Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / August 2004
How do I calibrate my photographic process
|
|
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.
|
|
|