m0002a

The instructions are for mixing the stock strength, which is the same as undiluted strength. To use at 1:1, mix one part stock with one part water just before use for only the amount you need. Go to the Kodak web site and download the XTOL tech bulletin, which has the developing times and other info you need.

OK, Stephen, here is a list of naïve or very confusing questions form this thread, and the Sunny 16 thread, that made me initially question your knowledge of photography.

 

- where do you think the idea of middle gray comes from. In other words, what makes middle gray middle gray?

 

- What about reevaluating the timeless Sunny 16 Rule? Is it just a rule of thumb?

 

- Why use f/16 instead of another f/stop?

 

- Why use 1/ISO for the shutter speed?

 

- What is the relationship between the Sunny 16 Rule and the meter or the camera exposure?

 

- Is there any PROOF to support Sunny 16?

 

I must admit, that in light of the above questions, I probably overlooked some of your other of your comments that would have suggested you are a very knowledgeable photographer, and that you were just sandbagging to bait people into a discussion (I am not allowed to use the word trolling).

Steven, I (and others) thought you were a newbie, or at least seriously confused (or ignorant if you prefer) based on the FIRST post in this thread and the Sunny 16 thread. Obviously we were mistaken, and you are very knowledgeable as you have documented in your later posts in these 2 threads.

Steven, I would say your initial posts in both threads, particularly the Sunny 16 thread, qualifies as feigning ignorance. Of course this is strictly a matter of opinion, but I believe others besides myself were fooled by your questions.

 

Obviously, in your later posts, you stated that the questions were not asked because you personally wanted the answers, but were asked to start a discussion. And of course you later exhibited a very technical understanding of the subjects you mentioned. I was referring to the initial posts you made in both threads.

Lex, as I have mentioned to Steven in a private email, I am quite familiar with the Socratic method, having read then entire works of Plato when I studied philosophy in college.

 

I did not say that such trolling was totally inappropriate, but in this case it was misunderstood as to what was intended, by myself and others.

 

I hope you will read all posts in both thread before commenting further, in order to avoid any additional confusion.

Steven, I did not mean to suggest that you purposely tried to deceive people about your intentions or your knowledge of photography. I don�t recall my saying that. I did say that one needs to be careful to avoid such misunderstandings.

 

Likewise, I (and others) did not intentionally misjudge your understanding of photography. I took your naive questions at face value and really thought you did not understand these matters (to put it mildly). At first I tried to help, but later figured out that you had another reason for asking the questions.

 

This discussion is really getting out of hand.

Michael, I never accused anyone of flaming. I described above why I thought Steven was trolling. I suggested in another post that either Steven was trolling or he is Socrates reincarnated, and then I invited each person to decide for themselves. BTW, Steven is the person who first brought up the Socrates analogy when talking about his method of asking questions.

 

Trolling is not moral offense, and I think some are making way too much of this.

 

Probably the only objection some of us have is that it was not clear why Steven was asking the questions, since the overwhelming majority of people on this forum ask questions because they don�t know the answer. Also, some of his questions were more than a little argumentative.

�Troll� is an internet term for someone who posts or asks a question to start an argument. It probably is related to fishing in that the person baits his prey with a provocative post.</p>

 

Here is part of Steven�s original post in the Sunny 16 thread: </p>

 

<I>�What about reevaluating the timeless Sunny 16 Rule? Is it just a rule of thumb? Why use f/16 instead of another f/stop? Why use 1/ISO for the shutter speed? What is the relationship between the Sunny 16 Rule and the meter or the camera exposure? Is there any PROOF to support Sunny 16?�</I></p>

 

Later, Steven admits that he is trolling with this post in the same thread. </p>

 

<I>"I personally didn't have a question about Sunny 16. I was attempting to create a discussion about it." </I></p>

 

Several people answered his questions in this thread and the Sunny 16 thread assuming that Steven asked the questions because he didn�t understand the concepts. Obviously, some of us were mistaken. </p>

 

P.S. Please excuse me for quoting form the Sunny 16 thread, but that is where Steven explicitly admitted trolling, although I think he basically did the same in this thread.

Predictions about this thread (also includes Sunny 16 thread):</p>

 

1. This thread will be the final blow to conventional B&W photography. After reading these posts, most newbies and moderately experienced photographers (of which there are many lurkers on this forum and do not post) will permanently make the move to digital with auto-exposure cameras.</p>

2. Sales of 18% gray cards will plummet, and they will not longer be manufactured.</p>

3. For the few people who stick with conventional B&W photography, this thread will completely discourage newbies from learning about sensitometry, and forever wipe away the last vestiges of the Zone System, and most people will just use auto-exposure cameras.

Whether are or not you need hardener is a matter of opinion (like most things in this forum). Using hardener does help somewhat, even with modern films, but it lengthens wash time. This can be an issue in some locations where water is scarce and expensive. I use about 1/4 the recommended hardener with my fixer when processing film.

Jorge, I believe you meant Socrates, not Aristotle. The real problem is that whatever Steven knows about sensitometry, he knows little of the Socratic method for arriving at the truth.

 

Socrates often asked questions of those who claimed to know truth, while claiming ignorance himself. In Socrates case, his questions not only showed that people usually did not know what they were talking about, but his questions led people to the truth.

 

If you follow the text of Steven posts carefully, his questions don't lead anywhere. Those who treated his questions as genuine (like me) where deceived in to wasting our time trying to help someone who pretended (disingenuously) that he did not understand.

 

Some people who know Steven outside the boundaries of this thread start with the conclusion that Steven is knowledgeable about sensitometry, and then try to justify his posts on this (and the Sunny 16) thread. Close examination of the text of his posts, and his own admissions, reveal that he was just trolling.

 

If Steven has a point to make, I would like to hear it without the deception and the feigned ignorance. As I said, if someone wants to pretend ignorance within the confines of there posts, don�t blame me and others from calling him ignorant.

<i>"I personally didn't have a question about Sunny 16. I was attempting to create a discussion about it."</i></p>

 

Don't we call these people trolls? Rule of thumb: DNFTT (Do not feed the trolls).

Perhaps Steven is Socrates reincarnated, or perhaps he is a troll. You decide.

Steven, I used bold because I needed 3 different fonts to show 1) my original response (italics), 2) you questions about my original response (normal text) and then 3) my final reply (bold). I used bold to distinguish my comments from yours.

 

Based on the thread you started concerning the Sunny 16 rule, I don't think you have enough understanding of photographic principles to understand these concepts, including the concept of middle gray. So I doubt that any further explanation would be satisfactory to you. I hope you don't take personal offense at that, but I don't know any other way to say it.

 

Regarding my providing proof and citing references regarding Ansel Adams' participation in this history of this issue, I don�t care whether you believe it or not. Also, I don't consider my comments to be revisionist history since no one has produced any compelling theory that I am revising. But someone asked, and I gave one story that has been told about these events, but I admitted that not everyone may agree about the accuracy of such history (usually because they don�t like Ansel Adams).

 

Personally, I really don't think it matters "why" or "who" anyway, especially in terms of making photographs. If you test to create your own personal film speed, the choice of 12% or 18% is irrelevant.

<I>Take an incident reading outside on a clear sunny day, and you should get f:16 at 1/ISO. </I></p>

Yes, but WHY does this work? I believe that settling for such a superficial answer can impede a deeper understanding of the process. Let's make this a substantive discussion. </p>

<b>Are you asking why a incident light meter yields the same EV value in the exact same lighting conditions (cloudless day) in two different locations? Or do you not understand the relationship between EV and exposure (f-stop and shutter speed)? If you don�t understand why that is, there is an appalling lack of understanding here that probably none of us can cure.</p>

 

Of course, in the real world, the lighting conditions on a sunny day are not identical in two different locations, since factors like latitude, time of year, humidity, etc do effect the amount of light falling on a scene even on a cloudless day. In addition, one might want to take into account the amount of shadow detail and contrast desired, which might vary between two different images.</b>

Correction--first sentence should say:</p>

 

No one disputes that.

<i>White and neutral grey cards were used in the copying industry well prior to WW2.</i></p>

 

No on disputes that. The question is how did they gray card come to be 18% rather than 12% (or some other value). Many (not all) have attributed that to the influence of Adams, so that it aligned exactly on Zone 5 of his Zone System (or the Zone System he adapted if you are so inclined to believe that). That is not to say that Adams� idea was original or that he was alone in this opinion that 18% should be used.

1. <I>In that sense, what Adams suggested was not scientifically incorrect </i> </p>

How is it scientifically correct? </p>

<b>As noted above: �12% reflection is middle of a log 1.85 range (6+ stops). 18% reflection is the middle of a log 1.5 range (5 stops).� Perhaps I should have said mathematically correct.</b> </p>

 

2. <I>Zone I at .1 over B+F on the film, then a Zone V print value has an 18% reflectance value. </i> </p>

Is this independent of the film and paper curves? Wouldn't a long toed curve place the Zone V value at a different density than a more linear curve, and wouldn't this plus the variation in the paper curve influence where Zone V falls in regard to reflection density? </p>

<b>The Zone System depends on the mathematical relationship of reflection values on the print, not the film. That is why film development needs to be adjusted to compensate for the differences. Zone V is the middle of Adams� Zone system based on the assumption of Zone I print value using a film density of .1 over B+F (printed for the minimum time for maximum black). That is not a completely objective determination, due to variations in print reflectance and the number of Zones used, but for Adams (and perhaps his predecessors) it was convenient. </b></p>

 

3. <I>Although there is a mathematical basis for the gray card reflectance, it does depend on the number of zones used in the Zone System </i> </p>

What is the basis and how does it depend? Does that mean the reflectance of Zone V, or middle gray is variable? </p>

<b>If Zone I is not exactly .1 over B+F, or the number of zones varies, and the properties of the paper are slightly different, then the reflective value of middle gray could be different. So in some respects it is arbitrary, but it is based on print reflective values of average materials using the assumptions of Adams� Zone System. As previously stated (but conveniently not quoted) The actual middle gray is closer to 12%, but that corresponds to about Zone 4.5, and Adams thought it would be more useful to make it exactly Zone V and adjust the film speed accordingly.</b>

1. Although there is a mathematical basis for the gray card reflectance, it does depend on the number of zones used in the Zone System, and the density of a Zone I value (.1 over B+F). In that sense, what Adams suggested was not scientifically incorrect, and there should be no objection by Mees, Jones, and Condit. But Adams is the one that made 18% gray as Zone V in his Zone System.

 

2. You may think that calibrating a meter is questionable, however as I stated, for many Sekonic meters �calibration compensation can be made in precise 1/10 step increments in a +/- 1.0 EV.� This is addition to a separate exposure compensation adjustment.

 

3. As previously stated, when you use Adams� Zone System, with Zone I at .1 over B+F on the film, then a Zone V print value has an 18% reflectance value. So the 18% is a combination of mathematical formulas (as explained by others) and the precise use of Adams� Zone system where Zone 0 is pure black, and Zone X is pure white and Zone V is right in the middle.

The reason that 18% gray cards are sold in stores (rather than 12%), is that Ansel Adams convinced Kodak to use that value (I believe Kodak was the first to make them). 18% falls on Zone V of Ansel's Zone System, whereas 12% falls on about Zone 4.5, so 18% was more convenient for Adams.

 

If one calibrates their meter, camera, and printing processes to the Zone System, it is not important whether you use 12% or 18%, because the difference will show up as an adjustment to film speed (EI). If you don't calibrate your process (especially film EI) and use the manufacturer's film speed rating, then 12% yields better (and more realistic) shadow detail. Some meters (especially Sekonic) have adjustable calibration in the range of 12% - 18%.

As Tim has said, the key is centering the film between the spirals when it is attached to the center clip. If you do this right, everything else will be easy. One needs to determine that the film is centered by feel, since obviously this is done in the dark.

 

The second most important thing is to slowly spin the reel with your left hand (the spirals will be perpendicular to the surface like a Ferris Wheel). Make sure the reel is always touching the surface as you turn it (like a table, etc) , and hold the film with your right hand about 4 inches away with a slight tension (and a slight curvature of the film) as it winds on the reel.

Probably no one else is using the exact same meter and exposure method as you, which means that exposure can vary significantly from one person to another and from one scene to another. This is especially true if a 35mm auto-exposure camera is being used, which only gives a crude approximation of the correct exposure. But With modern film and darkroom mterials, even a crude approximation will usually yield printable results.

XTOL 1:3 usually yields a speed increase, maybe up to 160 for FP4+. But no two meters are exactly the same, and no two metering techniques are the same, so such statements are of limited value. Try it and see.

I don't know what a long roll is, nor what film format you are talking about, but the Ilford marketing rep in the US (who previously posted a lot on this forum) has said that there have been printing mistakes on the film boxes, and that you should follow the directions on the website PDF files. Of course, the published times are just a starting point for your own experimentation, and not everyone should use the published development times.

The law in the US is that imports of gray market products is legal if the US marketing company is the same as (or owned by) the manufacturer. That includes Canon, Nikon, and Kodak products, who own their US marketing subsidiaries. It excludes products such as Mamiya, which is marketed in the US by Mamiya America Corporation, which is not owned by the Japanese manufacturer.

 

The situation with prescription drugs is completely different has not changed recently. It has always illegal to import drugs without FDA approval. The FDA has said that it cannot guarantee the quality of imported drugs. That has nothing to do with copyright or trademark law. Current US Customs Service guidelines do allow people carrying a reasonable amount of drugs back into the US for their personal use.

 

BTW, the reason that drugs are cheaper in Canada (and just about everywhere else) is that drug prices are regulated by the Canadian government.