Is a densitometer worth the cost for BW shooting?

[jerry_cunningham]

I am considering buying a densitometer for my BW LF photography. How useful is the densitiometer and what do I need to look for in a densitimeter?

Sincerely,

Jerry Cunningham

[brian_ellis3]

If you mean a transmission densitometer, the only time I use mine is

for film speed and development time testing. Since I don't

experiement a lot with new films and developers, this means that I

very rarely use my densitometer, maybe once a year if that often.

Fortunately I got a very good price on it.

 

<p>

 

Labs were big users of densitometers, especially color densitometers,

and since labs are going digital, color densitometers can be bought

very inexpensively if you look around. Most, probably all, color

densitometers have a setting for black and white.

 

<p>

 

I actually think I'd use a reflection densitometer more than a

transmission and if I had it to do over again I'd get either a

combination transmission/reflection if I could find one cheap, or I'd

forget the transmission and just get a reflection.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Not if you have a good relationship with a lab that will let you use

theirs. Most labs today however seem to have speciallized

densitomers used for reading control strips in E-6 & C-41

processes.

[neil_poulsen1]

To use one, a person must know something about sensitometry, but with

that in mind, I think that they are well worth the cost.

 

<p>

 

I tend to be a little "tecky", but I use one quite a lot. For

example, I just completed some testing which shows that a new 4x5 film

holder that I came up with leaves a slosher in the dust in terms of

consistency. Without a densitometer, I would have had no way to

compare these two approaches. I use a densitometer for determining

film speed, and while I don't believe in completing calibrations on

every single lens that I own, I do believe in conducting tests on any

new film/developer combination. There's no better way to predict

contrast, and this isn't possible without a densitometer. For my

purposes, not to have a densitometer would be flying a little blind.

 

<p>

 

While I may have been fortunate, I purchased an old Macbeth off of

EBay for $100. It works great, although it's probably only accurate

to +-0.015. (It originally spec'd out at +-0.01.)

[jerry_cunningham]

Do all color densitometers register in black and white? Do I need

the reflection capacity only?

Sincerely,

Jerry

[michael_kadillak6]

I agree with Neil. When you want to do the job right, it helps to use

the right tool. You can use the trial and error methodology in making

exposures and burn more film in the process. Or take a small portion

of costs of the extra film you would otherwise use and learn to use a

densitometer and always have the ability to quickly check out new

film/developer combinations and always be able to check out your old

favorite. Prices have never been cheaper. Transmission for films and

reflection for papers.

[michael_a._smith1]

I've never owned or used a densistometer.I believe they do not help one

make better pictures. So I would say, forget the densitometer. That's

an unpopular view here, it seems.

[conrad_hoffman]

A densitometer won't help you make better photographs, but it may

spur you on to learn some sensitometry. You'll use less materials to

calibrate film speed and optimum development. Oddly enough, once

you've used a densitometer for a while, you'll find you need it less

and less. Eyeballing .1 over base plus fog is actually pretty easy

once you know what it looks like. The most useful instrument is a

combination transmission/reflection. I'm more interested in how my

paper responds at various contrasts- i.e. where's the tonal

distribution? Unless you're a "techie" the price of even a used

densitometer will buy a lot of film!

[neil_poulsen1]

If used correctly, a densitometer can help you make better

photographs. Ansel Adams considered a densitometer essential.

 

<p>

 

I see photographs of excellent compositions, but they are

unfortunately lacking in good contrast control. They end up being a

poor execution of a good idea. And, I'm not suggesting that every

photograph has to have both the stereotypical highlights and dark

areas. Whatever the visualization, good use of a densitometer can

more effectively enable one to achieve that visualization.

 

<p>

 

I agree that one won't be using a densitometer all the time, but when

needed, they fulfill an important need.

[skygzr]

If you're the kind of person who likes to tinker, a densitometer may

be a BAD choice. It's real easy to get caught up in testing film and

refining development past the point of diminshing returns. Why worry

about 1/4 stop differences when none of your shutters or fstops are

calibrated that well?

 

<p>

 

I can feel the 1/4 stop crowd bristling out there, but it's true.

 

<p>

 

Reminds me of the audiophiles who spend all their time aligning their

phono cartridges and never listening to music.

 

<p>

 

Having said that, I own one (same as the previous poster, I got a

good deal on eBay). I've used it for film speed (and development

time)testing, and for some experiments with unsharp masks. Before I

got it, I used to shoot most b&w films at 1/2 rated speed, because I

got good shadow density. Now that I've done some testing, I shoot

most b&w films at 1/2 rated speed because I get good shadow density.

You be the judge!

[david_goldfarb]

I had one for a while (eventually it died), and will probably get

another one. I felt it helped me to confirm some intuitions and to be

able to produce more consistent results, particularly with new

materials. It's not a necessity, but if you're not sure how much

contrast you really have in your negatives, and if you're not working

with someone who can tell you whether your negatives look good,

density readings can be handy, particularly if you like to try

different materials often. If you almost always use the same

materials and process (not a bad idea), then indeed, you would

probably use it once or twice and it would gather dust.

[per_volquartz1]

In my mind a densitometer can be a helpful tool in fine tuning film

speed/development/final print.

 

<p>

 

However, it does not aid in seeing, feeling and conveying the emotion

felt from the subject matter to be photographed.

 

<p>

 

It is true that Ansel did use a densitometer a lot. It is also true

that Weston did not.

 

<p>

 

While it is very important to treat photography as a craft and learn to

control the many tecnical steps that make up the final presentation it

is easy to get side tracked along the way by technical details. The

very essence of serious - or fine art photography - is still the

ability to see and to present what is seen as a revelation.

[steve_gangi2]

Densitometers may be useful when you first try a new film that you

have never used before, but I have to wonder if (except for labs and

professionals) if it is worth the expense. It is, after all, not

somthing you will use every day. Some people use them and make

excellent photos. Some people do not use them and still make

excellent photos. If you get one, do not fall into the trap of

constantly testing every possible combination of everything you own,

looking for any exact numbers. A few "confidence checks" will do

it. After all, the whole idea is to make a negative that you can

print. With the latitude of modern film, coupled with the variations

of meter readings, different films, different papers, shutter speeds

etc, all you will really care about is a "ballpark figure".

Densitometers are nice to have, but not necessary. One question....

if you buy one, how do you plan to calibrate it? If it isn't

accurate, you're better off not having it.

[carl_weese]

My somewhat unconventional view is that for silver printing, where

test strips/prints are quick and cheap, a densitometer isn't

worthwhile. Tests provide better information and are more helpful

getting to your first good print. In Pt/Pd printing where tests are

time-consuming and costly, a densitometer *is* useful because with

experience it can replace test strips and get you to a good first

workprint from a majority of negatives.

[jim_galli4]

Jerry,

I've got one out at work that I could use if I wanted to. I did quite

a bit at first, and now it sets unused. You're better off going out

and taking pictures and fine tuning what you're getting. Or at least

I am, but that could just be me. The densitometer bored me, while

taking photos stimulates me. There are so many different temperaments

in this hobby. Some guys live to fiddle with charts and graphs and

techniques and building new cameras and gizmos for the cameras. They

hardly ever take pictures. (Some of them don't have a clue what to

take pictures of anyway.) But they're having fun doing what they want

to do. Me, I live for the next chance to set up the camera and all

that other stuff just gets in the way.

[jay_wolfe]

Unless you can get a densitomer very inexpensively (they turn up on

Ebay regularly), or you do a lot of film testing, I'd forego the

purchase. You can fine tune your exposure and development by

observing your prints:

 

<p>

 

Exposure determines the density of the lowest zones. No matter how

much or how little you develop the negative, the lowest zones don't

move up or down the scale significantly.

 

<p>

 

The higher zones can be moved considerably up or down the scale by

increased or decreased development times. If your prints lack good

tonal separations in the shadow areas, you are probably

underexposing your negative. Give more exposure (lower your

ASA/ISO) and cut back on your negative development slightly. You�ll

still have a good range of tones in the middle and high values, but

you�ll have much better shadow separation and a much richer print.

 

<p>

 

If you have good shadow separation but you prints are flat in the

highlights, your exposure is okay, but your development is too

short. Increase development until those highlights look good.

 

<p>

 

If the shadows are good, but your highlights require a lot of extra

burning to give you the detail you want, you�re over-developing the

negative.

 

<p>

 

Regardless if you have a densitometer, you'll need to fine-tune for

you exposure judgements.

[jeffrey moore]

Jerry, a good densitometer is very expensive, especially if your

needs require both transmission (for film) and reflective (for

paper). For your LF BW work I would forego purchasing one and instead

pay a local lab to use theirs. If this is not an option, The View

Camera Store will do an extensive film test for $39.95. They send you

five sheets of 4 x 5 film of your choice, which are exposed under

calibrated conditions. You then process the film, following their

instructions, answer some questions regarding your developing

methods, and mail the processed sheets back to them. TVCS then sends

you all the information you could ever want regarding a film test,

including a family of curves for your film. They also will perform

(reflective) tests on your paper of choice for $3 per sheet. I have

used both of these services and I could not be more pleased; it beats

the heck out of the cost of even a mediocre densitometer. Oh, by the

way, The View Camera Store's new website is still under construction,

so they are still using the old website under the company's former

name. It is www.darkroom-innovations.com. Good luck!