Zone System/Photoshop Developing

I know many in here that use D/SLR's are used to the developing process from when they were using film, So I decided to ask in this forum......rather than camera specific areas.

Without diving into the specifics of what the "Zone System" is.....Knowing that the concept being based on exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights......How have you gone from the flexability of film development using the zone system to using digital?

In other words, how are you now "exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights"? If this can be done in photoshop, I will openly admit - I do not know how to....I base this on the hearing, in digital, if you overexpose the highlights....they are gone.

Of course, some may not follow the zone system for their style of shooting but those who have is who this question is for.

I am a little lost if the philosophy for shooting film, being negative, slide, etc...has had to be modified greatly for shooting digital by you.

I have always "exposed for the shadows" and "developed for the highlights" and am not sure how to adapt my style into digital...

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks

John,

Your maxim "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" refers to negative film. I shoot digital like I'm shooting transparency film. You're absolutely right, if you blow the highlights, they're gone forever. This is similar to digital sound recording. With analog tape, if you overmodulate, you'll get "soft" distortion, increasing in harshness the more overmodulated you are. With digital recording, the slightest amount of overmodulation introduces a very harsh distortion. But I digress...

Photoshop provides tools for you to control contrast in a manner similar to the zone system. There are three basic approaches you can take:

1) Blended photographs - take two separate exposures of the subject, exposing one for shadows and the other for highlights. Use PS to "blend" the two images together. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/digital-blending.shtml

This technique works well for landscapes, but has problems if anything in the photo moves between the two exposures (trees in wind, etc.)

2) Shadow masking - This is similar to the technique in silver photography, but it's not nearly as laborious. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast_masking.shtml

3) Linear conversion - if your camera creates raw files (Canon, etc.), when you convert the raw file to a TIFF or JPEG, you can use linear conversion to capture a greater dynamic range. Breezebrowser has a combined conversion option, where the image is converted both normally and linearly and the two are combined. This method works well. See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/yarcplus-vs-breezebrowser.shtml

I use all three techniques as needed, often trying different techniques to the same image to come up with the best result. I've found that I can approach the amount of control I had with the Zone system, with the added benefit of being able to apply the technique to color as well as B&W.

I even use the techniques on scanned 4x5 negs. I'm packing up my Metol and sodium sulfite and moving to the digital world.

Search dpreview and you'll find a lot more discussions of this subject.

Good luck.
Doug

John Gaddy said:

I know many in here that use D/SLR's are used to the developing
process from when they were using film, So I decided to ask in this
forum......rather than camera specific areas.

Without diving into the specifics of what the "Zone System"
is.....Knowing that the concept being based on exposing for the
shadows and developing for the highlights......How have you gone
from the flexability of film development using the zone system to
using digital?

In other words, how are you now "exposing for the shadows and
developing for the highlights"? If this can be done in photoshop,
I will openly admit - I do not know how to....I base this on the
hearing, in digital, if you overexpose the highlights....they are
gone.

Of course, some may not follow the zone system for their style of
shooting but those who have is who this question is for.

I am a little lost if the philosophy for shooting film, being
negative, slide, etc...has had to be modified greatly for shooting
digital by you.

I have always "exposed for the shadows" and "developed for the
highlights" and am not sure how to adapt my style into digital...

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Click to expand...

Here's a Photshop Plug-in that does shadow masking:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/shadow-control.shtml

Doug

John Gaddy said:

I know many in here that use D/SLR's are used to the developing
process from when they were using film, So I decided to ask in this
forum......rather than camera specific areas.

Without diving into the specifics of what the "Zone System"
is.....Knowing that the concept being based on exposing for the
shadows and developing for the highlights......How have you gone
from the flexability of film development using the zone system to
using digital?

In other words, how are you now "exposing for the shadows and
developing for the highlights"? If this can be done in photoshop,
I will openly admit - I do not know how to....I base this on the
hearing, in digital, if you overexpose the highlights....they are
gone.

Of course, some may not follow the zone system for their style of
shooting but those who have is who this question is for.

I am a little lost if the philosophy for shooting film, being
negative, slide, etc...has had to be modified greatly for shooting
digital by you.

I have always "exposed for the shadows" and "developed for the
highlights" and am not sure how to adapt my style into digital...

Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thanks

Click to expand...

Hi,

Forget the Zone system. AA came up with the Zone system for developing B&W film and Photo. paper.

I does not take into account colour, and how exact it would relate to an Injet printer I'm not sure.

If you camera has some sort of matrix meter, then that going to give you averaged meter read (Kinda like the Zone system gives you).

With digital it's important to meter for the hi-lights (not shadows). This really can only be done with spot metering.

--
Alex
LWS photographic (UK)

ajs2 said:

Hi,
Forget the Zone system. AA came up with the Zone system for
developing B&W film and Photo. paper.

Click to expand...

Not quite. B&W happened to be the medium in which AA worked. The Zone system is about visualization and manipulating the materials at hand in such a way that the final image (ie print) conveys both what the photographer saw and felt when the image was captured. The goals of the Zone system are as relevent with digital photography as they were with Super XX and pyro developer.

ajs2107922 said:

I does not take into account colour, and how exact it would relate
to an Injet printer I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

See above. Zone system is from pre-visualization to the final print. Again, the matrials might have changed, but the philsophy hasn't.

ajs2107922 said:

If you camera has some sort of matrix meter, then that going to
give you averaged meter read (Kinda like the Zone system gives you).

Click to expand...

Huh? Zone system is not about averaging, but determining the brightness range in the subject and compressing or expanding the range as needed.

ajs2107922 said:

With digital it's important to meter for the hi-lights (not
shadows). This really can only be done with spot metering.

Click to expand...

Yes, digital is about highlights. I can kind of agree with the spot metering observation, but digital gives us histograms which allow us to know immediately if we're blowing highlights and allowing us to adjust accordingly.

The Zone System is a thoughtful process and hard to practice in a hurry. We can bring that deliberate approach to digital as well.

For those of you who haven't read AA's "The Negative" or "The Print", I'd suggest it. Although it's mostly about technique, there's some good disussion about seeing and AA's philosophy.

Let's not forget Fred Archer, who worked with AA at Art Center codifying various techniques into the Zone System. BTW, I'm an Art Center grad, but I was there 30 years after Ansel.

Doug

ajs2107922 said:

--
Alex
LWS photographic (UK)

Click to expand...

Doug MacMillan said:

ajs2 said:

Hi,
Forget the Zone system. AA came up with the Zone system for
developing B&W film and Photo. paper.

Click to expand...

Not quite. B&W happened to be the medium in which AA worked. The
Zone system is about visualization and manipulating the materials
at hand in such a way that the final image (ie print) conveys both
what the photographer saw and felt when the image was captured.
The goals of the Zone system are as relevent with digital
photography as they were with Super XX and pyro developer.

Doug MacMillan said:

I does not take into account colour, and how exact it would relate
to an Injet printer I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

See above. Zone system is from pre-visualization to the final
print. Again, the matrials might have changed, but the philsophy
hasn't.

Click to expand...

It think this is a comon problem when talking about the Zone system. AA was not just a very good photographer, he was techie very good too. You need remove the photographer from the Zone system. The System is a result of his very high degree of techie understanding of the process by which he produced his photo's. No really what he saw. The system provides for capture an image in such away that it will reproduce the image as required on photo paper. A full end to end process.

Doug MacMillan said:

Doug MacMillan said:

If you camera has some sort of matrix meter, then that going to
give you averaged meter read (Kinda like the Zone system gives you).

Click to expand...

Huh? Zone system is not about averaging, but determining the
brightness range in the subject and compressing or expanding the
range as needed.

Click to expand...

So how are you going do that on camera.. other than apply the Zone system calc's and get the exposer setting?

Doug MacMillan said:

Doug MacMillan said:

With digital it's important to meter for the hi-lights (not
shadows). This really can only be done with spot metering.

Click to expand...

Yes, digital is about highlights. I can kind of agree with the
spot metering observation, but digital gives us histograms which
allow us to know immediately if we're blowing highlights and
allowing us to adjust accordingly.

Click to expand...

You can't get Histograms for each Zone in the scene. So your going to have to relate meter reading to Histograms?

Doug MacMillan said:

The Zone System is a thoughtful process and hard to practice in a
hurry. We can bring that deliberate approach to digital as well.

For those of you who haven't read AA's "The Negative" or "The
Print", I'd suggest it. Although it's mostly about technique,
there's some good disussion about seeing and AA's philosophy.

Let's not forget Fred Archer, who worked with AA at Art Center
codifying various techniques into the Zone System. BTW, I'm an Art
Center grad, but I was there 30 years after Ansel.

Click to expand...

I'm sure with effort a cleaver bod could convert the Zone System to Digtal colour, but I don't think it a starting point for a relative newbie

Doug MacMillan said:

Doug

Doug MacMillan said:

--
Alex
LWS photographic (UK)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Alex
LWS photographic (UK)

Alex,

Poor John, while we're here discussiing our understandings of the Zone System and its application, I feel we've strayed afar from John's original request. I've reread it and I think he's asking if there is a way with post production to "squeeze" the dynamic range of a digital image so you can get a decent print; he's afraid of losing quality and/or control compared to silver negatives. My original posts had some links to back up my feeling that you can. Sorry if I muddied my answer with ramblings about the Zone System.

Regardless of what you call it, I'm working on looking at a subject and determining which technique might be most useful in post processing. I adjust my exposure and/or take two adjusted frames, if possible, as necessary. I try to do this without resorting to aids, such as examining the histogram or metering different parts of the image.I'm getting better at it.

Best to you on the other side of the pond.

Doug

Thanks Doug....That is what I am after but there is always something to learn from listening.....

I guess to try and put it another way: I wonder how many of you just simply take what the meter is telling you? Meaning: You are going to eithe rlose detail in the highlights or the shadows and you have to decide which - or take an average of both and get a average picture. From the ranges of different cameras that I have read it seems you lose detail in the highlights faster than you will lose them in the shadows. More range in the lower part rather than the upper part. So if we agree this is true (or somewhat) then I still wonder how you control your highlights and still get the tones you saw before taking the shot? Do you just let the highlights go off the scale if need be and live with it? Or do you just avoid high contrast at all cost to keep within the range of your camera?

I hope you can see somewhat that I am after how you are metering the scenes with digital.... Yes, some postprocessing can be done in PS and things such as stacking is an option (As one post indicated) but that is not always possible. Still to me, the most important portion of any shot will remain exposure and how close you can get it to what you wanted the image to look like. The closer you get it to that, the more flexability you have in post processing. Seems that you have to get closer with digital than you did with film for the reasons we have covered...

Thanks

John

Hi,

With Digital if you burn your pictures out then it's nasty and very noticable, Loosing shadow detail is a loss, but it's not nasty and less noticable. Exposing for shadows relates to negative film due to the developement process.

Therefore with you metering you need to ensure you have no burn out regardless of using the meter in the camera or the histogram after.

Detail in the shadows becomes masked by noise the more detail you attempt to extract the more noise you will get.

Bottom line is you highlight control how much shadow detail you will get. If you want more shadow detail then you need to reduce your highlights in someway. Wait for a cloud or use a grad filter (what ever).

In you digital dark room you get the change to adjustment equ. of the darkroom tech. used by AA.

Doug right read books about AA they are interesting and one learns a lot.

John Gaddy said:

Thanks Doug....That is what I am after but there is always
something to learn from listening.....

I guess to try and put it another way: I wonder how many of you
just simply take what the meter is telling you? Meaning: You are
going to eithe rlose detail in the highlights or the shadows and
you have to decide which - or take an average of both and get a
average picture. From the ranges of different cameras that I have
read it seems you lose detail in the highlights faster than you
will lose them in the shadows. More range in the lower part rather
than the upper part. So if we agree this is true (or somewhat)
then I still wonder how you control your highlights and still get
the tones you saw before taking the shot? Do you just let the
highlights go off the scale if need be and live with it? Or do you
just avoid high contrast at all cost to keep within the range of
your camera?

I hope you can see somewhat that I am after how you are metering
the scenes with digital.... Yes, some postprocessing can be done
in PS and things such as stacking is an option (As one post
indicated) but that is not always possible. Still to me, the most
important portion of any shot will remain exposure and how close
you can get it to what you wanted the image to look like. The
closer you get it to that, the more flexability you have in post
processing. Seems that you have to get closer with digital than
you did with film for the reasons we have covered...

Thanks

John

Click to expand...

--
Alex
LWS photographic (UK)

Hello John,

ZoneSysytem is a method to cope with the non-linearities that the film adn paper (the wet chemical process in general) has, it is not suitable for digital imaging.

What is needed in digital imaging is:

A camera that behaves colorimetricly correctly (in other words a camera whose firmware does not tweak the image data non-colorimetricly).

A good ICC profile for that camera.

Such an exposure that has Full Histogram (but is not clipped, at least not seriously). This is the "zone system" for digital, always, for each and every shot, no matter what the shooting situation or the illumination was.

Then in Photoshop or we can use e.g. the Curves tool or some more advanced techniques such as the density masking in order to open up the shadows or showing the highlight detail better or for any other tonal enhancements. In addition (for still scenes only) one can extend the capture range by taking two shots, one with the highlights exposed properly and another say at +4EV and then combine these in Photoshop in oder to get more shadow detail visible.

Timo Autiokari http://www.aim-dtp.net

ajs2 said:

Hi,

Therefore with you metering you need to ensure you have no burn out
regardless of using the meter in the camera or the histogram after.

Detail in the shadows becomes masked by noise the more detail you
attempt to extract the more noise you will get.

Bottom line is you highlight control how much shadow detail you
will get. If you want more shadow detail then you need to reduce
your highlights in someway. Wait for a cloud or use a grad filter
(what ever).

Click to expand...

Thanks for making the point about noise. I had meant to.

John, to me the trick with digital is to give as full an exposure as possible without clipping the highlights. The resultant image may not look like what I'd want as the final. Post processing allows me to adjust the mid tones and shadows to an extent to create the image I'm after. As with everything, there are tradeoffs. Moving to the digital world provides me with a ton of advantages but comes with the cost of some real disadvantages. Many times, though, digital points out just how quirky silver photography can be. For now, a hybrid system gives me the best of both worlds. My little G2 has given me wonderful images and is a great snapshot camera (shutter latency notwithstanding). I still shoot B&W people pictures with my Leica M3. I also still love shooting nature and landscape with my Sinar 4x5. I just don't think they'll be a reasonable alternative for a 4x5 with swings and tilts in the near future. I'm shutting down the print side of the darkroom because I feel the combination of post processing and printing provides me with better prints than I can get with the traditional wet process.

Five years from now, I wonder what B&W materials will be available and at what cost, especially printing paper.

Regards,
Doug

I think I am getting the feel for how things will have to be changed a bit for digital......As with all things, I will will continue to read.

Thanks

Just curious, because I'm into digital and medium format heavily at present, and am taking darkroom classes at the local photography school to refine my understanding of good B&W processing and printing. For the next six months I'll probably be doing heavy "analog" printing work for B&W, but I anticipate that long term, I'll still be heavily digital for printing across all mediums...just can't beat the flexibility.

But with that said, I find B&W scanning really hard to do well, particularly for more traditional emulsions like HP5 and Plus-X. My Nikon 4000 simply can't manage the grain well on the scans...ironically, I have the most luck with chromogenic films (HP5 and Portra), but I prefer the look of the more traditional films. I'm thinking of upgrading the scanner, but I'm wondering whether there's a really satisfactory solution short of spending $$$$ on an Imacon...

Robert

Doug MacMillan said:

ajs2 said:

Hi,

Therefore with you metering you need to ensure you have no burn out
regardless of using the meter in the camera or the histogram after.

Detail in the shadows becomes masked by noise the more detail you
attempt to extract the more noise you will get.

Bottom line is you highlight control how much shadow detail you
will get. If you want more shadow detail then you need to reduce
your highlights in someway. Wait for a cloud or use a grad filter
(what ever).

Click to expand...

Thanks for making the point about noise. I had meant to.

John, to me the trick with digital is to give as full an exposure
as possible without clipping the highlights. The resultant image
may not look like what I'd want as the final. Post processing
allows me to adjust the mid tones and shadows to an extent to
create the image I'm after. As with everything, there are
tradeoffs. Moving to the digital world provides me with a ton of
advantages but comes with the cost of some real disadvantages.
Many times, though, digital points out just how quirky silver
photography can be. For now, a hybrid system gives me the best of
both worlds. My little G2 has given me wonderful images and is a
great snapshot camera (shutter latency notwithstanding). I still
shoot B&W people pictures with my Leica M3. I also still love
shooting nature and landscape with my Sinar 4x5. I just don't
think they'll be a reasonable alternative for a 4x5 with swings and
tilts in the near future. I'm shutting down the print side of the
darkroom because I feel the combination of post processing and
printing provides me with better prints than I can get with the
traditional wet process.

Five years from now, I wonder what B&W materials will be available
and at what cost, especially printing paper.

Regards,
Doug

Click to expand...

Robert,

You're ahead of me equipment-wise. Right now, I'm scanning with an Epson 2450. We're building a new house and as soon as we've moved in, I'll be purchasing a dedicated film scanner. The Nikon 4000 and the Canon 4000 were the two I was looking at. I'm not printing 35mm B&W larger than 8x10 at the moment. From the tests I've done with some favorite old negs, mostly Agfapan 400 processed in Rodinol, I've been pleased.

I'm sorry you're not happy with the scans you've been getting. I have a few questions and an observation or two. Are you scanning at full resolution? I've read that the older scanners whose resolution was 2400-2700 would create an interference pattern with the grain, which only accentuated it. Are you using Silverfast to scan? It has some built in profiles for B&W that give good results. When you say your scanner can't manage the grain well, do you mean it over-accentuates it? From what I've read, this it the nature of dedicated film scanners. To use an enlarger analogy, dedicated film scanners are like condenser enlargers, they use a collimated light source. This gives more apparent sharpness, but they accentuate grain and dust. My flatbed scanner uses a light source more like diffusion enlargers. The diffused light source softens apparent grain and helps hide dust.

I certainly can't afford a 4x5 dedicated scanner. I'm getting huge files from 4x5 with the Epson and I won't be printing bigger than 13x19, I never print larger than 11x14 in the darkroom now. I've made some prints with a Beseler 45MCRX through an El Nikkor 150mm lens and scanned the same neg and printed it. When I have shown 8x10's to my family, they either can't tell the difference or favor the ink jet. I have a degree in photography and worked as a pro for 25 years, so I don't think it's a matter of not being able to make a decent wet print.

I've read that B&W is the Achilles heel of digital, but I've read some posts here and elsewhere from people who have been very pleased with the results they've been getting. I haven't done a ton of work yet, so my impressions may be based on beginner's luck.

At any rate, best of luck on your photo classes. Hopefully in the near future they'll offer a class in scanning and post processing technique so we can wring the best possible prints out of our scanned negatives!

Regards,
Doug

Robert M said:

Just curious, because I'm into digital and medium format heavily at
present, and am taking darkroom classes at the local photography
school to refine my understanding of good B&W processing and
printing. For the next six months I'll probably be doing heavy
"analog" printing work for B&W, but I anticipate that long term,
I'll still be heavily digital for printing across all
mediums...just can't beat the flexibility.

But with that said, I find B&W scanning really hard to do well,
particularly for more traditional emulsions like HP5 and Plus-X.
My Nikon 4000 simply can't manage the grain well on the
scans...ironically, I have the most luck with chromogenic films
(HP5 and Portra), but I prefer the look of the more traditional
films. I'm thinking of upgrading the scanner, but I'm wondering
whether there's a really satisfactory solution short of spending
$$$$ on an Imacon...

Robert

Click to expand...

Timo Autiokari said:

Hello John,

ZoneSysytem is a method to cope with the non-linearities that the
film adn paper (the wet chemical process in general) has, it is not
suitable for digital imaging.

Click to expand...

Although the non-linearities (i.e. the representation of the H&D curve) are certainly "measured" by the zone system test, the zone system is independent of the non-linearities. It is simply a method to allow you to know the range (and approximate absolute value) of your image's density range. Based upon the range, you can generally visualize your final image and correct your negative development time to ensure a good print on your chosen paper. In loose terms, you "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights".

It is just as reasonable to perform the zone system exposure tests with a digital camera. Although the characteristic (of film) heel and toe of the H&D curve will not be present, the result is still an H&D curve! The only mental switch is that you now expose for the highlights and use photoshop to develop for the shadows. It also helps to have a good 12 or 14 bit RAW format to give smoother control of the image correction.

Since the exposure test is reasonably easy to do with cameras such as the D100, S1, S2, D1X, D60, etc, it sounds like an easy weekend project. Even better if you have an external spot meter - although the D100 etc spot meters should be quite adequate....

Of course, you could easily argue that the automatic exposure bracketing feature of many digital cameras might give you the same effect without having to know anything about what is going on.....

tony

You might be interested in the ozone package at

http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/html/ozone.html

--
Hugh

Exposure, Negative, Print. The three main parts of the zone system.

In digital we can control 2 of the 3 parts dealing with the zone system. We can work on the Exposure and the Print part but what about the Negative, or processing time?

I have figured it all out!

Ok... The slowest way to transfer images from camera to computer is via the camera and its supplied software. Then there are USB readers, and the fastest, FireWire readers. So here it is for my set up.

USB reader is Normal, “N”

Camera and supplied software is slower so thus it is “N + 1”

FireWire transfers, or “develops” faster so it is “N – 1”

Now then, if I have a digital file that needs “N + 2”, I launch a few large applications to slow my CPU down another 20% and capture via the camera and supplied software.

For “N – 2” I need a faster processor. I guess I should go buy a new Mac.

Excuse me while I amuse myself. John, please do not read this post as a dig at your original question. I myself am enjoying this thread.

Cheers,
Zack Arias
Atlanta, GA

http://www.usedfilm.com

Zack Arias said:

Exposure, Negative, Print. The three main parts of the zone system.

In digital we can control 2 of the 3 parts dealing with the zone
system. We can work on the Exposure and the Print part but what
about the Negative, or processing time?

Click to expand...

Photoshop.

Zack Arias said:

I have figured it all out!

Click to expand...

Zack Arias said:

For “N – 2” I need a faster processor. I guess I should go buy a
new Mac.

Click to expand...

or maybe a real computer ;-)

Zack Arias said:

Excuse me while I amuse myself. John, please do not read this post
as a dig at your original question. I myself am enjoying this
thread.

Click to expand...

in what way. from your note, I cannot figure it out.

tony

tony field said:

Zack Arias said:

Exposure, Negative, Print. The three main parts of the zone system.

In digital we can control 2 of the 3 parts dealing with the zone
system. We can work on the Exposure and the Print part but what
about the Negative, or processing time?

Click to expand...

Photoshop.

tony field said:

I have figured it all out!

Click to expand...

tony field said:

For “N – 2” I need a faster processor. I guess I should go buy a
new Mac.

Click to expand...

or maybe a real computer ;-)

tony field said:

Excuse me while I amuse myself. John, please do not read this post
as a dig at your original question. I myself am enjoying this
thread.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Can't believe you thought that out! For just a second, I was actually considering the process. That's hilarious =)

--
http://www.ugncrew.com/jhazard
http://www.419design.com/jhazard

Don't be so hasty. Have you investigated Panorama Tools? Visit my web site, click on Panorama Tools, then choose Projection > Rectilinear > Vertical Distortion.

Doug MacMillan said:

I just don't
think they'll be a reasonable alternative for a 4x5 with swings and
tilts in the near future.

Click to expand...

--
Thomas Niemann
http://epaperpress.com