Bruce Barnbaum - "Placing Shadows on Zone IV"

[AnthonyMournian]

Ah, well, it all seemed so simple.

[ZoneIII]

I think I understand why Bruce was having a problem with classic Zone III placements. In his book, Art of Photography (his older book), he describes the zone characteristics incorrectly or at least not how Ansel Adams described them and how they are usually defined. Bruce describes Zone I as having no tone and Zone II as having no texture and Zone VIII as having no texture. But the textural range is Zone II to Zone VIII in the classic system. (Continued....)

[ZoneIII]

@ZoneIII ,, So, it appears that Bruce was underexposing his negatives and over-developing them. That would explain why he now recommends placing shadows on Zone IV. He is compensating for his diversion from the classic Zone System as taught by Adams. In other words, his Zone IV is the same as Ansel's (and my) Zone III. This is surprising and I don't know why Bruce woud have done this. Either he misunderstood Adams (The Negative) or he altered the system for his own use. (Continued)...

[ZoneIII]

@ZoneIII .... For example, Adams defined the textural range as being Zone II through Zone VIII but Bruce (in his book) for some reason defines the textual range as being Zone III to Zone VII. If he had calibated his process like Adam's suggested (and most photographers folllow), he would not need to place his shadows on Zone IV. Again, this is very suprising. It's hard to imagine that Bruce doesn't know this. But his method merely corrects for what appears to be a mistake on Bruce's part.

[ZoneIII]

@ZoneIII Lastly, since Bruce has veered from the classic Zone System and is now compensating for that "error," he is clearly over-developing his film and that negatively impacts sharpness. He was getting no texture in Zone VIII (he should!) but with Zone IV shadow placements, he will have not texture in Zone VII. That should clearing indicate to anyone that something is wrong with his method. Bruce is a great photographer but it would appear that he has made a mistake in his technique.

[ZoneIII]

I think I understand why Bruce was having a problem with classic Zone III placements. In his book, Art of Photography (his older book), he describes the zone characteristics incorrectly or at least not how Ansel Adams described them and how they are usually defined. Bruce describes Zone I as having no tone and Zone II as having no texture and Zone VIII as having no texture. But the textural range is Zone II to Zone VIII in the classic system. (Continued....)

[muskiejack]

Ironically, Bruce's use of the term "overexposed" is correct. Over-exposure implies an error. You never want to over-expose or under-expose film. If INCREASING exposure produces the results you want, it is NOT over-exposure, it's proper exposure. One other point: ideally, you want to use the minimum exposure necessary to attain shadow detail. Over-exposing increases grain and reduces sharpness. Of course, it's better to err on the side of over-exposure but it's best to expose properly.

[muskiejack]

Bruce's advice would be good if you hadn't test your film speed (E.I.). In fact, cutting the ISO in half is an old rule-of-thumb for a starting point and Bruce's advice simply amounts to cutting the ISO in half. But it can be assumed that anyone using the Zone System has done film speed tests and arrived at their proper E.I. Also, when Ansel worked out the Zone System (it wasn't sensitometrists!) he demanded texture in Zone III.

[muskiejack]

Lastly (LOL), say you shoot TRI-X and found it's ISO to be 200 or TMAX100 and find it's ISO to be 64. (Those E.I.s are pretty normal for most developers.) Using Bruce's suggestion, you would, in effect, be simply rating the films at 100 and 32 respectively. That should be a clue that something isn't right. I do not have the problems that Bruce discusses. But, again, but my curves have very short toes, long straight line portions, and almost no shoulder. I get good separation in Zone III.

[muskiejack]

Another point is that it was NOT sensitometrists who settled on Zone III as the basis of exposure placement. Sensitometrists had no interest in the Zone System at all. It was Ansel Adams and Fred Archer and they arrived at Zone III from practical experience and real-world testing. Those photographers and others have been using a Zone III exposure basis with great results, obviously. Perhaps Bruce is using a film/developer combination that requires more exposure.

[muskiejack]

I see some problematic issues with this video. 1) The curve Bruce is using for the demo is not representative of most modern film/developer combinations. Modern films generally have very short toes and almost no shoulder. But if they were like the graph in this video, Bruce's technique could cause blocking up of highlights unless he reduced development which would flatten contrast and defeat the whole point he's making.... (more)

[muskiejack]

Bruce is a fine photographer and teacher but if you have done your testing and calibration properly and you are not getting Zone III detail then there is a problem in your technique. Bruce is merely giving one extra stop of exposure or, you could say, he is cutting the EI in half. . That's fine and it usually won't hurt especially with modern films but it's not optimal. You should be getting texture and detail in Zone III. Zone III gives me exactly the predictable tone that I expect.

[ZoneIII]

Bruce said that early in his career, he expected expanded development to bring up a Zone III exposure. Of course, development has very little affect on low Zone densities. No need to do as Bruce says as long as you simply know what a Zone III or Zone IV exposure will produce in a print and make your placement accordingly. Despite what Bruce says, Ansel was the big promoter of Zone III placement, not sensitometrists and he did pretty darn well, didn't he?

[annoyingu4fun]

Ansel Adams did well with the type of landscapes he did. if you have ever studied the originals? You will see he has NO separations in shadow areas. It did not hurt his photos because of his subjects... I spent 6 years photographing Angkor Wat from 1993 to 1999. Whey you are photographing exteriors and still want the interiors to show detail (textures); you are better off following Bruce's advice than Ansel's.

[ZoneIII]

Candian is right. Bruce is probably recommending Zone IV placement because many photographers probably place things that should have GOOD texture in that Zone. I place my DEEP shadows in Zone III, expecting tone but little texture. In other words, I place deeper shadows on Zone III. It's all in how we perceive Zone III and how we place it to achieve the results we want. Either way, the exposure would be the same. So one just has to understand what a Zone III exposure will produce.

[weenyone]

I think he suggested that you expose your negative visualised for Zone IV and print for Zone III. It makes sense to stay off the toe.

[candiennestroke]

Part 3 (LOL): I should point out that TXAX films (and probably Delta films) could handle placing shadows on Zone IV without re-calibration because they have almost no shoulder, depending on developer used. What Bruce is doing is simply giving one more stop of exposure. For example, I rate TMAX100 at EI 64. Following Bruce's advice, I would, in effect, be rating it at EI 32. It should be remembered that grain size increases with increased exposure but that's not important in large format.

[candiennestroke]

Continued... Bruce correctly points out the dangers of the toe and shoulder areas but he doesn't (at least in this clip) point out that exposing to Zone IV will force Zone VIII onto the shoulder which will cause highlights to be blocked up which is just as bad, if not worse, than lack of shadow detail and separation. Again, calibration testing would have to be done again. Development time would have to be reduced and that would flatten contrast. Of course, that could be fixed when printing.

[galpi]

Hi ...I think Zone VIII would still fall on the straight part of the curve, the shoulder being above Zone XV on the negative. So it's still printable with good tonal separation if you give it enough time under the enlarger.

[candiennestroke]

Good info but Adams did just fine placing shadows on Zone III. Also, if you switch from exposing shadows from Zone III to Zone IV you will have to reduce development which "flattens" contrast - just what Bruce wants to avoid. That means doing all your calibration testing again! In addition, films such as TMAX have good separation at Zone III. Bruce is great but I have been exposing shadows on Zone III for many years with no problem at all. Ansel seems to have done well too!