Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How do I calibrate my photographic process

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Alan Smithee - 23 Aug 2004 02:52 GMT
Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
process?
Morton Klotz - 23 Aug 2004 03:05 GMT
>Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
>process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
>process?

Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.
A Concerned Contributer - 23 Aug 2004 03:59 GMT
> >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> >process?
> >
> Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.

Yes Ansel is the man!!! But additionally Beyond the Zone System
is another good reference written by Phil Davis.
David Nebenzahl - 23 Aug 2004 04:07 GMT
On 8/22/2004 7:05 PM Morton Klotz spake thus:

>> Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
>> process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
>> process?
>
> Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.

And be sure to ignore anything posted here by M. Scarpitti.

Signature

Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

AlanSmithee - 23 Aug 2004 05:19 GMT
Sparpitti. Isn't he that eco-terrorist guy?

> On 8/22/2004 7:05 PM Morton Klotz spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> And be sure to ignore anything posted here by M. Scarpitti.
geo - 29 Aug 2004 01:19 GMT
> Sparpitti. Isn't he that eco-terrorist guy?

No that would be GW Bush.
Frank Pittel - 25 Aug 2004 03:05 GMT
: On 8/22/2004 7:05 PM Morton Klotz spake thus:

: >> Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
: >> process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
: >> process?
: >
: > Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.

: And be sure to ignore anything posted here by M. Scarpitti.

Hey, I was going to say that!!! :-)

Signature

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Michael Scarpitti - 23 Aug 2004 15:01 GMT
> >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> >process?

What do you mean, exactly? There is no way to make the process
completely controllable. Each lens is slightly different, each scene
is slightly different, each batch of chemistry, film, and paper is
slightly different. Shutters, meters, and lenses vary. What you need
to do, is 'normalize' your preferences. Slight adjustments will be
taken care of with bracketing.

First of all, without knowing more about what kind of equipment you
are using it is impossible to give specific recommendations. I am
therefore assuming that you're working with 35mm.

The way to 'normalize' is to start with your enlarger and paper and
work backwards from there. It's impossible to do it the other way
around.

Again, let's uppose you want to work with 35mm. I recommend the use of
a condenser enlarger, which gives a bit more contrast on the projected
image. This allows you to reduce the development time by about 15% The
benefit of that is that the image will be sharper and finer-grained.
The next step is to standardize you paper contrast. Here, I recommend
using about grade 2 1/2 or 3, depending on the brand and type of
paper. This will allow a further 15% reduction of development time,
with the concommitant improvement in sharpness and fine grain.

Once you have done this, all you have to is to go out and take a few
rolls of your favorite films. I suggest putting the camera on a tripod
and bracketing like crazy, exposing the whole roll on a typical scene
on a sunny day. The typical scene should contain a 'normal' luminance
range. I would suggest using 1/2-stop increments and exposing the
whole range three times on the roll, going ± 2 stops. Expose several
rolls at the same time. Cut them in half for processing, starting with
15% less than the suggested times, or perhaps using 50% greater
dilution (e.g., 1+14 instead of 1+9). Then keep reducing the
developing time until the prints look about right.

You'll probably find that the ideal exposure is about 1/2 stop more
than the ISO rating of your film (e.g., 250-320 on ISO 400 films).

Place the negatives in the condenser enlarger and set the paper up for
grade 3.
Michael Scarpitti - 23 Aug 2004 15:01 GMT
> >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> >process?
> >
> Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.

Ignore this book completely.
PSsquare - 24 Aug 2004 00:38 GMT
A lot has happened since Ansel Adams.  As I recall, the specifics about
films and chemicals etc are outdated. I still have the Adams trilogy and
enjoy its insights.

Relative to b&w film development, these two links were helpful to me for
calibrating that part of the process:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag2-6/mag2-6mfcalib.shtml   Part 1

http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag2-6/mag2-8calib2.shtml   Part 2

PSsquare

> >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> >process?
> >
> Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.
Alexis Neel - 26 Aug 2004 03:16 GMT
> >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> >process?
> >
>  Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.

Whatever you do, DO NOT listen to Michal Scarpetti!
A good first understanding of concepts is read A.Adams books on the
negative.  Once you understand that, move to "The Print".

There are other books of course, but this will give you some great
fundamental concepts and give you an idea what is involved for you to
do what your question stated.

Good luck and welcome.

Alexis

www.alexisneel.com
Michael Scarpitti - 27 Aug 2004 03:38 GMT
> > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> www.alexisneel.com

Whatever you do, don't listen to those who say don't listen to me.
they're all a bunch of sour pusses!
Michael Scarpitti - 27 Aug 2004 04:06 GMT
> > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> A good first understanding of concepts is read A.Adams books on the
> negative.  Once you understand that, move to "The Print".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM KODAK:
Negative Quality
It is axiomatic that if optimum print quality is to be obtained, the
negative must also be of optimum quality. Unfortunately, there is no
simple yet completely comprehensive answer to the question of what is
a good negative, which leads back again to the generalization that a
good negative is one which makes a good print.

Regardless of the type of photography involved, there is a definite
production advantage in producing negatives of consistent quality.
Ideally, the photographer's goal should be to make all his negatives
so that they will give a consistently high quality when printed on the
same grade of paper. To do this, it is important to maintain fairly
accurate control over film processing conditions. The temperature of
the developer, the method and frequency of agitation, and the time of
development should be held as constant as possible and close to
recommendations, if consistently good, reproducible results are to be
obtained. Even with Kodak Developer DK-50 diluted l to 1 as an aid in
stabilizing development times, a difference of only one minute of
extra development means an increase of about 20 percent in gamma, or
the amount of contrast increase equivalent to one full paper grade.

Negatives made by professional photographers can be divided into two
general classifications, portrait and commercial, for a study of
their desired characteristics.

THE PORTRAIT NEGATIVE
What is a portrait negative? Certainly not every picture in which a
person appears. For the purpose of this discussion, a portrait is,
generally, a formal, indoor picture taken with medium-to low-key
lighting and covers the range of head-and-shoulders close-ups to
three-quarter views. The desired printing characteristics of negatives
of high-key portraits, group pictures, outdoor portraits, and pictures
of teen-agers or younger people are more closely akin to those of
commercial negatives.

Consider for a moment the desired characteristics of a medium low-key
portrait. Customers, particularly men, find this style of lighting
quite pleasing or, at any rate, "less revealing," than a moderately
high-key lighting. From the photographer's standpoint, therefore, the
majority of the subject tones will be shadow areas. The center of
attention should be, of course, the subject's face with its carefully
placed highlight emphasis. The portrait photographer is interested in
the subject's face to the extent that he is willing to accept
intentional distortion of the shadows if this will add by comparison
to the facial emphasis. Photographically the problem resolves itself
to rendering the shadows with low contrast, and the facial highlights
with sufficient contrast. How should this be accomplished?

For many years a popular adage among portrait photographers has been,
"You can read a newspaper through a good negative." And, as a general
guide to portrait-negative quality, this adage seems to be true. It is
a "rule of thumb" which helps the portrait photographer to achieve
negatives with proper printing characteristics and to avoid production
annoyances, such as dense negatives which print with excessively long
enlarging times. A negative "through which a newspaper can be read"
should be exposed so that it has a fairly low average density, and
should be developed so that facial tones are slightly transparent with
the exception of the most dense diffuse highlights on the forehead.
These highlights should be just dense enough so that printing cannot
be seen through them. This assumes average subject reflectances and a
normal portrait lighting ratio of about 3 to l.

Aside from the subject arrangement, the lighting, and the type of film
used, the printing characteristics of the negative are controlled both
by the amount of exposure and degree of development. Although exposure
and development are interrelated in their effect on density, it is
simpler to consider their actions separately. Primarily, the exposure
affects the density obtainable in both the shadows and highlights,
while the degree of development, as indicated by gamma, affects the
density of the highlights more than that of the shadows.

Exposure.
It has been found that a portrait negative yields best-quality prints
if the exposure locates the shadow point on the toe of the
characteristic curve not lower than the ASA gradient speed point.
Briefly, the shadow point in the negative represents the darkest area
of the subject in which detail is desired in the print. The speed
point described in the Standard is the point on the characteristic
curve where the gradient is 0.3 of the average gradient over 1.5 log
exposure range. 1f further clarification of these sensitometric
concepts is desired, pages 4, 5, and 6 of the Data Book "Kodak Films"
are recommended for supplementary reading.

Recommended exposure meter techniques using either reflected-light or
incident-light readings have an exposure safety factor of about 2 ½
times. This means that a normal meter reading will result in an
exposure which will place the shadow point about one lens stop above
the ASA gradient speed point. In other words, if the meter is used
correctly, there is an exposure latitude from the indicated reading to
one stop less than this where the shadow point of an excellent
portrait negative should be located. Underexposure of more than one
stop will place the shadow point down too far on the characteristic
curve, and the darkest areas of the subject will be represented in the
negative by insufficient density differences. This means that a shadow
detail will not be discernible in the print.

It has also been found that if a portrait negative with optimum
printing quality is desired, it is important with most portrait films
not to expose the film enough to place the shadow point appreciably
above the ASA gradient speed point. With some films, however, such as
Kodak Super-XX, this can be a fairly large factor; in some cases two
or four times seems satisfactory. The important consideration is that
the highlight densities at the other end of the density scale should
not be recorded by the shoulder portion of the characteristic curve.
The curve gradient here is decreasing as the density increases, which
means that the facial highlights, if recorded, will be rendered with
insufficient tonal separation.

Here, then, is how and why a portrait negative should be exposed: The
darkest shadow areas should be well down on the toe of the
characteristic curve, the middle tones should be on the central
portion of the toe, while the highest diffuse facial highlights should
be on the straight-line portion of the curve. Ideally, these
highlights should have density values of about 0.8 to 1.0. For most
portrait films, this value should not be above 1.2. A negative which
has been exposed in this manner will result in a print which, most
observers agree, is of better quality than the best obtainable print
made from negatives with appreciably less or more exposure. This ideal
negative has, accordingly, highlights which have appreciably more
brilliant tonal separation than the shadows. This evidently helps to
concentrate observer attention on the most important area of the
portrait, the face, while subordinating the shadows with a lower
printing contrast.

In other words, in portraiture, a more pleasing picture may be
obtained if toe densities represent the shadows in spite of the fact
that it may be a less literal reproduction of the subject. Thus, from
a pictorial standpoint, retention of shadow detail may be unimportant.

There is another factor which influences the tolerance of the film's
exposure latitude, and that is the type of film which is used.
Remember that it is desirable to keep the facial highlights from being
recorded by the shoulder portion of the characteristic curve. It
happens that some films normally "shoulder" sooner than others as the
higher densities are approached. It follows, therefore, that the
longer the straight-line portion of the curve, the more "portrait"
latitude a particular film has. Of course, too long a negative scale
cannot be compressed within the ability of a photographic paper to
reproduce its entire spread. For films customarily used in
portraiture, and which have a shoulder starting at a density of about
1.5, the negative should be on the "thin side." However, excellent
prints can be made even from fairly dense negatives on Kodak Super-XX
Film which has an unusually long "straight-line curve."

There is, of course, an upper limit of useful exposure which is
governed by increased graininess, loss of definition, and the
practical difficulty of printing very dense negatives long before the
upper limit of the negative exposure scale is reached.

It should not be inferred that a film with a long straight-line curve
is better for portraiture than one which shoulders off at a lower
density. Portrait films with a long sweeping toe have both a very
desirable toe shape and sufficient straight line to record the
highlights brilliantly. It's just that a longer straight-line curve
permits a greater "portrait-subject" exposure latitude.

Development.
The photographer's style of lighting in terms of lighting ratios, his
enlarging equipment, and the Kodak Opal Paper on which he makes his
prints are relatively fixed features among the variables controlling
print contrast. The simplest method of controlling contrast is,
accordingly, by adjusting the degree of negative development. Because
individual working conditions and techniques vary widely, it means,
practically, that every photographer should develop his negatives to a
gamma which best suits his particular conditions. Thus, any gamma
which results subsequently in best-quality prints is the correct gamma
to use. Development recommendations are therefore to be regarded as a
basis for trial from which a departure may be needed. The Kodak
Developing Dataguide will be found helpful in working out a uniform
development procedure best suited to a photographer's particular
needs. As an example, take a portrait photographer using a certain
lighting contrast, type of enlarger, etc. He might find that the most
appropriate film developing time corresponds to the "Lower Contrast"
arrow on the Dataguide. If he changes film or developer, or the
developer temperature changes, he can obtain negatives of the same
printing quality by developing for the time which again appears at the
"Lower Contrast" arrow. In any case, having once found the degree of
development that gives excellent prints on the desired paper, he
should stick to it. This degree of development may come above or below
the recommended one, but it is the right one for the photographer's
conditions.

THE COMMERCIAL NEGATIVE
Commercial photography encompasses almost all subjects not included
under the portrait category previously discussed. Commercial negatives
would be typified by normal negatives of product illustrations for
advertising, display, or catalogue purposes, press shots, and many
types of industrial photography.

Whereas in portraiture the photographer is primarily concerned with
the reproduction of facial tones, in commercial photography he is
interested equally in both highlights and shadows. In other words, the
commercial photographer wants to reproduce all important portions of
his subject with a minimum of tonal value distortion. In general, this
means a slightly more dense negative in order to avoid the tonal
distortion of shadows occurring in the toe portion of the
characteristic curve. Many commercial photographers feel that these
conditions are fulfilled if the average commercial negative receives
about one stop more than the average portrait negative. Thus, the
recommended technique for making a meter reading by either reflected
light or incident light will produce negatives of the desired exposure
level.

It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed
somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, there is no
photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be
developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative.

As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones
which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows.
In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the
print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible,
regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures
were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same
contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade.

There are exceptions, of course. The "majority" of outdoor subjects in
the tests mentioned previously included about 85 percent of
picture-taking situations, such as portraits, landscapes, and
architectural pictures taken in sunlight, in shade, and on overcast
days. The remaining 15 percent of the scenes had, for the most part,
large and very deep shadow areas which comprised an important part of
the subject. It was these latter scenes which the majority of
observers thought were best printed on a paper one grade softer than
normal. Thus, even for subjects with a long scale of brightnesses, it
was found satisfactory to develop the negative as though for a normal
scene and to let the range of paper grades compensate for the unusual
nature of the subject. In other words, the varying lighting conditions
may demand the use of a paper grade other than No.2 for best results.

However, unusual subjects in which heavy shadows may either be present
or actually predominate the scene are usually treated differently by
professional photographers than they are by amateur photographers. The
professional uses fill-in flash illumination, whereas the amateur does
them without the benefit of supplementary illumination. The flash
converts an "unusual" subject into a "normal" subject, and as such
requires a normal negative development and will print on a normal
grade of paper.

The degree of negative development for some subjects naturally depends
on the photographer's "artistic intent." For example, suppose he were
to photograph a sailboat at anchor during foggy weather. If it is
thought that the fog lends a desirable pictorial effect to the scene,
then it can be reproduced as the eye saw it with a normal negative
development and a print on No.2 grade paper. If, on the other hand, a
clear record picture of the boat was the photographer's object, and
the exposure could be made only under a fog condition, then the
negative should receive more than normal development to compensate for
the contrast-reducing action of the fog particles. In this case,
overdevelopment of the negative is desirable only if a print from a
normally developed negative on No.4 paper grade would contain
insufficient contrast. Accordingly, in view of the desirability of
reproducing most scenes with a gradient of 1.0, and because of the
wide control over contrast possible with various paper grades, it is
highly advisable for the professional photographer to develop the
great majority of his negatives to the same gamma.

A sensible approach to planning a standard photographic technique,
including the degree of negative development, is to strive for a
negative that will print best on a normal grade of paper. Although
there is no necessity to confine oneself to anyone gamma if several
paper grades are available, it is only logical to aim for No.2 paper.
If this is done successfully, the printing problem is simplified by
using one grade of paper for most negatives. At the same time, the
photographer is protected on both sides of normal by papers with
greater or less contrast capacity, should an underdeveloped or
overdeveloped negative accidentally result.

Kodak processing recommendations for film are generally based on the
use of diffusion-type enlargers, or on contact printing which results
in prints of approximately the same contrast, everything else being
equal. Obviously, these same processing recommendations should be
modified by a reduction of 15 to 20 percent in gamma to suit
condenser-type enlargers if prints of the same contrast are to be
obtained.

Individual preferences are shown in a survey made of several
individual newspapers and the principal news photo services. The
results showed that films were developed to gammas ranging from 0.62
to 1.18, with an average of 0.85; that Kodak Developer DK-60a was the
most popular of the developers, although a number of others were used;
and that developing times ranged all the way from 4 ½ to 8 minutes.
The photographers who preferred the lower range of gammas used
condenser enlargers. The ones who developed films in the intermediate
range used tungsten-source, diffusion enlargers, and those using the
highest gammas employed mercury-vapor enlargers. In a similar manner,
commercial and, to a lesser extent, portrait photographers also modify
the basic development recommendations according to individual
conditions.

(From: Negative Making for Professional Photographers, Eastman Kodak,
1956.)
Alexis Neel - 28 Aug 2004 02:46 GMT
Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.

Second, its from 1956.  A lot has changed since then.

Just research conventional materials, then come back for more detailed
and informative questions.

Alexis
www.alexisneel.com

> > > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
[quoted text clipped - 330 lines]
> (From: Negative Making for Professional Photographers, Eastman Kodak,
> 1956.)
Frank Pittel - 28 Aug 2004 18:23 GMT
: Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.

: Second, its from 1956.  A lot has changed since then.

Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
has changed. That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
then contradicted by Kodak in later times. Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
grade 2 paper.

A quote from the book Kodak Professional Black and White films (second printing
2000 page 24):

"If you photograph a scene with higher or lower contrast then the scene you used
for your ringaround, you can change the development time to adjust the contrast
so that the negative will print well on normal-contrast paper and provide
improved tonal reproduction.

: Just research conventional materials, then come back for more detailed
: and informative questions.

Signature

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Michael Scarpitti - 29 Aug 2004 23:14 GMT
> : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
> : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
> has changed.

No, it has NOT.

>That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
> then contradicted by Kodak in later times.

The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
System Manual', written in 1953 or so.

> Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
> used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
> negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
> film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
> grade 2 paper.

For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
and new, state this.
Leigh Marrin/KM6JE - 30 Aug 2004 01:19 GMT
>> Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
>> has changed.
> No, it has NOT.

Kodak's 1970 printing of the Master Darkroom Dataguide (printed 16 years
AFTER Scarpitti's Kodak quote) certainly encourages variable film
development.  As an example, using the wheel-shaped "developing computer",
it is suggested that Tri-X be developed in D-76 for:
LOWER   contrast:  5.5 minutes
AVERAGE contrast:  8 minutes
HIGHER  contrast:  11.5 minutes

The Kodak Darkroom Guide also states that its "developing computer" will
provide "a means for determining corrections in development time in
situations where the TYPE OF WORK, EQUIPMENT, or TECHNIQUES make it
desirable to give the negative EITHER MORE OR LESS THAN NORMAL
DEVELOPMENT".  (1970 edition, page 7)

(Note:  the CAPS are mine.)
Michael Scarpitti - 30 Aug 2004 23:42 GMT
> >> Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
> >> has changed.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> (Note:  the CAPS are mine.)

You'll note, though, that what they're referring to is a set of
constants:

1. Type of work (portrait, etc.) Even here, the 1956 book disagrees,
saying there is no reason portrait and commercial negatives should be
developed differently.

2. Lens flare (brand and type of lens, etc)

3. Enlarger type (condenser, diffusion, etc)

What they are NOT referring to is SUBJECT LUMINANCE RANGE.
Frank Pittel - 30 Aug 2004 02:14 GMT
: > : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: > : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
: > Even Kodaks position on controlling negative contrast through development time
: > has changed.

: No, it has NOT.

It sure has. I've posted the relevent sections of their book on professional
black and white films at least twice and both times you've ingored them. I'm not
going to waste my time typing it up again. In short you're lying.

: >That's why scarpitti has to cling to a book written in the 50's and
: > then contradicted by Kodak in later times.

: The book 'The Negative' by Ansel Adams was written in 1949. That means
: it's completely wrong, doesn't it? Many Zonazis cling to this old
: book, which obviously is outdated, as is Minor White's book 'The Zone
: System Manual', written in 1953 or so.

The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
and it's accuracy was confirmed.

: > Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: > used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
: > negative contrast. He also ignores the clear statements from that same book that
: > film should be developed with a level of contrast that gives the best print and
: > grade 2 paper.

: For sheet film, that's correct. This book is primarily for sheet film
: users, as is obvious from the cover photo and the descriptions of
: technique in it. For 35mm, grade 3 is better, and many sources, old
: and new, state this.

Your evidence that the book "Kodak Professional Black-and-White films" is
primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
scarpitti.
Signature


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Michael Scarpitti - 30 Aug 2004 14:13 GMT
> : > : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
> : > : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
> and it's accuracy was confirmed.

'Accuracy confirmed'? What the f.ck does that mean? I repeat the
specific passage in 'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'
that refutes the approach of variable film development:

"As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the
commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop
for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this
statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to
record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights"
implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma,
should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene.
The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so
the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper
can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as
an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to
a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant
sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be
developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some
professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer
follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and
"important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones
which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the
range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently,
middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not
associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.

It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the
great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a
gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of
densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or
"brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0
means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in
the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10
percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones
should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done
only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."

HOW MUCH CLEARER CAN IT GET?

> : > Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
> : > used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
> scarpitti.

No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:

'Negative Making for Professional Photographers'.
Frank Pittel - 30 Aug 2004 16:10 GMT
: > : > : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: > : > : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
: > The zone system was tested by the director of the Kodak Labs. during the 40's
: > and it's accuracy was confirmed.

: 'Accuracy confirmed'? What the f.ck does that mean?

I see that in typical scarpitti fashion the longer a thread goes the more
ignorant you posts to it. I would give further explanation<SP?> but you don't
have the mental capacity to understand and the rest can understand it.

: > : > Even a book from Kodak that scarpitti
: > : > used to trumpet cites the advantage of altering development time to control
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
: > primary for sheet film is .... ? What we have here is another blatent lie by
: > scarpitti.

: No, the book I was referring to was the one I quoted from:

Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.
Signature


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Michael Scarpitti - 30 Aug 2004 23:39 GMT
> : > : > : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
> : > : > : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.

No, your lack of comprehension is so vast that it's a wonder you can keep breathing.
Frank Pittel - 31 Aug 2004 16:45 GMT
: > : > : > : Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: > : > : > : Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
: >
: > Once again I see that you're getting dumber with every post.

: No, your lack of comprehension is so vast that it's a wonder you can keep breathing.

:-) :-)

Signature

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Michael Scarpitti - 28 Aug 2004 19:33 GMT
> Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
> Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.
>
> Second, its from 1956.  A lot has changed since then.

Yes, the Zonazis siezed power. The materials themselves have hardly changed at all.
Michael Scarpitti - 29 Aug 2004 23:17 GMT
> Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
> Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.

You'll note the words 'FROM KODAK' in all caps that I placed at the
beginning of this post. Or are you such an utter f.cking moron that
you cannot read??? Seems like it!

> Second, its from 1956.  A lot has changed since then.

Oh, really? Why so? Ansel Adams wrote 'The Negative' in 1949. That
means it's wrong, of course.
Frank Pittel - 30 Aug 2004 02:04 GMT
: > Notice the post below is NOT coming from Scarpitti but from Kodak.
: > Just because he posted it doesn't make it his.

: You'll note the words 'FROM KODAK' in all caps that I placed at the
: beginning of this post. Or are you such an utter f.cking moron that
: you cannot read??? Seems like it!

: > Second, its from 1956.  A lot has changed since then.

: Oh, really? Why so? Ansel Adams wrote 'The Negative' in 1949. That
: means it's wrong, of course.

Actually according to Ansel Adams Autobiography the first version of "The
Negative" was first published in 1948. The information is in fact obsolete. This
was acknoledged by Adams and in 1981 he had the second updated version of the
book published. He also continued to refine, perfect and adapt the zone system
to new films and developers until his death.

It's also interesting that at the time the first edition of 'The Negative' was
published Adams ask Dr. E. C. Kenneth Mees the director of the Kodak
laboratories and his assistant Dr. Walter Clarke to check both the accuracy of
the zone system and it's codification of applied sensitometery. After testing
they confirmed it's accuracy.
Signature


Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

BertS - 28 Aug 2004 19:53 GMT
>>Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
>>process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
>>process?
>
> Read Ansel Adams' books, especially The Negative and The Print.

And, after reading that, read Beyond the Zone System by Phil Davis. Or perhaps
read this last one first then read the Adams books.

Both assume you can develop images individually or at least split your images
so you can give them individualized development by separating similar images
into different rolls of film.

Bert
jjs - 23 Aug 2004 13:43 GMT
> Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> process?

Others will (or have) recommended "The Negative" and "Beyond the Zone
System", but I would recommend that you NOT start with those books. The Zone
System is far simpler to implement than either of those tomes would suggest.

Please consider getting "Way Beyond Monochrome"  by Ralph W. Lambrecht and
Chris Woodhouse. The book is broken up into manageable parts, many of which
you can simply skip over and return to when you find it necessary - or not.
The authors make a quick-course of the Zone System exposure in one chapter
which is very good. You can then read about calibrating your prints and
negatives in another chapter.
Alan Smithee - 23 Aug 2004 14:03 GMT
I'm mostly planning on black and white, do I need a step wedge? What are
they for. Thx.

> > Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> which is very good. You can then read about calibrating your prints and
> negatives in another chapter.
jjs - 23 Aug 2004 14:10 GMT
> I'm mostly planning on black and white, do I need a step wedge? What are
> they for. Thx.

No. You not need one. Get the book: "Way Beyond Monochrome"  by Ralph W.
Lambrecht and
Chris Woodhouse. It will save you money in the short run.
Gregory Blank - 23 Aug 2004 18:16 GMT
A step wedge is a good piece of equipment, but most suitable
for large format film testing opposed to 35mm although
the wedge can be made to work with the Zone system and 35mm, its a good
piece of equipment if you want to calibrate film and paper....but you
can use the wedge to just calibrate your paper and process.

> I'm mostly planning on black and white, do I need a step wedge? What are
> they for. Thx.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Hemi4268 - 23 Aug 2004 18:10 GMT
>Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
>process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
>process?

With limited funds (under $1000) it really can't be done.  Even in Kodak's
hayday when B&W was King, they spent millions trying to calibrate the process.
Same with major US company industrial photography labs that no longer exist.
Again big bucks were spent calibrating the process.  It ended up cheaper to
outsource photography rather then let the lab be a drain on fund.

Even Ansel Adams who spent weeks on just one image, spent most of the family
money making his high quality images. Only later in his elder years did he get
the money back.

Larry
jjs - 23 Aug 2004 19:37 GMT
> >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and printing
> >process?
>
> With limited funds (under $1000) it really can't be done.
> [... snip misunderstanding ....]

There's got to be a _complete_ misunderstanding here, Hemi. He only wants to
know how to determine his base film speed, and some rules-of-thumb for
printing. He doesn't want to re-engineer the universe of photography.
Alan Smithee - 23 Aug 2004 20:33 GMT
> > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> know how to determine his base film speed, and some rules-of-thumb for
> printing. He doesn't want to re-engineer the universe of photography.

What I want to know is where is it most important to control the process.
i.e. Camera, Film Developing, Printing. Which practices can I use as a means
of eliminating errors from the whole process. Calibrating the shutter speed
and aperture on my camera for example. Is this easy or hard? Is it worth
doing even? How about processing my negs. This seems to me the area with the
most room for error. If my thermometer is out a bit I could be plus or minus
10 to 20 per cent. But how would I even know? What tells me this. A test
image of some sort on the neg perhaps. That's why I was wondering about the
step wedges.
Hemi4268 - 23 Aug 2004 21:11 GMT
>> There's got to be a _complete_ misunderstanding here

I don't think so.  The big misunderstanding is people can actually think they
can control the whole photo process without spending money.  By money I mean
thousands of dollars.

Chemistry is the big cost issue.  It's almost impossible to control this unless
your using 5 gal vats and doing daily tests.

Film speed is another issue.  Most films are with 20% of actually published
speed but not exact.  Trying to do exact testing on film speeds can also be
expensive.

Usually the best cheap way to do calibrating is to pick one subject using the
same type of light with the same type of film and process it in the same type
of chemistry.

That why lots of photographers specialize in something, anything. Like dogs
dressed up as people, babies in flowers. It's all one type of lighting, one
type of film, one type of development and so on.

If you think your going to control this process by yourself cheaply so you can
do cars one day, a wedding the next, then food photography at the end of the
week, your only going to be disapointed.

Larry
jjs - 23 Aug 2004 21:29 GMT
> >> There's got to be a _complete_ misunderstanding here
>
> I don't think so.  The big misunderstanding is people can actually think they
> can control the whole photo process without spending money.  By money I mean
> thousands of dollars.
> [...]

Had a Bad Day or something?  Lemmie ask - when you tune your car, do you
re-engineer the whole thing every time? Or do you have one perfectly known
tune and drive only for those conditions. I hope it's not tuned for the
1/8th mile, or you'd be a real grouch on a road trip. ;)

Come on, the guy wants basic metrics, not a "Calibration". Not really. We
aren't shooting from a Blackbird anymore. We're retired. Remember?
Gregory Blank - 23 Aug 2004 22:40 GMT
> > >> There's got to be a _complete_ misunderstanding here
> >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Come on, the guy wants basic metrics, not a "Calibration". Not really. We
> aren't shooting from a Blackbird anymore. We're retired. Remember?

LOL

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

geo - 29 Aug 2004 02:02 GMT
> "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
> or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
> is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
> to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Thank you for that quote. So pertinent today. Some things never change.

Signature

Look at the world today. Is there anything more pitiful? What madness there
is. What blindness. What unintelligent leadership. A scurrying mass of
bewildered humanity, crashing headlong against each other, compelled by an
orgy of greed and brutality. The time must come my friend, when this orgy
will spend itself. When brutality and the lust for power, must perish by its
own sword. -Lost Horizon, 1936

jjs - 23 Aug 2004 21:23 GMT
> What I want to know is where is it most important to control the process.
> i.e. Camera, Film Developing, Printing. Which practices can I use as a means
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> image of some sort on the neg perhaps. That's why I was wondering about the
> step wedges.

I will answer here briefly, and I'm sure others will too, but the book I
suggested is invaluable. It's very well written and illustrated; a real
pleasure to read so please get it. You may never need another B&W book nor
ask another basic question. (But don't be afraid to ask for clarification.)

Of the Camera, Film Developing and Printing - ranked in importance I'd say
exactly in the order you gave them but with one more item put right up front
of the Camera - Light Meter!  If you mess up the exposure badly, no
adjustment in developing will make a good image. If you mess up the
developing badly, it is unlikely you can make up for it in the print.

Calibrating your shutter and aperture is probably not necessary.  Most
modern shutters are "close enough" that you don't have to recalibrate.
Apertures are almost never incorrect. If you have a used or early shutter,
or especially a large shutter (for example Alphax #5) then it's probably
wrong, wrong, wrong. Almost all those old monsters are off. :)

What you might want to do is to find the practical film speed of your
favorite film when used with your particular light meter. The lightmeter had
best be a good one or you are wasting your time. Also learn to use that
meter properly. It's very important and not at all trivial.

Thermometers!  A _good_ thermometer is important. I will let others
recommend. I have half a dozen that I got on sale years ago. They all agree.
An aside - in the Seventies one brand of inexpensive darkroom thermometer
was distributed to dealers on a display card. It turned out to be a bad deal
for the seller because one could see at a glance that very few of them
agreed with another. :)

I don't think you want a "step wedge" unless what you really mean is
something like Kodak's large test card that has the lineage of grey-tones
and colors. It is usefull, IMHO.
Michael Scarpitti - 24 Aug 2004 03:16 GMT
> > > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> What I want to know is where is it most important to control the process.
> i.e. Camera, Film Developing, Printing.

Have your shutter checked by a repairman. What format are you using?
What brand of camera? What lenses?

> Which practices can I use as a means
> of eliminating errors from the whole process. Calibrating the shutter speed
> and aperture on my camera for example. Is this easy or hard? Is it worth
> doing even?

Yes, but this is done by service centers.

> How about processing my negs. This seems to me the area with the
> most room for error. If my thermometer is out a bit I could be plus or minus
> 10 to 20 per cent. But how would I even know? What tells me this. A test
> image of some sort on the neg perhaps. That's why I was wondering about the
> step wedges.

Your thermometer should be accurate within 1/2 degree.
Jean-David Beyer - 24 Aug 2004 14:44 GMT
> What I want to know is where is it most important to control the
> process. i.e. Camera,

I would say in the camera.

First of all, assuming you have set up the camera to include exactly the
field of view you want from the viewpoint you want (otherwise, you took
the wrong picture), what you need is the negative adequately exposed, and
the first step in calibration will determine the effective film speed,
a.k.a., the Exposure Index or EI. It is not normally a great idea to
overexpose the film, but unless you can find some Panatomic X which
shoulders over very rapidly, the worst you can expect from overexposed
film is longer printing times and slightly more grain (assuming
conventional black and white film). A slight benefit that I find
worthwhile is to overexpose by about one stop so I can get better blacks
and slightly more shadow detail.

> Film Developing,

This is important to get the contrast right. If your development time is a
little off, you can correct this pretty well with different grades of
paper, but if it is way off, you may as well give up.

> Printing.

Printing is normally pretty easy if you have a properly exposed and
developped negative, and almost impossible to do well otherwise.

> Which practices can I use as a means of eliminating errors from the
> whole process. Calibrating the shutter speed and aperture on my camera
> for example. Is this easy or hard?

Calibrating shutter speed is pretty easy if you have a shutter speed
tester, which you can get for around $100 from Calumet. But you will use
it seldom after you have picked a film and calibrated it. So if you are a
technphile as I tend to be, and have a high paying job, by all means get
one. If not, you may be able to join a local camera club and persuade them
to get one. $5 from each of 20 members should do it. But you do not really
need one.

What you really need to calibrate is the light-meter shutter-speed
combination. If you had a lightmeter that read high, and a shutter that
operated correspondingly low, you would be OK.

So if you have a light meter that is linear (and a 10% error probably does
not matter much with B&W negative film), what I would suggest is to expose
some negatives to Zone V with different exposure times, develop for the
time recommended by the manufacturer for the chemistry and temperature you
are using, and compare the density of the negatives, trying to find the
one whose net density is closest to 0.9 (Ansel Adams would have
recommended the one whose density was around 0.75, though his procedure
was a little different). If the light meter had said to expose at 1/125
second for the film speed on the box, and you found that an exposure of
1/30 of a second gives you the desired density, then set the EI on the
meter to 1/4 the speed on the box and you will be close enough.

Otherwise, you can buy a densitometer and measure to your heart's content.
I have a densitometer, but I seldom use it. Here, too, you may wish to
persuade the hypothetical camera club to chip in and buy one. They cost at
least 10x what a shutter speed tester costs.

? Is it worth
> doing even?

It is worth doing, but you do not really need the numbers if the shutter
is well-behaved. I.e., if it is 50% slow at all speeds, or 50% fast at all
speeds, you need never know it. (That would be pretty far off, BTW, for
new shutters.) The trouble is that if they are just off different amounts
at all speeds it can be hard to do anything. Even with a shutter speed
tester, you would probably not wish to carry a chart around with the
actual vs. indicated shutter speeds, especially if you had more than one.
For spastic shutters on L.F. cameras, I would either have someone such as
Steve Grimes' merry men do a CLA on the thing, or replace it. For 35mm or
M.F. cameras, I would have the manufacturer do it.

> How about processing my negs. This seems to me the area with the most
> room for error. If my thermometer is out a bit I could be plus or minus
>  10 to 20 per cent. But how would I even know? What tells me this. A
> test image of some sort on the neg perhaps. That's why I was wondering
> about the step wedges.

Here you could buy a precision NBS-certified thermomether, but I would not
bother. I have a Kodak Process Thermometer that used to cost over $60, and
it still costs over that, just more than I paid. I suppose it would be
around $100 now, but I never looked. Since it contains mercury, perhaps
they are unavailable at all.

Now you will find that if you have more than one light meter, or more than
one thermometer, you will go crazy.

What you need is a reliable repeatable thermometer. (This is for B&W:
color is a little more fussy.) When you are calibrating, pick a
temperature: I use 75F because it is difficult around here to get
processing temperatures down to 68F in the summertime, and some
developpers work better at 75F anyway. If you get the contrast you want
when printing most of your new negatives, your development-time, developer
composition and dilution, and development time are OK. It is the
combination of these things that matter.

The numbers in the books and on various web sites are just starting points
anyway. Your water may be significantly different from mine, I may agitate
differently when developping, my enlarger may be more or less diffuse than
yours, etc. It is impossible to know, and you do not need to know.
Calibrating yourself should take care of all that.

THe high price equipment: shutter speed testers, transmission and
reflection densitometers, etc., just make the process a little faster.

About step wedges: I think they are very useful, especially for those
without the high price equipment. I have a Kodak T-14 step wedge which is
fairly small, uncalibrated, cheap (compared with the others), and has
steps of 0.15. I would not waste the money getting a calibrated one. I did
calibrate mine, and the 0 density step has a density of 0.06, and all the
others are 0.15 (very closely) above the previous one.

So if you look at a test negative and it matches step 6 using your
"calibrated eyeball", it will have a density of around 0.9, etc., and this
is close enough for B&W work.

Remember that even if you calibrate to 4 decimal places (not easy), you
will have the problem at the time you make your initial exposure: just
what density do I want for this element of the subject? And you will have
enough trouble deciding that to 1/2 a Zone, so while you should not be
sloppy (Murphy's Law says all the errors will be in the same direction to
ensure maximum reduction in quality), there is little point in getting
overly obsessive about this.

So, whith all that, let me repeat your first question:

> What I want to know is where is it most important to control the
> process.

What I suggest, as a learning tool (you would probably not have the
patience to do this as a routine matter), take a notebook along with you
and make a brief sketch of the subject you want to photograph. Indicate on
it, but using your light meter, what exposures you want for the various
elements of the subject; i.e., what zones you want to place the elements
on. Then try to measure the densities you got when you have the processed
negative. This will help you keep a check on your exposures. Once you are
good at it, you might want to do a few every 6 months or every year to see
if your equipment is drifting around too much. This is easier with simple
subjects and large format negatives unless you have a densitometer.

Signature

  .~.  Jean-David Beyer           Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\                             Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey     http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 09:10:00 up 20 days, 47 min, 4 users, load average: 4.27, 4.18, 4.11

jjs - 24 Aug 2004 15:10 GMT
> > What I want to know is where is it most important to control the
> > process. i.e. Camera,
>
> I would say in the camera.

Are you not presuming his meter and metering method is correct?  Check first
assumptions first. :)
Donald Qualls - 25 Aug 2004 02:42 GMT
>>>What I want to know is where is it most important to control the
>>>process. i.e. Camera,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Are you not presuming his meter and metering method is correct?  Check first
> assumptions first. :)

If the meter is inaccurate or the method wrong, those errors will be
corrected in finding the true EI -- so as long as they're *consistently*
inaccurate in the same way, there's not a problem, same as with
thermometers (at least for B&W).

Signature

I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
                                                    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages  http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages     http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Frank Pittel - 25 Aug 2004 03:00 GMT
: > > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
: > > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
: image of some sort on the neg perhaps. That's why I was wondering about the
: step wedges.

When done right your film speed tests will take errors in your camera and light
meter into consideration. In my never humble opinion you want to put the bulk of
your effort into getting the best possible negative.

Signature

Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

Michael Scarpitti - 23 Aug 2004 22:39 GMT
> > >Where do I start. I want to get a better grip on my whole photographic
> > >process. How do I go about calibrating my camera, development and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> know how to determine his base film speed, and some rules-of-thumb for
> printing. He doesn't want to re-engineer the universe of photography.

That's essentially what I said. It's impossible, in principle, because
no two batches of film, water, paper, chemistry, etc., are identical,
and no shutter is 100% consistent, and even the sunlight varies from
moment to moment.  All you can do is to determine your 'normal' paper
grade (#3 for 35mm, #2 for sheet film), and try to get most of your
negatives to print properly on that paper.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.