Why test for film speed?

[Vlad Soare]

<i>"Vlad, my point is that you could adjust your exposure based on simple observation without resorting to some kludgy in-camera testing regime, and save a lot of time and frustration. Not enough shadow detail? Increase exposure. Simple. No testing necessary. Shadows not black enough? Decrease exposure. No testing necessary."</i>

<br><br>

I see your point, but will I be able to get perfect shadow details the first time I use the respective film? Maybe, maybe not. So I would be tempted not to use that film for important pictures unless I shoot at least one roll first and see if I need to increase or decrease the exposure. On the other hand, sacrificing one roll for a quick test, albeit kludgy, will show me exactly by what amount I'll have to compensate in order to get the exposure right. What you suggest is this: shoot one roll, see if it's OK. If it's not, alter the exposure then see if it's OK. Apply this procedure over several rolls, in small increments, until you get what you want. From then on you know how to use that film. Is this not testing? OK, I'll admit that this way one could get lucky and get it right the first time, but generally what you suggest looks just like testing to me, except that it's spread over several rolls instead of just one. ;-)

<br><br>

<i>"By the way, if you want to shoot Delta 3200 for shadow detail, be prepared for very dense, flat, grainy, unsharp negatives. This film was designed to be pushed, and shooting it for shadow detail is working against its nature, despite its "True speed" but that's up to you."</i>

<br><br>

I know, and I don't usually need shadow detail with Delta 3200. I use it just as it's intended to be used: pushed. It was just an example (OK, maybe not the best one) of film whose true ISO sensitivity does not match the box speed. :-)

[Vlad Soare]

I'm not saying the manufacturers get it wrong, or that the true ISO sensitivity is different from the box speed (with a few notable exceptions, like Delta 3200). I'm sure professional films comply precisely with ISO standards. I'm not saying we should try to find the true ISO speed. We already know the ISO speed. I'm saying we should try to find our personal EIs. I never said that the TRUE speed of FP4+ is ASA 50. I'm sure it's exactly 125. All I'm saying is that MY personal EI with that film is 50, as long as I develop it in HC-110. If I used Microphen I would probably get better results at a higher EI.<br>

The box speed is a good starting point, but if I were to shoot important, unrepeatable pictures, I wouldn't rely on it without testing first. ;-)

[hitam_jantung]

Vlad,

 

If you accept the premise that the difference between ISO speed and EI will probably be less than one stop, and that there is some latitude built into the film, i.e., it will tolerate some overexposure, one could easily bracket any critical shots on a roll and be fairly confident of getting a good exposure. I think the notion of "perfect shadow detail" is unrealistic. There's enough shadow detail and not enough shadow detail within fairly wide limits. In other words, if you overexpose slightly, do you have too much shadow detail? If so, what problem does it present in printing? I think you'll agree that adequate shadow detail is as close to perfect as is practical. Also, once you've done your testing and found your EI and development time, do you go into the field and shoot critical shots based on your test results without first verifying them in field tests? I never did. I always verified my testing by shooting under actual exposure conditions. Eventually I realized I could learn everything I needed to know about a film/developer combination by shooting a roll with some carefully bracketed exposures and developing normally, and get easy printing negs. It shouldn't take several rolls of film to determine how much added exposure will be required to suit one's taste, or how much more or less development will produce the desired contrast. Keep in mind just how far from optimum exposure and development modern films and VC papers can accommodate with no loss of print quality. The range is very wide. Some very talented, dedicated and well funded engineers have been working for many, many years to make B&W materials more tolerant of exposure and development variations, while others have worked just a hard to improve in-camera exposure meters so that a consumer can load a roll of film, set his camera's meter to the ISO speed and be assured of well exposed images. To adopt the methodologies required of photographers of generations past is more nostalgiac than practical, or necessary. There are few widely available, commonly used developers that don't produce very close to ISO speed. This is no coincidence; for a developer to produce less than ISO speed, it has to offer something very useful in return. D-76, ID-11, Xtol, Tmax, DDX, Microphen, Fujidol, and most other modern developers will produce ISO speed, or very close to it with almost any modern film. Even HC110 and Rodinal will produce close to ISO speed, giving away about 1/3-1/2 stop. What I'm suggesting is that ISO speed and development recommendations are likely to be very close to optimum, technically speaking, provided one's equipment is in good repair. Adjustments to taste and to compensate for out of calibration equipment are likely to be slight, and with bracketing, revealed in the first roll processed, and since test results should be verified in the field anyway, why not just skip the testing and go straight to field verification? Even if you were hypercautious and shot a test roll with no important exposures, the resulting information would be far more useful than a set of densities that would need to be verified in the field anyway. If you're curious enough, you could buy a roll of unfamiliar film from a major maker and expose scenes of normal contrast at ISO speed, bracketing some shots with important shadow detail, and develop normally in a standard developer. If you keep an open mind, you might be surprised at how many good frames you get, and how little adjustment is required. I do just as described when I want to try a new film and get many of my best images in the bargain. Thank you Vlad for your thoughtful comments; it's a pleasure having a civil discussion, even if we disagree on some points.

[fourthst]

HItam, after reading your initial statement again I did find the part about the film/dev

evaluation method as you shoot using the manufacturers recommendations as a starting

point. It was fairly deep in your text (it is just a bit verbose). I would agree, most average

shooters would be served well by making adjustments as they go along. I don't think most

serious photographers rely on the films latitude however. I suspect that includes you.

 

As to the gas milage analogy, I don't mess with anything under the hood. I drive the car,

record the milage and know how far I can go on a tank. It isn't what the manufacturer

claimed. Sort of the method you recommend but then again I don't drive cars for a living.

[sg_adams]

Hitam,

Sorry for jumping all over your statements, you are just leaving yourself wide open as I pointed out. And I totally dissagree with a lot of what you are suggesting. Myself, I have worked with a lot of different FB and RC print papers, and find your comments missleading. I have spent a lot of time and effort myself trying to get good results using roll films exposed using generalities similar to those you are suggesting. That is not to say everything I have is junk, or that one can't get some really good stuff without all the hassle of implementing some sort of constructive system to thier approach. In fact some of the neat I have was done years ago with what can only be described as fortunate, or beginner's luck. I say that because being self taught I am sure now that I got the idea getting good images was easier than it really is, it was a miss-leading experience that provided some really nice work. It has been the years in between and a lot of beautiful and unrepeatable compositions later, that don't translate in print, that I actually had to put it all aside for a while and think about what I have been doing. Anyone can load film in a camera and go take pictures. I don't know what anyone else's goals are, but mine are pretty high. during this interrim period I started doing what you are suggesting. And while I have noted a lot of improvement, I take the view that I have been doing the opposite of what you described by coming around the long way to the necessity of a more structured approach to the placement of light values on the film and into the printing process. I was already exposing for placement to a degree and developing my own system based on percentages and calculations for developing and contrast densities over the last couple years. In other words, testing through trial and error. I started looking at the situation from the opposite direction you are coming from based on what you have written, that is if we are discussing yours and my previous trial and error, and working with values and testing for personal working speeds etc... What I did gain by my own methods was development experience and a more consistent repeatable developing regime, more respect for agitation methods and use of fresh developers and all that goes along with that. Somehow there seems to be folks who make an unbreakable connection between expensive and time consuming scientific lab work and applying the general ideas of applying some simple zone system methods to one's work. I dissagree, but at the same time appreciate that exacting measures would be necessary with a narrow latitude film. I certainly bracket all my important color work, and most B&W.

Latitude and imprecise shutter speeds and apertures is one reason I am going to switch to more forgiving films, and drop t-grains for a while. I have also been pondering the idea that since my original focus in landscape photography was color, and that exposing it correctly requires a somewhat opposite approach had much to do with a lot of shoot from the hip B&W metering that, when I think about some of it, was not accounting for the well established expose for the shadows and so forth and was simply developed per manufacturers's recomendations. But that's all in the past, and the point of my personal interest and why I am taking a particular liking to looking at things with zones and placement in mind is just that. To be able to render an image the way I want it to appear if possible, my interpretation, litteral or abstracted, not how a combination of manufacturer's lab testing, recommendations, and simple meter techniques render it. It's not enough for me. I am directing this towards sheet film primarliy, but just the short time I have been working with a spot meter with regard to values has really made a big impression, I wish I got one ten years ago. It just made everything very clear to me as I am a learn by doing person no matter how much I read something. So it certainly wont hurt my roll film applications (and I own enough roll film backs to keep them organized for special develpment as needed.) I will also add to that that some of what I will be is going to require intensifying negs, and compensating development, pre-exposure and also I like to experiment with my own ideas. There is just a lot more to it than any amount of information can provide, it just has to be tried and see if it works. So I see it as testing, try it, see if it can be repeated within reasonable tollerance, and decide if improvement can be made in a constructive direction. Everyone has thier own experience to to look back on, and to look forward to, and has to use what means are available to them to get wherever they are going. My recent experience was one of floundering, or perhaps a deeper seated frustration and dissatisfaction with my work, that has caused me to resort to feeling a necessity for making an attempt at virtually starting all over or selling my cameras and equipment and thereby not worry about it anymore. Though I doubted I would go that extreme, it crossed my mind a few times. So if folks will allow, I think I'll retract my lazy comment above, and go enjoy some mechanical therapy calibrating a rangefinder. But I am going to add a couple things I gleaned from this and the last thread I started. One is that I shouldn't let myself get trapped in a regime of testing that becomes counter to being creative and enjoying going out and doing. And secondly, don't take things as a personal attack on my or other's, approach, philosophy, or experience, or at least take it in stride. I think it will probably turn out that while Hitam has come to his conclusions by his experience, and I from another set of experiences, the end results will fall somewhere around that middle gray area where the only real difference is personal style with the actual film emulsion being the standard from which that style is expressed as it is, as has been noted, the fixed value from which we have to work. Along those same lines, I've never had any trouble getting middle gray out of any film at the manufacturer's speed. It is the other ends of the scale that create the necessity of testing. The photography book I used when I first started out decribed this very well when explaining the difference between the nature of snap shot everday consumer films, and emulsions designed and marketed for profesionals.

I like the anology of cooking rather than the new car mileage one. Same box of cornmeal, followed the instructions exactly, used the same mixing bowl and all that, but Lucy's corn bread is so moist with a nice browned edge the way I like it. But when I make it at home it's dry and burnt on the bottom while the inside is barely done. Perhaps I need to find my personal baking temps for my oven? but if you saw Lucy you'd understand why I would rather go over and enjoy her cornbread...

I trust those that feel the need found an apology laced into that.

And don't worry, I'm done.

 

 

[dave_wilson1]

Hitam, respectfully I simply cannot agree with all of your thinking. The first "real" image is the negative or positive in the case of a slide film. If there is flaw there, already the rest is NG. Step one is to make the correct exposure for the film to work as it was designed or how you wish to manipulate it. The second step is to develop that film to get the desired result. After that, the use of that image is whatever the end result needs to be, maybe just storage for future use. Where I do agree is in finding a simple procedure and staying with it, but it needs to contain all the basics or it in itself is flawed.

[hitam_jantung]

Dave,

 

I guess where we disagree is that I see photography as a process for making a print. I don't see a negative as an end result, but an intermediate from which to make a print. In my view, a negative cannot be considered independently from the paper on to which it will be printed, and to do so makes film testing all the more pointless. If you want to make full scale prints, film exposure and development are adjusted to scale the negative density range to meet the exposure scale of the printing paper; It's that simple. Therefore, the first thing to know is the exposure scale of the printing paper. A typical grade 2 paper has an exposure scale of around 1.05. If a negative with a density range in excess of 1.05 is printed on that paper, the resulting image will exhibit excessive contrast; if you print for the highlights, the shadows will be blocked, and if you print for shadow detail, the highlights will be blocked, and by blocked I mean without detail. The print might be saved by dodging/burning, or it might not, depending on the degree to which the negative density range has exceeded the paper's exposure scale. In this case it's very important that exposure and development are controlled to a high degree because there is little room for adjustment. If the same negative is printed on VC paper, however, it's a simple matter of adjusting the filtration to precisely match the exposure scale of the paper to the density range of the negative, and one need never know what the exact density range of the negative is, or the exposure scale of the printing paper, one need only know when the desired result is acheived. In practice, scaling a negative to the exact exposure scale of a graded paper is a formidable challenge, but scaling a VC paper to the exact density range of a negative is fairly simple, and what matters most is how closely the two values match, not which value is adjusted to the other. My point is that making a negative that matches up somewhere in the middle of a VC paper's exposure scale range is not technically demanding, and the big target VC papers present doesn't impinge on the quality of the print, but in fact makes very high quality full scale prints much easier to make. In short, a negative can be no more perfectly made than to exactly match the exposure scale of the printing paper, and with the adjustable exposure scale of VC paper, perfect negatives are very easy to make, requiring only adequate exposure and something close to normal contrast. This reality might sting those who place a lot of value in negative crafting, but for those who simply want to make high quality prints without spending a lot of time testing, it's a beautiful thing.

[robert_grasing]

Hitam, you write:

 

'Film speed, or sensitivity is the least important of the commonly tested film

characteristics because it is printed on the box by the manufacturer, is changed very little

by variations in processing, and these variations are generally within the latitude of the

film.'

 

 

Here I have to disagree. It does change, significantly so.

 

 

Here are some film contrast and exposure index data from a Japanese technical journal

(shashin kogyo, September 1998). The film tested is Neopan 400, developed in Fujidol-E

1+1:

 

(developing time in minutes, gamma, EI)

 

4/0.45/160

 

5.5/0.55/400

 

7/0.66/800

 

10/0.88/1250-1600

 

This is very useful information, much more so than a single developing time and film

speed. You simply select the proper gamma for your needs, then note the developing time

and EI. For example, to print a typical outside scene on grade 2 paper with a diffusion

type enlarger you need a contrast gamma of 0.55 to 0.60. Here, develop for 5.5 to 6

minutes, use an EI of 400. Identical to the manufacturer's ISO speed.

 

However, consider the same scene to be printed on a condenser type enlarger. This

requires lower contrast, about 0.40 to 0.45. Indicated development is now around 4

minutes, EI 160. That is over a one stop difference. I say that is significant.

 

Of course, the 0.55 gamma negative can be printed on a condenser enlarger by using a

grade 1 paper. However, most photographers would prefer to keep their negatives in the

more flexible grade 2 to grade 3 range. This means reducing developing time to lower

contrast, which will necessarily reduce EI.

 

There is nothing sacred about the suggested developing times and the ISO film speed.

Sometimes they work out to be exactly what is needed, sometimes they require a

substantial change. Years ago, Kodak, in their technical publications, used to urge

photographers to regard their published data as starting points only and to run their own

tests. That's still the proper approach, although with the options we have now it is not

quite as important as it once was.

 

I agree that film testing can become a fetish, an end in itself. I suspect all those zone

system clones are partly responsible, the way they imply every negative must be exposed

and developed to exact technical parameters. However, for my intentions and my

equipment, the manufacturer's suggestions would not work very well at all, and apparently

many others have the same experience. I test not because I want to, but because I must.

[hitam_jantung]

Robert,

 

most manufacturers include development data for both diffusion and condenser enlargers, and that data is very reliable as a starting point. Still, the difference between the EI between condenser and diffusion enlargers as given is only a little more than a stop, and it can reasonably be expected that users of condenser enlargers are well aquainted with that particular issue, and would likely begin their testing a stop below the rated ISO, which would get them close enough without testing of any kind, according to the data you've provided. If a user of a condenser enlarger was completely unaware of the lower contrast requirements of his system, and related speed loss, and bracketed his exposures up to 1 stop more exposure from ISO speed, he would still learn everything he needed to know about his exposure requirements for his system. I make a distinction between this kind of simple trial and error testing and the more abstract approaches involving in-camera exposures of test targets, and negative density calculations. I'm very familiar with the kind of data that can be produced from careful testing and its usefulness, but if the data you've cited was produced by in-camera zone-system type testing, I wouldn't give it any creedance whatsoever. Considering the data confirms the manufacturer's ISO and development recommendations, I'd guess it was produced by more careful testing in laboratory conditions. In any case, trial and error testing takes all variables into account, including shutter accuracy, lens flare, metering accuracy and style, subject matter, regional light quality, film processing equipment and technique, enlarging equipment, printing paper and paper developer, and perhaps most important, the taste and vision of the photographer. Keep in mind that my comments pertain to photographers who shoot roll film and print on VC paper, which means most photographers. If you fall into this category, I can assure you you don't have to test in any way more formal or structured than simple trial and error. All you have to do is determine how much more exposure, if any, you prefer over the ISO speed, which can easily be accomplished in a few well chosen frames, and how long to develop to get close to normal contrast, which should be easy enough to do the very first time if you're using a standard developer, and adjust the exposure scale of your VC paper to match the resulting negative. As I wrote above, the qualities of a negative determined by exposure and development are relative to how closely the negative density range matches the exposure scale of the paper, and with VC paper, the paper's exposure scale can be adjusted to the negative over a very substantial range. SO, when using VC paper, a negative with a density range of 1.0 is no better or worse than one with a density range of 1.2, or 1.5, etc., and spending a lot of time testing to determine precise film development will not improve the final print at all. Just getting in the normal contrast neighborhood is good enough, and by good enough I mean can't be improved upon by added precision. I'm not trying to disuade you from testing, but I can't agree that you have to unless you're incapable of simple evaluation of an actual print, and I don't mean that to sound nasty.

[sg_adams]

Nasty is fine, but you keep making unqualified statements as if they are factual without any supporting evidence other than your own round about experience that you are saying is all most photographers need to know. Complicating your premise is the the simple fact that you are disregarding testing for trial and error and thereby contradicting yourself. You are saying testing isn't necessary, and then saying test using different wording. Your other issues are similarly unfounded when you suggest your own experience is valid with regards most photographers. You have not used one example of statistical evididence in supporting this claim. Which leaves me to make the assumption your sample size is one, which is supported by the fact you keep refering to your own experience. I think this is fine, but to suggest your way and your findings are best for "most photographers" is folly without the comment can be supported. That's one reason why I picked it apart. I took back my lazy comment because I acted without thinking, and you say you have put a lot of effort in to your conclusions, and I don't want anyone suggesting I take a photography class at the nut house.

You are entitled to your claims and your argument certainly, but there is in my estimation enough evidence supporting contrary arguments based on what people are actually doing. I am not even sure what you mean when you say "most photographers" but you imply hobbyists in some of your writing. That constitutes a rather broad range of ability and levels of proficiency and interest etc... There are surely a lot of beginners struggling to load film in a reel in the dark, as well as amatures doing work at a highly professional level that fall under "hobbyist". I think nowdays "most photographers" might fall in or near the digital category.

But this is why, at least in my opinion, you are getting negative responses. If you said things in a different way instead of trying to sound like an expert who knows what is best for everyone else, folks might have more respect for your efforts.

I already told you I intend to keep some of the things you have shared in mind, but I recommend avoiding academic arguments that require sound reasoing and some sort of research beyond what you are attempting here and elsewhere. For myself I am not saying I don't like or respect what you are writing; it is the way you are writing it. Myself and others have told you films like Acros, FP4 and TMX, does not work for us using manufacturer's specs, and there are thousands of articles, essays, internet discussions, and book literature supporting this. I'm telling you photography is highly personalized and it would be a shame and a great loss to the art and creativity of the practice if everyone got exactly the same results and followed particualr rules. Thanks goodness there are different schools of thought and individual styles and practices are still encouraged.

Have a great day

[bruce_watson1]

<i>...given the level of sophistication of modern film engineering, manufacturing and quality control, it might reasonably be asked why photographers bother to test film at all, when the best testing by hobbyists consistently confirms manufacturer's data?</i>

<p>

I reject your premise. Stating an opinion as fact won't make it fact. No matter how much you personally believe in it. You can't prove that "testing by hobbyists consistently confirms manufacturer's data" because it does not.

<p>

ISO ratings are done under laboratory conditions using strict testing protocols. EI testing is done under real-world conditions using the testers' own personal protocols. It is possible that one's personal EI and the film's ISO rating turn out to be the same. It is also possible, even likely, that the EI will turn out to be somewhat different than the ISO rating. Much depends on developer, temperature, agitation method, actual aperture and shutter operation, etc.

<p>

That's why we test -- to find out how a particular film performs with our specific equipment under our specific conditions and workflows.

<p>

If you are determined to remain ignorant, so be it -- don't test. What you do or don't do matters not to the rest of us.

[dave_s]

<A HREF="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prolix">*</i>

[sg_adams]

ha ha ha ha ha ha...

[hitam_jantung]

SG,

 

I say most photographers shoot roll film and print on VC papers based on the sales of those materials compared to the sales of sheet film and graded papers. If you think I'm wrong about these figures, look them up; I'm not intersted in doing your homework for you and I don't care whether you believe me or not. I've tried to be very clear about how I distinguish between trial and error testing and more formal approaches, and the fact that they can both be considered testing in the broadest sense has no place in this discussion. If you don't understand the distinction, or my reasoning for advocating one over the other, ther's not much point in my discussing it with you. I've not said so before out of politeness, but your original post in your thread points to your experience with testing, and the weight of your opinions on the subject. You clearly have a lot to learn about sensitometry, and while there's no shame in that, you should have the courtesy and good sense to recognize when someone who has the experience you lack is willing to share it with you. Your insistence that I provide proof that most photographers use roll film and VC papers, something that is common knowledge among the photographic community and easily confirmed by sales figures, and that you refuse to recognize the distinction between trial and error testing and more formal approaches is infantile, and adds nothing of value to this discussion.

 

Bruce,

 

I can't "prove" the best testing by amateurs consistently confirms mnanufacturers data, and I'm under no obligation to do so; you can agree or disagree with the premise, but my experience is consistent with my statement. Testing that produces results significantly divergent from manufacturer's data is probably not very reliable, in my experience. Your experience might be very different from mine, and you're entitled to your own opinions based on that experience, but your reaction to my opinion is unnecessarily rude. It seems you have issues beyond those under discussion here, and I wish you the best of luck with them. Beyond that, it seems you share SG's inability to comprehend the fundamental distinction between trial and error testing and more formal approaches. I know why people test, I'm simply suggesting that the testing need not be formal or abstract, and that any reasonably astute photographer can learn what he needs to know about a film/developer/paper system to acheive the required degree of precision by simple qualitative evaluation of real prints. Is this testing? Call it testing if you like, but the distinction remains, and the semantics have no bearing on this discussion except for those groping for some basis for rejecting my reasoning. If you'd actually bothered to read my posts, you might have noticed how many times and in how many ways I've acknowledged that adjustments to ISO ratings might be desireable, and why it's not necessary to resort to formal testing to accomlish these adjustments. Instead you seize on a single statement taken out of context and proclaim that you "reject my premise", when you clearly have no real comprehension of my premise. And then you speak of ignorance, and presume to speak for some unnamed "rest of us"? And by the way, "what you do matters not to the rest of us"; do you always write in such a pompous, self-important style, or have you reserved it specifically for occasions when you want to object but lack a fundamental understanding of the concepts under discussion? It's very cute.

[robert_grasing]

Hitam,

 

'most manufacturers include development data for both diffusion and condenser

enlargers, and that data is very reliable as a starting point.' Years ago Ilford did provide

times for condenser and diffusion enlargers, but does not now. Kodak and Fuji do not, at

least directly. That information can be derived from studying their published film curves,

provided you have the background knowledge.

 

 

'Still, the difference between the EI between condenser and diffusion enlargers as given is

only a little more than a stop' One stop can be a big deal if it is on the underexposure

side, especially if the film is 35mm and the enlargement is 6X or greater.

 

'I'm very familiar with the kind of data that can be produced from careful testing and its

usefulness, but if the data you've cited was produced by in-camera zone-system type

testing, I wouldn't give it any creedance whatsoever.' In what sense? Why not? The data

published in shashin kogyo was done by a photo engineer, with a camera and lens, and

densitometer, using the same procedures Fuji uses in house and recommends. It's not

'zone-system type testing', by the way, it's standard film testing, from which the zone

system was derived.

 

'SO, when using VC paper, a negative with a density range of 1.0 is no better or worse

than one with a density range of 1.2, or 1.5, etc., and spending a lot of time testing to

determine precise film development will not improve the final print at al' Yes, I see your

point and to an extent agree. The tonal distribution is essentially the same (within limits).

With VC paper there's little point to obsessing with exact gamma values, although it should

be noted this is a relatively recent development: VC papers were not always so flexible.

However, there are other reasons why some prefer to set their negative contrast to a lower

level than the ISO standard.

 

'I'm not trying to disuade you from testing, but I can't agree that you have to unless you're

incapable of simple evaluation of an actual print, and I don't mean that to sound nasty.' I

wrote I test because I have to. I should have used past tense. I do not test much at all now

because there is no need. For one thing, there are no new films. More to the point, from

experience I know what a negative should look like for whatever purpose is necessary. I

don't need to make a print to confirm it. But I can do that because 40 years ago I did do

all the testing.

 

'...and led me to study sensitometry which, in the end, improved my photography and my

understanding of my materials, but it was a long way around, and informed my opinion

that for most people, most of the time, film testing is wasted effort.' How would you

reacted if someone had told you you were wasting your time when you started your study

of sensitometry? As for 'the long way around', I'll cite a Japanese proverb: the long way

around is the quickest way home. Photography is more process than product.

[dave_wilson1]

Hitam, we're just not going to agree, which is fine. There are two sayings, "The world will continue to turn 'till end" and "Whatever works for you". I will continue to make the best negatives I can and use them as I see fit. If I choose to print, I will print straight from the negative, as my negatives are print friendly. I seldom need to manipulate any prints. If I do manipulate a print it is for an artistic reason that I may want something a little more subdued or dramatic, or sometimes softened or diffused. OK Cheers!

[hitam_jantung]

Hello again Robert.

 

Discussing these issues with you is very refreshing, and a pleasure. Now to address your points:

 

I agree that one stop of underexposure can be significant, and I'm sorry if I wasn't more clear in my explanation of bracketing from ISO up to one stop more exposure to find the desired shadow detail. To reiterate, if a condenser user bracketed from ISO up to a stop more exposure, he would get very close to optimum exposure according to the data you provided, and I believe the same to be true for almost all photographers, regardless of equipment. In my experience, it is very rare that optimum exposure is more than a stop off of ISO, but even for those very few who find their optimum shadow detail more than a stop over ISO, the evaluation process is little complicated.

 

I'd be very surprised to learn Fuji uses a camera and lens to make the exposures they derive their ISO data from, and it would set them apart from every other major manufacturer, and is certainly not standard. Standard ISO testing is done using sensitometers for exposure and densitometers for measurement. The reason I wouldn't give any creedence to in-camera testing is because it's peculiar to the tester and his equipment, which is the whole point of that kind of testing, and why it isn't transferrable from one user to another. In order for data to be transferrable, it must not be based on dissimilar variables like camera shutters, lenses, light meters, metering techniques, etc., etc., which is why ISO testing removes these variables from its procedures.

 

You write that you don't need to test anymore because you know what a good negative should look like based on testing you did 40 years ago, but I'd argue that a good negative for photographers printing on VC paper is a pretty easy mark to hit, it doesn't take long to learn what one looks like, and no formal testing is required to do so.

 

How would I have reacted if someone had told me I was wasting my time studying sensitometry? First of all the question is misdirected, because I don't fall into the "most photographers" category under discussion, shooting LF exclusively for many years and printing on POP. If however, someone had told me Zone System testing was a crude application of the principles of sensitometry and so frought with imprecision as to be useless, and that I shouldn't waste my time learning those methods but instead learn to apply the principles of sensitometry more directly, I would have said, "tell me more".

 

Again, it's not that I'm against testing, just that I believe abstract methods are unnecessary for rollfilm/VC paper users. I'll cite a more local saying: Elaborate testing regimes for rollfilm/VC paper users is- "like a laser sight on a sawed-off shotgun"; you can use one, but why?

[sg_adams]

You just don't get it do you?

Go back and read what I said. You turned a couple things around on me that I didn't say the way you regurgitated it, so if you want to insult me get it right. I have no desire to study sensitometry.

I don't need an expert to tell me that the TMY I have been working with looked a lot better today now that I am metering it a full stop slower speed. And I just started with Efke 25, which had no shadow detail at all even though I metered for it to see if I could get the low values at box speed while disregarding the highs. Even though I read that some folks are using it at a one stop higher rating of 50 I had little or no shadow detail except in those images exposed a full stop over the metered placement. Which tells me I might be better served to run a test rating the film at 12, which I also read here some folks are doing with good results. If I want to use this film, and it wont perform the way you are stating that it should at box speed, and I can see with my eyes that it certainly wont print well on any kind of paper, don't you think a little testing might save me from ruining a bunch of film, wasting my time going out to the desert in a couple weeks to make all the effort to get some nice exposures instead of crossing my fingers and trusting to the lab techs skimpy information. Like someone said above, there are too many variables invloved outside controlled lab testing for me to take that chance. And to answer your question, that's why I like to do a few tests. I feel, as you have stated, that there should be enough latitude inherent in most emulsions to help me with any exposure discrepencies accompanied with my standard of bracketing. I enjoy fooling around with my equipment and I think I make some rather nice test images sometimes, so investing in a few extra rolls of film and developer is a lot more pleasant than returning from two weeks on the road using up gas, wearing out my vehicle, and spending countless hours looking for, setting up, and breaking down photographs. So I test, and I enjoy it. I really don't care one way or the other what you think or say about me. You still haven't succesfully supported your opinions. As far as I can determine, folks are aggreeing with you on some points, as am I, but the majority seem to believe that thier is no substitute for some good old fashioned personal testing. I think you'll go round and round and never catch your tail. So get over it like most photographers are telling you. MGWAKH

[robert_grasing]

Hitam,

 

Fuji does certainly adhere to ISO testing protocols when measuring film speed. But that

practical data to be seen within its technical pamphlets (EI, contrast gradient, developing

times, etc) is derived from actual in camera tests. After all, most people use film in a

camera, not with a wedge in a dish. Today's equipment, especially 35mm, is more than

precise and consistent enough for this kind of data to be transferable. Of course,

individuals using inaccurate shutters and meters, high flare lenses, etc may have problems

using the data as supplied.

 

You mentioned LF and this is where our goals and needs differ. I rarely use LF these days,

now mostly 35mm, and 35mm is far less forgiving than LF as to exposure and

development. 35mm works best with minimum acceptable exposure, and contrast should

be rather on the flat side: it's better to raise the contrast during printing. A 35mm

negative developed to print on grade 3 will look noticeably smoother and sharper than one

developed to print on grade 2. To my eyes, anyway. (This is, by the way, old knowledge,

something that used to be advised in technical manuals up to at least the 70s). The main

thing for me then is negative contrast; film speed follows from that. I want a gamma of

about 0.40. The ISO film speed development will give me about 0.60, which is much too

high, for my 35mm needs. Bracketing exposure won't solve anything. Bracketing

development time will.

 

I can say this way: in 4X5, HP5 is an EI 400 film for me. In 35mm, it's EI 200.

 

I'm not a zone system fan or user, although I found it useful for getting a rough idea of

how a picture was going to look in black and white. Unfortunately, most of the ZS

emphasis has been on testing: determining a personal film speed, N+1 development time,

etc, and very little on the visualization. If you are railing against that kind of testing, I

don't object. However, I will say that some people are fascinated by these technical

procedures, perhaps more so than making the images themselves. That is their privilege,

to each his own. I do get the impression you are a fallen away zoner and now resent the

years you believed in it.

 

As for "like a laser sight on a sawed-off shotgun", I have never fired a gun, so I can't

entirely appreciate the simile. However, I have seen enough movies to know that little red

beam is pretty cool.

 

It's been an interesting discussion.

[hitam_jantung]

Hello again Robert.

 

As I wrote, one ostensibly tests in-camera to produce results unique to one's system and style of metering, etc., which makes the data produced inherently non-transferrable. I have a lot of respect for prsonalized, non-transferrable data, as that is precisely what I'm advocating with trial and error-type qualitative evaluation, but you can't have it both ways; either film tests should be conducted in-camera because equipment varies enough to make it important,and thereby non-transferrable, or equipment is precise enough that in-camera testing is not necessary, and data derived from a controlled lab environment will work as well for one photographer as another, but not both.

 

it's true that 35mm film is less tolerant of overexposure than LF, and that there is a benefit to producing thin negatives of a contrast suitable for a higher grade of paper, but I don't agree that either of those issues is beyond qualitative evaluation. Adequate shadow detail is still the benchmark for exposure, even in 35mm, and best determined by evaluation of actual prints, in my opinion, and developing for a contrast in the grade three neighborhood instead of the grade two neighborhood requires no added precision.

 

For the record, I was never a Zone Sytem user; I read Adam's books, and evaluated his methodology, but found it far too imprecise for my needs, and moved on to more fundamental sensitometry study. I never practiced the Zone System as such, and could never have been called a "believer". I rarely shoot LF these days, and shoot mostly my 35mm Leicas and print on VC paper, like most other photographers, and don't spend much time testing these days, which I find quite liberating. Thanks for the discussion.

[dave_wilson1]

Aha, Hitam, what I,ve been waiting for throughout all this verbage between you and SG. A reference to an actual recognized book or method and what you had to say about it. This now gives us all a fair playing field. My suggestion to you is to reread the Negative several times, like I have, do as much as you can that is in the book, like I have, and come back and tell me some more of your points of view after that. I knew right away when I first read some of your long posts, like this one is going to be, that they were not at all based on sound tested principal. You also get rather upset if people don't agree with you, you shouldn't. Instead substantiate what you're saying with sound sources and show us the real knowledge you have and where it came from. During my professional years (12, full time as an industrial photographer in the 80s and 90s) I had the fortune to work with several extraordinary photographers and printers, levels above my work which isn't really too shabby. The printer, who was from Poland was the best I ever saw, and I've seen lots, he came to the US from Poland and went 5 times to study at Ansel Adams' workshops while he was still alive, he also studied with several very accomplished Westonite's. He was a great fan of Edward Weston's work and studied fiercly about him. When he showed me something I only listened and made sure I understood the best I could, he was far better at printing than me, he showed me printing stuff I can't do to this day. If you've taken some of these classes, site where you went and what you've learned, we'll listen better. My other friend was a fine art photographer who had many commissions of significant value several for Johnson and Johnson's master gallery, and works in major galleries in NY which were critiqued in the New York Times with brilliant critiques. Do you know how difficult it is for the NY Times to actually write a brilliant review about you?? He was an Adamsite and eventually developed all his film, mostly Tmax 100 with absolute precision in a Jobo machine in HC110. He demonstrated to me with great accuracy how the temperature and agitation was critical to the development of TMax. I recall something about this temperature business, latitude thing in one of your posts, it was pages ago somewhere, obviously you aren't ready to discuss this as of yet, after you go get or rent or use a Jobo machine, do all the work he has done, I'll take you more seriously. He was one of the first inovators with digital photography and actually had a significant commission from, if I recall Photo Shop, and one of the major camera manufacturers for scanned negatives. I remember bringing him some color slides one day that needed to be printed for a hurry up job. Although I knew him well, I was nervous about what he would think of my slides. He ran the film, printed the contact sheets and looked at me and said, "we can print any of these, these are all great". He also commented on how excellent my Nikon single legnth lenses were, there were just five lenses that I hand picked over the years as the best of the bunch. We then picked the five I needed and he proceeded to wiz through the prints with the greatest of precision, nothing left to chance. Have you had anyone that inspired you like that? If you have tell us about it and I'll again take you more seriously. Not to be rude, but for those of us that have significant personal experience, listening to all this back and forth about a bunch of hyperbole is kind of silly. All I'm saying in this, probably the longest post I have ever written here, is that you need to let us in once in a while on where you got all this knowledge from so we can take you more seriously. If some of this is harsh, so be it, I think it's fair, but you do need to back up some of this endless writing here. Seee, I can write pretty long to. OK, Cheers, go have a beer!

[hitam_jantung]

Dave,

 

I've read 'The Negative' as many times as I needed to, no more and no less. I've also read Thornton, Mees, Haist and Henry, and can recomend them to you if you're serious about sensitometry and darkroom work in general. Honestly, of all the books you could seize upon as a litmus test, 'The Negative' is little more than a crude primer, and not even the best book on the Zone System, and can't even be considered seriously as a sensitometry text. Often people without any real understanding of the issues resort to basing their objections on a lack of some form of documentation or endorsement by a "higher authority". Either you have the background experience and fundamental grasp of the concepts necessary to discuss these issues, or you don't, and clearly, you don't, or you'd address them instead of fumbling for a pedigree. Nothing you've written in your word-rich, content-poor post addresses the isssues or adds to the discussion in any way but to describe yourself as a pernicious lurker looking for a keyword to seize upon and tell us all how much experience you've had as a "Pro", what book (singular) you've read, and how you're not able to judge my arguments on their merits, but instead require referrences. If you expect me to take you seriously because you had a "friend" who was a great printer, according to you, and studied Weston and attended some workshops with Adams, you're mistaken. A lot of anecdotal hyperbole describing precision is absolutely meaningless, and reveals nothing more than your own inability to intelligently discuss the actual issues. Anyone with even a basic comprehension of sensitometry would be able to determine from what I've written whether my reasoning is sound, and even if they weren't sure, they'd know what questions to ask to find out, but you'd settle for an endorsement because you're incapable of making the detemination based on anything more substantial. Your suggestion that I rent a Jobo and then all would become clear to me is laughable, not only because I own and use a pair of ATL 3s, but even more so because it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, and highlights your ignorance, as if someone who doesn't use a Jobo has no authority, regardless of the content of his reasoning. Hilarious, really, and embarrasing for you, if you had the good sense to realize just exactly how deep over your head you've waded. You have the audacity to impugn my credentials when yours consist solely of "I have a friend who was a great printer, and he said my work is great!". Good god, man, get a grip.

[sg_adams]

Dave,

time to move on to more constructive things...

He keeps changing his tune to argue for the sake of arguing without any constructive purpose.

It will no doubt contiune in this manner until the thread falls off the end.

Personally, I picked up on his pattern in one post on my other thread. I really don't care in the slightest what the person thinks of me, my ideas, experience or photographic interests, my images or abilities.

Honestly I wasn't feeling well for a few days while all that transpired and am not sure I was thinking clearly. In fact I know so after getting involved in this stupid thread. Two words, cry baby. I'm right, you're wrong, and I can proove it by writing until everyone gives up.

So let's all agree so he'll take his sensitometry toys and go home. In fact, listen, I hear his mom calling him.

I don't even believe the person has any interest in photography, and probably less ability. I would think it quite safe to say that "most photographers" care whether sensitometery, or densitometry, or any of this discussion exists at all, so I think I'll go get myself one of those beers, and anyone else who wishes is welcome to join me. Except for the poster, he has to go home and learn some manners...

[dave_wilson1]

Wow Hitam, I'm speechless, so rather than be bothered answering all your allegations, especially the "lurking" and "crude primer", I'll just go have the coffee that's brewed in the kitchen. Cheers!

[hitam_jantung]

SG,

 

have I hurt your feelings, or your pride? No one asked you to participate in this thread, and you claimed to be finished with it many posts back, and yet you drivel on about manners, of all things, when your lack thereof has been all too well established in your own thread. You're typical of those who resort to petty personal attacks and infantile name-calling when you run short of your paltry intellectual ammo, and are threatened by a level of discourse beyond your meager experience. So keep repeating how much you don't care about my opinions or this thread, and maybe you can manage to convince yourself it's true, but it's far too late to impress me with your mock disdain. If you know as much about beer as you do about photography, I hope you'll enjoy your Coors Light with all of your virtual friends; the only kind someone of your integrity and wit is likely to have.