Digital BW, The Print

Wow! All I can say is WOW!!

It is just astonishing how quickly knowledge that took a century or more to
acquire and that was more or less widely disseminated, simply fades into
history to be lost forever, and in just a few short years.
This is not aimed at anyone in particular and isn't even a criticism, just
an observation with a side order of shock.

If you are looking for in-depth Zone System based information about film
speed, calibration, etc., go to the history page on my web site. My more
significant past published articles are posted there. If you are looking for
the holy grail; the best average, overall, middle of the road, good enough
for most things approach, all those old articles will be overkill. Just
follow this instead:

1. After extensive testing most photographers find the optimal film speed
for normal reflectance range subjects to be half the published
manufacturer's speed: 200 for ISO 400 films, etc. The variations are so
small as to be insignificant. Just use half the manufacturer's speed, save
all the testing and tweak the speed if your results over time tell you to.
2. You DO NOT have to test every camera and lens. If all your lenses are
multi-coated and one is single-coated, then yes, that single-coated lens
will likely produce a significant shift of some kind. Lenses haven't been
single-coated for decades. If there is a significant difference between
cameras, that means you have a shutter that needs repair. It does not mean
you have to calibrate film speed for every camera. You never have to do
that. There is far, FAR too much alchemy and wizardry about "your film
speed". It is mostly nonsense. The reason for the difference in speed
between the ISO printed on the box and the experience of advanced
photographers is usage, processing and printing differences, and target
market. Kodak is (was) after the best average overall results. Individual
photographers are after something else.
3. Take the recommended development time from the manufacturer, cut it by
10% for T-Max films, 20% for all other films. Again, this is for so-called
normal reflectance range subjects. (Notice that I DO NOT use the word
"contrast". That term is used incorrectly MOST of the time, and misleads.) A
negative that has been slightly under-developed is far easier to print than
the reverse.
4. Do not follow recommendations to use chromogenic B&W films (B&W films
processed in color chemistry), UNLESS you absolutely refuse to process film
yourself. Good machine processing is far more even and consistent than badly
done hand processing. In all other respects, chromogenic films are markedly
inferior to conventional B&W films. Think of it as VERY bad training wheels
for B&W photography.
5. Most pointedly, DO NOT use chromogenic films if your plan is to scan the
negatives and print them digitally. Since they are in fact single-color,
color negatives, they will produce exactly the same noise problems found
when scanning standard color negatives. The noise can of course be reduced,
but why start with a film you know is going to create noise problems?
6. Anyone can process B&W film by hand. It's easy. That is, unless you want
the high quality that was the reason you wanted to process by hand in the
first place. That is very far from easy. You WILL screw it up, OFTEN and for
a long time. Once you learn to do it right, it will be superior to anything
you can get from any commercial labs still in existence.
7. If you process your own B&W film, use Paterson plastic tanks. Everything
about them is easier; loading, agitation, temperature control, the works.
There is a macho aspect to using stainless tanks. Has been for years.
Supposedly you are not a real photographer unless you use stainless. This is
100% nonsense. Stainless is demonstrably and markedly inferior to plastic.
Don't use stainless tanks even if offered to you free.
8. If you are going to use colored filters with B&W film, and you should
because otherwise you lose a great deal of potential, read my two part
article on filters first. T-Max films behave wildly differently from other
films with colored filters. Unless you know why and how, you may get very
disappointing results.
9. There is no such thing as a "typical scene". Either go whole-hog Zone
System and do it right, learning to correctly analyze a scene with a good
spot meter (this will take years and is recommended only for the
masochistic, anal retentive like me), or go best-middle-of-the-road and
accept that some scenes are just not going to work with this approach but
you'll live longer and die happier. If you go middle-of-the-road, the best
meter is an incident meter, NOT a spot meter. Then learn what exposure
adjustments to intuit based on the scene. Also bracket just in case you are
wrong. A spot meter without the Zone System is a recipe for disaster, and
vice versa. Advice to use a spot meter to read a middle tone and then adjust
the exposure is pointless nonsense and is really a misapplication of the
incident meter concept just mentioned.
10. Advice to use a spot meter to look for shadows results from a basic and
profound misunderstanding of the Zone System. In proper Zone System use, a
spot meter is used to read reflectances from multiple parts of a scene.
Based on your analysis and your intent for a final image, YOU decide which
of those reflectances will be represented as darker tones (so-called
shadows), if any, and you CREATE shadows by way of your exposure settings
and subsequent printing technique. You don't measure shadows, you
design/create them. If you are not going to go to these extremes, sell the
spot meter. It is a pointless extravagance.
11. When in doubt, expose a little more to be certain you get full shadow
detail (basically the same as bracketing). You can always print it down.
Modern films do not have shoulders (this just means you don't have to worry
about ruining highlights through overexposure), so you can't really ruin the
image if you expose a little too much. The only exception is chromogenic
films which have the very worst kind of very abrupt and unforgiving
shoulders and a little overexposure can totally ruin your image (much like
overexposing a digital image; the highlights simply cease to exist).
12. No "camera shop" anywhere, at any time, has access to any "lab" to which
you want your roll of B&W film entrusted. Again, the exception is
chromogenic films because they are machine processed. Even then, most camera
shops send their processing out to remarkably inept labs.
I used the Zone System for decades, invented a dozen new tone and contrast
techniques for Zone System use and wrote many articles on those techniques
and the Zone System. I even revised a lot of Zone System theory (such as
proving that a film speed based on .10 over B+F is wrong and that Zone
System theory falls apart with extreme contractions and expansions). About
four years ago I started the switch to complete digital and would now not
consider going back because I can do so much more digitally. However, if I
did decide to go to a film-capture, digital-print setup, it would be because
of the still superior detail capture of film. That is the only remaining
advantage I can see.

I would use a hybrid approach to the handling of film. I would of course use
my Zone System knowledge; it would be silly not to, and I would continue to
determine exposure based on what I wanted to see as darker tones in the
image, but I would base film development on achieving a more or less uniform
density range somewhat flatter than I would normally seek in anticipation of
conventional analog printing. The reason for this is the problem we have all
encountered with digital printing and getting a satisfactory degree of local
contrast in the final image. I won't go into lengthy theory about local
contrast but 

David Kachel

___________________

Artist-Photographer
Fine B&W Photographs

www.davidkachel.com
david@...

PO Box  1893
Alpine, TX 79831
(432) 386-5787





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]