Film Testing

[mark_christopherson]

I've been shooting landscapes with 4x5 Tmax (100 and 400) over the past year or so using the zone system rather loosely. I would now like to test the film and my processing to determine effective film speed, n+1, n-1, etc. My question is this: should I simply follow the procedures laid out in Adam's The Negative, then hunt around for a shop with a densitometer, or should I use the Darkroom Innovations BTZS film testing method? Are the two really "alternate" ways of determing the items noted above, or am I misunderstanding the nature of the BTZS system? Thanks in advance, I truly appreciate the benefit of your experience.

[frank lahorgue]

I moved to the Darkroom Innovations method two years ago, relying on

their testing system AND using their software on my Palm Pilot. The

software supports incident readings as well as spot meter supported

zone calculations. The result? My negatives are nearly always

printable on grade 2 or 3 paper -- a major improvement for a person

working at my level. The system neatly saves a record of the

exposure for each negative indicating development time as well as

other important information. No more hand written notes.

 

<p>

 

Now, if it would only help me with concept and composition...........

[john_d._clark]

Calumet also offers the service of determining your film speed for

about $15 or $20, as I recall. Go to their site, and search for

film speed test. I've used it several times.

[jennifer_waak]

You may want to check out <A

HREF="http://www.heylloyd.com/technicl/fishback.htm">The Ultimate

Monochrome Print</A> as well. It seems like a fairly straightforward

system with no densitometer needed. I've started the process many

times, but always decide I'd rather develop something more interesting

and stop half way through.

[matthew_hoag]

Mark:

 

<p>

 

I recently went through the same scenario as yourself and wound up

using Darkroom Innovations testing "service" (after reading BTZS),

for the film curve analysis, EFS, etc. As a result the density of my

negatives has improved and are far more consistently printable on

normal grade papers. For me it gave that little step to the "next

level". You do (as you probably are aware), need to be very accurate

& consistent in your temperatures, times and agitation with TMax in

order obtain reliable results. I had two sets of TMax negs tested -

one in TMax RS 1:7 and the other D76 1:1. The initial RS test was

flawed and the info from the analysed negs was erroneous (my fault in

temperature accuracy I believe). The D76 was right on. I like the

service so much that I have requested a third test with Bergger and

Pyro.

 

<p>

 

This works for me as I don't really want to get into converting my

spot meter and plotting all the data myself. Let the experts do it

and I'll pay the fee.

 

<p>

 

Hope this was of some help.

 

<p>

 

Matthew

[brian_ellis3]

I've used the BTZS/Darkroom Innovations (now called The View Camera

Store) for all of my testing in the last five or so years. I think

the $30 they charge is more than worth it in terms of saving the

time, frustration, and film expense involved with the traditional

methods. Traditional zone system testing isn't nearly as easy as it

sounds from reading about it (at least it wasn't for me). For one

thing, you test for a film speed by determining a certain density

above film base plus fog. Then when you do your development testing,

for which you'd expect to use the film speed you just finished

determining, you find that the film base plus fog reading changes as

you change your development times, so you're doing your development

tests at what amounts to a different film speed than you'll actually

be using. You also have to make sure that the light doesn't change on

you as you're doing the tests. I found that it was almost impossible

to do all of the exposures for all of the development tests outdoors

without the light changing several times in the middle of the tests,

which ruins everything. These are just the two things I remember

(hopefully accurately) from the days when I used to use traditional

testing methods. The one thing I do remember for sure from the last

time I did it was going through two boxes of film and still not being

comfortable with anything I'd done. With the BTZS system, you use a

grand total of six sheets of film for all of the testing. Plus you

get all of your charts and graphs handed to you, without having to go

through the tedium of doing them yourself even if you had the

software to do them. All in all, I think it's an excellent service

though I'm sure many people are happy using traditional methods.

[mark_wiens]

Brain,

 

<p>

 

When I did several film tests, I also got different filmbase plus fog

densities, but for some reason my Zone I densities were always right on

with respect to these fbpf's. I was taking a photo class at school at

the time so I had access to a densitometer. Unfortunately, I'm still

having a time figuring out some N-1, N-2, N+1 tests. I believe these

will take up the most time, film, dev, and effort. For the basic film

speed test, I borrowed a set of darkslides with holes drilled in them.

This allowed me to take a picture of a blank piece of matte board

numerous times, changing the film speed for each shot. It was quite a

genius idea. I would be interested in hearing anyone's ideas for a

poorman's way of doing n-1 and n-2 dev. Perhaps, 10% less dev or 20%

less dev?

[bob_moulton]

The Darkroom store tests are quick and rather easy. You do not need

their tubes. You can process the film as you would normally--tray,

jobo, hybrid jobo, etc. and produce resuklts that, used with that

nifty little program they sell, will get you what you need. The step

wedge, some glass to use a contact printer, etc. and you are done.

Bob

[kevin_kolosky]

In the almost 30 years since I attended Brooks Institute I think I

have read every book every written on the zone system, (and the

incident system) and tried every test, including owning and using

both transmission and reflection densitometers for both color and

black and white films and papers. After all of that time I have

become absolutely convinced that the best system of all is a visual

system that starts with a paper/film test before doing any film

testing whatsoever. After all, the final result will be a print on a

piece of paper, not a negative film. And so, It seems prudent and

works ever so well to work backwards from the paper instead of

forwards from the film. Pick the paper you are going to work with,

and pick the light source you are going to print with. Do not change

them becasue in order for any photographic test to be valid you need

to have a base from which to change (i.e. if you are changing a bunch

of things at once, how in the hell are you going to know what change

had what effect). The simply do the film base plus fog/maximum black

in minimum time contact test, and make absolutely sure you can repeat

the light and the chemicals. Once you get that done, you have a

standard from which to visually test everything else you do, even if

you want to also check by a densitometer. If you want to SEE what a

change of a full stop more or less exposure will do, you have a

standard from which to see that. If you want to see what a change of

a 15 percent or a 30 percent increase or decrease in development time

will do, you have a standard from which to do that. Otherwise, you

are all over the place testing this and that without any knowledge of

what change did what. Visual testing is the most important of all in

my mind, becasue visual testing will always tell you whether

something has changed better than any other tool because your eyes

are so incredibly sensitive. To get a full set of zones your scene

must contain white in sunlight and black in shade. ( I have had

people ask me whether I thought their meter was broken because when

they were testing they couldn't get a full range of zones exposing in

full sunlight). Finally, I think alot of people make more out of the

Zone system than it really is. When it comes right down to it, all

it really consists of is the fact that film predictably reacts in a

linear way to specific changes in light, and reacts in a nonlinear

way to specific changes in development. For example, we can measure

with a densitometer than a given film will have an increase in

density of .30 for a doubling of exposure over a range of

doublings.By the same token we can also measure with a densitometer

that films density will increase proportionately more with an

increase in development in those areas that have received more rather

than less exposure, and decrease proportionately more in those same

areas when they receive less development. It really is a simple as

that, and it shouldn't be made any harder than it really is. I think

that most people that are starting out have such a hard time with it

is because they don't do the obvious, which is to visually look at

what their changes are doing, and they worry too much about giving

proper names to everything when in fact there are many ways to

describe what is happening rather than using the terminology provided

by Ansel Adams and others. Also, people worry too damn much about

medium gray. Medium gray basically takes care of itself. What you

really need to worry about is the maximum range of densities that

will provide detail on both ends of your paper, and the effect of

printing various negatives that provide less than that maximum range

of density such that you might want to expand or contract that

negative or use a higher or lower grade of paper. kevin

[andy-]

Kevin, I agree with a lot of what you've said. It never made sense to

me to test your film/development by contact printing negs with an

enlarger when you shoot film with a camera, lens, and natural light in

the field. OTOH, I've found that testing systems like those suggested

by Chis Johnson ( Practical Zone System ) are somewhat impractical: A)

I don't have 8-10 film holders to carry into the field, B) When have

you conveniently found a scene with four stops range between fully

textured highlights and shadow areas, AND are of even tonality for

accurate metering? C) What is the likelihood that the light will

remain constant within 1/3 - ½ stops throughout the scene in the time

it takes to do the testing? At least for me, using this methodology

I've only gotten in the right neighborhood ( not in the ballpark! )

but have only been able to center on the right EI and development by

trial and error over time.

 

<p>

 

This question ( that is, film testing for EI and development ) has

come up from time to time on this forum but has never really been

seriously discussed. Some have responded that EI is simply a matter of

finding minimum usable density on film, though this doesn't address

changes to Zone III texture due to increased/decreased development.

Similarly, measuring my negs with a densitometer and comparing to

suggested Zone VIII densities doesn't necessarily relate to the

quality of the Zone VIII area of the print. Same goes for using a gray

card for comparison to measure Zone V - personally, I don't expect to

match a Zone V print value since the reason we use different

film/paper/developer combinations is to find a combination that

provides micro/macro contrast values that we like - say, increased

midrange gradation or sacrificing midrange values for better highlight

or shadow definition.

 

<p>

 

What testing methodology do all you out there recommend or use? Is

there a �silver bullet' test to save time and materials? Or have I

already answered my own question?

[kevin_kolosky]

Andy

I don't understand what you mean about not wanting to test your

negatives by contact printing them. If you mean you would rather

test them by enlargement to a standard, then I would say that is fine

as well, but the absolute key to the whole thing is to find that

STANDARD which you can repeat every single time you do it so that

when you want to vary things you can SEE for yourself what happened

using YOUR materials, and YOUR camera, and YOUR light, and YOUR way

of doing things. And again, the best standard that I know of is the

maximum black from minimum exposure test. That said, the next best

VISUAL test is the old tried and true "corner of the white house in

sun test" where you expose your film shooting a white house at the

corner where one side is in brilliant sunlight and the other side is

in shade. YOu make sure that there is something very dark but with

good detail on the shade side, and in fact it is better if you have a

few things of various darknesses (but with good detail) on that

shaded side. meter your dark object for the zone you want it to be

in and expose. (or, you could paint a card black, put it in the

shade, and meter it for zone 1 and expose) develop normally.

print/contact print at the exact time and temp you establsihed for

your maximum black/minimum time test. look at the print. ask

yourself these questions. did you get good detail in that dark

object or did you lose all detail in that dark object, or is it too

light (is the black card just a hair lighter than maximum black from

minimum time -i.e. zone 1) if there is no detail you need to expose

more. if it is too high (not dark enough) you need to expose less.

when you get that expsosure right then then look at the detail in the

white sun. if there is no detail then you need to develop more. if

there is alot of detail but the white looks a little bit gray you

need to develop more. Its all there for YOU to decide rather than

some densitometer. But again, the key thing is that when you are

doing all of this, you have to make sure you have a standard from

which to start. What the hell good is testing a negative with a

densitometer if you don't actually then print that negative to see

what it did on YOUR paper with YOUR chemicals and YOUR light, and

YOUR temperature, and YOUR method of agitation. And what in the hell

good is doing a test if you are going to adjust the contact prints or

the enlargements to make them look right. You need to do them to the

standard so if they don't meet the standard you can figure out what

you did wrong (meter possibly off, temperature too hot or cold, paper

getting old, didn't set f stop correctly, shutter needs repair, etc.

etc. etc.). Kevin

[andy-]

I guess I wasn't clear about �contact printing' the negatives. I

believe that with the BTZS or Darkroom Innovations method involves

contact printing a step tablet onto your chosen film, under your

enlarger, to expose the film for subsequent development and

sensitometric testing with a densitometer. My confusion is, how does

this relate to exposing your film with camera and lens, under daylight

conditions ( if this is how you normally photograph )? You are testing

the film in this case and excluding your camera, shutter, lenses, and

light source altogether. It would seem to me that the most effective

way would be to include the camera system and typical lighting

conditions as part of the test. My question was more along the lines

of, what methodology are all of you using to include this yet cut down

on material usage, time, ( the testing in the Practical Zone System

involves at least a box of film and as many papers, and a lot of time

) and eliminating as much as possible the environmental variables?

[kevin_kolosky]

A guy by the name of Fred Picker has taken alot of heat in this

forum, but he did say some things that made one hell of a lot of

sense. One of them was to go and look at prints made from different

papers and then PICK ONE and stick with it. Pick one film and stick

with it. Pick one camera and stick with it. Pick one or two lenses

and stick with them. Get all of that stuff behind you as quickly as

you can so that you can get one with the business of making

meaningful photographs. I myself look at photographs a lot more than

I make them these days, but in my very humble opinion, the greatness

of the photograph does not depend upon the material used but rather

the vision of the photographer and the excitement generated by the

thing being photographed. So, just for an example, you say to

yourself, I am going to pick t-max film, rs developer, and oriental

paper and I am going to find out what they do and then use them. I

think you probably will do just as well as if you picked ilford hp5

and d 76 and polymax, as long as you test what you have picked, learn

all of it's ideosynchrocies (sp) and get on with making photographs.

Kevin