hitam_jantung

How much do you spend on a round of golf, or a nice dinner? I think $67 for 50 4x5 exposures on the best film ever made is a good value, but I really enjoy photography. There are cheaper alternatives; check Freestyle for their Arista films.

John, unlike photo paper, film is not normally developed to completeion, but halted when the target contrast is acheived. By developing for an extended period the film can be completely developed, or, developed as completely as possible, which can sometimes salvage printable images from severely underexposed films. The downside of development to completion, or gamma infinity, is very high contrast. Ideally, the low values will continue to develop after the high values have exhausted the available developer, producing more shadow detail and less contrast. Stand development in a dilute developer works on this principle, and two bath developers like Diafine work on a similar principle, but by a different mechanism.

I'd use GSD-10 and develop for 2 hours @1:20. What the hell is GSD-10, you might ask? It's an unknown developer based on glycin which is more shrouded in myth and mystery and more difficult to obtain than pyro, and formulated for the near mystical technique of stand development in a bathroom by a guy with no credentials or training in chemistry who seems to have vanished from the face of the earth. There is almost no specific information for development times for specific films, and almost no one has ever used it, but based on my experience with many developers over many years, I would trust precious but massively underexposed film to nothing else. I don't know if it could save your PlusX, but what it does for TMY-2 @ 1600 makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

Frederick, I do indeed feel fortunate to know talented and generous people, and to have examples of their fine works. A tailboard camera is a very simple design characterized by a rigid front standard fixed to the bed at a 90 degree angle, and a moving rear standard for focussing. The rear standard might or might not incorporate swing and tilt movements, but rarely shift, or rise/fall. The advantages of a tailboard camera include a large lensboard to accomodate large portrait lenses and their even larger shutters, a very rigid front as a consequence of the fixed joinery of front and bed, and rear focus, which is more important on larger formats where close working distances with long lenses can mean very long bellows extensions. To summarize, the main advantages are: rigidity, simplicity, a large lensboard, and rear focus. Tailboards can be quite compact when designed with a folding bed, and lightweight, but not technically self-casing, although the option of leaving the lens attached during transport can be convenient, and equipping the camera with a simple lens protector is easily done. Finding a tailboard camera in the 4x5 format might be difficult, which is a good reason to build one. If I might offer some advice, I would suggest you don't commit a lot of time, expense, or complexity to your focus mechanism. A well made dovetail slide with a positive lock is more than adequate to the task, and ergonomics is more important than a precision threaded or geared focus mechanism. Portraiture often entails working quickly and intuitively, and the less you have to fiddle with knobs and levers the better. Camera movements are a matter of personal style, but they do complicate camera design, construction and use. For my camera I decided against movements of any kind, and haven't missed them, but my decision was based on years of experience using cameras with movements, so I knew what it would mean for me to be without them. One final suggestion; if you're going to the trouble to design and build your own camera, make it uniquely personal, to fit your hands as well as your vision. It doesn't make any sense to me to build a copy of something you could probably buy cheaper. I admire your spirit and wish you the very best.<div></div>

Frederick, I've been down the very road you're travelling now, and ended up with a beautifully functional 4x5 portrait camera. Mine is made from Spruce, mahogany, Rosewood and ebony and configured as a simple box-in-a-box slider; meaning-no bellows, no movements, no knobs,rails,racks or pinions, no rotating back. The tripod mount is on the front box with the lens, so it's a rear-focus camera, meaning the magnification doesn't change with focus, which is very handy for shallow dof work. There's a fine focus sliding block on the tripod block, but in practice I find it unnecessary. My camera is designed to work with my 91/2" Wollensak Verito at studio distances and removes most camera related distractions. When working in the studio I find I don't even need a dark cloth since my lens is fast and my screen is bright, and stray light is controlled. The camera is very rigid despite its light weight, even with the relatively large and heavy Verito with its huge Betax shutter, and focus locks positively and doesn't drift while adjusting apertures and shutter speeds, or inserting/removing film holders. I don't recommend this design unless you are or intend to hire an artisan of the highest order to build the camera. While the design is simple in concept, it is devilishly complex in detail and requires working tolerances well beyond the reach of a handyman. I built a prototype and it "worked", but so poorly I abandoned the design as unworkable. When a friend visited who is an accomplished luthier, I showed him my failed model and after he stopped laughing, he offered to build a camera based on my drawings and dimensions. I didn't see Saran again for over a year, but when I did, he delivered my camera, and I nearly wept at its beauty and precision. The design and concept were proven; it was just my poor workmanship that missed the mark. My camera and a photo of Khun Saran taken with it are among my most prized possessions.

 

For lesser talents I recommend a tailboard design, which incorporates many of the virtues of my camera but is more easily accomplished.

 

Lens-

 

I find a +/- 9" FL lens ideal for 4x5 portraits, much shorter and working distances become too close, and much longer I feel a lack of roundness in my portraits, which drains too much presence from them, if you'll forgive my indefinite language. I find the Verito a luxuriously versatile lens, capable of a wide variety of interpretations, but any good portrait lens of similar FL should suffice, and you might look for P&S, Heliar, an old Cooke, or one of the modern Rodenstock Imagon, Cooke PS 945, or Fuji SF lenses. In fact, just about any fast 9" lens will probably do, but some are certainly better than others, and much is a matter of taste. Any LF lens shot at apertures wide enough for extremely shallow dof will deliver "soft focus" as much of the image will be out of focus to one degree or another, and it is the quality of the out of focus area that matters most. The Verito and other SF lenses are very capable of sharp images, some by stopping down, others by a dial controlling spherical abherration. A portrait lens is a very personal thing, and one must develop a working relationship with a lens over time to discover its virtues and vices. Happy travels.

TMY, or better still, TMY-2. Fine grain and very sharp, with little toe or shoulder, just a long, straight line curve, meaning more or less exposure means more or less density and shadow detail with very little tonal distortion/compression. TMY-2 is so fine grained and sharp you won't be wanting for a 100 speed film, so it's a realistic candidate for an all-purpose film. If fine grain, sharpness, and film speed are important considerations, TMY-2 stands alone. If you're getting into film right now, you might as well break in with the most advanced film currently available, but any film made by the big makers is a very capable film.

I've always been a big fan of TMY and only use Acros when I can't tolerate grain, or when I need its superior reciprocity behavior. With TMY-2 I rarely need to resort to Acros for grain issues, but it's still the king of reciprocity. I develop everything in 510 Pyro/Jobo. Acros is very sharp and virtually grainless, and requires no exposure compensation for exposures up to 20 seconds, so it's actually a comparatively fast film for very low light/long exposures.

That looks great, Larry.

You'll have to be very committed to this idea to pull it off. Flying with liquids is a big problem, and carrying powders through the Golden Triangle in your backpack is asking for trouble. If you're determined, I recommend the following:

 

Don't carry chemicals with you, ever; either liquid or powdered. Stockpile your film until you can spend a few days in a major city Buy your processing chemicals there, process your film there, and move on, leaving the chemicals behind. I recommend the Jobo 2521 tank and 2509 reel, used for rotary processing as intended, with the minimum possible chemical requirements. You'll find everything you need in Saigon, Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Jakarta, etc., etc. Protect your film and negs from moisture by keeping them in an airtight container w/dessicant. If your view camera is not a tropical model, protecting it will become a full time job, or it will become sacrificial equipment, or both. I recommend something cheap, lightweight, self-casing and semi-disposable, like a Crown Graphic, and a few grafmatic holders. I suspect you'll want to shoot handheld some of the time, so a fast film like Kodak Tmax 400 or Tri-X might be handy. I can't imagine attempting what you propose, myself, and whatever images you return home with you will have earned. You'll have to be very committed to pull this off, and I wish you the very best of luck. I hope you'll publish your work that results from this ambitious project, and I look forward to seeing it, if you do.

Robert,

 

I agree to disagree, and thanks for your insights.

 

Ellis,

 

I never argued that anyone who wants to test shouldn't, just that anyone who doesn't want to, shouldn't feel compelled to do so, and their results need not suffer for it.

Vlad,

 

Your methododlogy is almost exactly what I recommend, and too close to quibble over the differences. I expected this thread to generate some heat, and it seems the posters who contribute the least always demand the most attention, but such is the nature of a public forum. It's people like you who reward the effort, and for that I thank you. See you around, Vlad.

Vlad,

 

it's good to find you back in the discussion, and don't worry about the silly little boys; I don't. You're right, of course, about latitude as a function of the total system, except when speaking specifically about the overexposure tolerance of a film. I also agree on the importance of determining adequate shadow detail, and that keeping exposure to the minimum required is beneficial, but I disagree that abstract testing is required to accomplish this goal. The degree of precision with which one determines adequate shadow detail is limited by the exposure adjustment graduations of one's camera equipment.By bracketing exposures you see in prints the graduations available to you with your equipment as used in practice, which represents the most natural, intuitive and practical approach to determining what represents adequate shadow detail for an individual photographer. It shouldn't be construed that this approach doesn't require a fundamental understanding of the reciprocals of exposure and development and the exposure/contrast relationship, but it does allow for a more intuitive approach than the logarithm-heavy, curve plotting approach that sends too many beginners shopping for a DSLR. I think people should know that the technical bar is manageably low for making very high quality black and white prints on VC papers, and that testing and plotting are not prerequisites to acheiving their artistic goals. Those who insist that testing is the one true path to photographic expression, and that those who resist joining the testing ranks are lazy, ignorant, or less than committed, do a disservice to the community, and discourage too many talented photographers from contributing. Please understand my comments are not directed at you; you've been among the voices of reason here, and for that I thank you. I look forward to future discussions with you and the others here like you who are able to engage in a sprited discussion and maintain your dignity in the face of disagreement.

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.

You'll need the 2502 reel for rollfilm, the 2509 is for sheet film.

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.

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.

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,

 

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,

 

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.

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.

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.

Robert,

 

I don't care whether or not you test, or how you do it; I'm just sharing my perspective on the issue based on my experience. You're under no onbligation to agree, disagree or comment, and your contribution to the discussion is enough to tell me what I need to know about you, and the value of your opinions.

 

 

Dave,

 

thank you for your considered response to the pertinent issues. Your reasoning is sound, but I would argue that you could accomplish your goals by simple trial and error incremental refinements based on evaluation of prints. This method takes into account all of the personal variables noted, but relies on qualitative evaluation of real images instead of trying to quantify values based on an imprecise methodology. I realize this distinction is lost on some posters to this thread, but trying to reason with them is as casting pearls before swine, and I won't bother.

 

David,

 

again, I'm not suggesting you don't deviate from the manuf's rating, I'm simply suggesting the deviation is likely to be slight, and easily managed by incremental adjustments based on the evaluation of real prints instead of relying on an elaborate and imprecise testing methodology to quantify these adjustments. My comments and observations are not directed at those who test, or want to test, but rather those who feel compelled to test because they believe there is no other way to refine their process.

 

Lex,

 

you make some good points re the differences between ISO, true film speed and EI. I would argue that the difference between exposing at 400 and 500 is not significant and well within the latitude of the film, but note that you were able to arrive at an EI that works for you by qualitative analysis and did not need to resort to abstract testing methods. Thank you for making that point in an uncomplicated way.

 

For those having trouble distinguishing between the trial and error methodology and the testing methodology, allow me to summarize:

 

Trial and error refinement is accomplished by incremental adjustments to exposure and development based on qualitative evaluation of real images made under actual working conditions during exposure, processing and printing, so all personal variables are accounted for. This method requires no special equipment or materials, and there is no procedure to learn. All that is required is a basic understanding of the reciprocals of exposure and development, and a need for improvement.

 

Zone-system type testing attempts to quantify exposure and development values as densities based on in-camera exposures of various test targets, using various metering techniques and improvised measuring devices resulting in the worst kind of abstraction with neither the value of real images made under typical working conditions, or the precision of controlled lab conditions. These testing methodologies require the user to learn needlessly complicated procedures, and sacrifice time and materials to testing in the hope that they will produce a precise exposure value and development time that will produce optimum results from their equipment and materials.

 

Most photographers shoot roll film (and if you don't believe me, the sales statistics for roll films vs sheet films are published and available for review; it's not even close, by the way), and most photographers print on VC papers (again, see sales statistics), so unless these photographers are shooting entire rolls of film of identical subjects under identical exposure conditions, there is no single optimum development for every frame. The best these photographers can do is to develop normally and make all of the exposures on a roll within reasonable limits of that development and the exposure scale range of their printing paper, but since they're using VC paper, that range is very wide. A high degree of precision in determining a development time is unnecessary for these photographers, and impossible to apply to rollfilm as typically used.

 

Film speed determination is a very, very simple adjustment,typically made in a single direction; towards more exposure, and almost always within one stop of the ISO rating, and more often than not, within 1/2 stop. Since shadow detail is largely a matter of taste, it makes more sense to evaluate actual prints than to try to define an abstract density value. If prints consistently show too little shadow detail for one's taste, it's a very simple matter to increase exposure incrementally until a satisfactory level of shadow detail is obtained, and since any values obtained by formal testing should be verified by field tests under normal working conditions, the formal tests themselves are wasted effort and materials.

 

I hope this clarifies my position, but if anyone is still tempted to respond with meaningless personal judgements, please think twice about how it makes you look, because I promise you won't impress me or intimidate me in any way. If you want to test, that's reason enough to do so, as far as I'm concerned, and you don't need to justify it to me, or contribute to this discussion. If you'd like to discuss the relative value of testing vs trial and error evaluation, I look forward to your contributions.

 

 

 

Did no one read my post? I've tested innumerable films and papers over the years, and my lab is equipped very well for the purpose with calibrated sensitometers, densitometers, and automated processors. I know how to test, which is how I know that in-camera testing is next to useless, and unnecessary for most photographers, most of the time. I never suggested anyone slavishly adhere to the manufacturer's ISO rating, just that it's a better starting point from which to deviate incrementally through simple trial and error observations of actual results, than overly complicated and uselessly imprecise in-camera, zone system-like testing. As I wrote in my post, many people will use these tests regardless of their true merit, and discount out of hand anyone who suggests it isn't necessary, or even beneficial to do so. To continue Paul's analogy used above, how wise do you think it would be for the owner of a new sports car to crack open his car's "brain box" computer and "adjust" its tuning based on the sound of the engine? Given the training and experience and analytical equipment, a tuner might be able to fine tune his new sports car to more closely match his style of driving, but for most people, most of the time, it is far more likely that they would have a negative impact on their new car's state of tune than to improve it. However, if they notice their car is idling too slowly, they might be able to incrementally adjust the idle to improve the situation without getting hopelessly muddled. 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. 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.

 

My point in a nutshell is this: Given the latitude of modern films, and the accuracy of their ISO ratings, the flexibility of scanners/VC papers, and the level of precision possible with in-camera testing, this kind of film speed testing is not very productive. When I test a film these days, it is because the film, developer, or printing process is non-standard and the manufacturer doesn't provide the data I need. In these cases my exposures are made in a calibrated sensitometer, my film processed in an automated processor, and the resulting negatives measured with a calibrated densitometer, providing a level of precision and data that warrants the effort. There was a time when I tested every film/developer/paper combination I used, and what I found was that for shooting roll films from major manufacturers and scanning or printing on VC papers, extensive testing was not necessary, as it only confirmed the manufacturer's data, and the flexibility built into the system coupled with small, incremental adjustments was all that was needed to secure reliable, repeatable results. Your experience might run counter to mine, but to suggest I'm stupid or that I don't test because I'm lazy, or don't know how to test reflects very poorly on yourselves, and your fundamental reading skills.

I've never ruined a roll of film exposing a major manufacturer's film at its rated speed and processing with a recommended developer as recommended. The fates are with me, I suppose. Either that, or the manufacturers actually know their products. If you prefer to do a lot of testing to figure that out, it's up to you.

Film speed testing is a subject loaded with passion, dogma, misconceptions and

misinterpretations of various "sytems", from the Zone System, and beyond, by

devotees and the uninitiated alike, and 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? What

follows is my opinion and reasoning on the value of film testing for the photo

hobbyist.

 

Why film speed is the least important characteristic one can test, and why it

is so doggedly pursued by so many photographers-

 

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.

 

Film speed is the subject of intense interest, scrutiny, debate and testing

because it is one of only two quantifiable controls, along with development,

the photographer can exercise in the practice of making a negative for

printing.

 

When photographers test for "personal" film speed, they're actually testing

for a desireable deviation from true film speed as indicated by the

manufacturer, which almost always means de-rating their film, rarely more than

a stop, which usually falls within the latitude of the film. Almost no one

ever concludes from their testing that they've been overexposing their film,

and decides to increase the rating, so these tests ostensibly determine how

much added exposure to give a film for the desired results, which can more

easily be determined by simple trial and error, incremental refinements.

 

Why testing for development time is wasted effort-

 

The best reason to test any film is to determine a development time that will

produce a negative density range that closely matches the exposure scale of

the printing paper for easy printing. Traditionally, graded papers were used,

having fixed exposure scales, so individual negative density range was

adjusted in film development to meet the paper's exposure scale. Today the

vast majority of photographers shoot roll film and either scan their negatives

for digital printing, or print on VC paper,and in either case, the printing

process can be adjusted to suit the negative density range far more easily

than the reverse. Simple, incremental adjustments to development time are all

that's needed to consistently produce negatives that print easily either

digitally or on VC papers.

 

Why film testing is a waste of time and effort for most people most of the

time-

 

It's not that I'm anti- film testing, it's just that in-camera zone system-

like testing regimes are as useful in sensitometry as a yardstick is to a

machinist, or like setting an atomic clock to a sundial. Some people seem to

believe that any testing is better than no testing, but that misses the point

that testing has been done, extensively, under controlled conditions, by

trained profesionals with state of the art equipment. For those who shoot

sheet film and have the ability to develop each exposure individually, and who

print on fixed contrast papers, a higher degree of precision is possible, and

sensitometry can provide much useful information in a short time, using a

minimum of materials, when understood and effectively applied, and given the

required facilities. Most photographers have neither the understanding or the

facilities to effectively practice sensitometry, and are probably at least as

well off using simple trial and error methods as trying to implement some

approximation thereof. So, for the vast majority of photographers who shoot

roll film and print either digitally or on VC papers, small incremental

adjustments to the manufacturer's recommendations by trial and error are the

most simple and direct route to easy printing negatives, and for those few who

require a higher degree of precision, in-camera testing methods are too

imprecise, and offer little improvement over simple trial and error

refinements of technique.

 

Why people test-

 

I think most people test because they sincerely believe it to be the best way

to improve their photography and better understand their materials; I know

that was true for me, 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. I know some people will not be disuaded

from testing regardless of the case made against it, but for others who just

want to photograph and feel testing is an unwelcome requirement, it might be

helpful to know someone who has invested coutless hours and thousands of

dollars in materials testing finds it to be a pointless detour for most

photographers.