Olivinyl
Hello everyone,
I’ve been doing a bit of experimenting with film.
I used Uwe Pilz’s essay as a guide.
I’ve now got hold of a simple analogue densitometer.
Now I’m wondering whether I’ve actually understood how it works properly (not the device itself, but how to use it).
I have a 100 ASA film in the camera (e.g. APX 100) and have set the camera to 100 ASA.
I now take one shot with the shutter cover on, so that I can measure the base fog later. (I could also use the space between the frames, though)
I take a grey card in daylight (indirect light, no shadows), measured using TTL and out of focus, and take another shot.
Then I take further shots with the settings 12, 25, 50, 200, 400, 800, 1600 ASA.
(I leave the ISO setting at 100 and the exposure time here, and only change the aperture)
I should now have 8 images on the film.
I now develop the film – in this case, an APX 100 at 100 ISO for 13 minutes in Adonal 1+50 at 20°C in an Agfa Kipp.
Now I would take the transilluminator and measure the image with the lens cap (the brightest negative) and set the densitometer to 0.00 for that image.
Now, theoretically, the image with Zone V should read 0.72 if the development and speed are correct.
Theoretically, the following zones should be correct if the development and speed are optimal.
12 ASA - Zone VIII - 1.29
25 ASA - Zone VII - 1.10
50 ASA - Zone VI - 0.90
100 ASA - Zone V - 0.72
200 ISO - Zone IV - 0.54
400 ISO - Zone III - 0.38
800 ISO - Zone II - 0.24
1600 ISO - Zone I - 0.10
I would now enter all the images or the values determined from the test negative into the zone slider and adjust the exposure as Otto Beyer described in his report ‘Testing Black-and-White Films’.
Have I understood everything so far, or is it all nonsense?
Which values in the zone slider should prompt me to extend or shorten the development time? Zone I and Zone VIII?
I have a Durst M301 enlarger. When performing an enlargement with this machine, does it make sense to develop Zone V at 0.72, or would a different value be better?
I hope I haven’t written too much rubbish. I’d be grateful for any corrections or tips.
Best regards, Oliver
piu58
Now I would take the transilluminator and measure the image with the lens cap on (the brightest negative), then set the densitometer to 0.00 for that image.
Theoretically, the image with Zone V should now read 0.72, provided the development and speed are correct.
No. First you need to determine the actual speed before you can consider the development time. So you need to find – if necessary by interpolation – the exposure setting where a density of 0.1 is achieved. That is the speed point. If the film is actually 100 ASA, it is the 1600 image. But if it were the 800-frame image (as an example), then the film with that developer would simply have 50 ASA, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Logically, the correct density of 0.72 would then not be at the 100-frame image (which is one stop inunderexposed, i.e. Zone IV), but at the 50-frame image.
This density is likely to lie between 800 and 1600. You can either interpolate within the 50–100 ASA range or take another film with the correct settings.
Olivinyl
Nice
But do I need to set the densitometer to zero on the image without the pattern?
Why would the 0.10 value for a 100 ASA film need to be at 1600 for the film to be 100 ASA?
If 0.10 is at 800 ASA, it’s clear that it’s only 50 ASA, so one stop (zone) less.
So a genuine 200 ASA film would have 0.10 (Zone I) at 3200 ASA and a 400 ASA film 0.10 at 6400 ASA.
If my theoretical film had 0.10 at 1250 ASA, it would mean the film has a speed of 80 ASA, i.e. one-third of a stop less.
I would then expose the next film at 80 ISO and develop it exactly the same way as the test film before.
Then 80 ISO would have to be set to 0.72. Correct?
Correct so far?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But I would need to know the development time, for example.
If I now take my beloved-hated AGFA ASP 400S, perform the exposure at 400 ISO and use a fixed formula to develop the film in Caffenol, I’ll probably never reach Zone V 0.72.
I’d probably end up totally over- or under-developing the film. So how do I find the sweet spot?
Cheers, Oli
piu58
I made a mistake (sorry). I don’t do it that way; instead, I meter the grey card and then switch to manual mode. With 25 or 1000 films, you could otherwise run into difficulties because of the camera’s settings.
Density 0.1 means 4 stops of underexposure. That means the nominal sensitivity is 4 stops above the value that produces a density of 0.1.
As for developing: that’s not difficult either. If the film is too dense, shorten the development time. If it’s too light, lengthen it. But always base this on the actual speed. If by ASP 400S you mean Avipan 200 = Rollei Retro 400s = Rollei Superpan 200: That has approx. 100 ASA. 200 applies to aerial photography with hard development.
Olivinyl
Hi Uwe,
All the confusion has been cleared up ;-)
I’ve got it now. I’ll do a bit of research and experiment over the next few days.
I only mentioned the ASP400S because I still have a few rolls in the freezer and this film isn’t particularly expensive.
I just have a fixed Caffenol recipe with weighed-out ingredients and wanted to try out a bit what you can do with exposure and time once the film’s speed in Caffenol is known.
How would you go about it? Change all exposure settings manually, or trust the automatic system and just adjust the ISO values during TTL metering?
I’d use Otto Beyer’s Excel application; he breaks down Zones 1 and 2 into 1/3-stop increments.
With my lenses, I can also adjust quite precisely between the aperture stops.
Cheers, Oli
piu58
> Adjust all exposure levels manually
Yes. I meter the grey card, then switch to M mode and adjust the shutter speed up and down.
You only need half or even third stops in the lower range to find that 0.1-stop mark. They’re unnecessary in the middle of the curve.
Olivinyl
Thanks for the replies.
I think I’ve got it all sorted now.
I’ve performed exposure and development on two rolls of film as a test and will measure them out.
Best wishes, Oliver
Olivinyl
Hello everyone,
I’ve had some TMax 100 exposed and measured; I was given it as a gift. This is the old TMax from around 1994, but it had been frozen in bulk since the date of purchase.
I’ve now developed the film exposed in Xtol 1+1 for 9 minutes, and zones 1 to 2 (in 1/3 stops) are all the same light grey! No gradations visible.
I was on the verge of throwing the remaining 20 metres of T-Max in the bin. I loaded a roll into an EOS 500N, performed another exposure and developed it in X-Tol as usual.
Lo and behold, all the gradations are finely defined.
I hadn’t really noticed that my beloved Yashica FX-103 wasn’t working properly. Because from Zone 2 onwards, the density values match those of the EOS 500.
I’ll have to see where the problem lies – whether the aperture tracking in the lens isn’t working properly or whether the camera’s controls have gone haywire.
Best regards, Oliver
PS:
This is the Tmax curve in the EOS. Why does the density drop from Zone 6 onwards?
Is this due to the age of the film, or should I develop it for 9:30 instead?
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
sputnik
The density in Z6 actually increases, doesn’t it, rather than decrease.
I would, however, DEFINITELY develop it for a bit longer. The curve is really flat, after all.
9:30 to 9:00 probably doesn’t make much difference.
You’ll need to add another minute or two. ;-)
Olivinyl
Hello,
The density is increasing, but it remains below the "target curve"
so extend the exposure time.
A mistake has also crept in, as the speed is not 20.x DIN but 17.3 DIN, because I performed the exposure on Zone 5 at 18 DIN rather than 21.
The blip in Zone 8 is a measurement error and the value is 1.06
Best regards, Oliver
pittyman
Hi Oliver,
As I used to test films and developers quite often myself, I can well understand what you’re getting at. However, at some point I gave up all that testing and decided to just get on with taking proper photos. To be perfectly honest, when I look at my Tri-X in D76 or TMax400 in Xtol on the light table, I can only just make out a difference at a stop’s difference. Half a stop, perhaps, if I know which negative has received more light. What I’m trying to say is: you’ve got a relatively forgiving film, so get out there, shoot with a bit of confidence at ISO 80 and develop it according to the instructions. Even supposedly overexposed negatives can be printed without any fuss. Adjust your development time after each batch until you’re happy with the results. A difference of half a minute is barely noticeable, but a minute’s difference is. With standard films, you’d have to be pretty far off the mark to run into problems when printing, unless you want to use fixed-grade paper. All these discussions about the Zone System and the like are quite nice and certainly have their place, BUT it’s extremely rare to find negatives that you can simply print without any further intervention and have everything turn out perfectly – that’s only ever possible with the Zone System. O_O Judging by your curve, you could simply perform an exposure on a film and develop it for one minute longer. Even with the current curve, you’d just need to increase the contrast on the enlarger and that’s it. Bottom line: go and take some photos and don’t worry so much about sensitometry! The real challenge comes with enlarging... how do I interpret my negative, what mood do I want to create, and how do I get that onto the paper? Take a look at Ansel Adams and Michael Kenna; enlarging is the true art, provided you have a reasonably decent negative to work with.
Best regards from the darkroom
Dirk
Gucker
... However, at some point I gave up on all that experimenting and decided to just take proper photos instead ...
I’m also very keen on this whole subject: I simply find experimenting with developer-film combinations fascinating. Even though – as you quite rightly say, Dirk – I’ve never had a film turn out unusable for enlargements, I’m itching to give the testing a proper go. So far, I’ve only done initial tests with a grey card, but in my opinion these produced results that were too imprecise. The curve Oliver has shown here looks very good, and I’m grateful for the suggestion and the link to the instructions.
pittyman
It’s certainly exciting, and above all it helps you get to know your equipment. However, you should never forget that when we’re testing, we’re working in ‘lab-like’ conditions, and this is of only limited use in real-world photography. Unless you’re working in a studio where you can set up your ‘perfect’ lighting, you usually have to make compromises out in the field. Of course, you can expose and develop each sheet of sheet film individually using the zone system, which certainly makes sense; but as soon as you’re working with roll film or 35mm, I personally don’t find all the effort involved in testing particularly productive. You usually expose a roll of film with different subjects, varying light conditions, contrast ranges, and so on. There’s no such thing as an ideal development time! Just make sure that the highlights aren’t too subdued in high-contrast shots and that the important shadows (to make the most of the film’s sensitivity) get enough light, and you’re good to go. I’ve got plenty of sheet films lying around here in the darkroom, with proper exposure and development using the zone system – sensimetric perfection, but on paper, it just doesn’t cut it anymore. Yes, everything’s there: lovely detail in the shadows, the highlights are wonderful, everything from black to white. And? Still boring... If the zone system could produce good photographs, you’d only need to spend an hour on it, because it’s not that difficult to grasp. Anyway, that’s just my take on the subject, nothing more!
A quick
link on testing and photographic technique. Incidentally, the man built his cameras and enlargers from rubbish because he was homeless and penniless. Go out, open your eyes, and create something instead of photographing grey cards and wedges. If a photo is rubbish, then the best film, superb development and the most sophisticated zone system are of no use. There are thousands of outstanding photographs that are out of focus, blurred, ‘incorrectly’ exposed, grainy, with light leaks, and taken with a 1-euro camera.
Rolfe Horn is also highly recommended. Just click on the individual photos, and you can see the process from the raw negative to the finished print. However, there’s no zone system behind it – just creativity.
Dirk
Olivinyl
Hi Dirk
You’re quite right – grab the camera and get out into the fresh air!
I’m just interested in testing different film and developer combinations.
I’d also like to find out what the optimal working point for a particular film is.
I’m simply curious to see what’s possible.
Also, through zone exposure, I’ve noticed that one of my cameras doesn’t work properly at speeds below 1/250.
I’ve never had a film turn out unsuitable for enlargements either.
But what’s wrong with a perfectly exposed and developed film – even if the pictures on it deserve the refuse collection art prize ;-)
Best wishes, Oliver
sputnik
I’ve also noticed, when using zone metering, that one of my cameras stops working properly at speeds slower than 1/250.
And what if I told you that stopping down or opening up the aperture doesn’t necessarily amount to exactly one stop, and that with my AF Nikkor 1.4 / 50, for example, there’s only half a stop’s difference between 1.4 and 2? And not just with MINE!
If you didn’t know that, and during a test series the 1/250 shutter speed fell on the f/1.4 aperture, you’d surely conclude that the 1/250 doesn’t work, wouldn’t you?
See, there are SO many things you have to think about. And how do you check something like that? Questions upon questions....
But take heart. As you can see, I’ve been through it all too. ;-)
Olivinyl
Hello,
With the ML 50 1.4, the aperture range of f/2.8 to f/1.4 works fine (compared to another camera with an 80mm f/2.8 lens, using the same film developed in the same can). The camera apparently can no longer close the aperture in the lens at shorter shutter speeds.
The errors occurred at 1/250 and around f/5.6. I fitted a different lens and started a second series of tests. The same problem arose, but it was solved immediately, as I sacrificed the camera for its parts.
The images and their creation by Rolfe Horn are very interesting. Especially the picture with the mountains in the background, where suddenly everything is visible... Brilliant!
@Sputnik: Nikon 50mm f/1.4D or G. Which would you recommend? My Nikons (analogue & digital, DX & FX) can handle lenses with or without an AF motor.
Gast
Rolfe Horn is also highly recommended. Just click on the individual photos to see the process from raw negative to finished print. However, it’s not a zone system that’s behind this, but creativity.
But that sounds different with Rolfe Horn!
Quote: [font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="-2"][color="#9c9790"]I am not going to delve into film exposure and development in this section because Ansel Adams covered the subject very well in his book,
The Negative
. I will say that I use a modified version of the zone system that I call the tone system.[/colo[/size]
Otto
Hello Olivinyl,
The curve shown actually looks quite good for the TMax100. The film exhibits a slightly different curve shape to the ‘ideal line’. In the highlights, the curve always lies slightly below it. This is a characteristic of the film that many photographers appreciate. In contrast, the TMax 400 has a high density and lies very close to the ideal curve, and the curve shows a fairly straight progression right up to the highlights.
I assume that the 5x tilting every 30 seconds was carried out according to the method suggested by Kodak. I would either develop for a minute longer or tilt the tank vigorously three times every 30 seconds. With many films, vigorous tilting mainly affects the highlights. Flat-crystal films react much faster to changes in development parameters than conventional black-and-white films. Then the results should be satisfactory and the negatives should turn out well.
Best regards,
Otto!
Olivinyl
Hello everyone,
I gave it 5 vigorous shakes every 30 seconds, each lasting 5 seconds.
Next time, I’ll develop it for a minute longer.
I performed the exposure at Zone 5 at 50 ISO and got 17.3 DIN.
Is that normal for the old Tmax (remnant stock from the freezer at -18°C since 1994)?
Is it normal when testing films to expose them at Zone 5 at 3 DIN steps lower than specified?
Would I also get 17.3 DIN if I exposed the film at 21 DIN in Zone 5 and measured it?
Best regards, Oliver
sputnik
@Sputnik
: Nikon 50mm f/1.4D or G. Which would you recommend? My Nikons (analogue & digital, DX & FX) can use lenses with or without an AF motor.
You shouldn’t be asking me that. I don’t use AF and I HATE lenses without an aperture ring, which is why I’ve set the F100 to ‘aperture priority on the lens ring’.
However, if you work with AF and don’t care how or where you set the aperture, the G is definitely the better choice.
I’ve never tested whether a lens is a tad more sharp or out of focus in certain shooting situations, because I’ve never really cared.
Whether a photo is good or bad depends on THAT the least of all. :-)
