My eleven's are unequal

[steve_baggett]

I've recently started a systematic approach to my B&W darkroom work

and have acquired a Stouffer 4x5 step tablet, a

transmission/reflection densiometer and, of course, Phil Davis'

wonderful book BTZS. My problem (if it is a problem) is that the two

step #11's on the tablet are of unequal density by about .07 (1.50 vs

1.57). As you know, if you have this tablet, step #11 is repeated on

the 1-10 line of steps and on the 12-21 line of steps and should be

of equal density on both. I know that everything is "relative" WRT

any calibration curves I produce with it, but I was just wondering if

anyone else has this same difference on their Stouffer 4x5 tablet?

I'm probably worrying about nothing, but the nerd in me won't let it

pass (not yet). Thanks in advance for advice.

[jorge_gasteazoro4]

Mine is the same at both 10 and 11 steps. But who cares? that just means that you have a 1/4 stop step in between. As long as you have your step tablet calibrated and step 12 is .15 from either step 10 or eleven, you are ok. Dont you have enough troubles doing all that testing to worry about this? :-))

[walter_glover]

Steve,

 

I recently purchased the Stouffer and have discovered the same

thing. You will find, however, that if you make density readings at

different points along the individual tone that the density will vary.

 

The Stouffer is pretty cheap and, I guess, printed in mass

batches. My tried and true Kodak calibrated step tablet which I've

used for years is deadly accurate. On the other hand it cost

more than 10 times the price of the Stouffer.

 

Glad to hear of another BTZS fan here. I find the set-up and

calibration procedures are of great value. I also love the option

of working with the incident metering technique. Of course, I still

use my spot-meter for many subjects and for commercial colour

work, but for streetscapes and architecture the SBR system is

just so easy.

 

The difficulty of BTZS for me was the graphing. I purchased the

Plotter software and now life's a breeze.

 

Testing my materials I found far less problematic than the

regular grey-card in the field approach. In fact I found a good

work-around for the Jobo and BTZS. I tested five emulsions at

once. Filled an Expert drum with a sheet of each and processed

for 4 minutes. Repeated the process at each of the other four

times and had a set of reference negs to establish curve

families. Similarly, I contact printed my step-wedgeon my

preferred paper to determine the E.S. for contact printing 8x10s

and then projected it for the E.S. to use with smaller films I intend

to enlarge. I go out in the field with one set of data for 4x5 and

another for 8x10. Nothing could be simpler. The system is

elegance itself.

 

WG