I recently bought a used 35mm and 120 cameras and have rediscovered my love of photography. I discovered your channel a couple days ago and love it! I am grateful you take the time to create these videos which give people like me access to your decades of experience with film photography. Thank you! I have loved photography and darkroom work since I was 10 (I am now 58). Along with many photographers, I got rid of all my film equipment in the early 2000s and replaced it all with digital. At first I loved digital - it was new and different! However, in spite of having a great DSLR and lenses, after decades of an enduring love of photography, I lost interest and wandered away. I have wondered off and on why. Recently, I figured it out. Digital is a very different process than film. On top of the aesthetic superiorities (perhaps subjective) of film, film slows you down, makes you connect with your subject, and makes you commit. I find the process of film photography, from camera to print, so much more engaging. Thank you again, Michael!
The video ended just when it started to get good… I subscribed hoping there’s a follow up video explaining the development part. (Especially as it relates to using bath B of two bath developers like Divided D23 or Barry Thornton 2 Bath developers) Like you explain, The Zone System is much easier to understand after you get it in your head that most all reflective light meters will deliver the Zone 5 value. It’s up to the photographer adjust that value to produce blacks or whites. As you also point out, this exposure adjustment is much easier to understand with EVs (like the values on the Pentax rings) rather than f-stops n shutter speeds. EVs are a unit of light, f-stops n shutter speeds are the tactics used to achieve the unit. Just to mess things up Incident Light Meters (usually those with the white half dome) produce a different exposure result. Just tuck this tidbit away for now, it’s not the same as a reflective meter.
I'll do a development video, that's a good idea, I've just been doing nothing but printing. As far as TVs go, the whole zone system is based on candled per square foot , for illumination. It's not a direct correlation, but it's close enough for getting the hang of it. After a while, it's all about your own consistency. Thanks!
MISSING from the get go in this (very good) introduction is the prerequisite understanding that each 'new' subject (photographe) needs a new roll of film - that is (probably); if You're not using singular sheets of negatives. (That explains BTW that comon exposure meters then where presented to encourage single AVERAGE readouts, for average (good enough) decisions ('grey') for every new shot for 12, 24 or 36 exposure rolls of film (=one type of (for average) developpent. With eperience (with own equipment), one would over or under-Ride (not under-expose) those average readouts. Those results out of "average values" varied less then if You where to expose (with a correct spotmeter) systematically for the near-black of every new scene. Because if doing so (expose always "for the blacks"), followed by a standard "one for all" length of developpement time (because) for the whole film of different lightning/subjects, that would produce the negative's density for each of the highlights of each shot to vary even more greatly, and for to many shots such resulting mostly longer exposure would unnecessarily blur a subject). But highlights are are best nuanced and lively in the end print, : if they are issued by dense (black) negatives and that-are-not-crushed- into undistiguushable overexposure (of the light values. Another aproach should therefore be "expose for the almost to bright", and dont care where the shadows start (black is easy to do on thev paper whenever/whereever). But that is too "dangerous. Hence the in average "average, plus 2, or average minus 2...) Also, every (even black and white) film reacts differently to a same given green (especially leaves) or blues (sky) ..color spectrum.. to be translated into brightness. Combined with color filters put over lens to compensate or to achieve effects, when those were put over the exposure meeters, those would often again make things worse than aiming for "average" - because their 'lichtsensors' would need to see as the film does.. Only very seldom, modified spotmeters could be trusted (i.ex. filtered in regards to infra red). Every entier roll of film needs to be dedicated for only one type of situation.. (BTW, any readout of a lightmeter (reflective or Incident type) was supposed to lead to average grey (reference'). But many meters would 'cheet' whith what they considered 50% grey, so as to reduce the average number of unusable "average" exposures by the average photographer under average conditions...., based on the average returns of users.
Yes Sir! You are 100% correct. Sheet film or a lot of rolls or cut carefully..... I remember one time I was shooting a golf tournament and I was on my last roll of film. A guy made a putt and jumped up in the air with his club and I knew that was the shot. I was 13 frames into the roll. On the way home I got a call to stop at a basketball game in a dimly lit gym. So on that last roll I advanced the film about 5 or 8 frames and shot the basketball on the rest. In the darkroom I measured off my 13 frames-plus and cut the film to develop half in D76 and the other half in Acufine, When it all cleared, somehow, I had cut right through the frame with the golfer jumping in the air!
@@asa1000photography "mythique" !!! You had aquired the back then needed mix of experience, intuition and dexterity - that was necessary to achieve "a state of mind of luck" lol. Well, not logic, but I'm sure you understand me :-)
I was waiting for someone to say this. Always happens. Who cares? Ansel helped to develop it, taught it, and made it useful in his famous teachings and books. Just so you know, Ansel is spelled: A N S E L . Not that it matters in the grand scheme of everything.
@@cinnamon--girl it matters, dear overreacting creature, because, for example... I had no notion of the existence of Fred Archer! Now I can google him and expand my knowledge, and I'm very glad about that! If humanity filters and interprets reality with its own mind lens only (which more often than not is, a very slow tele...), this happens. We are at the center of our actions and cause effect, we are not the center of our world in the sense that we determine how the others perceive reality. You assumed that he was doing something that you don't like, or find polemical. I don't know if you could see that he was also informative and divulgative. P.S. sorry for the rant, and please don't take it as an opinion on your whole being, it was a reaction on the specific post. Albeit a bit overreactive 😉
You've done a great service in this video for photographers beginning to work in black and white analog. For me, this process was so ingrained that switching to the digital process of exposing for highlights took concentration at the beginning of each shoot for awhile. Thanks, I subbed so I can recommend your videos to the photographers I meet questioning their exposure and development process.
Thanks for the kind words. Fifty years ago there was a discussion about whether photography was art. I think, today, finally, printmaking is an art and photography is part of the process.
@@asa1000photography Yes, the photo print-making analogy fits the fine arts model fairly closely with photography being the process. This is a concept that was pushed when I was in university. In summer sessions we shared darkroom space with Gene Smith, Imogene Cunningham, Ansel Adams, Minor White, and others, as a way to learn process from them and understand the different perspectives. One of my classmates ended up working with Cunningham for some months after summer.
@@memathews That's a nice list of mentors! Where was this? I spent some time over two summers in the early 70s with Ansel in Yosemite. I would have liked to have seen them all, especially Smith, in the darkroom.
@@asa1000photography I was at University of Oregon 71-75, studied under Bernie Freemesser and George Beltran. I met Smith in the darkroom, he had the densest negs I've ever seen! He was very humble when speaking and only used the darkroom after dark, he preferred to be alone. Unfortunately, I didn't get to meet Adams or the others, but Bernie told tales about Imogene declaring "Oh, Ansel," deflating some of his stories during a panel discussion one summer. So cool that you were able to spend time with him.
Interesting study of approximation to the "Zone System". I understand that with chemical photography, the latitude of the emulsions allowed one to play with exposure and development. But the rule that I have always used, both with rolls of film and now with digital photography is; Expose for the lights to avoid burning them, the shadows can be recovered. Another thing that intrigues me is whether Adams applied different corrections with orthochromatic or panchromatic emulsions. The first 35 mm camera that implemented a "zone" reading with a matrix sensor was the Nikon FA in the 1980s. With this system, lights burning could be avoided. Another alternative was Canon with its T90, with which you could take and process several readings before taking the photo.
Thanks for the comments! The zone system was based on Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlites because in the chemical process the shadows pretty much developed out but the highlites could be moved around, by a zone or two, depending on there development time/temp. In other words, the highlites were affected more by development than the shadows. In digital I agree with you: Expose for highlite detail and then 'recover' the shadows. Look at my video on digital before printing. The true zone system was based on foot candles of reflected light, so most light meters have to be converted. In the 80s I was living with F3s and one FM2 so I dont know the other cameras.
Great job! I notice in my work, the toe of the density-exposure curve (the lows) move up somewhat with + developments, and down somewhat with - developments, resulting in small but noticeable variations in EI to maintain my target density values for Zone I. This requires that I meter the scene, decide on zone placements and development, then shoot at the EI consistent with the development. I’m probably too detailed but old retired engineers can be that way 😊
It all moves but the highlites move more. All the zones and tones and everything else is just to help develop consistency. In the end it's really just salt-to-taste!
Hello Sir, I do have a question: I understand the measuring for the shadows. But the developing for the highlights? Is that on 1 negative? Are we talking about the development of the negative or the print? How could I develop an entire roll depending on this one measurement? I (and I am just a very amateur amateur) always measure for zone 5 and then develop the film at factory specs. Fixing everything else in print development as best I can. Highest regards, Mac
Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlites is mostly an adage for film, but it also applies to prints. So the concept with film is that it has a certain range of brightness that it can capture, so you meter your scene and see how many stops there are between the shadows and the highlites. If the range is too big you shorten the development, if it is too large you lengthen the development. The Zone System was based on a 10 stop range between total black and bright white. he darkest shadows with detail were zone 2 and the last white with detail was zone 9. Watch my zone system video.
When I first read about the zone system I was fascinated by it. I read some books about it and I did some experiment with adjusted exposure and development, but in practice it didn't work for me because if you wanted to use the zone system you need to have a plate camera (which I didn't have ) in order to be able to develop an image seperately unless you were willing to use an entire film-roll for one subject. I loved analog photography it was exciting to see if your affords resulted in good images, but I don't want to do it again because it is such a hassle with chemicals and spending endless hours in the darkroom developing. Did you use it oftenh yourself because I understand that you were a photo reporter?
Great video. I am just getting back into B+W film photography after a 30 year break. Can I ask what are your thoughts about stand development in relation to this mantra?
From what little I know about it, it sounds like it would be harder to push film '1-Stop" or two. How would you do that? Extend the time? Increase the temperature? I don't know. I think the exposure part would be the same but I'd have to play with the development part. Why do you want to do this?The closest to Stand that I've ever done is HP-5 in Acufine @85 degrees with no agitation. Just rap it on the counter top to get the bubbles out and put it down and dont touch it for (I think) 10 minutes. Touch it and the highlites just develop solid!
When you shoot on digital do the reverse.............and shoot in RAW. Expose for highlights and "develop" in post for the shadows. Unless you love blown highlights.........which no one does.
When you say about increasing development time to get the highlights into the zone you want, how do you work out what is 1 stop in development time? Clearly it'll be different with varying developers and dilutions, but is there a general way of figuring it out? Is it a percentage? Thanks!!
Ansel Adams advised: For Plus 1 development multiply the normal time by 1.4. For Minus 1 divide by 1.3. And, like everything else in photography, salt to taste... adjust as necessary!
Expose for the shadows and just print through the highlites!! was a newspaper approach, since in print, no highlites were brighter than the paper stock they were printed on.
it makes sense! So that extra stop that you need to get high lites in zone 7 is done by development on the print, is that correct? I like you explanation
@@asa1000photography ok I stand corrected. Thank you so much for sharing your experience. Of course not a Bud light! That ain't beer. I like real beer! Bass Ale, Heineken, Sapporo, Negra modelo, etc etc
I get the general idea but confess to being a little confused. By overdeveloping, surely that world name the highlights lighter. I thought that "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" meant, effectively, overexposure and then reducing development, so as not to blow the highlights out?
It all depends..... You base the exposure off the shadow value because a change in development won't affect the shadows very much at all. Then you see (by counting zones) where the highlites fall. Maybe you have to extend your development time or maybe you have to shorten it! You look at the scene and determine what part of it will be the shadow are and what part of it you want to be bright white. You measure the number of stops in the scene between the dark shadows and that bright white. How many stops apart from the shadow is it? Example: From Zone 2 shadow to zone VII highlife is 5 zones or 5 stops. (7 minus2=5 stops) Now: How far apart are the shadows and highlites? More than 5 stops then shorten development. Less than 5 stops than lengthen development. You are making the scene fit the 'range' of the film. You base your exposure on the shadow value.
@asa1000photography That's a very comprehensive and logical explanation. I'm going to experiment tomorrow and see how I go. Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply. Very grateful, as this is a topic I've previously had a lot of problems with. Ian
Hi! Awesome video. I have only one question. Is this applicable to a an entire roll? Cause if I calculate one stop plus in development for one picture but one less for another frame then what do I do? Would it be better to expose everything kind of similar and then corrent while printing/scanning?
No this is for individual frames.... but what you could do is figure out your exposure, shoot several frames of that, note the frame numbers and then leave 4 or 5 blank frames and try to cut the film into pieces and develop each piece as required... or you could roll your own 'short rolls' of 5 or 10 exposures so you could develop each as required. If you average it all out on one roll you are doing the same thing as the camera meter and it;s not going to be what you want. Experiment! and thanks for the compliment!
@@asa1000photography Expose to the right (protect highlights, idea being it is easier to recover shadows when photographing digitally), ETTL the opposite, so expose for the shadows, but try to recover highlights. I think the latter could be interesting for BW.
@@craigianmenzies Thanks! yes,I know this approach and you're onto the B&W concept: expose for the shadows and DEVELOP to place the highlites where you want. That was Ansel Adam's approach with the zone system. Watch my 'expose for the shadows' video.
You show 35mm film right at the beginning of the video, though, where it is inherently impossible to "adjust development for the highlights"... because you develop an entire roll one way... This is fine for large format, but it never made sense for 35mm. And still doesn't after watching this video. You can pull enough for whatever you remember/noted the most extremely contrasty, promising photo in the roll, but even then, lots of other photos will be muddy levels of gray and still wrecked. You need to pick your choice of shots per the nature of the roll, and just give up on some for not being compatible, there's not any alternative. Unless maybe there is such a thing as a 35mm camera with changeable backs that I've never heard of.
The modular Rolleiflex 2002 / 3003 cameras with interchangeable film backs and dark slides were the only camera models I'm aware of that could accomplish that. I owned a 2002 exactly because of this dilemma at the time when these gems were availabke brand new. Unfortunately my specimen had buggy electronics. I eventually sold it. It had spent more time in service and repair shops than on duty in my hands. In order to taking advantage of the fine lenses in which I had invested a fortune I ended up buying three (used?] Rolleiflex bodies with the normal SLR form factor. Not the most lightweight way to shlepp around on a wedding for instance, but a) faster to switch and b) very calming to have at least one backup at hand if there were any issues. I'm not sure anymore whether the bodies were made in Singapore or in Germany. The asian models apparently don't age as well, according to recent vintage testers. Back to the cube: The 3003 is said to be a little more reliable, therefore pricey and hardly serviceable nowadays. IIrc, there was a budget 3001 as well.
Vous avez fait votre propre système de développement qui est vraiment très bien fait, le sensitogramme imprimé c'est bien, mais l'autre dans le révélateur, après le reste du traitement ,bien rincé et séché, le densitomètre, et après le papier millimétré (abaque) ne serait-il pas mieux? Vous avez une cellule W e s t o n ( qui est du silicium ) la cellule L u n a s i x 3 ( sulfure de cadmium) ne serait-elle pas plus précise. Celui qui vous écrit connait les deux, et préfère la L u n a s i x .Vos fiches sur les différents révélateurs du développement au traitement poussé est très bien fait. Pourriez vous, dans ce cas, faire un développement normal et aussi poussé ,et voir les négatifs avec à côté le nom de chaque révélateur. Ne pas oublier aussi qu'il existe un film noir et blanc, que l'on développe dans des bains couleur négatif.
Merci pour les compliments ! Si j'ai un peu plus de temps, j'essaierai peut-être d'écrire une feuille comme vous l'avez suggéré avec des négatifs à titre d'exemples.
@@asa1000photography, Si vous savez vous débrouiller avec l'ordinateur, faites très attention avec le contraste avec le numérique. ( le GAMMA, le CONTRASTE, et la Luminosité) seulement pour le noir et blanc et sur p h o t o f i l t r e ). Ne pas oublier le film 25 i s o, avec les p a r a m e t r e s de la pellicule,et du traitement à la chambre noire,avec cela on pensera une photo début du siècle dernier. Alors qu'elle aura été faite la veille.
Honestly I find the zone system an unnecessary extra layer of complexity. I think in stops and translate them to the settings. ‘meter for the (open) shadows and develop highlights’ is invaluable advice. Also useful I think is the advice to meter for the source rather than the reflection. Get good at incident metering and you’ll be guessing settings for scenes quickly and accurately in no time.
Not metering open shadows, metering the darkest shadow area that still has some discernible texture.... after that, it's all sensitometry as far as how much latitude your film has vs. how much range the scene has in stops from shadow to highlife. That's where the development time comes in, but in the end, its whatever is working for 'you'.
@@asa1000photography I find in practice metering for the darkest detail shadows is impractical if I need to shoot above 1/125 and f4 at all times in England ☁️
Today you no longer have photographers. They are really photocheaters /or phot editors by shooting RAW & cheats using pc. They shoot hundreds to thousands and less than 9% are printed larger than 16 X 20.
I was just saying that to someone else! But now Printmaking is the art form and photography is just the process. I'd shoot 4 rolls of 36 at a sporting event and have more than enough. With digital.... you know! ;-)
OK What don't you understand? If you measure the brightness of a scene, from darkest shadow to the last highlite with some minimal texture you will know how many stops between the shadow and highlite. So let's say the film you are using can render 8 stops of brightness, but your scene has 9 stops between the shadows and highlites..... so then you would need to compact the brightness from 9 to 8 stops (or zones), so you would develop less (minus 1 stop or minus 1 development). If you only had 6 stops of brightness you would add two stops or give it plus 2 development. If normal development was for 200 ASA you would be developing as if it were 800 ASA Expose for the shadows, develop according to the highlites. How are we now? Good? ;-) Maybe, now watch the video again.
I think a graph would come After you did some experimenting. You have to have a Normal development time first, a way to repeatedly record some value (probably middle grey) and get it so it reproduces in a print as middle grey. After that I suppose you could graph different changes in exposure and development time so you are consistent, but I think you are overthinking this. Shoot more film and you'll get a feel for it. Maybe do some 'snip tests' where you cut off a piece and develop it so you can do 5 or 6 tests on a roll. @@GuidoValdataThis is for B&W
Paul Simon, white paper with a sharpie and a clear simple explanation. Thanks. Sub'd.
I recently bought a used 35mm and 120 cameras and have rediscovered my love of photography. I discovered your channel a couple days ago and love it! I am grateful you take the time to create these videos which give people like me access to your decades of experience with film photography. Thank you!
I have loved photography and darkroom work since I was 10 (I am now 58). Along with many photographers, I got rid of all my film equipment in the early 2000s and replaced it all with digital. At first I loved digital - it was new and different! However, in spite of having a great DSLR and lenses, after decades of an enduring love of photography, I lost interest and wandered away.
I have wondered off and on why. Recently, I figured it out. Digital is a very different process than film. On top of the aesthetic superiorities (perhaps subjective) of film, film slows you down, makes you connect with your subject, and makes you commit. I find the process of film photography, from camera to print, so much more engaging.
Thank you again, Michael!
Thanks for your interest and kind words!
The video ended just when it started to get good… I subscribed hoping there’s a follow up video explaining the development part. (Especially as it relates to using bath B of two bath developers like Divided D23 or Barry Thornton 2 Bath developers)
Like you explain, The Zone System is much easier to understand after you get it in your head that most all reflective light meters will deliver the Zone 5 value. It’s up to the photographer adjust that value to produce blacks or whites. As you also point out, this exposure adjustment is much easier to understand with EVs (like the values on the Pentax rings) rather than f-stops n shutter speeds. EVs are a unit of light, f-stops n shutter speeds are the tactics used to achieve the unit.
Just to mess things up Incident Light Meters (usually those with the white half dome) produce a different exposure result. Just tuck this tidbit away for now, it’s not the same as a reflective meter.
I'll do a development video, that's a good idea, I've just been doing nothing but printing. As far as TVs go, the whole zone system is based on candled per square foot , for illumination. It's not a direct correlation, but it's close enough for getting the hang of it. After a while, it's all about your own consistency. Thanks!
Thanks a lot for the video it was very educational! Now I understand what developing for the highlights means
You are very welcome. I'm here if you have questions.
Wow, incredible breakdown on how the zone system works. Many thanks for taking the time to make this video.
Thanks! If you dont mind me asking: What 'clicked' for you? Was it the white paper and sharpie that made it clear? Thanks!
MISSING from the get go in this (very good) introduction is the prerequisite understanding that each 'new' subject (photographe) needs a new roll of film - that is (probably); if You're not using singular sheets of negatives.
(That explains BTW that comon exposure meters then where presented to encourage single AVERAGE readouts, for average (good enough) decisions ('grey') for every new shot for 12, 24 or 36 exposure rolls of film (=one type of (for average) developpent.
With eperience (with own equipment), one would over or under-Ride (not under-expose) those average readouts.
Those results out of "average values" varied less then if You where to expose (with a correct spotmeter) systematically for the near-black of every new scene. Because if doing so (expose always "for the blacks"),
followed by a standard "one for all" length of developpement time (because) for the whole film of different lightning/subjects, that would produce the negative's density for each of the highlights of each shot to vary even more greatly, and for to many shots such resulting mostly longer exposure would unnecessarily blur a subject). But highlights are are best nuanced and lively in the end print, : if they are issued by dense (black) negatives and that-are-not-crushed- into undistiguushable overexposure (of the light values.
Another aproach should therefore be "expose for the almost to bright", and dont care where the shadows start (black is easy to do on thev paper whenever/whereever). But that is too "dangerous. Hence the in average "average, plus 2, or average minus 2...)
Also, every (even black and white) film reacts differently to a same given green (especially leaves) or blues (sky) ..color spectrum.. to be translated into brightness. Combined with color filters put over lens to compensate or to achieve effects, when those were put over the exposure meeters, those would often again make things worse than aiming for "average" - because their 'lichtsensors' would need to see as the film does..
Only very seldom, modified spotmeters could be trusted (i.ex. filtered in regards to infra red). Every entier roll of film needs to be dedicated for only one type of situation..
(BTW, any readout of a lightmeter (reflective or Incident type) was supposed to lead to average grey (reference'). But many meters would 'cheet' whith what they considered 50% grey, so as to reduce the average number of unusable "average" exposures by the average photographer under average conditions...., based on the average returns of users.
Yes Sir! You are 100% correct. Sheet film or a lot of rolls or cut carefully.....
I remember one time I was shooting a golf tournament and I was on my last roll of film. A guy made a putt and jumped up in the air with his club and I knew that was the shot. I was 13 frames into the roll. On the way home I got a call to stop at a basketball game in a dimly lit gym. So on that last roll I advanced the film about 5 or 8 frames and shot the basketball on the rest. In the darkroom I measured off my 13 frames-plus and cut the film to develop half in D76 and the other half in Acufine, When it all cleared, somehow, I had cut right through the frame with the golfer jumping in the air!
@@asa1000photography "mythique" !!! You had aquired the back then needed mix of experience, intuition and dexterity - that was necessary to achieve "a state of mind of luck" lol. Well, not logic, but I'm sure you understand me :-)
P.M.A - Positive Mental Attitude!
super interesting comment, thank you!!
Thank you, thank you, Michael, your channel is excellent. You have a new follower!!!
Thank you, that was very concise… a great help.
Wow, absolutely the best explanation I have seen so far. Thank you, Sir.
thanks!
"The Zone System" best ever book I read by Ansel Adams!
He had a handle on it, for sure. His whole' Basic Photo' series is excellent. Welcome!
Very usefull information, thank.
Great video, I get it now.
Great video, glad I found it!
Thanks!
Kindly note that it wasn't just Ansell Adams who developed (pun intended) the Zone System but it was with Fred Archer as well.
I was waiting for someone to say this. Always happens. Who cares? Ansel helped to develop it, taught it, and made it useful in his famous teachings and books. Just so you know, Ansel is spelled: A N S E L . Not that it matters in the grand scheme of everything.
@@cinnamon--girl it matters, dear overreacting creature, because, for example... I had no notion of the existence of Fred Archer! Now I can google him and expand my knowledge, and I'm very glad about that! If humanity filters and interprets reality with its own mind lens only (which more often than not is, a very slow tele...), this happens. We are at the center of our actions and cause effect, we are not the center of our world in the sense that we determine how the others perceive reality. You assumed that he was doing something that you don't like, or find polemical. I don't know if you could see that he was also informative and divulgative. P.S. sorry for the rant, and please don't take it as an opinion on your whole being, it was a reaction on the specific post. Albeit a bit overreactive 😉
@@GuidoValdata maybe this could have been better stated without the misogyny and paternalistic attitude?
Thanks for great explanation, excellent way of transfer knowledge.
You are very welcome. Im here to answer questions. Thx!
This was interesting. Thank you. I think most people just take a digital photo, check its graph and adjust accordingly and take another one.
With digital it's different. With digital you expose for the highlites and then open up the shadows..
You've done a great service in this video for photographers beginning to work in black and white analog. For me, this process was so ingrained that switching to the digital process of exposing for highlights took concentration at the beginning of each shoot for awhile. Thanks, I subbed so I can recommend your videos to the photographers I meet questioning their exposure and development process.
Thanks for the kind words. Fifty years ago there was a discussion about whether photography was art. I think, today, finally, printmaking is an art and photography is part of the process.
@@asa1000photography Yes, the photo print-making analogy fits the fine arts model fairly closely with photography being the process. This is a concept that was pushed when I was in university. In summer sessions we shared darkroom space with Gene Smith, Imogene Cunningham, Ansel Adams, Minor White, and others, as a way to learn process from them and understand the different perspectives. One of my classmates ended up working with Cunningham for some months after summer.
@@memathews That's a nice list of mentors! Where was this? I spent some time over two summers in the early 70s with Ansel in Yosemite. I would have liked to have seen them all, especially Smith, in the darkroom.
@@asa1000photography I was at University of Oregon 71-75, studied under Bernie Freemesser and George Beltran. I met Smith in the darkroom, he had the densest negs I've ever seen! He was very humble when speaking and only used the darkroom after dark, he preferred to be alone. Unfortunately, I didn't get to meet Adams or the others, but Bernie told tales about Imogene declaring "Oh, Ansel," deflating some of his stories during a panel discussion one summer. So cool that you were able to spend time with him.
Interesting study of approximation to the "Zone System". I understand that with chemical photography, the latitude of the emulsions allowed one to play with exposure and development. But the rule that I have always used, both with rolls of film and now with digital photography is; Expose for the lights to avoid burning them, the shadows can be recovered.
Another thing that intrigues me is whether Adams applied different corrections with orthochromatic or panchromatic emulsions.
The first 35 mm camera that implemented a "zone" reading with a matrix sensor was the Nikon FA in the 1980s. With this system, lights burning could be avoided.
Another alternative was Canon with its T90, with which you could take and process several readings before taking the photo.
Thanks for the comments! The zone system was based on Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlites because in the chemical process the shadows pretty much developed out but the highlites could be moved around, by a zone or two, depending on there development time/temp. In other words, the highlites were affected more by development than the shadows. In digital I agree with you: Expose for highlite detail and then 'recover' the shadows. Look at my video on digital before printing. The true zone system was based on foot candles of reflected light, so most light meters have to be converted. In the 80s I was living with F3s and one FM2 so I dont know the other cameras.
Great job! I notice in my work, the toe of the density-exposure curve (the lows) move up somewhat with + developments, and down somewhat with - developments, resulting in small but noticeable variations in EI to maintain my target density values for Zone I. This requires that I meter the scene, decide on zone placements and development, then shoot at the EI consistent with the development. I’m probably too detailed but old retired engineers can be that way 😊
It all moves but the highlites move more. All the zones and tones and everything else is just to help develop consistency. In the end it's really just salt-to-taste!
Hello Sir, I do have a question: I understand the measuring for the shadows. But the developing for the highlights? Is that on 1 negative? Are we talking about the development of the negative or the print?
How could I develop an entire roll depending on this one measurement? I (and I am just a very amateur amateur) always measure for zone 5 and then develop the film at factory specs. Fixing everything else in print development as best I can.
Highest regards, Mac
Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlites is mostly an adage for film, but it also applies to prints. So the concept with film is that it has a certain range of brightness that it can capture, so you meter your scene and see how many stops there are between the shadows and the highlites. If the range is too big you shorten the development, if it is too large you lengthen the development. The Zone System was based on a 10 stop range between total black and bright white. he darkest shadows with detail were zone 2 and the last white with detail was zone 9. Watch my zone system video.
Well done! Just one thing, the number 8 is written VIII in Roman numerals 😉
quite a good explanation! one question only:
your mentioning of +1 stop for development to get into zone vii means for developing the negative, right?
Yes negative development. Plus one development is about 1.4 times the normal development. Minus 1 is about normal divided by 1.3.
When I first read about the zone system I was fascinated by it. I read some books about it and I did some experiment with adjusted exposure and development, but in practice it didn't work for me because if you wanted to use the zone system you need to have a plate camera (which I didn't have ) in order to be able to develop an image seperately unless you were willing to use an entire film-roll for one subject.
I loved analog photography it was exciting to see if your affords resulted in good images, but I don't want to do it again because it is such a hassle with chemicals and spending endless hours in the darkroom developing. Did you use it oftenh yourself because I understand that you were a photo reporter?
I've had a bunch of darkroo0mns of my own over the years. At the newspaper we developed film and had a machine processor to make prints.
Great video. I am just getting back into B+W film photography after a 30 year break. Can I ask what are your thoughts about stand development in relation to this mantra?
From what little I know about it, it sounds like it would be harder to push film '1-Stop" or two. How would you do that? Extend the time? Increase the temperature? I don't know. I think the exposure part would be the same but I'd have to play with the development part. Why do you want to do this?The closest to Stand that I've ever done is HP-5 in Acufine @85 degrees with no agitation. Just rap it on the counter top to get the bubbles out and put it down and dont touch it for (I think) 10 minutes. Touch it and the highlites just develop solid!
When you shoot on digital do the reverse.............and shoot in RAW. Expose for highlights and "develop" in post for the shadows. Unless you love blown highlights.........which no one does.
Yes that;s the plan!
When you say about increasing development time to get the highlights into the zone you want, how do you work out what is 1 stop in development time? Clearly it'll be different with varying developers and dilutions, but is there a general way of figuring it out? Is it a percentage? Thanks!!
Ansel Adams advised: For Plus 1 development multiply the normal time by 1.4. For Minus 1 divide by 1.3. And, like everything else in photography, salt to taste... adjust as necessary!
A pro once told me expose for the shadows and let the highlights look after themselves !!!
Expose for the shadows and just print through the highlites!! was a newspaper approach, since in print, no highlites were brighter than the paper stock they were printed on.
it makes sense! So that extra stop that you need to get high lites in zone 7 is done by development on the print, is that correct? I like you explanation
Once you have you exposure based on the shadows, then the development OF THE FILM places your highlites in the zone.
@@asa1000photography ok I stand corrected. Thank you so much for sharing your experience. Of course not a Bud light! That ain't beer. I like real beer! Bass Ale, Heineken, Sapporo, Negra modelo, etc etc
I get the general idea but confess to being a little confused. By overdeveloping, surely that world name the highlights lighter. I thought that "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" meant, effectively, overexposure and then reducing development, so as not to blow the highlights out?
It all depends..... You base the exposure off the shadow value because a change in development won't affect the shadows very much at all. Then you see (by counting zones) where the highlites fall. Maybe you have to extend your development time or maybe you have to shorten it! You look at the scene and determine what part of it will be the shadow are and what part of it you want to be bright white. You measure the number of stops in the scene between the dark shadows and that bright white. How many stops apart from the shadow is it? Example: From Zone 2 shadow to zone VII highlife is 5 zones or 5 stops. (7 minus2=5 stops) Now: How far apart are the shadows and highlites? More than 5 stops then shorten development. Less than 5 stops than lengthen development. You are making the scene fit the 'range' of the film. You base your exposure on the shadow value.
@asa1000photography That's a very comprehensive and logical explanation. I'm going to experiment tomorrow and see how I go. Many thanks for taking the trouble to reply.
Very grateful, as this is a topic I've previously had a lot of problems with. Ian
Let me know how it goes! Shoot a lot of tests. Make notes.
Hi! Awesome video.
I have only one question. Is this applicable to a an entire roll? Cause if I calculate one stop plus in development for one picture but one less for another frame then what do I do? Would it be better to expose everything kind of similar and then corrent while printing/scanning?
No this is for individual frames.... but what you could do is figure out your exposure, shoot several frames of that, note the frame numbers and then leave 4 or 5 blank frames and try to cut the film into pieces and develop each piece as required... or you could roll your own 'short rolls' of 5 or 10 exposures so you could develop each as required. If you average it all out on one roll you are doing the same thing as the camera meter and it;s not going to be what you want. Experiment! and thanks for the compliment!
Going to do some BW experiments, ETTR and ETTL, see what the outcome looks like.
What's ETTR and ETTL .... > ( maybe I know this as something else.... or maybe it's just too early! thx!
@@asa1000photography Expose to the right (protect highlights, idea being it is easier to recover shadows when photographing digitally), ETTL the opposite, so expose for the shadows, but try to recover highlights. I think the latter could be interesting for BW.
@@craigianmenzies Thanks! yes,I know this approach and you're onto the B&W concept: expose for the shadows and DEVELOP to place the highlites where you want. That was Ansel Adam's approach with the zone system. Watch my 'expose for the shadows' video.
You show 35mm film right at the beginning of the video, though, where it is inherently impossible to "adjust development for the highlights"... because you develop an entire roll one way... This is fine for large format, but it never made sense for 35mm. And still doesn't after watching this video. You can pull enough for whatever you remember/noted the most extremely contrasty, promising photo in the roll, but even then, lots of other photos will be muddy levels of gray and still wrecked. You need to pick your choice of shots per the nature of the roll, and just give up on some for not being compatible, there's not any alternative. Unless maybe there is such a thing as a 35mm camera with changeable backs that I've never heard of.
Yes you are totally right, it;s all a compromise. But if people understand the concept it will always make life easier. Thx!
The modular Rolleiflex 2002 / 3003 cameras with interchangeable film backs and dark slides were the only camera models I'm aware of that could accomplish that. I owned a 2002 exactly because of this dilemma at the time when these gems were availabke brand new. Unfortunately my specimen had buggy electronics. I eventually sold it. It had spent more time in service and repair shops than on duty in my hands.
In order to taking advantage of the fine lenses in which I had invested a fortune I ended up buying three (used?] Rolleiflex bodies with the normal SLR form factor. Not the most lightweight way to shlepp around on a wedding for instance, but a) faster to switch and b) very calming to have at least one backup at hand if there were any issues. I'm not sure anymore whether the bodies were made in Singapore or in Germany. The asian models apparently don't age as well, according to recent vintage testers.
Back to the cube: The 3003 is said to be a little more reliable, therefore pricey and hardly serviceable nowadays. IIrc, there was a budget 3001 as well.
Vous avez fait votre propre système de développement qui est vraiment très bien fait, le sensitogramme imprimé c'est bien, mais l'autre dans le révélateur, après le reste du traitement ,bien rincé et séché, le densitomètre, et après le papier millimétré (abaque) ne serait-il pas mieux? Vous avez une cellule W e s t o n ( qui est du silicium ) la cellule L u n a s i x 3 ( sulfure de cadmium) ne serait-elle pas plus précise. Celui qui vous écrit connait les deux, et préfère la L u n a s i x .Vos fiches sur les différents révélateurs du développement au traitement poussé est très bien fait. Pourriez vous, dans ce cas, faire un développement normal et aussi poussé ,et voir les négatifs
avec à côté le nom de chaque révélateur. Ne pas oublier aussi qu'il existe un film noir et blanc, que l'on développe dans des bains couleur négatif.
Merci pour les compliments ! Si j'ai un peu plus de temps, j'essaierai peut-être d'écrire une feuille comme vous l'avez suggéré avec des négatifs à titre d'exemples.
@@asa1000photography, Si vous savez vous débrouiller avec l'ordinateur, faites très attention avec le contraste avec le numérique. ( le GAMMA, le CONTRASTE, et la Luminosité) seulement pour le noir et blanc et sur p h o t o f i l t r e ).
Ne pas oublier le film 25 i s o, avec les p a r a m e t r e s de la pellicule,et du traitement à la chambre noire,avec cela on pensera une photo début du siècle dernier. Alors qu'elle aura été faite la veille.
Honestly I find the zone system an unnecessary extra layer of complexity. I think in stops and translate them to the settings.
‘meter for the (open) shadows and develop highlights’ is invaluable advice.
Also useful I think is the advice to meter for the source rather than the reflection. Get good at incident metering and you’ll be guessing settings for scenes quickly and accurately in no time.
Not metering open shadows, metering the darkest shadow area that still has some discernible texture.... after that, it's all sensitometry as far as how much latitude your film has vs. how much range the scene has in stops from shadow to highlife. That's where the development time comes in, but in the end, its whatever is working for 'you'.
@@asa1000photography I find in practice metering for the darkest detail shadows is impractical if I need to shoot above 1/125 and f4 at all times in England ☁️
@@mynewcolour 🤣
Today you no longer have photographers. They are really photocheaters /or phot editors by shooting RAW & cheats using pc.
They shoot hundreds to thousands and less than 9% are printed larger than 16 X 20.
I was just saying that to someone else! But now Printmaking is the art form and photography is just the process. I'd shoot 4 rolls of 36 at a sporting event and have more than enough. With digital.... you know! ;-)
*Highlights 🤓🤓
People still shoot film and develop their own photos? I used to this when i was 14, that over over half a century ago :)
Yes it's getting popular again. I think now, finally, the analog photographic printmaker is accepted as an artist!
I'm not
OK What don't you understand? If you measure the brightness of a scene, from darkest shadow to the last highlite with some minimal texture you will know how many stops between the shadow and highlite.
So let's say the film you are using can render 8 stops of brightness, but your scene has 9 stops between the shadows and highlites..... so then you would need to compact the brightness from 9 to 8 stops (or zones), so you would develop less (minus 1 stop or minus 1 development). If you only had 6 stops of brightness you would add two stops or give it plus 2 development. If normal development was for 200 ASA you would be developing as if it were 800 ASA Expose for the shadows, develop according to the highlites. How are we now? Good? ;-) Maybe, now watch the video again.
You can make a graph 📉 that can save a lot of time.
You sure could! But then you'd have to keep that handy. In the end, it's 'whatever works!'
how would you make the graph..? is there a link/website with something you'd keep handy for your first test walks :) ? tnx
I think a graph would come After you did some experimenting. You have to have a Normal development time first, a way to repeatedly record some value (probably middle grey) and get it so it reproduces in a print as middle grey. After that I suppose you could graph different changes in exposure and development time so you are consistent, but I think you are overthinking this. Shoot more film and you'll get a feel for it. Maybe do some 'snip tests' where you cut off a piece and develop it so you can do 5 or 6 tests on a roll.
@@GuidoValdataThis is for B&W