Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2004
Calculations in the dark room
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rgans - 31 Mar 2004 05:25 GMT Is there an electronic device, like the old HP Calculator, a palm pilot, etc., and formulae which I can use in the dark room? For example, if I determine that the exposure I want at 58cm is 12 sec at f/8, but then I change the distance to 68 cm, how would I calculate the new exposure? (I know that light intensity falls off as the square of the distance) And, if I first decide to use Magenta=80 (on a Saunders LPL 45) but then go to Magenta=120 Y=9, besides trial and error, are there formulae for recalculating the exposure and is there a preferred device to make these calculations on?
Thanks.
RON _________________________________________________________________ B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com
moda - 31 Mar 2004 11:54 GMT I would recommend a PDA like Palm etc.
If you know someone who can program a bit they can make a program for you that can do what you want it to.
moda
> Is there an electronic device, like the old HP Calculator, a palm pilot, > etc., and formulae which I can use in the dark room? For example, if I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > _________________________________________________________________ > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com Nicholas O. Lindan - 31 Mar 2004 13:09 GMT "rgans" <rgansN-O-SPAM@roanld-N-O-gansSPAMphotography.com> wrote
> Is there an electronic device, like the old HP Calculator, a palm pilot, > etc., and formulae which I can use in the dark room? For example, if I > determine that the exposure I want at 58cm is 12 sec at f/8, but then I > change the distance to 68 cm, how would I calculate the new exposure? Most folks will tell you "The inverse square law" - which is close, but no cigar: it only holds for point sources.
Your best bet is to make test strips/use an exposure meter at 5-10 heights and make a table or graph for your enlarger/light source/lens combination. You can fit the data points to a polynomial for easy (for the calculator) calculation.
I can email you a simple polynomial curve fit program or I am sure you can find something on the web, or maybe even in your spreadsheet program.
 Signature Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
Chris Ellinger - 31 Mar 2004 14:13 GMT >Is there an electronic device, like the old HP Calculator, a palm pilot, >etc., and formulae which I can use in the dark room? I use a cheap programmable HP calculator (20S).
Chris Ellinger Ann Arbor, MI
Phil Glaser - 31 Mar 2004 14:17 GMT I'll try to beat Claudio to it and provide a link to his software page http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/labsoft.htm. The only thing that this software requires a PC.
Claudio, any plans for a Palm version? That would help me out as I could never fit a PC in my darkroom (not even a laptop).
--Phil
> Is there an electronic device, like the old HP Calculator, a palm pilot, > etc., and formulae which I can use in the dark room? For example, if I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > _________________________________________________________________ > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com John Walton - 31 Mar 2004 15:16 GMT Get yourself a Texas Instruments or HP programmable calculator -- you can take a look at the formula on Claudio's page (simplicity in itself.)
> I'll try to beat Claudio to it and provide a link to his software page > http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/labsoft.htm. The only thing [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > _________________________________________________________________ > > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com Patrick Gainer - 31 Mar 2004 16:54 GMT > Get yourself a Texas Instruments or HP programmable calculator -- you can > take a look at the formula on Claudio's page (simplicity in itself.) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: > http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com I still have a slide rule. Most of you may never have seen one. I don't know where you might buy one, and I don't know who might teach you to use one, but at least when I tell you I'm 76 years old, you'll believe me.
Claudio Bonavolta - 02 Apr 2004 22:29 GMT > I still have a slide rule. Most of you may never have seen one. I don't > know where you might buy one, and I don't know who might teach you to > use one, but at least when I tell you I'm 76 years old, you'll believe > me. I did !!! I was just in time to learn how to use them (well, I would certainly need some time to remember ...) before the first electronic calculators arrived on the market, that was the beginning of the seventies ...
 Signature Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
Mike - 31 Mar 2004 17:08 GMT > Claudio, any plans for a Palm version? That would help me out as I > could never fit a PC in my darkroom (not even a laptop). One of these days, I plan on writing a Palm app to act as my general-purpose timer. I imagine that I can control a relay, for the enlarger, via the RS232 port.
John Walton - 01 Apr 2004 14:03 GMT If you are contemplating working in RS232 I suggest that you get the book "Serial Port Complete" by Jan Axelson. Jan has wrote a number of books in this "vane" including "parallel port complete" "usb port complete". she is a good, thorough, and understandable writer.
> > Claudio, any plans for a Palm version? That would help me out as I > > could never fit a PC in my darkroom (not even a laptop). > > One of these days, I plan on writing a Palm app to act as my > general-purpose timer. I imagine that I can control a relay, for the > enlarger, via the RS232 port. Claudio Bonavolta - 02 Apr 2004 22:39 GMT > I'll try to beat Claudio to it and provide a link to his software page > http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/labsoft.htm. The only thing > that this software requires a PC. Damned, again, only second :-))
> Claudio, any plans for a Palm version? That would help me out as I > could never fit a PC in my darkroom (not even a laptop). > > --Phil I'm sorry Phil, but I doubt I'll make a PDA version one day, I'm not used to these things ...
Cheers,
 Signature Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
John Stockdale - 01 Apr 2004 01:51 GMT "rgans" <rgansN-O-SPAM@roanld-N-O-gansSPAMphotography.com> wrote in message news: ...............
> For example, if I > determine that the exposure I want at 58cm is 12 sec at f/8, but then I > change the distance to 68 cm, how would I calculate the new exposure? (I > know that light intensity falls off as the square of the distance) ...............
Actually, the formula for calculating enlarger exposure when the magnification is changed is actually a bit different to simply using the inverse square law.
new_time = old_time x (new_Mag +1)^2 / (old_Mag +1)^2
where new_Mag and old_Mag are the magnifications from negative to print. So if you wanted to enlarge a 35mm negative to 8inch x 12inch full frame, (say near enough to 8x magnification) and you had a time for 4inch x 6inch full frame, (say 4x magnification) the time adjustment would be:
new_time = old_time x 9^2 / 5^2 = old_time x 3.24
The inverse square law would give x 4. For smaller changes, say 7x to 8x, the error is less. Also, the formula ignores considerations like a bigger print needing more contrast and maybe more density in order to look its best.
Note that if the test print were from a cropped part of the negative, then the magnifications would be different.
For more detail, search in rec.photo.darkroom for
Michael Gudzinowicz enlargement/reduction exposure formula
rgans - 01 Apr 2004 06:34 GMT Thank you (actually, thank all of you who responded). This is very helpful to me.
> "rgans" <rgansN-O-SPAM@roanld-N-O-gansSPAMphotography.com> wrote in message news: > ............... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Michael Gudzinowicz enlargement/reduction exposure formula rgans - 01 Apr 2004 06:37 GMT But this can get complicated if you are not enlarging negs full frame. If I am enlarging just a portion of a neg, don't the measurements become complicated? No?
RON
> "rgans" <rgansN-O-SPAM@roanld-N-O-gansSPAMphotography.com> wrote in message news: > ............... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Michael Gudzinowicz enlargement/reduction exposure formula Claudio Bonavolta - 02 Apr 2004 22:22 GMT > But this can get complicated if you are not enlarging negs full frame. If I > am enlarging just a portion of a neg, don't the measurements become > complicated? No? > > RON It is the enlargment ratio that counts, some enlargers indicate it directly, if yours don't, you can measure the same (and *complete*) side of the projected image. The exposure is proportional to the projected surface, this is an approximation but normally sufficient for photographic purposes.
For the filters adjustment factors:
B/W Multigrade - classic MG acetate filters have usually constant filter factors, except for the harder grades needing usually a full stop more exposure. This is done to allow common grades requiring less filtering to be faster. - using a color head for MG printing requires some more calibration work. There are mainly two techniques: - single filtering (only one filter used at a time) and use a correction factor for each grade - double filtering (Yellow + Magenta filters used together) to maintain a constant factor. Commercial acetate filters are in fact of this kind: a "premix" of Yellow and Magenta (perhaps some grey) having a constant exposure factor. Double filtering may, like for acetate filters, use a second correction factor for harder grades for the same reason.
Two good descriptions of the double-filtering method: - Paul Butzi: http://www.butzi.net/articles/vcce.htm - Ralph W. Lambrecht/Chris Woodhouse: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/apple2/CntrstCtrlClrEnlargers.pdf (extract of their book "Way Beyond Monochrome" ISBN: 0863433545)
I do not use double-filtering any more as my computer program stores and uses the filters factors directly for exposure calculations. To calibrate your equipment and paper, a transparent step wedge (Stouffer, Kodak, ...) is strongly advised. You may find that you have strange results when doing such calibration work, I had it until I understood they were originated by voltage fluctuations, but this is another story ...
Color work: This may result in a huge amount of tests to find all combination of filters factors ... I'm lucky that my enlarger came with a chart giving these correction factors, I just had to retype them in a text file used by my program, I had only to add an algorythm to find the "in-between" filters factors and voil?.
Regards,
 Signature Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch
Nige - 03 Apr 2004 23:35 GMT > > But this can get complicated if you are not enlarging negs full frame. If > I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Claudio Bonavolta > http://www.bonavolta.ch yep. I measure across the projected image and have found I can calculate a new time for a different size print quite accurately. Usually I'll do a test print (small section) to confirm/inspect contrast which might need to be altered to give my idea of the print.
Cheers, Nige
John Walton - 01 Apr 2004 14:04 GMT It gets a little more complicated than this for color -- different layers have different reciprocity factors -- there was a discussion of this in "Photo Techniques" about 10 year ago.
> "rgans" <rgansN-O-SPAM@roanld-N-O-gansSPAMphotography.com> wrote in message news: > ............... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Michael Gudzinowicz enlargement/reduction exposure formula nick - 04 Apr 2004 07:46 GMT > Is there an electronic device, like the old HP Calculator, a palm pilot, > etc., and formulae which I can use in the dark room? For example, if I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > _________________________________________________________________ > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com As someone else suggested, Measure. You can keep it simple. With the lens you most commonly use set the enlarger so the lens is at the hight that covers whatever size paper you normally use, say 8X10, and make sure the bellows are set where you will be in focus. use your handy ruler to measure the square or rectangle and calculate the area, in your head, or an ordinary calculator. Repeat the process every couple of inches up and down. Call your standard 1.0 and compare with the other areas and make up a simple table and have it handy. It's close enough and you an surely interpolate in your head. So your test is a little off? what's new? if it is close you can make the necessary adjustments of time or aperture fairly painlessly.
Good luck,
nick
|
|
|