A observation about reading newsprint through highlights

[Ozxplorer]

I think you will get an accurate measure and truer density exposure indication because you will now be measuring the density of the subject actually metered for & exposed! Fingers crossed! Fred

 

[rpavich]

I think you will get an accurate measure and truer density exposure indication because you will now be measuring the density of the subject actually metered for & exposed! Fingers crossed! Fred

Lol..I hope so!
This is what I was shooting at just now. The left size has several zones (3 to 8) and the card on the right is a giant zone V card.

 

[rpavich]

Well...I think that this mystery is just about solved.

I shot this as I said, spot metered for zone V with the grey card you saw above and for the metered reading of 1/30 at f/2 I got the following density numbers:

All metered from the zone steps on the left side of the card with V metered from the large 5x7 area:

V = .95

VIII = .34

III = 1.37

With setting the camera for 1 stop UNDEREXPOSED (based on the spot meter of the grey card) I got the following:

V = .75

VIII = .13

III = 1.22


It appears that I'm overexposing or said another way, for "stock" development that underexposing 1 stop gives me a zone V that is dead on the money...right?

 

[rpavich]

And here is an iPhone shot of the negative and step wedge.
are we SURE that zone V should match the #6 step and not the #8?

 

[Ozxplorer]

About zone 7 is looking good possibly more development need for increased contrast density in the highlights - Zone 8. Placement of zones V & III I reckon is on the money. But, just to clarify, you measured using the spot meter with your camera in manual mode you either increased the ISO (400 to 800), increased the shutter speed - to 60th sec or increased (closed down) the aperture for an under exposure result? Fred

 

[rpavich]

About zone 7 is looking good possibly more development need for increased contrast density in the highlights - Zone 8. Placement of zones V & III I reckon is on the money. But, just to clarify, you measured using the spot meter with your camera in manual mode you either increased the ISO (400 to 800), increased the shutter speed - to 60th sec or increased (closed down) the aperture for an under exposure result? Fred

I measured using a pentax digital spot meter for all of this.
For going "one stop under" all I did was use the same exposure as previous shot and increased the shutter speed one stop.

I'm very surprised.

Both the "box speed" on this last test and the "one stop under" printed very well at grade 2 but the "one stop under" printed better. I'd have never predicted that in a million years.

For both prints I metered the Zone VIII for the highlight and the Zone III for the shadow and then increased the time until they were at the very ends of the Analyser pro "grey strip" (about 1/12 or 1/6 of a stop)

 

[Ozxplorer]

Grin.. QED! It appears you have come down the 2 stops originally over exposed to this stage. Your 15th sec @ f2.0 has become 60th sec @ f2.0... Next time, if you still have more of this film, try a little extended development or more agitation to increase the contrast a little more... Lastly, are you using Xtol diluted? If so you would gain a little film speed as a result. Fred

 

[rpavich]

Grin.. QED! It appears you have come down the 2 stops originally over exposed to this stage. Your 15th sec @ f2.0 has become 60th sec @ f2.0... Next time, if you still have more of this film, try a little extended development or more agitation to increase the contrast a little more... Lastly, are you using Xtol diluted? If so you would gain a little film speed as a result. Fred

Yes, I'm using it 1:1
Thanks for everything!

I'll try extending the dev time 10% or 15% next roll.

 

[Ozxplorer]

Stay in touch... MSG me with your progress. Lastly, as a suggestion, do some reading on using a light meter in both incident and reflected modes. Taking the exposure measurement is only the beginning to understanding the decision process needed as it applies to using the "zone system".

10:45pm in OZ now - I'm off to bed. Good luck, Fred

 

[sepiareverb]

Hi, apologies again, was quite a busy week here.

This is the image I used to base my exposure/development on:



PanF+ at ISO 40, developed in DD-X 1:4 for ten minutes. This image prints super easily at grade 2.25 or 2.5 in my darkroom with my usual materials. I read the highlights on the snow in the lower right corner, and this is what I've been using to fine tune my subsequent testing. The white on the tank is slightly less dense. In printing I burn in that corner a touch to keep the circle stronger.

Highlights: 1.55
Film Base + fog: 0.08

If I find my step tablet I can post a shot of the neg with it, but I've not seen it since my move here 6 years ago. Emailed Stouffer to see what they have left.

 

[rpavich]

Hi, apologies again, was quite a busy week here.

This is the image I used to base my exposure/development on:



PanF+ at ISO 40, developed in DD-X 1:4 for ten minutes. This image prints super easily at grade 2.25 or 2.5 in my darkroom with my usual materials. I read the highlights on the snow in the lower right corner, and this is what I've been using to fine tune my subsequent testing. The white on the tank is slightly less dense. In printing I burn in that corner a touch to keep the circle stronger.

Highlights: 1.55
Film Base + fog: 0.08

If I find my step tablet I can post a shot of the neg with it, but I've not seen it since my move here 6 years ago. Emailed Stouffer to see what they have left.

Interesting!
it would be useful to see this negative for sure (with some reference in the same shot possibly) thanks.

 

[sepiareverb]

didn't hear back from Stouffer today, hope they're still around...

 

[banandrew]

Sorry to revive this semi-old thread, but I was just in the process of figuring out developing times for FP4+ and HC-110, which is when I came upon this thread. I don't have any step wedges, or a densitometer, so I was thinking about the "you should be able to read newsprint through highlights" rule, and that's how I found this thread.

My question is, when trying to read the newsprint through the negative, do you put them on a lightbox or hold them up to a light? That's what is suggested, e.g. here: http://www.timlaytonfineart.com/blog/2016/8/how-to-read-a-black-and-white-film-negative
But that is the only time I've ever seen the test described that way. Obviously it makes a huge difference if the newspaper sheet is backlit or not.

EDIT: grammar and clarity

 

[klownshed]

If there's on thing I've learned from this thread, it is to completely ignore the 'newspaper rule'.

 

[banandrew]

If there's on thing I've learned from this thread, it is to completely ignore the 'newspaper rule'.

LMAO I sort of had that impression as well reading through this

 

[chris77]

If there's on thing I've learned from this thread, it is to completely ignore the 'newspaper rule'.

sorry, but you are wrong to look at it in this way.
to be just able to read newsprint through important highlights makes for prints with less grain and better separation in the higher lights.. more delicate.
imho there is a good reason not to push values higher than necessary, except in case of focussing mainly on shadows and good shadow separation..

 

[banandrew]

to be just able to read newsprint through important highlights makes for prints with less grain and better separation in the higher lights.. more delicate.

Could you clarify this statement for me please? Reading newsprint through the highlights is done when not backlit, correct? Secondly, important highlights, does this mean approximately "zone VII"? I am shooting test film of a blank wall, defocused and evenly lit, 35mm, with the following exposure compensations: +0, -5, -4, -3, +2, +3, +4. Does that mean I should be able to read text through the +2 frame? Or the +3 frame? And not the +4 frame? Also I am developing for a condenser enlarger.

 

[MattKing]

Could you clarify this statement for me please? Reading newsprint through the highlights is done when not backlit, correct? Secondly, important highlights, does this mean approximately "zone VII"? I am shooting test film of a blank wall, defocused and evenly lit, 35mm, with the following exposure compensations: +0, -5, -4, -3, +2, +3, +4. Does that mean I should be able to read text through the +2 frame? Or the +3 frame? And not the +4 frame? Also I am developing for a condenser enlarger.

I'm not sure the "newspaper" test works well with photos of blank walls.
When you perform the "newspaper" test you are observing whether or not you can see the detail in the newspaper text - the edges and shapes of the letters - through the darkest detail bearing parts of the negative. With your blank wall test negatives, it is difficult to differentiate the detail bearing parts from the detail free specular highlights.
FWIW, I always used to use a front lit piece of newspaper for the test.

 

[banandrew]

FWIW, I always used to use a front lit piece of newspaper for the test.

Thanks for being the first to answer this!

The "detail bearing" highlights, for a "normal contrast" scene, don't these fall on about Zone VII/VIII in the zone system? That was the reasoning for doing the test this way.

 

[chris77]

Thanks for being the first to answer this!

The "detail bearing" highlights, for a "normal contrast" scene, don't these fall on about Zone VII/VIII in the zone system? That was the reasoning for doing the test this way.

i agree with matt.
and yes, it depends of course on the scene, but generally speaking VII or VIII.
just try it out and you might also find that your prints are better when you keep the density within the limits.
really depending on the look you are after.
when i stopped overdeveloping (for no reason) my darkroom work became more enjoyable..
ps. i am using a condenser as well.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Many times I've read that proper negative contrast is indicated by being able to just barely read newsprint through the highlights on my negatives.

This is an old newspaper photographer's trick that I posted several years ago. I originally read about it in one of the photo magazines during the 50's. It is not quite quoted here as I explained it. It is used to measure the contrast of a negative. It works because when the negative is flush with the newsprint light must pass threw it twice before it reaches the eye. In doing so the perceived contrast is twice its actual contrast. So when the contrast appears correct to the eye the negative is correctly developed. To measure the density the light should pass through the negative only once. Therefore the negative must be held several inches away from the print. When you can easily read the print the contrast or density of the negative is correct. This explains too why newsprint is mentioned rather than something else, news photographer -- newspaper used.

To answer another post you do not use a light box as this would defeat the concept behind the test. When checking the density the newsprint should be well illuminated from the front.

The method is not intended to replace a step wedge or densitometer. But it is a quick method to show the user that things are mostly correct. As I mentioned in the original post it was used by newspapermen for decades when light meters were not readily available let alone densittometers.

 

[banandrew]

Wow, thanks Gerald, I hadn't seen it explained that way before. That's very clear and looking through old negatives that printed easily, they pass both of these tests.

On a side note, the FP4+ and HC-110 development times suggested by Ilford seem waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long...

 

[M Carter]

I always though the "read the highlights" thing was kind of silly and too random. I'm a firm believer in judging your development time by your final output, not just eyeballing the neg.

When I do initial film tests for ISO and developing with a given film/dev combo, I do several-frame snips, blow dry those off, and make a B&W print at grade 2.5, with my exposure time based on the max black the unexposed leader needs via 1 quick test strip. If it's off, I blow dry the reel and develop another strip. Usually I have film left to try things like different dilutions.

If you're developing your own film, it doesn't take much to find the process that gives you the best density and exposure for printing or scanning.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. One may think that they are doing things correctly. The newsprint test provides a very simple and quick method of determining whether exposure and development were proper for a certain negative.

The hard truth about film testing is that unless you follow exactly the tests given in the ISO standard you are NOT establishing the correct ISO speed for a film. You are merely establishing an EI for your particular method of working. If your speed differs from the box speed then you need to reevaluate your equipment.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for being the first to answer this!

The "detail bearing" highlights, for a "normal contrast" scene, don't these fall on about Zone VII/VIII in the zone system? That was the reasoning for doing the test this way.

Actually, I only half answered the question.
I don't know whether the test works with backlit newspaper, because I never thought to try it that way when I used to do the test.
I haven't used the test for a while - it works best as a way to learn how to read negatives, so once you have done that for awhile, you tend to go straight to examining the negatives themselves.
And the reason that I am unsure of whether it will work best with your testing regime is that I think it depends on having highlights with easily seen detail - not relatively featureless highlights.