A Lazy Man's Zone System

Bill Burk said:

Note: My transcription of the Ilford data sheet curve depends on the published curve being accurate. I divided the exposure axis into ten divisions and then calipered to the middle of the thick curve line at each crossing.

Then I set the speed scale to where the foot crosses 0.1

I didn’t actually process and graph my own results. I am curious to see how that will compare.

Last time I bought a couple boxes of paper the seller included a roll of HP5+, so I will test it sometime soon.

Click to expand...

If it helps at all I once ran the test on HP5+ using D-76 and surprise, surprise, ISO 400.

The curves in the Ilford/Harman documents are pretty useless in my opinion. They don’t tell the typical user anything, and aren’t detailed enough for anyone who might be interested in sensitometry.

I've often pointed out that film speed and exposure are two different things. Too often film speed is conflated with exposure. Most of the discussions about film speed are really about exposure. This is why it's important to be able to measure and control the variables in testing in order to properly attribute the results. Is the thin negative the result of lower than expected film speed in a given developer, under development, or under exposure of the test? Which is why improper testing tends to lead to achieving incorrect conclusions with a false sense of confidence. This raises the question whether it's better to use the manufacturer's testing and make adjustments based on personal results.

Milpool said:

If it helps at all I once ran the test on HP5+ using D-76 and surprise, surprise, ISO 400.

The curves in the Ilford/Harman documents are pretty useless in my opinion. They don’t tell the typical user anything, and aren’t detailed enough for anyone who might be interested in sensitometry.

Click to expand...

The Ilford data sheets use relative log exposure, so there's not really much more they can do than give than an impression of the type of curve of the film. In my opinion, a good Gamma-time curve would be more helpful.

Stephen Benskin said:

I don't think it helps for Ilford to call it foot speed, but yes. The data sheet clearly shows HP5 Plus as ISO 400.View attachment 400778

EI refers to the camera setting. Here's the entire paragraph from the data sheet.

EXPOSURE RATING
Best results are obtained at EI 400/27, but good image quality will also be obtained at meter settings from EI 400/27 to EI 3200/36. It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for HP5 Plus is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.

It's saying basically the same thing as with D3200. It has been determined (non-sensitometrically) that acceptable / good results are obtainable if the camera is set to EI X, not that the film speed is EI X. The speed of the film is the ISO and how the camera can be set is the EI. Ilford is using the terms correctly. They could just communicate it better. There always seems to be a compromise between being scientifically accurate and being understood by the general public.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply but as I said I assume that by now everyone here even relative newcomers understand that there is only one ISO applicable to any film and that all the other speeds quoted in Ilford's sheets are not ISOs

It was just that I had assumed that you might have been saying something different that I and others might have been unaware of

Good to know that it was not something new

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

Thanks for the reply but as I said I assume that by now everyone here even relative newcomers understand that there is only one ISO applicable to any film and that all the other speeds quoted in Ilford's sheets are not ISOs

It was just that I had assumed that you might have been saying something different that I and others might have been unaware of

Good to know that it was not something new

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't something new. I was just pointing out a frequently misinterpreted statement by Ilford.

Milpool said:

The HP5 document also refers to the ISO speed:

Although rated at ISO 400/27º, HP5 Plus can produce high quality prints when exposed at meter settings up to EI 3200/36 and given extended development in ILFORD ILFOTEC DD-X, ILFOTEC HC, MICROPHEN or RT RAPID developers.

For some of the films the wording is clearer so I think it’s just a matter of inconsistent writing. FP4 for example:

FP4 Plus has a speed rating of ISO 125/22º to daylight. The ISO speed rating was measured using ILFORD ID-11 developer at 20ºC/68ºF with intermittent agitation in a spiral tank. Best results are obtained at EI 125/22, but good image quality will also be obtained at meter settings from EI 50/18 to EI 200/24. It should be noted that the exposure index (EI) range recommended for FP4 Plus is based on a practical evaluation of film speed and is not based on foot speed, as is the ISO standard.

Click to expand...

Yes that is pretty clear to me so other than D3200 where it is clear that this is not the ISO speed I wonder where else it is confusing?


pentaxuser

Stephen Benskin said:

The Ilford data sheets use relative log exposure, so there's not really much more they can do than give than an impression of the type of curve of the film. In my opinion, a good Gamma-time curve would be more helpful.

Click to expand...

Their graph is crisp and clear, I think it transcribed fairly well. By tentatively pinning LogE at the speed point per corresponding film, I think the underlying exposure can be nearly identified. They were a little goofy changing the relative exposure between Delta 100 and FP4+ so their two graphs don’t make sense until you realize that and re-draw them aligned for exposure.

Here’s transcription of Delta 100 from their data sheet.

Stephen Benskin said:

Too often film speed is conflated with exposure. Most of the discussions about film speed are really about exposure.

Click to expand...

Exactly - more often than not people seem to be testing errors in their metering and/ or displaying a failure to understand that there are good reasons (perceptual and marketing) why shadow speeds between manufacturers might vary a bit, particularly in practical use.

Stephen Benskin said:

In my opinion, a good Gamma-time curve would be more helpful.

Click to expand...

They exist in the data for Deltas 400 and 3200 and used to exist in one form or another for most of the rest of the Ilford range - there will be some very banal reason why they got rid of them.

.
Hello
And what do you think about FX55 as the one that could be the base one in combination with FP4. John Finch, quoted in this thread, highly praises this duo. He tested it and found that this developer increases the sensitivity of FP4 to 200EI, which increases its capabilities. I love this film.

Bill Burk said:

p.s. On the Pentax 17 whenever you feel like doing that test of three of the same shot to check development, take one shot on +2 compensation and then set it back to zero and finish off with two more of the same picture.

You’re going to be less likely to accidentally leave the camera on the wrong setting this way.

It’s going to be obvious when you look at the negatives that there’s a dark one.

Click to expand...

This was the day I made the mistake (again because I made the same mistake in 2015). It’s one stop different in density, not a doubling of density.

The test is good : Normal and plus two stops.

But the interpretation is best performed with an 0.3 ND filter over a light box.

...didn't read all six pages, but sampled. DCY, if you are at all scientifically inclined, you need to minimize the variables in a given experiment. Start with:
--In camera meter (as long as it's working as intended)
--Film at box speed (as long as it's working as intended--not >10-20 years past expiration or heat/radiation damaged)
--Develop film at the manufacturer's time/temp
...and you will get printable negatives of average scenes. Always. This was a billion-dollar industry for decades, and it works well.
Then you can work on the variables in printing, which is a good place to learn exposure, contrast, framing and the rest, because you get immediate feedback.
Then go back, if you then feel the need, and determine your personal IE, push processes, etc. By that point you will also learn the limits of your camera meter and how to meter for the part of a scene that you want seen, instead of the camera's predilection to meter for the sky or center or the single bright spot.
And the whole time work on your vision and composition, which don't have nice little formulas.

This website is full of people fiddling with things around the edges, because some of us have done everything else in photography, and some of us have been led to believe that the first group is doing the "only worthwhile" stuff in photography. Nail the basics first. (and move up to a real-sized format )

Oh, and a plug for contact sheets. Yes, negatives on a light box are a pro-level starting place but does not replace the contacts, for really seeing the exposure differences in a strip of negs.