david.elliott
Well-known
Thanks Charlie!
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
John,
The reason T-Max doesn't work is this technique only seems to work with silver halide emulsions. I tried it with T-max and the images loose sharpness and the midtones get mushy.
Chris,
I've been doing this system myself since 1982, in places like the mountains of New Hampshire and the deserts of Egypt. What you say about the light being different is a myth. The Sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Light is the same everywhere except at very high altitudes. The rest of the difference can be accounted for by reflectance of sand, water, snow, etc. That's the stuff that fools meters, but it does not fool the Sunny 16 Rule. Your just debunking this different approach if you condemn it without trying it. It's not for everyone. I just put it out there for those who would like to improve the scale of their negatives without having to be so technical.
I teach at St, Paul's School in Concord, NH.
The reason T-Max doesn't work is this technique only seems to work with silver halide emulsions. I tried it with T-max and the images loose sharpness and the midtones get mushy.
Chris,
I've been doing this system myself since 1982, in places like the mountains of New Hampshire and the deserts of Egypt. What you say about the light being different is a myth. The Sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Light is the same everywhere except at very high altitudes. The rest of the difference can be accounted for by reflectance of sand, water, snow, etc. That's the stuff that fools meters, but it does not fool the Sunny 16 Rule. Your just debunking this different approach if you condemn it without trying it. It's not for everyone. I just put it out there for those who would like to improve the scale of their negatives without having to be so technical.
I teach at St, Paul's School in Concord, NH.
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
Here you have a successful teacher/photographer who put out a thoughtful, well written guide to the 'simple" zone system. Way to trash him! Good constructive comments!
One stop difference in sun from norther to southern latitudes reall makes no difference. If one were in Nome, Alaska then yes there would be a difference.
How does anything written have anything to do with hard work? You seem to imply that if one does not do it as you do then they are lazy and cannot turn out a perfect product such as yourself.
The system listed in not a catch all for all folks in all situations but it is very close to how I was taught and I am sure many others expose in much the same way. Seems to work for many of us but, as such a lazy group turing out poorly exposed negatives, we get no credit. :bang:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That makes a lot of sense ... thanks Charlie. I've bookmarked your site for reference.
bennett2136
Member
Thanks for writing this Charlie!
I took a black and white film photography class at UVM last semester and loved it but, it was pretty basic. Unfortunately, I have to declare an art major to take a more advanced photo class. I really appreciate teachers like you helping to make knowledge like this available without advanced photo classes! Do you know of any other books or literature that would help me with the finer points of B/W photography?
Thanks, Bennett
I took a black and white film photography class at UVM last semester and loved it but, it was pretty basic. Unfortunately, I have to declare an art major to take a more advanced photo class
. I really appreciate teachers like you helping to make knowledge like this available without advanced photo classes! Do you know of any other books or literature that would help me with the finer points of B/W photography?Thanks, Bennett
jordanstarr
J.R.Starr
Charlie...
You did a great job to simplify the zone system and I think I speak for many when I say thanks for doing so. It's a very helpful tool and you gave people who may not understand the zone system something to think about, which is great.
However, I have a few concerns. Terms like "sunny day", "sunny day extreme" and "cloudy day" are subjective, so attaching a blanket rule like open up two stops or close down one stop on such n' such a day is going to produce different results for everyone. Also, as we all know, You and me can use this same method and even use the same developer and film and come out with different results because of human error and judgement in mixing chemicals, agitation methods, age of the chemicals, etc. So, the developing times you suggest are good starting points, but will be different for everyone. That being said, I think your summary is a fantastic starting point and will point people in the right direction to think about their exposures and developing methods. There's many different ways to get great results and even though I use a slightly different version of the zone system than you do, I imagine we're coming out with similar results. That small critic may be completely redundant as most film photographers already know this, including yourself.
The key is obviously, "expose for shadows, develop for highlights". Everyone will tweak this method for their own taste and judgement. Using the zone system with 35mm is all about averaging and guessing anyway. Unless you shoot a whole roll on a specific scene with a specific light signature, much of it is educated guesswork, experimenting and bracketing. It's especially difficult to apply the zone system in NYC and similar cities, where the tall buildings create complete shade one block and the next it would be sunny.
You did a great job to simplify the zone system and I think I speak for many when I say thanks for doing so. It's a very helpful tool and you gave people who may not understand the zone system something to think about, which is great.
However, I have a few concerns. Terms like "sunny day", "sunny day extreme" and "cloudy day" are subjective, so attaching a blanket rule like open up two stops or close down one stop on such n' such a day is going to produce different results for everyone. Also, as we all know, You and me can use this same method and even use the same developer and film and come out with different results because of human error and judgement in mixing chemicals, agitation methods, age of the chemicals, etc. So, the developing times you suggest are good starting points, but will be different for everyone. That being said, I think your summary is a fantastic starting point and will point people in the right direction to think about their exposures and developing methods. There's many different ways to get great results and even though I use a slightly different version of the zone system than you do, I imagine we're coming out with similar results. That small critic may be completely redundant as most film photographers already know this, including yourself.
The key is obviously, "expose for shadows, develop for highlights". Everyone will tweak this method for their own taste and judgement. Using the zone system with 35mm is all about averaging and guessing anyway. Unless you shoot a whole roll on a specific scene with a specific light signature, much of it is educated guesswork, experimenting and bracketing. It's especially difficult to apply the zone system in NYC and similar cities, where the tall buildings create complete shade one block and the next it would be sunny.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Bennett,
i always liked the Henry Horenstein books.
i always liked the Henry Horenstein books.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Thanks Jordan.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Thanks Keith.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Thanks for that on the Tmax films, I do not like them when way (2 stops) overexposed; and under development does not solve anything. I always overexpose TriX (1 stop) and develop it to my taste. I will try 2 stops and cut back development, but I worry that this will only work with carefully chosen scenes.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've lived all over the country and seen the differences in light. The raw sun itself is the same in brightness (at least at the same time of day) in different places, but as Frank said earlier, factors like atmospheric pollution (he referred to industrialized areas, like the city I live in now) and altitude (I lived in Santa Fe at 7000 feet) affect the actual brightness, which is why you should use a meter. Your system for cloudy days is good and is basically the same as using an incident light meter (the same exposure corrections are needed with an incident meter, but I don't expand development...that's more of a personal decision based on the contrast desired though). My objection was just to the sunny day directions, which seem to be basically guesswork since I know from many years of experience that ACTUAL brightness of sun, once filtered through our atmosphere, does vary from place to place. If users measured light with a grey card or incident meter then applied your exposure/development corrections, I'd not have complained about your recommendations. They're different than my working methods, which depend on a spotmeter and more traditional zone system methodology, but incident meters or grey cards work great. Phil Davis described a similar system in his Beyond The Zone System books, but he made it sound harder than it is. You made it more accessible to ordinary photographers, which is awesome.
The reason Tmax films don't work may be because they have less lattitude for small exposure errors or developing time differences. Also, I have found Tmax films need different corrections in dev. time for contrast changes than normal films like Tri-X...if you use the same exposure/developing changes for them as for a non-tmax type film you'll probably get bad results like you mentioned. I think it would work if you experimented with exposure and developing with them and found the 'right' corrections for those films.
I was in the middle of something else when I wrote my first post and should have slowed down and written that the sunny day stuff was all I was saying I didn't like.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
I admire much of Chris's work and I also appreciate Charlie's contribution here. Without wishing to start any arguments I have a copy of a third option I obtained a while back from Doremus Scudder. It no longer appears on his website but it continues to use metering and relies on variable contrast printing papers - so maybe no good for the scanners and inkjet printers amongst us. But you could try it. It also is less extreme than Charlie's method in that it only goes for one or two stops of overexposure rather than the two to four stops.
It'll make a long post so I've cut a few bits out, but here it is for what it's worth. Maybe if you were to contact Doremus he'd send a full copy. I might add that he advocates a standard development time. I've discovered to my joy that using Presyscol EF I can develop different types and speeds of film in the same tank for the same time (12 mins) and get excellent results every time.
...............................................................................
I guess this is copyright to Doremus Scudder.
In this system there is only one "Normal" development time; different contrast negatives are dealt with by changing paper grades.
First, with small film, you should standardize your negative contrast to print well on a slightly higher contrast grade paper, say 2 1/2 or 3 (I'd use grade 3 as a standard for 35mm film, 2 1/2 for MF roll film). This allows the negatives to be developed to a smaller density range and decreases grain.
Next, decide how you want to meter, either "placing the shadows" or using the "averaging method" along with an in-camera meter (center-weighted meters are remarkably good for most subjects).
If you choose to "place the shadows," then meter an important shadow and place it on the appropriate Zone, e.g., Zone III for blacks with detail or Zone IV for "luminous" fully detailed shadows. Do your E.I. and development tests to arrive at "Normal" development and then use that development time for everything. With this metering technique, you should overexpose scenes with low contrast, i.e., place the shadows higher by a Zone, making sure that the high values do not go past Zone VIII. You can meter the highlights to be sure, but with experience you can accurately identify a low-contrast situation and know when to overexpose without taking the time to meter the highlights to see where they fall. This overexposure gets the shadow values up higher on the film's characteristic curve and gives more separation than less exposure. For very contrasty scenes, just place the shadows as normal and shoot away. The negs will be contrasty, but most films retain adequate separation up to Zone XII and beyond. Just print with a lower contrast grade paper. (This may influence you film choice, since some "retro" or "traditional" films don't hold values in the densest areas as well, but 90% of them do.)
If you decide to use the "averaging" metering method using an in-camera meter (my choice for working quickly, even leaving the camera on "auto" in some situations), you should determine E.I. and "Normal" development time with that method. With this metering technique, you need to recognize contrasty situations (as opposed to recognizing the low-contrast situations using the "place the shadows method") and then overexpose one stop for high-contrast situations and two stops for extremely high contrast situations (this seems counter-intuitive at first, but is quite logical and correct in this system). You overexpose high-contrast scenes because your meter will tend to expose for a middle value that results in dropping the shadow values. Overexposing compensates for this. You end up with the same contrasty negative that you would get "placing the shadows" and print it on low-contrast paper. Note that the averaging meter will automatically place shadows higher than normal in a low-contrast situation. This is exactly what you want to get the most separation in the low values (and why you overexpose low-contrast scenes with the "place the shadows" method). Of course, you need to intelligently use your averaging meter and apply appropriate compensation for high-key or low-key subjects (this in addition to the overexposure you will give for contrasty scenes).
You can even determine N+ and N- development times for those (rather rare) instances when the entire roll is exposed with scenes of the same contrast. These times would be determined with classic Zone System tests, but I would tend to rely on paper grade for expansions as much as possible with small film unless I really liked grain (which I don't). For really contrasty situations, compensating developing techniques (such as compensating or highly-dilute developer and/or stand or semi-stand techniques) would be my choice for small film.
Of course, you may also want to shoot entire rolls in low light and use classic "push-processing" (which is simply underexposing and overdeveloping with the expected loss of shadow detail and increase in contrast) for that "look" as well. In this case, you would rate your film higher and increase development.
It'll make a long post so I've cut a few bits out, but here it is for what it's worth. Maybe if you were to contact Doremus he'd send a full copy. I might add that he advocates a standard development time. I've discovered to my joy that using Presyscol EF I can develop different types and speeds of film in the same tank for the same time (12 mins) and get excellent results every time.
...............................................................................
I guess this is copyright to Doremus Scudder.
In this system there is only one "Normal" development time; different contrast negatives are dealt with by changing paper grades.
First, with small film, you should standardize your negative contrast to print well on a slightly higher contrast grade paper, say 2 1/2 or 3 (I'd use grade 3 as a standard for 35mm film, 2 1/2 for MF roll film). This allows the negatives to be developed to a smaller density range and decreases grain.
Next, decide how you want to meter, either "placing the shadows" or using the "averaging method" along with an in-camera meter (center-weighted meters are remarkably good for most subjects).
If you choose to "place the shadows," then meter an important shadow and place it on the appropriate Zone, e.g., Zone III for blacks with detail or Zone IV for "luminous" fully detailed shadows. Do your E.I. and development tests to arrive at "Normal" development and then use that development time for everything. With this metering technique, you should overexpose scenes with low contrast, i.e., place the shadows higher by a Zone, making sure that the high values do not go past Zone VIII. You can meter the highlights to be sure, but with experience you can accurately identify a low-contrast situation and know when to overexpose without taking the time to meter the highlights to see where they fall. This overexposure gets the shadow values up higher on the film's characteristic curve and gives more separation than less exposure. For very contrasty scenes, just place the shadows as normal and shoot away. The negs will be contrasty, but most films retain adequate separation up to Zone XII and beyond. Just print with a lower contrast grade paper. (This may influence you film choice, since some "retro" or "traditional" films don't hold values in the densest areas as well, but 90% of them do.)
If you decide to use the "averaging" metering method using an in-camera meter (my choice for working quickly, even leaving the camera on "auto" in some situations), you should determine E.I. and "Normal" development time with that method. With this metering technique, you need to recognize contrasty situations (as opposed to recognizing the low-contrast situations using the "place the shadows method") and then overexpose one stop for high-contrast situations and two stops for extremely high contrast situations (this seems counter-intuitive at first, but is quite logical and correct in this system). You overexpose high-contrast scenes because your meter will tend to expose for a middle value that results in dropping the shadow values. Overexposing compensates for this. You end up with the same contrasty negative that you would get "placing the shadows" and print it on low-contrast paper. Note that the averaging meter will automatically place shadows higher than normal in a low-contrast situation. This is exactly what you want to get the most separation in the low values (and why you overexpose low-contrast scenes with the "place the shadows" method). Of course, you need to intelligently use your averaging meter and apply appropriate compensation for high-key or low-key subjects (this in addition to the overexposure you will give for contrasty scenes).
You can even determine N+ and N- development times for those (rather rare) instances when the entire roll is exposed with scenes of the same contrast. These times would be determined with classic Zone System tests, but I would tend to rely on paper grade for expansions as much as possible with small film unless I really liked grain (which I don't). For really contrasty situations, compensating developing techniques (such as compensating or highly-dilute developer and/or stand or semi-stand techniques) would be my choice for small film.
Of course, you may also want to shoot entire rolls in low light and use classic "push-processing" (which is simply underexposing and overdeveloping with the expected loss of shadow detail and increase in contrast) for that "look" as well. In this case, you would rate your film higher and increase development.
Nokton48
Veteran
This is about what I do and I am not too often dissapointed, although it does happen from time to time. I think this is really good advice, works for me.
gb hill
Veteran
Yes that is the book. I should probably read it again. I'll check out the other two books you mentioned. Thanks.
gb hill
Veteran
Has anyone tried this using HC-110 instead of D-76 or Sprint developer?
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Greg you can do this, or any other exposure/dev system, with any developer but the Developing times and EIs to use would vary depending on the developer, so you'd have to test it.
rockman525
Member
There are many, many ways to skin a cat.
The majority of photographers who frequent this forum are passionate about their art and their film. They frequent this forum because it is an invaluable source of other peoples knowledge, and their failures as well. We all want the the same thing...to put on a negative what we see, what we feel, to capture "that" light we each know intimately in the places we live. We try to do this with hundreds of different cameras, a thousand lenses, different films, variable iso's, developers from Accutane to God- Knows -What, different dev times, temperatures of 18c to 30c, shake it good once a minute or just let it sit for a couple of hours, rinse continually in the waters of the Ganges, or just use the tap!
Yet from this forum I get two constants, two stars I can follow... the quality of the images displayed here and the infinite numbers of ways to achieve them.
Charlie has tried to define a system that works for him and he thinks it might work for some other people. He has tried to reduce the mind numbing variables that can turn film photography into a cerebral checkmate. I appreciate the careful thought and effort he has put into it and I must give his earnest work an objective review. Charlatan's don't work that hard. I'll try his method, and see if it works for me. I'll try with my cameras and my film and my developers and my water and my clocks and my scanner and my light and my subjects and my eyes. The only guarantee I have is that I know I will be a better photographer for the effort.
Thanks Charlie.
The majority of photographers who frequent this forum are passionate about their art and their film. They frequent this forum because it is an invaluable source of other peoples knowledge, and their failures as well. We all want the the same thing...to put on a negative what we see, what we feel, to capture "that" light we each know intimately in the places we live. We try to do this with hundreds of different cameras, a thousand lenses, different films, variable iso's, developers from Accutane to God- Knows -What, different dev times, temperatures of 18c to 30c, shake it good once a minute or just let it sit for a couple of hours, rinse continually in the waters of the Ganges, or just use the tap!
Yet from this forum I get two constants, two stars I can follow... the quality of the images displayed here and the infinite numbers of ways to achieve them.
Charlie has tried to define a system that works for him and he thinks it might work for some other people. He has tried to reduce the mind numbing variables that can turn film photography into a cerebral checkmate. I appreciate the careful thought and effort he has put into it and I must give his earnest work an objective review. Charlatan's don't work that hard. I'll try his method, and see if it works for me. I'll try with my cameras and my film and my developers and my water and my clocks and my scanner and my light and my subjects and my eyes. The only guarantee I have is that I know I will be a better photographer for the effort.
Thanks Charlie.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
Never used HC-110. I looked at the MDC to see if some interpolation could be attempted but none of the listings there go down to such low ISO values as Charlie is advocating, so it's not much help.
The MDC lists TX400 in D76 1+1 as -
@ ISO400 9.75 mins
@ ISO200 9.5 mins and
@ ISO50 it gives 7 mins.
At ISO400 HC-110 MDC gives - well, let's pick 7.5 mins.
At ISO200 HC-110 is listed variously at 4.75 to 6.75 mins.
So with HC-110 a lot depends on the dilution you choose but it seems it would give times of between 68% and 96% of the D76 times. Maybe try 75% as a starting point and go up or down depending on the first results. I guess if you want to use HC-110 you're going to have to experiment and maybe sacrifice a couple of rolls of film.
So, for TX400 on a "Sunny Day" rated at ISO100 Charlie is suggesting the equivalent of 64% of base time. That's 64% of 9.5 or just about right on 6 mins in D76. Agrees with his charts.
Interpolate that to HC-110 and it could be about 4.5 mins. After that I think you just have to experiment. Maybe just shoot a whole roll of film without caring what the images are, cut it in four while preparing to load the tank (half length then half again) and develop each section for a different time - say 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 and 5.5 minutes.
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Chris,
You seem to be hing up on the label I'm using. I'm not sure we disagree on the principles. One should never use either "Sunny Day" recipe if there is anything but direct, unmitigated sunlight the moment you make an exposure. My beginning students will often ask me before they go out to shoot during class time, "Mr. Lemay, is it a Sunny Day." My response is always the same. "That's a call you have to make." It's not a weather thing, it means you have to be aware of whether or not the Sun is actually at full strength. I teach them not to look at the Sun, but to look at shadows instead and to recognize that when they are hard edged and deep, the Sun is unobstructed. If the shadows are softer and weaker, then I advise them to stop photographing. Obviously this kind of approach is less suited to event related photography, or even travel photography, where you only get one chance to make an image. If they are going to shoot under varied conditions, I advise my students to follow the directions on the box. They won't get the same amount of shadow and highlight detail, and each negative will be a different adventure in the darkroom or scanner, but they will record something. Most memorable photos do not use the Zone System. Countless great photographers don't use it either. Ralph Gibson in particular comes to mind. That said, if you can use it, and it is easier to accommodate the process in art making, the benefit will be consistency in your negatives, extended tonal range and shortened time in the darkroom or post processing. Any other conditions modifying direct sunlight should have their own EV, and are not going to be optimized using either "Sunny Day" recipe.
You seem to be hing up on the label I'm using. I'm not sure we disagree on the principles. One should never use either "Sunny Day" recipe if there is anything but direct, unmitigated sunlight the moment you make an exposure. My beginning students will often ask me before they go out to shoot during class time, "Mr. Lemay, is it a Sunny Day." My response is always the same. "That's a call you have to make." It's not a weather thing, it means you have to be aware of whether or not the Sun is actually at full strength. I teach them not to look at the Sun, but to look at shadows instead and to recognize that when they are hard edged and deep, the Sun is unobstructed. If the shadows are softer and weaker, then I advise them to stop photographing. Obviously this kind of approach is less suited to event related photography, or even travel photography, where you only get one chance to make an image. If they are going to shoot under varied conditions, I advise my students to follow the directions on the box. They won't get the same amount of shadow and highlight detail, and each negative will be a different adventure in the darkroom or scanner, but they will record something. Most memorable photos do not use the Zone System. Countless great photographers don't use it either. Ralph Gibson in particular comes to mind. That said, if you can use it, and it is easier to accommodate the process in art making, the benefit will be consistency in your negatives, extended tonal range and shortened time in the darkroom or post processing. Any other conditions modifying direct sunlight should have their own EV, and are not going to be optimized using either "Sunny Day" recipe.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Charles, thanks starting this discussion. You have, at least for me, given me some things to think about. I generally use the method that L quoted, but I will give your method a try. Here in California we have long periods of completely clear blue sky, so no problem. It seems if there is an argument here, it is where we place the shadow detail Zone on the H-D curve and then how to cut back development. I hope we have more threads like this, I learn something from every one of them.