Zone System Calibration using 35mm film?

[bhuij]

<p>As I've just started getting into shooting 4x5 film, I've decided to actually calibrate my film of choice for landscape photography (for now FP4+ in Rodinal, later I'll probably do calibrations for additional film/dev combos).<br>

Is there any reason I can't use 35mm film for this? It would certainly save me a lot of money to burn 2-3 rolls of 135-36 vs burning a whole bunch of sheets of 4x5, or even several rolls of 120. My concern is that 35mm, due to its limited real estate, may not show tonality as clearly as I'd like.<br>

Anyone ever successfully found true film speed, and/or good N, N+1, N-1 times using 35mm or 120 that translated well to 4x5?</p>

[Bill Bowes]

<p>Hello Andrew, and hopefully others in a bit. The last time I really investigated, 4x5 & 35/120mm emulsions had vast characteristic differences, which would probably drive you nuts trying to "match" the films.<br /> I have been a proponent of the Zone System from the late 60's onward, both with large formats and my MF and 35mm ventures. The approach to photography this system offers does not have to depend on gagets and charts. It becomes intuitive. Todays scanners offer an expansion of the Zone System, allowing more than the "normal" 5 Zones between hi and low value subject areas.<br /> No matter what, one will still have to be on their toes with each film / format type. Included photo is from a Voigtlander Vito II, folding 35mm camera (circ 1952) and hand held selenium Pilot light meter. Bill</p><div></div>

[AJG]

<p>In my experience, Kodak Tri-X in 35 mm, 120 and 4x5 had different characteristics which would prevent substituting 35 mm for 4x5. I haven't shot enough FP4 to be able say that they might be the same in different formats. As you already know, 4x5 isn't about shortcuts, its about getting the best possible quality in an image. So my advice would be to spend the money on the 4x5 film of your choice and actually know what your film/developer combination is capable of. Take a look at Fred Picker's <em>The Zone VI Workshop</em> if you haven't already; it is a great guide to the testing you will need to do.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>You're also calibrating your shutter, and the "T-stop" of your lens, when doing Zone System calibration. So use the real film and camera.<br>

Also, the base density of the sheet film and 35mm film is probably different.</p>

[bhuij]

<p>Heh, that's basically what I was worried about.<br>

<br /><br />I have 3 rolls of 120 FP4+ on the way from B&H. I think I'll calibrate with 120, then use my findings as a baseline to start calibration for 4x5. Not only will the 120 calibration be good to have, since I still plan on shooting some 120 in addition to my 4x5 work, it should also provide at least a reasonably good baseline from which to start my 4x5 calibration work, hopefully allowing me to dial in my 4x5 calibration with a minimum of wasted sheets.<br>

<br /><br />I'm using the method outlined by David Kachel where you don't burn up film on "tests" with no artistic value, you just go out and shoot like you normally would, and basically calibrate from your mistakes. That way you end up with a lot of negatives that are probably still viable from a technical standpoint even if they're not spot on with contrast and exposure. Better that than $80 worth of film that contains images of gray cards and step wedges :D</p>

<p>His article is here, I quite enjoyed it and find his method a good match for me: http://davidkachel.com/assets/calibrat.htm</p>

[glen_h]

<p>You could put a gray card in the scene, for a scenic picture, but far enough to the side that you can crop it. </p>

<p>I suspect that there are differences between 35mm, 120, and 4x5, but as you note, it should help get close. Then fine tune the differences with real 4x5. </p>

<p>Some films give different development times for 35mm, 120, and sheet film. </p>

<p>I would expect base density to factor out, so that shouldn't matter. You do have to remember to do that, though.</p>

[bhuij]

<p>Yeah, I'm thinking 120 calibration will get me close enough that 4x5 should be a matter of tweaking things a bit. Thanks for the feedback, all!</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I would make the following points:<br>

1) In my experience, FP4 Plus behaves much the same in ID-11 in all formats.<br>

2) Unless you already have experience of developing FP4 Plus in Rodinal and have achieved satisfactory results rating the film at box speed, I would assume that Rodinal does not give full box speed. If I were to use Rodinal with FP4 Plus (I wouldn't, I'd use ID-11 diluted 1+1 as normal, 1+3 for greater acutance if I felt I needed it), I'd use a speed setting of 32 or 40 and a dev time derived from the Ilford data sheet:<br>

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf<br>

This quotes 15 minutes at 20 deg. C for Rodinal 1+50 and EI 125 - from this. I'd start with 12.5 minutes for EI 40.<br>

One final point - someone states above that<br>

<em>4x5 isn't about shortcuts, it's about getting the best possible quality in an image.</em><br>

Strictly speaking, the aim when the Zone System was devised in the 1940s was to produce a negative which would make a pleasing print on grade 2 or 3 paper, which was necessary because paper was available at that time in many more surfaces, base colors and weights than now, but many types were only available in these 2 grades. Also, a fairly wide fine-tuning range was necessary in this period to allow for the fact that photographers could be using either [single-]coated or uncoated camera and enlarger lenses and could be printing on a cold-light or condenser enlarger. Today, if you produce negatives with less contrast than the original ideal and print them on grade 4, for example, this is fine. Lower contrast up to a point is of course advantageous in any case for scanning.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>David: Would Tmax 100 be good for scanning? Others?</p>

[mark_miranda2]

<p>You're running the test to determine your personal speed for the preferred printing method. I too, shoot mostly landscape/environmental type stuff, which developer you use will naturally have different results based on their characteristic. I've noticed very little difference between formats of the same film when running the tests, at least not that can't be addressed in LR or PS, or even in a wet print. We all know that we're trying to make best neg possible, and yes, a thinner or less contrasty neg for scanning has given nice results, and a little fuller neg for wet prints. Mr. Bebbington makes an very good point about trying to make negs that are a little thinner or less contrasty if you will, much can accomplished with a good scan and properly executed work in LR or PS.<br>

If you're using Ansel's method, you can do a Zone test with single sheet of 4X5, most likely a whole roll of 120, and three or four tests using a single roll of 35mm if you don't mind doing a little work in the dark...<br>

To answer the part of your question concerning true speed that'll translate across formats, please keep in mind that HC110 is what I use...so...here goes...HP5+ shot/rated at 250 with a slight pull, about 15% using dilution H, the same goes for FP4+, shot/rated at 80 with a slight pull of about 15%. dilution H. Nice smooth, clean negs, plenty of detail throughout, and very good scans or wet prints. This has been a go to for me for many years, and now that I scan negs almost exclusively, I've no need to explore a whole lot further, (although I'm curious to experiment with the XTOL + Rodinal combination). <br>

I've tried Rodinal, but I just couldn't quite get what I was looking for, but that's just me, I'm not saying that it's no good, it's just not for me, that's all.<br>

Let me add this...<br>

The one thing that I have noticed, and I learned this as I've moved from one format to another, is that lenses across all three format do have some say in the matter, as an example: my 50mm Summicron is definitely more contrasty that any of my LF or 35mm, Nikkors or my 80mm Planar, on the other hand, the LF Nikkors, at least to my eye, render a little smoother, still very sharp, than my 80mm Planar, and the 80mm Planar is a little sharper than my 50mm Summicron, but this is only for my lens samples, others may very well be different. All are terrific, just different.<br>

Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, still remains as true today as it ever has!<br>

The more you experiment the more you learn, most all have fun with it!<br>

Just my 2 cents...<br>

</p>

 

[mark_miranda2]

<p>TMax 100 is beautiful stuff and it does scan well, but it's finicky and temperamental and sometimes doesn't play nice and I still have got it figured out... but those who have...my hat's off to you!</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>David: Would Tmax 100 be good for scanning? Others?</em><br>

@Alan: As you know, Kodak T-Max and Ilford Delta films are of the so-called T-grain (tabular grain) type. In my experience, they give enhanced fine grain and sharpness when exposed and processed precisely correctly.<br>

The downside of this is that these films are extremely intolerant to sub-optimal exposure and processing, particularly in the case of T-Max, where the companion developer is extremely active (at least when I tried it some years ago), meaning that a development time for one minute too long, which would not be fatal with ID-11 or similar, could produce quite a bit more contrast. T-grain films in particular have a greater tendency to blocked highlights if exposure/development are off by what most people would call quite small amounts.<br>

A further factor is what photographers actually want – 35mm Delta 400, for example, can be spectacularly sharp and grain-free when handled perfectly, but for most purposes when I shoot 400-speed 35mm film, I want the slightly gritty look of classic Tri-X. So - to answer your question – T-Max 100 is not strictly speaking too "good" is scanning, but it is not my film of choice and may not be yours.</p>