RE: shadow density in zone III

Eric,

I have to honestly admit that your previous message left me a bit confused.

In most cases we would like to have the ability to expose our film,
develop it and print it so as to\ capture the full range of tonal
ranges in the scene, from deepest shadows to highest highlight. What
difference does it make if that is done with a negative that has a DR
of 1.9 or 3.5? Is there some visual superiority to a print made from
a negative with a DR of 3.0 as opposed to one made with a negative
with a DR of 2.0? And unless your objective is printing Stouffer step
tablets, why would anyone develop negatives to a DR of 3.30?

With carbon printing I am able to print negatives with contrast
ranging from a DR as low as log 0.8 to as high as log 5.0. But for
many reasons, not the least of which is the expansion and contraction
capability of modern films, I standardize for carbon printing with
on a DR of about 1.8, which also allows me to print straight
palladium with the same negative. Now, a negative DR of 1.8 is fairly
high, and if you need this much contrast for a normal scene,
expansion developed to N+1 or N+2 is totally impossible with most
films, Tmax and Delta films excepted.

Which leads me to suspect that you must be talking about printing
with digital negatives when you discuss negatives with Drs of log 3.0
and higher.

Sandy

>Sandy, It is not so much a need, but rather a choice based on ability to
>render the full scale. If ones choice of film, metal salts or other
>conditions are limiting their ability to capture a range of 3.0 ( such as
>full Stouffer's step tablet), then they are either setting out to fall back
>on a contrast aide or have yet to make a break through that shows that it is
>possible.
>
>Mark made a great point about density range and later use of a scanner. The
>platinum/palladium print is far more suited to capture a full scale negative
>than many scanners. If you are making your negatives for other purposes, it
>makes sense to keep the range smaller and use your printing skills to expand
>it for the print at hand.
>
>
>
>Eric Neilsen Photography
>4101 Commerce Street
>Suite 9
>Dallas, TX 75226
>http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
>http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandy King [mailto:sanking@clemson.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 8:46 AM
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>> Subject: RE: shadow density in zone III
>>
>> Eric's comment that one must "take into consideration the totality of
>> options that we are going to deal with in making the print" is very
>> much to the point. For example, both Eric and Etienne appear to be
>> developing their negatives to density ranges from 2.25 to 2.65 (Eric)
>> and 2.8-3.0 (Etienne), much greater than many would consider normal.
>> In my own work the typical density range of negatives that works for
>> me is in the 1.4 - 1.9. Yet Eric and Etienne obviously know how to
>> print so there must be something they do that requires such hard
>> negatives. I assume the difference is in their choice of metal salts
>> since no other factor in my own range of options can cause the need
>> for such hard negatives.
>>
>> Sandy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Dennis, When making negatives for PT/PD printing you need to take into
>> >consideration the totality of options that you are going to deal with in
>> >making that print; PT/PD ratio, paper type, developer used and at what
>> temp,
>> >FO or AFO, humidity and light source/glass exposure.
>> >
>> >Film base + fog subtracted - I shoot for a .45 to a high around 2.7 to
>> 3.1.
>> >Adding much more at the bottom will give you added exposure time and
>> >depending on film and subject, I may bring the low end down to .3 but
>> that
>> >will depend greatly on what else is around it and on what paper.
>> >
>> >If you haven't done it yet, get a Stouffers step tablet and make a series
>> of
>> >exposure test to chart your mixtures and times to produce the full range
>> of
>> >the step tablet. Different glass and lamp combinations will change subtly
> > >the response that you will get.
>> >
>> >Eric Neilsen Photography
>> >4101 Commerce Street
>> >Suite 9
>> >Dallas, TX 75226
>> >http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
>> >http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Dennis Purdy [mailto:dennispurdy@earthlink.net]
>> >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 10:40 AM
>> >> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>> >> Subject: Re: shadow density in zone III
>> >>
>> >> Hello List, I am a lurker named Dennis and this is my first post,
>> >>
>> >> This zone system discussion has been interesting and my experience
>> with
>> >> it was being taught in 1974 by Glen Fishback who wrote the original
>> >> handbook for the Pentax spot meter and modified the AA zone system by
>> >> reducing the number of zones to be concerned with. It is the only
>> >> system of exposure calculation I have ever used though it has become
>> >> simplified to squinting my eyes to find the darks in previsualization
>> >> and metering to make sure I get enough exposure there. Then reading
>> >> the whites that I want detail in and considering how much of a problem
>> >> it will be to print it.
>> >>
>> >> The thing that has frustrated me with silver paper is that since the
>> >> improvement of AGFA in the early 80s I have never been satisfied with
>> >> the quality or character of silver gel printing even with the
>> >> chlorobromides. To this day I seem forced to make prints very
>> >> contrasty with deep blacks to get the paper to look it's best and long
>> >> scale prints are always rather flat and ugly.. I know there are people
>> >> who have figured out how to make beautiful long scale silver prints
>> but
>> >> in general it is too frustrating for me. I think the thing that
>> annoys
>> >> me most is the brightened paper.
>> >>
>> >> Which brings me to my question. I notice that all the zone system
>> talk
>> >> here references silver paper. Considering this is an alt list, has
>> >> anyone figured out what are the best low end densities to print with
>> >> great detail on a platinum print? PL/PT is my printing method since
>> >> the 80s and the precision of my metering/processing technique has bee
>> >> reduced to "give it a hell of a lot of exposure and processing" so
>> that
>> >> I can print to black without using a lot of inhibiter. What is the
>> >> ideal negative density for Zone 2 and zone 9 in pl/pd printing.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thursday, Sep 29, 2005, at 07:59 US/Pacific, Shannon Stoney wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I just realized that I have another burning question about the zone
>> >> > system and zone III: what density is zone III in your negatives?
>> > > >
>> >> > For a long time I have been following Dick Arentz's suggestion that
>> >> > the density of zone III should be about .35-.4. But, as somebody
>> >> > mentioned earlier, very dense negatives can also make good prints,
>> >> > sometimes very good prints. If I raised the density of my shadows
>> to,
>> >> > say, .70, then the highlights would have to be about 1.7, and so on.
>> >> > I have printed negatives like this and they look good. In fact it
>> >> > seems that the roll films that I have tested, if you shoot them at
>> >> > their rated speed and develop them at their recommended times, make
>> >> > denser negatives like that. Maybe that's to prevent people from
>> >> > underexposing their film. (But I normally shoot HP5+ in my old
>> Rollei
>> >> > at 1600, in order to get the shadow densities down to .35 or .4.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Just curious: those people on this list that use densitometers to
>> >> > measure their shadow densities: what is your "goal" for your
>> shadows?
>> >> > And what is the rationale behind that? Does it really matter what
>> >> > the density of the shadows is, as long as the highlights fall in the
>> >> > right place relative to the shadows? Maybe that .35-.40 thing is
>> >> > completely arbitrary? And if there was a reason behind it, what is
>> >
>> >> it?
>> >> >
>> >> > --shannon
>> >> >
Received on Fri Sep 30 13:55:28 2005