rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Joe, I'm not sure why you are writing so vehemently against TZS. It works remarkably well. There is no slippery slope.
--Bob

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Bob, I don't quite understand your comment. I suspect that you have never used the roll film camera like a Hasselblad. Though I can not for the life of me understand why you would through out an statement like this as you have shown that you are a pretty save guy in the gray matter department. The only thing that comes to me is that you have 'forgotten' that Hasselblad systems cameras offer a vary reliable inter changeable self counting exposure system built into each of their magazines with an indicator that an exposure was made but the magazine had not yet been advanced to an unused next frame of film.

Ansel in his promotion of the Hasselblad camera spoke to all this in his many presentations about the Hasselblad camera. Each of separate magazine is assigned and marked on the rear window of that magazine the designation of N, N-, N--, N+ and so on. If a Magazine is fully exposed (12 frames), the film is off loaded and marked for processing with the 'N' code on the paper band after celling it and the magazine then re loaded with fresh stock.

So keeping up with target processing of film from any roll back after return from a sessions is easily done. With your sheet film holders of film I'm pretty certain you use a similar practice of marking the write on windows of the sheet film holders an 'N' code as well. All pretty standard practice in the world of film handling.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have a casual acquaintance with Hasselblad. Isn't that a medium format camera made in Sweden? I know they have interchangeable backs. The concept you presented here would work. However, it would require one to have at least 5 backs to accomplish that development strategy. I don't know how many backs the OP has or how he approached Zone development. Thus, my simple question.

There would be a way around using just one back. However, that may compromise the required exposure for each shot. Which is why my preference for using sheet film when applying TZS. Along those lines, I did, however, devise a means of applying the TZS to digital which works remarkably well.
--Bob

SMPhotography Loc: Pawleys Island, SC

I have been a "student" of Adams for the last 40 years. I have at last count 32 of his books, including the 3 volume set you have been using. The Blad lends it well to the Zone system because you can have 3 backs designated N+1, N, and N-1 or whatever. What type of development did you do here?

I really like this image, but the trees in the foreground are a little distracting. The tonal ranges are very good, you have everything from zone II to zone VIII

SMPhotography Loc: Pawleys Island, SC

That is a total load of crap, kindly stop showing your ignorance, it only makes you look foolish. The Zone System is a slippery slope? Care to elaborate on that one? The Zone System allows you to expose, develop and print your visualization of the scene. Anyone who knows anything about the System would know that; you are apparently in that group.

Are you saying that Ansel could not get his images right in the camera? What a load of BS.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's far beyond a beginner's image. You did an excellent job.

You are starting at the right place to learn about film exposure and development with Adams's series. Near the end of his run he switched from large format to Hasselblad and was still able to use what he knew about the Zone System.

The only problem you will face is that all of the images on each roll are going to get the same development. That may not be a serious impediment.

If you began with digital imaging much of what you learned will still be useful.

The only significant difference is that the response of a digital sensor is linear and it blows out abruptly at about 2½ stops above middle gray. However, there is a lot of capacity below middle gray until you start to see noise.

Film responds differently, in a non-linear fashion. It is more forgiving in the highlights. But the shadows start to block up seriously at about 3½ stops below middle gray with normal development. Plus or minus development can narrow or widen that range.

But if you scan your film you will have most of the same post processing tools available.

SMPhotography Loc: Pawleys Island, SC

This is why you should carry more than one back with you. I normally carry 3 backs, all A16's, with me marked N-1, N and N+1. I carry a 4th, which is an A12 in case I have to do N+2 or N-2, which is infrequent.

rberman

Hi Bob.
I’m using a Hasselblad medium format camera using 120 roll film. The Hassy has removable film backs. I have 2 film backs One of them I use for images that have a normal dynamic range of tones (6-7 zones). The other back I intend to use for images that have a short range of tones which is common in winter up here in Maine and NH. That one will be labeled N+. On those images I will underexposed by one stop and will overdevelop the film by one stop. (Pushing the film) That in theory will extend the dynamic range by 2 and produce more contrast. When I can afford another film back I could label that one N- and use it to pull the film ie over expose by one stop and underdevelop by 1-2 stops for those rare long range of tones that need to be constricted.
Now the fact is I am still not currently developing my film and the local photo shops don’t do custom developing and the custom labs that do are super expensive. So right now I’m using one back for B&W and the other for color film. I was signed up for a class on developing and printing that would have given me access to their darkroom but it got cancelled because of pandemic. So that part of the zone system will have to wait a while.
I too am a fan of Ansel Adams and a few others, Timmers and Stan and other Hogs are sharing a lot of great information about AA and the zone system. Hope you are catching it. I’m thrilled with this group and the collective knowledge you all have. Peace. Richard.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Bob is a very intelligent guy with a Hasselblad and sheet film cameras. The lovely thing about Bob he is factual with no bias or ego.Also a good friend on here.

rberman

Hi again , after I sent my last message I saw a bunch of other messages you all posted that explained the removable backs and N,N+,N- Sorry for not reading before responding and becoming redundant. R

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks, Richard. I appreciate you getting back to me with your methodology. I hadn't thought of using a separate back for each exposure/development time. I use the 4x5 for that.

I use a 500c/cm and have two backs, but don't really do Zone work with it. I save that for the 4x5. Experience has enabled me to achieve suitable negatives using TTL metering or hand-held metering. For scenes such as yours, I'd have relied on the 4x5.

Just as an add-on. This morning I was beginning to work with the digital back and doing some explorations in panoramic work. So far, so good on that. Additionally, I began exploring macro stacking. That needs some bugs ironed out. But, that should be an easy, though time-consuming task. Unlike a lot of others here, I do enjoy lab work. I've been having a hoot.

I'm looking forward to seeing more of your posts here. Keep up the good work.
--Bob

rberman

Wow Timmers
that is a lot of great information. I wish I had it before I Purchased a 6X red, a 4X orange and
3X green glass filters from eBay . But Then again I should have waited till I finished reading about filters in AA book The Negative. I will start researching the Wratten 3x3 filters and the compendium lens shade to hold them and those minus filters. I have been using Ilford XP2 B&W film which I will check on compatibility with Metal Quinone developing
Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge. I appreciate it
Peace. Richard.......ps I am also really contemplating that visualization process you referred to in earlier posts.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

You Richard need a trip to a Dominatrix for a good over the knee sparking! "Kid in a candy store" describes you perfectly! It's not that you are being bad, it is that you have lost sight of the Zen part that put you on your path. What you truly need is to get a changing bag and learn to put 20 film on a 120 reel, and into a 120 roll tank. Then you need to learn how to process your own film. I will save you a long list of disaster down the road, and you know you will be processing your own film or the dream of any real Zone System is just tat A Dream Fantasy.

But alright, your going to use Ilford XP2. First, certain vary basic 'things' about XP2 are true, do NOT pre wet the film before processing, it totally wrecks the image. Not that you will be pre wetting your film, you will be having some processor do the processing. XP2 is Ilford in competition for the Kodak nitch in 'creative consumer market' doing B&W fau photography. That is the basic think on this film and the sleep-think that goes with this whole approach. You must reject all the idiocy that goes with this approach to photography using chromogenic technology.

Lets get started. This is what is called chromogenic technology, it is silver based film that is in the final end images composed of dye systems. The processing of these films is called C-41, referring to the 'C' meaning COLOR. It is a color dye system and there are few rare photographers who understand the C-41 process nor what or how the film used with this process work. There are a butt load of idiots who have written about this Kodak film development process, they are dangerous and need to be shined on*.

C-41 films were designed to be processed in temperature controlled/replenished machines for mass produced consumers film products. They do NOT need to be as a rule. The C-41 process and it's film type are in the class of what is known as Metol/Quinone photography materials. This means a developer like D-76 will work well with this type of film. You could substitute the Kodak developer D-76 but you would need to have more than a passing understanding of the use of the organic developing agents Metol and Hydroquinone to get useful results.

The point in this rather long drawn out point your thinking? That this is a standard MQ process. So using or not using acetic acid during the process will have an impact. And if you go with the know nothing idiots who point at C-41 process manuals there is nothing regarding acetic acid (called stop bath by dead heads) published in standard literature. It's true, Kodak's guide lines do not cover this, because it does not fit into the business model of mass processing of film by small laboratories (Mom and Pop PP of A small businesses).

After the basic film development of the film using a C-41 process, IF you give the film a three minute bath in an acetic acid bath, of course followed by a rinse, then into the Blex Bath (bleach fix bath) you will set up the film to give up almost all it's silver but to retain a small amount of residual silver metal material in the film, most of which will be located in the area that is the high lights. Thus that silver will have a greater opacity than any of the surrounding dye that is the image. The ultra high whites will retain a sparkle that the rest of the image will not have in the final printing.

Now, Richard, that is all vary fine information and such but there is a much larger time bomb lurking with this film, this and every C-41 film that you will ever use. This is where we separate the puff balls from the practical workers. Anyone not practicing this is an idiot, so you will need to know this. The first step is to find a film processor that you will turn you C-41 films in to process your film. (Yes, I know you are not doing the film yourself, not yet).

When you have that selection made, you will need to make a test roll to determine the exact speed of your C-41 film. What you are doing is to establish the film's EI (EI means Exposure Index). Remember that the EI is dependent on film emulsion batch. So when you have a new film batch, new emulsion number that new batch may increase in speed by 1/3 or loose 1/3 value in speed, or it may remain constant. Welcome to the real world of the Practical Zone System.

So, you run a test and establish an EI for your Ilford XP2 film of a specific emulsion batch. Now you will go shoot with the film to do practical tests just like all Zone System Systems, it's called 'Verification'. Here is where it gets weird, it is time to be welcomed into the realm of the Monkey Farm of C-41 technology. I will state this plain and simple no technical explanation. What ever your EI is for the film there is another, a second EI because it is a C-41 film. That second EI is minus three and one half stop from established standard EI. Write it -3.5 of EI.

I know, it appears insane, but there you have the Vodou of C-41 films. The tech side, your grain size will drop, your acutance will increase and your saturation will increase many fold. Lets see, more saturation, reduction dramatically the image contrast, less apparent grain and a clear increase in acutance (apparent sharpness), and all because you increased exposure? Yes, welcome to the monkey farm!

Exposures above and below this specific threshold will cause increases and decreases in the image in unfavorable ways. Poor Richard, wait until you get involved in T Grain Technology film materials, this will be like a walk in the park!

By the way, before the US entered World War Two there was a shake up at Eastman Kodak Company. That fat business man George Eastman came home, found he had no more to live for, and blew his brains out in his office (thank the stars!), and the powerful heavy guy Mees took command of Kodak. He turned it around from a frumpy little/big American manufacturer, into a research giant and manufacturing giant that had the whole world ahhhed of what Mees could get done.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Double post!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Although chromogenic films may seem tempting (they can be developed in a lab under controlled conditions) they are not really compatible with conventional Zone System thinking. Pushing and pulling are not really part of the plan.

One of the claims, that you can expose the film at a wide range of ISO settings, seems questionable. It may be based on the fact that the film has an extended dynamic range because it does not have to account for three different colors. I guess that really means that its overall contrast is lower than normal. Maybe even the grain is finer.

If you are working with the Zone System you should probably stick to conventional films.

Even tabular grained films like TMax and Delta are not as easy to work into the Zone System as FP4 and HP5.

What may be surprising is that 120 HP5+ developed in Xtol looks a lot like Tmax and Delta in terms of grain and tonality.