is the area exposed as Zone V really 4 zones above the area with 0.1D of fog, i.e. the area measured as Zone I? If so, the film does indeed have the speed printed on it. In most cases, however, one finds that the area exposed as Zone 5 lies slightly lower, namely 0.5 to 1 zone lower. In that case, the exposure would need to be extended by 1/2 to 1 stop. This is something that really grates on me time and again: many film manufacturers specify speeds that are too high, coupled with development times that are too long. The photographer then pays the price in the form of negatives that are too steep, with missing shadows and/or poorly differentiated highlights. Based on the ISO sensitivity determined for N, it is sufficient in practice to correct the exposure for the remaining gradients as follows:
N-1: Open the aperture by 1 stop
N-2: Open the aperture by 1.5 stops
N+1: Close the aperture by 0.5 stops
N+2: Close the aperture by 1 stop
With the information now obtained regarding the film’s characteristics, one is in a position to optimally adapt the characteristic curve to the subject’s contrast and to place the subject with sufficient precision within the characteristic curve. The precise data now available for N (development time and ISO sensitivity) alone are worth the effort to me. Usually, one operates between N-1 (bright sunshine), N (slightly fogged) and N+1 (no sun). Any remaining deviations from perfectly precise work are in the range of +/- 1/2 stop. In the age of variable contrast papers, this can easily be compensated for during enlargement, particularly using the split-filtering technique.
The crucial thing is that you now have the tonal values under control and know precisely enough about what leads to which density. It is certainly fair to say that the widespread fear of theory among photographers (both professional and amateur) does not exactly contribute to the quality of the results. And this despite the fact that you only have to get through the theory once in your life.
Wolfgang
Gast
That all sounds good, and I’ve worked in a similar way myself. BUT: Once you’ve solved the first problem (namely, understanding your film), that’s when the real work begins. The development curves are by no means textbook-perfect and often dip in the range you actually need to use. That’s why I don’t recommend bleaching every two stops, but rather the opposite (half stops).
Then you have to play around with the chemicals, e.g. dilution, agitation or temperature. This is where Adams stops, but some others go into more detail.
The APX 400 in Rodinal 1+50 has a nice, straight characteristic curve (at least for me). But that’s all over now. FP4+ and HP5+ in Rodinal required ‘special treatment’ to be of any use.
Stagirit
So, if you’re photographing still lifes and landscapes like Adams does, the zone system is brilliant.
In practice, though, what I do is use the Beli (Gossen is brilliant for this) to get a quick overview of the contrast range. Then I perform development based on experience and, above all, intuition.
That said, I’ve banished APX and Rodinal from my darkroom.
Wolfgg
Guest: For the past 25 years, I’ve only ever come across density curves that follow an S-shape. The question is always simply this: where does the usable part begin (D > 0.1 above the fog) and where does the curve start to flatten out unpleasantly at the top (with highlight differentiation getting progressively worse)? If a curve were to suddenly ‘turn right’ – that is, switch from a steep gradient to horizontal – and I wanted to use it to the maximum, then naturally more frequent test exposures than just every second zone would be required. But I’ve only observed something so nasty in recent years with Efke 25 in Rodinal 1+75. There was simply a ceiling at D=1.3.
Incidentally, the zone system also works wonderfully well with colour negative films. Suddenly I had surprisingly accurate colours and, unsurprisingly, a few DINs lower than stated on the packet.
