# !

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 First 12
• 05-23-2003, 07:52 AM
c6h6o3
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ May 22 2003, 11:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This gives me a zone I density of .10 density above fb+fog. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
I have never understood why anyone cares about Zone I. It&#39;s density is not useful in any way since it&#39;s on the non-linear portion of the curve. Suppose you get a Zone I of .35 over f+b How do you adjust it? And even if you do find the "proper" .1 over f+b, it tells you nothing about how to adjust for the zones you do care about; namely zones III-VIII.

Before I standardized on a staining developer I used to test a new film by finding the exposure index which would get zone III up off the toe. Then I starting using pyro and now I just print them on a Grade 2 paper and judge the local contrast. My prints are much better for it.
• 05-23-2003, 08:15 AM
David A. Goldfarb
I think the original idea behind using a Zone I density of .1 over film base plus fog, or to find the minimum exposure necessary to produce a meaningful increase in density, was to produce the thinnest (and therefore sharpest) possible negative with the tonality desired, and to be able to use as much of the density range as possible for N+ development before hitting the Dmax.

If you get a Zone I density of .35, you adjust it by increasing your film speed rating.

On the other hand, your reason for testing for Zone III instead of Zone I seems perfectly valid to me. The only thing you may lose by doing it that way is the potential for N+ development if you place it too high, and depending on the film, format, and enlargement plans some small degree of sharpness, but that seems like a worthwhile tradeoff, if it gives you the tonality you want for N development.
• 05-23-2003, 10:44 AM
c6h6o3
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (David A. Goldfarb @ May 23 2003, 04:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> was to produce the thinnest (and therefore sharpest) possible negative with the tonality desired, </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Illogical. Zone I tells you nothing about tonality. Finding your film speed is all about scale over the entire range, not about thresholds at either end.

All Zone I gives you is the thinnest possible negative. But it&#39;s that "with the tonality desired" part that&#39;s important, not how thin it is.
• 05-23-2003, 12:41 PM
David A. Goldfarb
I wasn&#39;t suggesting that the Zone I test told anything about tonality on its own, just that achieving the desired tonality is the goal of using the zone system, and maximizing the full density range was part of the goal.

It isn&#39;t entirely irrelevant, because if you place Zone I too high, and for a certain lighting situation you want N+4 (presuming the film is capable of that, which was more likely in the early days of the zone system), then you might not be able to get it, because you will have "wasted" the toe of the curve or effectively, you will have reduced your Dmax.
• 05-23-2003, 11:15 PM
mvjim
One thing that I believe would help, many in threads such as this, is to mention what format you are generaly using. What might be the hot thing for 8 X 10 negs might not be the thing you would suggest for 35 mm. One thing I do know is that once someone starts producing "good" negs their usual first response is that the negs look too thin compaired to what they have been making reguardless of the developer or exposure technique used.
• 05-24-2003, 09:53 AM
fhovie
To catch up here ... Sandy - My testing shows a difference in the shouldering of any panchromatic film developed in PMK - if that differes from your testing - so be it.

Zone 1 is important to me - There are certain things I look for in a negative and without zone 1 it would not be what I am looking for. So - I strive for a printable zone 1 - I also want the thinnest negative I can get and still keep zone 1 - I notice a degradation in sharpness in dense negatives. Zone 1 is like 1db - (if you have good hearing you can just hear 1db) you can just perceive zone 1 - it is near black - it has no other information other that adding one more color to the photo. I want that color - so I care about zone 1. I get zone 1 by knowing my film speed with a particular combination from film to paper including all chemistry and a particular light meter. I meter zone 3 for anything I want to retain texture in the very darkest areas and let everything else fall into place. I take into consideration total range based on high and low spot meter readings and decide if I will need to deveolp at N- or N+ (And I know how that manipulatio will change film speed)

There is definately a difference in the way 35mm an 4x5 catch light and print - My development times are different - the emulsions are different - (eg. TRI X in 35mm has no antihalation layer that I can detect in the prewash - 120 and 4x5 versions have a dense blue antihalation layer) My expectations of each film get adjusted. - I never expect a 35mm to make a great 11x14 print. (Except TechPan) So If the image is going to go big - I use big film. I also think you can get away with a lot more on big film. There is much less enlargement and much more information captured. Kind of a benefit. Tanning developers and LF film give me a "look" that works for the kind of things I like to capture. I was very unhappy with PMK on 35mm and am back to a more common strain of the benzine ring for that.

Truely though, I look at my images and their impact is more from composition and timing than from what chemical I use. The subtle improvements from chemistry just add a different feeling to what is already going on - (Except of course the 50W lit filament in a lightbulb I photographed that was clamped by DiXactol allowing me to read the wattage printed on the glass of the bulb.)

Frank
• 05-24-2003, 12:48 PM
sanking
Frank,

The issue not whether PMK shoulders. I know that it does, and have previosly described shouldering as am important characterisctic of PMK.That has nothing to do with my question.

The issue is what you wrote in an earlier messasge, to wit.

"Pyro and Catechol affect the shoulder of the slope. The tanning clamps the highlights by not letting fresh developer in after a certain amount of development has taken place. Metol based developers will cause less curve at the shoulder because they will permit more blocking in the highlights. It can almost seem like the highlights go out of focus due to the blocking."

You appear to be saying that both pyrogallol and pyrocatechol afftec the shoulder of the slope in a way that is unique to these developers. I am not aware of any research with a similar finiding. If this research has been published somewhere please provide bibliographic information as to the source.

Sandy
• 05-24-2003, 03:49 PM
Donald Miller
QUOTE (dnmilikan @ May 22 2003, 11:45 AM)
This gives me a zone I density of .10 density above fb+fog.

I have never understood why anyone cares about Zone I. It's density is not useful in any way since it's on the non-linear portion of the curve. Suppose you get a Zone I of .35 over f+b How do you adjust it? And even if you do find the "proper" .1 over f+b, it tells you nothing about how to adjust for the zones you do care about; namely zones III-VIII.

In reply to the question about the reason for assigning a .10 density (over B+F) for a Zone 1 value. There is a very good reason, as I see it, it enables us to learn about the characteristics of our film. I posted an image the other day which I titled "Counterpoint". I will repost it for purposes of illustration. If I had assigned a .35 density for my Zone 1 negative value, I would have had the ice in the image at about Zone XVI. The highlights would have been lumped on the shoulder with very little if any separation. As it was I assigned my deepest values a Zone II exposure, the ice then fell on Zone XIII and I was able to bring the density into printable parameters by developing by inspection using ABC Pyro. The print did require additional sharp masking to gain better shadow separation.
• 05-30-2003, 09:40 AM
fhovie
Hey Don:

Do you have one of those fancy pin register masking tools or do you sweat throught it like I do, lining things up using a lightbox and tape?
Frank
• 05-30-2003, 09:55 AM
lee
[quote="mvjim"] One thing that I believe would help, many in threads such as this, is to mention what format you are generally using. What might be the hot thing for 8 X 10 negs might not be the thing you would suggest for 35 mm.

As I see it, one should look for .10 density after subtracting the film base + fog density regardless of format size when testing for zone I. This will be very little in largeformat and maybe as much as .35 density in 35 mm. That is why it is stated as ".10 over fb+f. To help clarify, Fb+f is the clear portion of the negative.

lee\c
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 2 of 2 First 12