Shoot a neg 1/3 over and develop for double your normal time. This will tell you what you need to know in an instant. You are most likely right, and the you are over rating your film speed.
If you get a neg that really pops the way you want from doing this, you might want to re-examine your baseline.
Check your safe light situation as well.
Thanks Jason- I'm almost certain my safelight isn't completely safe, but it is very dim, and I have it pointing away from the paper (it's on a swivel mount) or the paper facing away from it as much as possible when the paper is out.
I'm not sure what to make of your other advice though.
Tim
__________________ If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso
My first thought after reading your post is that you don't even really know what a zone is. Otherwise, why would you be surprised that a zone III looks like, well, a zone III, or that a zone VIII looks like, well, a zone VIII? You have to go back and read over and over until you get it. This is a huge problem among many so-called zone system users. They have supposedly fully embraced the zone system, but they don't even know what a zone is. If you are always placing your shadows on III and your highlights on VIII, you miss the entire point of the Zone System. It is not some technical exercise to give you someone else's idealized perfect negative and perfect print. It is not there to give you a "safe" negative with detail in the blacks and the whites. It is a highly subjective artistic tool that lets you craft the negative that will allow you to most easily make the print you envision. I place things, or let them fall, on Zones 0, I, and II all the time, because that's where I want them. I let highlights fall on, or develop to, Zones IX and X, and what would be beyond X, all the time, because that's where I want them. You absolutely cannot make any good use of the zone system unless you have the ability to see your final print before you even set up the camera. So, get to visualizin', then expose and develop however the heck you want, free from guides and rules. If you aren't already visualizing, how on Earth have you spent two years using the zone system? Or, rather, *why* on Earth have you? Why would you even want to use the zone system in the first place if it is not to be used as a tool in your hands? *You* manipulate the tools, not the other way around. It is there to help those who visualize first and ask questions later achieve what they want. It is not there to tell any old Joe Photographer how to expose and develop every picture "correctly". The use of the zone system absolutely requires you to commit to artistic decisions. Period. Or else it is useless.
BTW, I was so busy ranting, I forgot to mention the technically obvious: If you are exposing and developing in such a way that your thinnest part of the neg. prints to a zone III and your thickest part of the neg. prints to a zone VIII with normal printing on a grade 2 paper, you would theoretically need a grade 5 paper to achieve a full-scale print.
You don't need a kit. The Nine Negative Test will pinpoint your EI and development times so close you will wonder why you haven't done it before. It is all done visually and needs no densitometer readings. Additionally it pinpoints it for the paper on which you are printing.
Cost? 9 sheets of film and 2 sheets of your favorite enlarging paper.
I remember how thick the reading, without computers, the early AA books on the Zone System were. Fred Picker came along and that was a great help. It took longer than it should have but when you work alone in a communications blackout, no computers, it's difficult. I finally got it, but the variables of the equipment and with bathroom darkrooms it was still problematic. The Zone system demands a closely calibrated lifestyle.
At Brooks Institute of Photography one of the first assignments, I believe it was in Basic I, was the Nine Negative Test. It's a great way to get your arms around exposure and development. I'm surprised it's not mentioned more often.
I recommend Fred Pickers Zone system book and the Zone System Manual. If you are going to be a real Zone System user then you will want to read all of the books on the subject and distill your own Zone System from them.
I generally try to keep my important detail areas between III and VII for my B&W neg film. I know I will have detail at Zone II and Zone VIII. But my important detail will definitely be kept. Now I don't try to limit my complete contrast range to within a few zones because I love shooting high contrast subject and I know some of the image area will fall outside of the III-VII range.
My first thought after reading your post is that you don't even really know what a zone is. Otherwise, why would you be surprised that a zone III looks like, well, a zone III, or that a zone VIII looks like, well, a zone VIII? You have to go back and read over and over until you get it. This is a huge problem among many so-called zone system users. They have supposedly fully embraced the zone system, but they don't even know what a zone is. If you are always placing your shadows on III and your highlights on VIII, you miss the entire point of the Zone System. It is not some technical exercise to give you someone else's idealized perfect negative and perfect print. It is not there to give you a "safe" negative with detail in the blacks and the whites. It is a highly subjective artistic tool that lets you craft the negative that will allow you to most easily make the print you envision. I place things, or let them fall, on Zones 0, I, and II all the time, because that's where I want them. I let highlights fall on, or develop to, Zones IX and X, and what would be beyond X, all the time, because that's where I want them. You absolutely cannot make any good use of the zone system unless you have the ability to see your final print before you even set up the camera. So, get to visualizin', then expose and develop however the heck you want, free from guides and rules. If you aren't already visualizing, how on Earth have you spent two years using the zone system? Or, rather, *why* on Earth have you? Why would you even want to use the zone system in the first place if it is not to be used as a tool in your hands? *You* manipulate the tools, not the other way around. It is there to help those who visualize first and ask questions later achieve what they want. It is not there to tell any old Joe Photographer how to expose and develop every picture "correctly". The use of the zone system absolutely requires you to commit to artistic decisions. Period. Or else it is useless.
Well, I'm pretty confident I know what a zone is, and understand the system. I do admit to a misconception as to what the detailed ends of the III to VIII may look like in the final photo.
I have been "using" the system for 2 years without having perfected it because it's a hobby and I have a full time job, wife, and new baby. So time to spend on this stuff can come in spurts with weeks in between. I should have made it more clear that I am trying to "learn" the zone system. I am trying to learn to walk (getting the mechanics of the "tool" down) so I can eventually run with it- manipulate the tool in order to make artistic decisions.
I'm not always just "placing shadows on 3 and highlights on 8" like an unthinking automaton, but when I have a "normal" scene, and want to use it as a test negative, that's exactly what I do. For me with this purpose in mind, it *is* a technical exercise. From the tone of your post, I'm not sure if you don't like zone system users or if you're a hard core "zonie" and offended that I am not proficient in it, and calling myself a zone system user.
Again, my testing and (mis)use of the zone system is not the main observation I'm trying to make (although it was a part of my initial question and the two are entangled)- I reiterate: I can only go by the zone scales I have in my books, but I am seeing that many photos have detail in areas darker than the traditional zone 3 and lighter than the traditional zone 8 according to the scales in my books and am wondering if this is generally the case. Christopher Walrath has stated he has some (but not important) detail in zone 2 (thanks for your reply, BTW- finally some acknowledgment that I'm not completely off- base), and df cardwell has pointed out that it can be difficult to keep what zone 8 is exactly in our heads. I'm simply trying to learn exactly what zones 3 and 8 look like in a print so I can take that back to my learning of the zone system, because so far they've been more theoretical to me than practical, and not what I would interpret them as when looking at the print of a master photographer. A perfect example is Huntington Witherill's "Reflections, Badwater, Death Valley 1979", page 56 of "Orchestrating Icons". I see detail in the upper downsloping hill, but this large triangular area is considerably darker than what the zone 3 tone is on my tonal scale in Schafer's book, and in my contact prints where I have placed the shadows with detail on zone 3. It *is* however, where I would have imagined zone 3 to lie on a tonal scale according to the adage of "darkest area you want to keep detail". Maybe the tonal scale in Schafer's book is inaccurate, and this is just a bunch of blithering.....
Regarding my opinion of my flat negatives, after an informative reply from the author of one of the books of photos I own, I realize that not all negs will look great on a grade 2 paper, which is how I contact print my proofs. Maybe they will start to shine a bit more on a 3, or maybe even a 4.
Thanks again everybody for your replies,
Tim
__________________ If only we could pull out our brains and use only our eyes. P. Picasso
Opinion: There's WAY too much hype and 'mystery' surrounding the zone system. It ain't rocket science. And it's my opinion that there's no substantial reason to use it unless you print on graded paper! Just cut your film speed by 2/3 a stop and expose for shadow detail... and you can't really go wrong. It's all about the PRINT...! Your time will be FAR FAR better spent learning how to make images that please you, not trying to match your negative to an imaginary paper you will never buy (assuming you're using VC papers). If you're printing ONLY on G2 or G3 well, that's a different story.
__________________
if voting would make a difference, it would be made illegal.
The easiest way to get a good sweet spot is to place a Macbeth color checker in the image and shoot to get the best neutral scale and densities in the various colors. This is a quickie way that we used at Kodak.
If the neutral is centered with a white square and a black square, you have it nailed. If one or the other is gray, you are off. By white and black, I mean in the print itself.
Linear Mode
