B/W Tones.
- Thread starter moon
- Start date
- Status
I am using Ilford Delta 100, 400 and HP5. Developed myself using ilford chemicals following ilford instructions. I also print myself using Ilford RC PEARL paper and Ilford paper chemicals. My Enlarger is a Meopta 4a with Color head.
Cameras and lens - Nikon, Rolleiflex and Bessa. Shooting what the meter shows.
Prints looks ok, it;s just the tones...you know, lack the rich/strong/impact Black. I will try to get the prints scan. If i can obtain a decent scanner!!!
Meanwhile just enlighten me in getting the RIGHT TONES! And Zone System....i hate getting too technical. Ansel Adams?...i skip his books. :embrass:
Thanks all,
Cameras and lens - Nikon, Rolleiflex and Bessa. Shooting what the meter shows.
Prints looks ok, it;s just the tones...you know, lack the rich/strong/impact Black. I will try to get the prints scan. If i can obtain a decent scanner!!!
Meanwhile just enlighten me in getting the RIGHT TONES! And Zone System....i hate getting too technical. Ansel Adams?...i skip his books. :embrass:
Thanks all,
moon said:
Please allow me to be extremely frank. If your purpose is to produce a recognisable image of a person, house, landscape, just following your camera's meter is probably adequate. However if you aspire to get more out of your effort, then what you have been doing is a road to certain failure.
It matters little what film, developers etc you use. All these are more than adequate. The problem is that unless you can get a good negative, you cannot have a good print.
You want enlightenment on getting good tones? OK here goes!
1 Learn to expose "correctly" - not what your Nikon, bessa, rolleiflex says
2 Learn to develop "correctly" - not what the ilford manual instructions
What the meters in the cameras and the ilford manual say are just beginning guidelines.
Once you can expose and develop the negative properly, meaning you have a good usable negative, we can go on to the darkroom.
3 Is your darkroom really dark?
4 Is your safelight really safe?
5 Are you familiar with the use of color filters. Are you using the right contrast?
6 Some papers have more "Blacks" and "whites
than othes. But this is a small point.
7 Do you view your print in the right light? Not too strong. Not flourescent.
You DO NOT have to "master" the entirety of the Zone System. this is a misunderstanding. You do not have to do sensitometry. But you do need to understand how light works. And the zone system makes it so easy to understand that you will ask why you want the meters in the bessa, nikon and rolleiflex.
But as I first wrote, how is your negative? If you do not know how to read your negative, and if you are willing to spend a little time with me, I can meet you at an appropriate time to trytop sort out the problems.
Doc C and all the adherents of the zone system - apologies in advance
I find this worship of the zone system very very illogical. Remeber and think why it is called the zone system. It was a method devised to teach people how to meter within the limits of the film ( in digital world they call this dynamic range of the camera), then to process this in a way to keep all the information ie the tones within the range of film media ( in the digital world this would be the having a histogram within the shadow and highlight points).
Basic to this is what ?
1. an understanding of how to use the exposure meter.
2. how to compensate in development in case you goof in exposure, if you did it correctly the tones should fall within the dynamic range of the film - black and white film has a 7 stop range (with I suspect some dodging and burning this could be more)
Perhaps I am not a very technical obesssed person - my personal mantra is KISS. (keep it small /simple). I dislike methodology that seems to delight in the methodology more than the results which is what most written accounts of the zone system read like. Grin when I need I hammer - well if a hammer is there nice if not some else handy enough to do the job will be ok with me.
Moon
look at the negative suspended over a sheet of white paper (in adequate lighting duh) if you can see a range of distinct tones then the neg has been exposed and proces appropriately. If not then try to figger out if it is an exposure or a development fault.
If the neg is ok - then look at your grade of paper selection - it could be a grade too low for your neg. also look at your developer - has it been mix to correct proportions ? have you allowed for adequate development time /have you been pulling things out as you visually agar that it correct/ is the concentrate develop dark brown in color - this probably is developer that has oxidised to a high degree.
This is not exhaustive - there are I think some more areas - light fogging, paper past expiry, paper fogged...........
I find this worship of the zone system very very illogical. Remeber and think why it is called the zone system. It was a method devised to teach people how to meter within the limits of the film ( in digital world they call this dynamic range of the camera), then to process this in a way to keep all the information ie the tones within the range of film media ( in the digital world this would be the having a histogram within the shadow and highlight points).
Basic to this is what ?
1. an understanding of how to use the exposure meter.
2. how to compensate in development in case you goof in exposure, if you did it correctly the tones should fall within the dynamic range of the film - black and white film has a 7 stop range (with I suspect some dodging and burning this could be more)
Perhaps I am not a very technical obesssed person - my personal mantra is KISS. (keep it small /simple). I dislike methodology that seems to delight in the methodology more than the results which is what most written accounts of the zone system read like. Grin when I need I hammer - well if a hammer is there nice if not some else handy enough to do the job will be ok with me.
Moon
look at the negative suspended over a sheet of white paper (in adequate lighting duh) if you can see a range of distinct tones then the neg has been exposed and proces appropriately. If not then try to figger out if it is an exposure or a development fault.
If the neg is ok - then look at your grade of paper selection - it could be a grade too low for your neg. also look at your developer - has it been mix to correct proportions ? have you allowed for adequate development time /have you been pulling things out as you visually agar that it correct/ is the concentrate develop dark brown in color - this probably is developer that has oxidised to a high degree.
This is not exhaustive - there are I think some more areas - light fogging, paper past expiry, paper fogged...........
ellery said:
Ellery, apologies not needed!
Actually we are all talking about the same thing - meaning getting a good negative.
I DO NOT worship the ZS. What I found was that the ZS is a very elegant, simple, and practical way to see light, make the "proper" exposure and develop the negatives accordingly.
Since we are talking about B&W here, all I need to do for my negatives are these simple steps:
1 Look for the dark area that I want details. Meter this area and then stop down two stops from the meter reading. This bring the dark area to "zone 3".
2 Then I meter the high values and see where it stands with regards to the shadows area.
If the range (dark to bright) is 5 stops, the negative receive "normal" development.
If the range is < 5 stops I MAY increase development (depending on how I want my negative)
If the range is >5 stops, I MAY decrease development (depending on how I want my development)
That is all the "ZS" that the average photogrpaher needs.
Isn't this KISS? And it gives me much better understanding of the light than any inbuilt camera metering!
Thats as simple as it gets...... 
LittleWolf
New Member
moon said:
I assume you're using a variable contrast paper (most RC papers are) - are you familiar with their behaviour? Ilford has some recommendations for its papers here:
[LINK]http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Cont.pdf[/LINK]
Also, don't expect too much in terms of bright whites and dark blacks from a pearl/matte RC paper. The RC paper base is usually not very bright. RC paper also typically contains less silver than baryte papers, which may limit the dark end of the scale. And non-glossy surfaces may scatter enough light from any viewing angle that one may never see how dark the blacks really are.
student said:
This is, indeed, the simplest definition of the Zone System I have come across. This hypothesis is correct provided the shutter is perfect. Now, this is a tip on Zone System from John Sexton. Place your shadow details in Zone 4. John seldom place his shadow less than Zone 3.5.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
What I do is Alt "I">"A">"C" and increase the contrast slider.
photobum said:
Thanks for pointing out. You are absolutely right!
John Sexton and Ray MacSavaney and Bruce Barnbaum were "partners in crime" at the Owens Valley Photography Workshops. All three of them DO NOT place their shadows at zone 3 for at least three reasons
1 As you mentioned, sometimes the shutter may not be as accurate as one wants. And in doubt, give a little more exposure! Although if a shutter is not accurate, it is more likely to be slower than faster.
2 In the execution of the "scientific" zones, one deals with pure tone. In real life, shadows are not pure tones, and again, a little more exposure does not harm
3 The film latitide - for those who are interested in more "scientific" reasons. The separation of tones is very narrow at the shadows area at zone 1 and 2. At zone 3 the separation begins to be more prominent. From zone 4 till about zone 14! (film, not paper) the separation is a straight line. So exposing the shadows at zone 4 makes a lot of sense. It will have more "meat" in the shadows areas.
My reason for placing shadows at zone 3 is not to confuse readers because standard texts put ithem at zone 3. Personally I put them at zone 4. However if one, for example rate Tri-X 320 at say, 160 (I do!), then placing shadows at zone 3 will not harm.
The above is more for a better understanding, But they are not necessary for practical usage.
student said:
Thanks again for your concise analysis. As you had mentioned, these points are not necessary for practical usage. And since this is a photography forum, it is goood to educate others. It is up to the people to accept and to utilize them in their photography.
Personally, I always place my shadows in Zone 4. I have very good results with it.
StreetShooter
Senior Member
photobum said:
Yes, I do understand. I apologise for my little joke.
LucidaM said:Just sit back and read carefully what "Student" had suggested. I think he is a master in the Craft. I'm not joking, can't joke in this forum anyway.
1 Die er! I only craftsman! I want to be photographer! Not craftsman! Sigh! Need to start all over again!
2 Can tell jokes! But only photography ones!
"Yes, photographers do it in the dark... but they have to stop every 30 seconds to.........."
Another one
"Some Famous Photographic Couples: Polly Contrast and H.C. Won Ton, Micro Doll and Metro Nome, Lynn Hoff and his Dear Dorff"
- Status
Similar threads
