A observation about reading newsprint through highlights

[rpavich]

When I look at this photo of the negs (and I flip the step wedge 180) the laptop ends up about 2 2/3 stop below step 6 and the white paper ends up about 2 1/3 stops above step 6, which is exactly where they should be. So whatever you did here is exactly right and Keep Doing It!!!

Oy vey, I wish I knew!

 

[rpavich]

Previous post deleted.

Edit: actually, I am mistaken in the deleted post. The step wedge is calibrated in 1/2 stop increments. So the white paper and the black laptop are actually about 1 stop away from middle gray.

So, you are saying that there is a slight lack of contrast in that set of negatives, but exposure wise, it's good...right?

PS: I just finished up a roll of Tri-X that I had in the camera and while it's more contrasty for sure, it's nowhere near as hosed up as the initial posts. I shot it at box speed and dev'd -20% and it's printing nice on grade 2 with the grey target at .87

And you'll never believe this; I'm embarrassed to say it but since I'm baring my soul here and my mistakes are public...I can read newsprint "just barely" through the Bergger and the Tri-X negatives, just as the folklore says I'd be able to. The Bergger moreso than the Tri-X but even the Tri-x I'm able to.

 

[MattKing]

And you'll never believe this; I'm embarrassed to say it but since I'm baring my soul here and my mistakes are public...I can read newsprint "just barely" through the Bergger and the Tri-X negatives, just as the folklore says I'd be able to. The Bergger moreso than the Tri-X but even the Tri-x I'm able to.

Do I get to say "I told you so" now??

I don't know why you would be embarrassed. You seem to be well on your way to success. Just because there was some help on the way, doesn't mean you shouldn't feel good about it.

 

[rpavich]

Do I get to say "I told you so" now??

I don't know why you would be embarrassed. You seem to be well on your way to success. Just because there was some help on the way, doesn't mean you shouldn't feel good about it.

Lol...yes you do.

Thank you for the kind words, at least now I know what I'm aiming for at least.

And thanks again everyone for the help!

 

[Ozxplorer]

Hi... well some very good support has come your way. Having looked over the numbers I'm of the opinion that your development process is about right. For all three films you have achieved +/- .65 Contrast index. Ilford suggests this should be the targeted result. Your density readings appear inconsistent in respect of exposure. So too the variation from base reading across the ISO changes is not nearly as linear as might be expected with density near the middle of the range. For instance:

1. Film rated at box & developed as recommended should result in a density variation of close to .3 for each stop of exposure. So, the expected density, of say 0.72 would rise up to the top of the curve by about 0.3 for every ISO reduction. Your ISO changes from base are @ ISO 400 density =1.3(box ) @ ISO 200 density +0.16 (half a stop not 1) and ISO 100 + 0.4 (1.3 stops not 2) indicates exposure is placed near the top of the curve representing a metering or technique error. This negative is at least 2 stops over exposed, density should be 1.3 minus 0.6 = 0.70 (refer Ralph's suggestion) and to some extent explains why the negative rated at ISO 100 and under developed 30% - see point #3 below, is "almost" right! And, not to say your normal metering should be to consistently over expose and under develop to this degree.
2. The same observation is made for the film over exposed 1 stop and under developed 15% as the readings are the same as those of the film rated and developed per manufacturer recommendation. Something wrong here...
3. Interestingly the film under exposed by 2 stops and underdeveloped 30% measures as expected with about .3 density change for each variation of the ISO and Contrast Index 0.65.

To calculate the "ball park" Contrast index: obtain the difference between the achieved density readings of the 400 and 100 ISO negatives and divide by the expected 2 stop density variation being about 0.6 density. Thus, at box 400 ISO = 1.3 and 100 ISO = 1.7 - variation 0.4/0.6 = .67 - pretty good.

If, as Ralph suggests, a negative having 0.72 density is the target then clearly something is amiss with your technique and/or your equipment (meter/camera). So rather than trying to read a newspaper thought the highlights of your negative - one step at a time. Stay with manufacturer recommended ISO setting and development strategies & perfect 1 film/developer combination before widening your repertoire. Keep us posted on your progress... Fred

 

[rpavich]

Hi... well some very good support has come your way. Having looked over the numbers I'm of the opinion that your development process is about right. For all three films you have achieved +/- .65 Contrast index. Ilford suggests this should be the targeted result. Your density readings appear inconsistent in respect of exposure. So too the variation from base reading across the ISO changes is not nearly as linear as might be expected with density near the middle of the range. For instance:

1. Film rated at box & developed as recommended should result in a density variation of close to .3 for each stop of exposure. So, the expected density, of say 0.72 would rise up to the top of the curve by about 0.3 for every ISO reduction. Your ISO changes from base are @ ISO 400 density =1.3(box ) @ ISO 200 density +0.16 (half a stop not 1) and ISO 100 + 0.4 (1.3 stops not 2) indicates exposure is placed near the top of the curve representing a metering or technique error. This negative is at least 2 stops over exposed, density should be 1.3 minus 0.6 = 0.70 (refer Ralph's suggestion) and to some extent explains why the negative rated at ISO 100 and under developed 30% - see point #3 below, is "almost" right! And, not to say your normal metering should be to consistently over expose and under develop to this degree.
2. The same observation is made for the film over exposed 1 stop and under developed 15% as the readings are the same as those of the film rated and developed per manufacturer recommendation. Something wrong here...
3. Interestingly the film under exposed by 2 stops and underdeveloped 30% measures as expected with about .3 density change for each variation of the ISO and Contrast Index 0.65.

To calculate the "ball park" Contrast index: obtain the difference between the achieved density readings of the 400 and 100 ISO negatives and divide by the expected 2 stop density variation being about 0.6 density. Thus, at box 400 ISO = 1.3 and 100 ISO = 1.7 - variation 0.4/0.6 = .67 - pretty good.

If, as Ralph suggests, a negative having 0.72 density is the target then clearly something is amiss with your technique and/or your equipment (meter/camera). So rather than trying to read a newspaper thought the highlights of your negative - one step at a time. Stay with manufacturer recommended ISO setting and development strategies & perfect 1 film/developer combination before widening your repertoire. Keep us posted on your progress... Fred

Wow, very informative!

thanks very much for coming back with that info, Fred.

Since my camera was sitting on a tripod and the only difference was that I was changing the shutter speed to open up or close down a stop at a time, I'm wondering if I have a slight shutter speed issue going on. I don't know. I'll give that some thought.

 

[Steve Smith]

I always err on the side of overexposure by 1 stop as a minimum. (setting meter to 200 on 400 film) I also try and meter for the shadows.

Standard practice for a lot of people is to over expose by one stop and decrease development time by about 25% to get better shadow detail. You seem to have discovered this without looking for it!


Steve.

 

[rpavich]

Standard practice for a lot of people is to over expose by one stop and decrease development time by about 25% to get better shadow detail. You seem to have discovered this without looking for it!


Steve.

Lol..I may have but it's not working out well. I'm going to start from square one again and go from there.

 

[rpavich]

One good thing about this thread is that it got me to thinking about all of the links in my chain. I started thinking about my thermometer and wondering if it's as accurate as I think it is.
Well, I checked it with the crushed ice/water method and it's reading .9 low. It's almost 1 degc lower than it should be. From what I can determine that means that I've been over developing by almost one stop when I think I'm developing per manufacturer's suggestion.

 

[baachitraka]

In practice, things may end up one stop slower than box speed. :-|

 

[rpavich]

In practice, things may end up one stop slower than box speed. :-|

Yes, I've read that and now i've wondered what's suitable for me considering all of the variables. Once I start from the manufacturer's published times and such, then I'll find out. Whatever I do find out, I'll certainly come back and share.

 

[baachitraka]

I accepted that 1-stop as a safety stop and expose and adjust development times to bring some detail on highlights.

Good luck and CLA those mechanical shutters.

But for color negatives, I almost always over-expose.

 

[baachitraka]

Yes, I've read that and now i've wondered what's suitable for me considering all of the variables. Once I start from the manufacturer's published times and such, then I'll find out. Whatever I do find out, I'll certainly come back and share.

Any development method that needs any device is a deviation from manufacturers devices and their methods. Happy testing.

 

[rpavich]

Any development method that needs any device is a deviation from manufacturers devices and their methods. Happy testing.

Thanks.
I think my issue mostly came with shooting one stop over, and then metering for shadows and having the hidden "almost one stop over" in my dev time. Oy Vey.

Another thing that didn't help was that until I printed via darkroom, none of this was that apparent, sca**ing negs covers a multitude of sins. You can get away with a LOT and never realize it.

 

[baachitraka]

Meter, expose, develop, make contact sheet(partly here) and print(and the rest here will expose all those mistakes/requirements).

 

[Doremus Scudder]

rpavich,

Learn how to make a proper proof (if you are not already) to help with zeroing in on your exposure and development. A proper proof is one that has the minimum exposure to have clear areas of the film reach maximum black in display lighting (the lighting is important here). Make a test strip of your film on a strip of paper a bit wider than the film itself. Examine the black of the film rebate on the edge next to the paper that was not covered by the film. When the black of the rebate matches the black of the exposed, uncovered area, that's the right exposure time for your contact proof sheet (keep f-stop and enlarger head height equal of course). You can easily compare exposures and different development times on one sheet this way

Do the same with an enlargement by including the film rebate and a bit of nothing at all at the edge of the neg carrier. Make your test strip and, again, compare the black of the exposed uncovered black with the black of the film rebate. Your "proper enlarging time" will again be that at which the blacks match. You will likely not want to use this exposure to make a fine print, but it will let you know how you are doing on exposure and development.

Best,

Doremus

 

[rpavich]

rpavich,

Learn how to make a proper proof (if you are not already) to help with zeroing in on your exposure and development. A proper proof is one that has the minimum exposure to have clear areas of the film reach maximum black in display lighting (the lighting is important here). Make a test strip of your film on a strip of paper a bit wider than the film itself. Examine the black of the film rebate on the edge next to the paper that was not covered by the film. When the black of the rebate matches the black of the exposed, uncovered area, that's the right exposure time for your contact proof sheet (keep f-stop and enlarger head height equal of course). You can easily compare exposures and different development times on one sheet this way

Do the same with an enlargement by including the film rebate and a bit of nothing at all at the edge of the neg carrier. Make your test strip and, again, compare the black of the exposed uncovered black with the black of the film rebate. Your "proper enlarging time" will again be that at which the blacks match. You will likely not want to use this exposure to make a fine print, but it will let you know how you are doing on exposure and development.

Best,

Doremus

Thanks Doremus, I actually do know that much so far. I learned that on the APUG one day quite a while ago, but I didn't realize the part about doing it with the enlargement, thanks for that info.
I can't wait until I can develop another roll and get going on improving my exposures, my HP5 100' roll won't be here until Saturday!

 

[rpavich]

Ok..so my new to me (and CLA'd) FM2 got here and I shot another roll of Bergger 400. I took a few shots of the same test target at box speed metered with my sekonic L308.


I shot the roll at box speed and developed for the recommended time of 12 min at 20c.

The sekonic metered
ISO 400
1/20
f/2

And I set the camera on
ISO 400
1/15 (because I had the choice of 1/15 or 1/30)
f/2

The result is:
Zone V = 1.37
Highlight = 1.79
Shadow = .62

The means my brightness range is only 2.89 stops (H divided by S) and my overall contrast is 1.17 (H - S)
So I guess I'm wondering why my zone V is still so much higher than it should be.

here is an iPhone shot of the negative next to the step wedge. Looks like the zone V matches #8, the shadow matches #5 and the highlight matches #11 (or 12)
I understood that my zone V should be at #6.
Am I still over exposing even though I used the Sekonic to meter or is this over developing?
Are these still considered bullet proof?

FWIW the negative printed very nicely at grade 2 and the contact sheet image looked good at grade 2 also.

 

[Ozxplorer]

Hi... When metering are you using an incident light meter reading or reflected? I havn't asked you how you go about establishing the zero base density using your R.H. Design enlarging meter... before reading the negative? This is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw. When reading are your lights & safelight/s on of off? Fred

 

[sepiareverb]

Oi, totally forgot I was going to get you numbers. I'm in the studio tomorrow morning, will set a reminder in my phone.

 

[rpavich]

Hi... When metering are you using an incident light meter reading or reflected? I havn't asked you how you go about establishing the zero base density using your R.H. Design enlarging meter... before reading the negative? This is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw. When reading are your lights & safelight/s on of off? Fred

Im using it per directions, i take the base reading throught the clear part of the neg between frames then at the intended targets.
Could my 18% grey target be not really zone v? I just assumed it was.

Safelights off.

Could someone upload a shot of their negs so that i can compare what the density should look like?

Im curious now.

 

[Ozxplorer]

Just to follow up... How are do you meter your test area? Incident or reflected? Fred

 

[rpavich]

Just to follow up... How are do you meter your test area? Incident or reflected? Fred

Incident.

I have a spotmeter, maybe i should try that next. Spot meter the grey, the white paper, and the black area just for reference and place the grey on zone v.
im just curious as to my results that dont make sense.

 

[Ozxplorer]

I think the issue resolves itself with this information. Your test target is used mainly for computer generated imaging the "grey" area being used for white balance purposes. This "middle grey" is lighter than the average reading obtained using the meter in incident mode. Probably the Sekonic is calibrated to a 14% rather than the accepted 18% grey card reading. Hence, reading the density off the "grey" area, which I believe is nearer to 20% reflectance, will report a higher density than had you initially metered directly off the grey of test target. This means, your exposure is about spot on!

Check this by taking an incident reading as usual then, using the same meter read the grey area directly (get as close as you can without influencing the light falling on the target). Lastly, use your spot meter to measure directly off the grey area. I'd be surprised if you cannot close the apparent 2 stop over exposure difference in the exposure readings. Fred

 

[rpavich]

I think the issue resolves itself with this information. Your test target is used mainly for computer generated imaging the "grey" area being used for white balance purposes. This "middle grey" is lighter than the average reading obtained using the meter in incident mode. Probably the Sekonic is calibrated to a 14% rather than the accepted 18% grey card reading. Hence, reading the density off the "grey" area, which I believe is nearer to 20% reflectance, will report a higher density than had you initially metered directly off the grey of test target. This means, your exposure is about spot on!

Check this by taking an incident reading as usual then, using the same meter read the grey area directly (get as close as you can without influencing the light falling on the target). Lastly, use your spot meter to measure directly off the grey area. I'd be surprised if you cannot close the apparent 2 stop over exposure difference in the exposure readings. Fred

Fred,
I couldn't sleep so I did this.

I took an incident meter reading at the same spot (in the house and lighting) as before and it read 1/20 at f/2 / 400 same as before, but a spot meter reading on the same target read EV4.
So I moved the grey target and turned on a few more house lights until it read EV 5.

Then I took an actual grey target card that I realized I had that has zones 2-7 on it and a big 5x7 zone V. The zone V part metered exactly EV 5.

So I took several shots with my camera at the recommended settings of 1/30 f/2 / 400.

I also checked my camera's meter by filling the frame with the Zn V card and it was spot on in the middle of the dial.

It seems like all of the targets agree; they are zone V.

I'm in the process now of developing my negs. Unfortunately, this roll is Kentmere 400 because I don't get my next batch of HP5 until tomorrow. I'll develop it at the recommended time/temp and post what I get.