Determine EI and development time - few questions

[Jessestr]

After a great talk on my other topic: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (Thanks for all the help there).

I decided to make a new topic on a different matter... It comes down to getting to know my own EI and development time.

1. First off a little practical experience. Because I had some problems (see previous topic) I took my Sony A7 with me on the next shoot (rarely gets used). Took exactly the same shots (even the same lens with adapter) with the same aperture/shutter speed and ISO. I had loaded HP5+ metered with my Minolta IVf and took the shot. Developed it in HC110 and I have almost a stop more shadow detail than I have on the Sony A7 ( without adjustments ). I feel like I'm overexposing at ISO 400 on HP5+, but is it possible that there is so much difference even with a speed losing developer like HC110?

2. Something theoretical. Let's just say I figured out my EI and it's 800 for HP5. Effectivly winning a stop of speed. And I have a development time of 5 minutes in HC-110 dilution B. So next time I meter my scene at 800 and get perfect negative exposure. Do I have to develop longer or does the development stay the same? (I'm not trying to push/pull). It's hard to explain but is there a relation between these two? Like will my negative density be the same if I expose at 400 and dev for 5 minutes (but having a stop of extra exposure) or expose at 800 (get the perfect exposure in the shadow) and also dev for 5 minutes. Will my density remain the same or will I need to figure out a new development time too?

Currently trying to figure out where to find a densitometer... Even local labs tell me they don't know what it is or that they don't have it. Very strange.

Thanks

 

[Paul Howell]

Digital sensors usually to do not have the same dynamic rage or latitude film, HP5 in HC 110 like Kodak Tri X or TMax 400 is know for having good dynamic range. Slow flims like Ilord 50 do have same the latitude and have more contrast.

If your personal EI is 800 with HC 110 at 5 minutes then that ought be your base EI and development time. If you are shooting a low or high contrast scene then you may want to expand or contract your development time to match the scene.

 

[Jessestr]

Digital sensors usually to do not have the same dynamic rage or latitude film, HP5 in HC 110 like Kodak Tri X or TMax 400 is know for having good dynamic range. Slow flims like Ilord 50 do have same the latitude and have more contrast.

If your personal EI is 800 with HC 110 at 5 minutes then that ought be your base EI and development time. If you are shooting a low or high contrast scene then you may want to expand or contract your development time to match the scene.

Aha, valuable information. Maybe to add, I was planning a shot with backlight, effectivly almost putting the skintones in zone 3. What I got was rather odd. I still had perfect details everywhere, the scene was overexposed. I don't use a spotmeter anymore since I don't want to go to deep with the zone system anymore.. What I've noticed on the scans was that the highlights were blown out though, hard to get them back. At the enlarger stage this would have been easier probably, but cannot see any clear definition of lines on the negative with a loupe in the dense parts.

I'd like to just know it for normal contrast scenes, I shoot a lot of 35mm and regulary 120 so developing individually is not really possible. Adjusting for higher or lower contrast scenes I'd do in the printing stage for myself.

 

[lauffray]

I'm a bit confused as to your question, if you expose at 800 and you don't adjust your development your shot will be underdeveloped underexposed. Why are you exposing at 800 if you don't want to push ? Is it to control contrast ?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

First, the extra shadow detail you see when shooting film at box speed is supposed to be there. That's the standard you should be using for determining E.I., not the clipped shadows from a digital sensor... In other words, don't compare apples and oranges. And don't try to get rid of shadow detail on your film by matching it to digital results.

As for exposing and developing roll film where you can't tailor development to individual scenes: You need to arrive at a standard development time that gets you in the middle of your other contrast-adjustment possibilities.

I recommend the following for roll-film users. First, use box speed or a bit slower (1/3-2/3 stop slower) and forget about the Zone System tests. This, of course, assumes that your equipment is exposing correctly. Then depending on how you meter adopt one of the following schemes:

For average or center-weighted metering (this includes most incident metering methods as well): Expose according to the meter for normal and low-contrast scenes. For high-contrast scenes overexpose one stop; for extremely high-contrast scenes overexpose two stops. (Yes, I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but be aware that in a high-contrast scene your averaging meter wants to dump the shadows; overexposing from what the meter tells you compensates for this.)

For metering based on shadow values (either spot metering and placing a shadow or taking a reflected reading from a shadow value to place). Expose as the meter indicates for the shadow-value placement you want and forget about the highlights; they will fall where they may and you'll just have to deal with the extra contrast for high-contrast scenes, or low contrast from low-contrast scenes when printing.

The trick for both these methods is nailing down a standard developing time that allows you to still make good prints from negatives that are at the contrast extremes. For me, this is usually a bit less-developed than most of the manufacturers' suggestions. You can make adjustments as you go; consistently having problems printing the low-contrast negs but not the high-contrast ones? Then increase development time a bit. Problems with the high-contrast negs but not the low-contrast ones? Reduce development a bit. After some time you'll have found your optimum developing time.

And exposure? Look at your shadows here. If you're not getting the shadow detail you want on your negatives, then increase exposure. Overexposure up to a couple of stops (and often more) is not such a big problem, but aiming for a minimum exposure that yields the shadow detail you want (and should have) is best. However, I err on the side of overexposure and often build a 1/3-2/3 stop safety factor into my personal E.I.s.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I'm a bit confused as to your question, if you expose at 800 and you don't adjust your development your shot will be underdeveloped. Why are you exposing at 800 if you don't want to push ? Is it to control contrast ?

No, the film will be underexposed. Development is a separate issue here. "Pushing" needs to be understood as intentionally underexposing your film (thereby sacrificing shadow detail) and then developing to a higher than normal contrast to get a more printable negative. This technique has a "look" that many like and has its place. Keep in mind, though, that it began as a compromise in order to get workable hand-held shutter speeds in low-light situations.

So, if you like the look of pushed film, then by all means, go for it. Just be aware that you aren't producing a negative with a full tonal range as generally accepted by the manufacturers and scientists.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Pioneer]

I am saving this one!

 

[Jessestr]

I'm a bit confused as to your question, if you expose at 800 and you don't adjust your development your shot will be underdeveloped underexposed. Why are you exposing at 800 if you don't want to push ? Is it to control contrast ?

No, the film will be underexposed. Development is a separate issue here. "Pushing" needs to be understood as intentionally underexposing your film (thereby sacrificing shadow detail) and then developing to a higher than normal contrast to get a more printable negative. This technique has a "look" that many like and has its place. Keep in mind, though, that it began as a compromise in order to get workable hand-held shutter speeds in low-light situations.

So, if you like the look of pushed film, then by all means, go for it. Just be aware that you aren't producing a negative with a full tonal range as generally accepted by the manufacturers and scientists.

Best,

Doremus

To both quotes. I'm not trying to push or underexpose my film. I'm just asking if my EI is 800 and I expose it at 800 so effectively exposing it correctly and develop it to get the right exposure, I was planning too. Since I seem to have way more shadow detail than a digital sensor with the same exposure.

 

[Paul Howell]

The EI or personal ISO may or may not match box speed, OP's light meter may be off just one stop, , shutter speed, aperture on a given lens may be off may be off by one stop, maybe more which accounts for shooting at ISO 800 rather than a true push. OP did not say what film camera he used, only that he metered with a Minolta hand held light meter. Confusing the issue is that some developers like Acufine allows for a given film to be exposed at a higher ISO without losing shadow detail with increased grain. On the other than hand a true push is underexposing and over developing generally 50% more development time per push which sacrifices shadow detail and increase grain and contrast. Metering for push is to meter for the highlights and let the shadows falls where they may. Expansion and contraction are terms used by followers of the Zone system to describe increasing or decreasing development time to match the visualized scene. As I recall development times can be increade or decreased by up 20%, maybe someone who uses the Zone will correct me.

 

[Paul Howell]

BTW, with Tmax 400 rated at 800 does not call for any additional development.

 

[kreeger]

Jessestr, If I understand what you are saying, you are trying to get to a baseline exposure and development time for HP5.
Before I answer, can you tell me this:

1) Is your desired final result a B&W print or a B&W digital image?
2) If B&W print, do you have your own personal enlarger or will you be always using the same enlarger to make your prints.

There can be such a wide range of variables, it is better to talk about how to quickly manage the things you can control.

 

[Jessestr]

First, the extra shadow detail you see when shooting film at box speed is supposed to be there. That's the standard you should be using for determining E.I., not the clipped shadows from a digital sensor... In other words, don't compare apples and oranges. And don't try to get rid of shadow detail on your film by matching it to digital results.

...

The trick for both these methods is nailing down a standard developing time that allows you to still make good prints from negatives that are at the contrast extremes. For me, this is usually a bit less-developed than most of the manufacturers' suggestions. You can make adjustments as you go; consistently having problems printing the low-contrast negs but not the high-contrast ones? Then increase development time a bit. Problems with the high-contrast negs but not the low-contrast ones? Reduce development a bit. After some time you'll have found your optimum developing time.

And exposure? Look at your shadows here. If you're not getting the shadow detail you want on your negatives, then increase exposure. Overexposure up to a couple of stops (and often more) is not such a big problem, but aiming for a minimum exposure that yields the shadow detail you want (and should have) is best. However, I err on the side of overexposure and often build a 1/3-2/3 stop safety factor into my personal E.I.s.

Best,

Doremus

You make everything sound so easy . I've highlighted something in bold which I want a bit more explanation on. How come this is different?
I've have a hard time to understand what is 'correct' in terms of film photography. You know in digital you just make sure you have the highlight detail you want and the shadows. You open the picture and it's "there" you can save some stuff with edits, but you don't have to figure out the right printing time.

Because with film, ok you make sure you have the shadow detail, in my case I did have MORE exposure detail. Ok I know it's just a scan but check this example of my tests.
The raw scan is just the negative in the scanner. I used the same lens and aperture/shutter and ISO. I metered with my Minolta IVf and got what I aimed for on the A7. I did not need all the shadow detail on the back of the girl since it was backlit / contour shot. However on film I seem to have the detail? Is this because my development method gives this or just because of how film works? And how should I deal with it? Leave it as is and get a longer printing time in the darkroom or underexpose more so I lose the shadow detail?

it's a crop of the full image ofcourse.

And second question
As for determing development time and exposure. Do you suggest just to find my ideal times/exposure method upon trial and error? Instead of using a densitometer? It sounds a bit more doable for me this way. Since I have to print a lot on grade 3-4 because of that, I have quite thin negs. I even had problems not having enough contrast in the darkroom with underexposed shots.

 

[Jessestr]

Jessestr, If I understand what you are saying, you are trying to get to a baseline exposure and development time for HP5.
Before I answer, can you tell me this:

1) Is your desired final result a B&W print or a B&W digital image?
2) If B&W print, do you have your own personal enlarger or will you be always using the same enlarger to make your prints.

There can be such a wide range of variables, it is better to talk about how to quickly manage the things you can control.

Thanks. I am trying to get a baseline exposure and time for HP5 yes! Or maybe other films too, but 99% of the time I used Tri-X.. switched to HP5 for bulk rolling.

1) Final result should be a black and white fiber print.
2) Yes. I used an M305 for long time but got my hands on my own Laborator 1200 with CLS500 Color head. With all the femoboxes.

 

[lauffray]

Based on what you posted, and especially if you print, keep the details on the negative. If you want darker or less detailed shadows than you can do that while printing.

 

[Jessestr]

Based on what you posted, and especially if you print, keep the details on the negative. If you want darker or less detailed shadows than you can do that while printing.

Okay thanks I kind of hate scanning. Takes so much valuable time that I could spend in the darkroom.. but people want their pictures right.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

One does not "win" film speed it is determined by the manufacturer. Assuming that your metering is correct, whenever you deviate from the box speed there is a price to pay. Underexpose film and lose shadow detail. Overexposure and get dense negatives which can be hard to print.

 

[lauffray]

I hear you, hate scanning too, so tedious :-/

 

[Paul Howell]

You make everything sound so easy . I've highlighted something in bold which I want a bit more explanation on. How come this is different?
I've have a hard time to understand what is 'correct' in terms of film photography. You know in digital you just make sure you have the highlight detail you want and the shadows. You open the picture and it's "there" you can save some stuff with edits, but you don't have to figure out the right printing time.

Because with film, ok you make sure you have the shadow detail, in my case I did have MORE exposure detail. Ok I know it's just a scan but check this example of my tests.
The raw scan is just the negative in the scanner. I used the same lens and aperture/shutter and ISO. I metered with my Minolta IVf and got what I aimed for on the A7. I did not need all the shadow detail on the back of the girl since it was backlit / contour shot. However on film I seem to have the detail? Is this because my development method gives this or just because of how film works? And how should I deal with it? Leave it as is and get a longer printing time in the darkroom or underexpose more so I lose the shadow detail?

it's a crop of the full image ofcourse.

View attachment 161196


And second question
As for determing development time and exposure. Do you suggest just to find my ideal times/exposure method upon trial and error? Instead of using a densitometer? It sounds a bit more doable for me this way. Since I have to print a lot on grade 3-4 because of that, I have quite thin negs. I even had problems not having enough contrast in the darkroom with underexposed shots.

If you don't have access to a densitometer, although you are working with 35, hold your negative over newsprint, you should be able to see detail through the darkest part of the negative which will be highlight and read print in the lightest area which be the shadows.

 

[Bill Burk]

Leave it as is and get longer printing times in the darkroom

It may help to think of a densitometer as a tool to predict how a negative will print.

Once you have a print, you see how it printed. You can use some deductive reasoning to figure out the effective densities of the negative.

For the past month or so I have been writing about a simple print test that will tell you the extent of development. Because a commonly accepted extent of development is an 0.50 gradient, you can aim for that simply by making two exposures of the same scene, two stops apart (Aiming for a resulting pair of negatives that have one stop of density difference, divided by two stops exposure difference, which equals 0.50). After you get a successful print of the thinner negative, print the denser negative at twice the time as the thinner negative. If the prints look the same, you have achieved a development of the negatives to 0.50 gradient.

You can get more information about how close you are to the right negative development time by comparing your second print to the test strip that you made while coming up with the first print.

If you do something weird with your metering technique, such as basing exposure on a single incident meter reading of the shady part of the scene (classic "Beyond the Zone System" usage), then 800 as the EI for a 400 speed film might give you correct exposure readings from the meter. But if you use the meter in a normal way, please consider using either the rated speed or... for better shadow detail, a speed 2/3 to 1 stop below rated speed. I can't see how this would be enough overexposure to make scanning difficult.

 

[David Allen]

"Let's just say I figured out my EI and it's 800 for HP5. Effectivly winning a stop of speed".

You are not ‘winning’ a stop of speed. What you are doing is compensating for an error which may be the shutter running slow, the aperture not stopping down effectively or your meter not giving a correct reading. If these things remain consistent then it is not a problem as your tests have identified how to correct for this.

What you have observed is much more common than many people believe. I have observed people with the same make and model of camera determining different E.I. when using the same film and developer. This is just a fact of life as there are so many variables to consider. So long as the results can be consistently achieved, there is no practical problem. In the past year, students with Minolta SRT models have consistently found that they need to use an E.I. higher than box speed (presumably due to a slow shutter) and people with Nikons generally get an E.I of box speed to half box speed. Leica users always end up with an E.I of half box speed.

For testing for E.I. there is no need for a densitometer (in fact it is better not to use one). The best way is to use the equipment you have to determine E.I. and development time. With roll film, your aim should be to develop so that an ‘average’ scene prints well and that scenes with above/under normal contrast are captured in such a way that you can correct for them at the printing stage. Achieving good shadow detail gives you a great deal of choice when making prints because you can then choose to include this in the final print or print down if that renders the scene how you imagined it. When you ‘print down’ a shadow area with lots of detail it will look much more ‘alive’ than an underexposed shadow area printed lighter to match how you visualised the scene in the final print.

If you are unsure about determining your EI and processing time, I have previously posted the testing regime I use with my students. This uses a combination of very sophisticated testing devices: your eyes, your equipment and your way of doing things. You can find the methodology in post #3 in this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Jesse,

I'll take a stab at your questions, in order, and trying to point out the differences between printing and scanning that seem to have led you to some false conclusions:

You make everything sound so easy . I've highlighted something in bold which I want a bit more explanation on. How come this is different?

First, digital capture results in a different set of tones than what is on a negative. The dynamic range is not as great and the separation curve is way different. And, most scanning software will expand or contract your the dynamic range on a negative to fit predetermined extremes of black and white. So, comparing a scanned neg with a digital capture is difficult if not pointless.

I've have a hard time to understand what is 'correct' in terms of film photography. You know in digital you just make sure you have the highlight detail you want and the shadows. You open the picture and it's "there" you can save some stuff with edits, but you don't have to figure out the right printing time.

"Correct" in photography boils down to what makes the most pleasing prints. This is not totally subjective. Manufacturers and photo scientists have done extensive research and testing over the years to come up with standards for film speed and contrast gradient that consistently produce the best negatives and prints. We need to use this as our starting point and deviate from it only when we want something different. Basically, a well exposed and developed negative (i.e., "correct") will yield a pleasing print when printed on a medium contrast grade at the minimum print exposure time to produce a pleasing black. The highlights and the mid-tones should all line up. I'm not talking about a fine-art print here, rather general rendering of information on the negative in a semi-realistic way. This is a fairly large window.

Scientists have boiled all this down into densities and sensitometer data, but you don't really need a densitometer to find this spot for yourself. Just print some negatives. Base your exposure for these tests on blacks and find the minimum time that yields a real black in your print or proof (search for "proper proof" for a lot more info). Once you have the black you want, evaluate the negative. Are the shadows to black and empty? =Underexposure. Are the highlights blown and lacking detail? = overexposed. Print had good blacks but is muddy and has no real whites even though there is adequate shadow detail? = Underdeveloped. And so forth.

Because with film, ok you make sure you have the shadow detail, in my case I did have MORE exposure detail. Ok I know it's just a scan but check this example of my tests.
The raw scan is just the negative in the scanner. I used the same lens and aperture/shutter and ISO. I metered with my Minolta IVf and got what I aimed for on the A7. I did not need all the shadow detail on the back of the girl since it was backlit / contour shot. However on film I seem to have the detail? Is this because my development method gives this or just because of how film works? And how should I deal with it? Leave it as is and get a longer printing time in the darkroom or underexpose more so I lose the shadow detail?

I'm not sure why there is such a difference between your neg scan and your digital capture. It may be your scanning software wanting to give you a fuller range of tones or your metering or the way your A7 works differently than film. However, that's all really irrelevant. There's no reason why you can't get the same image from you negative as you got from your A7 with a little manipulation.

There are several ways to go about it: You could simply meter the shadow in the scene and place it where you want it, i.e., lower and with no detail. This equates to your "underexpose more so I lose the shadow detail," but is not really underexposure; it's knowing what you want and how to get it with film. (And, maybe your E.I. of 800 would have worked here, but you should realize that you don't really have a different film speed; you're just using the film differently for this scene than "normal.")

Or, since you're shooting roll film and don't need to risk underexposure anyway, you can just "leave it as is and get a longer printing time in the darkroom." You should still be able to get what you want in the way of a print. I "print through" extra shadow detail all the time or burn down the shadows to get areas darker and lose some of the detail that would otherwise be rendered. That's a standard procedure for most photographers. What you can't do, however, is recover lost shadows from an underexposed negative.

What you should realize is that for this subject you want black, featureless shadows and lots of highlights and not much in the way of mid-tones; in other words, not a "normal" range of tones. Your digital capture likely, since it has a smaller dynamic range and compensates somewhat in low-light situations likely did some of the work for you.

And second question
As for determing development time and exposure. Do you suggest just to find my ideal times/exposure method upon trial and error? Instead of using a densitometer? It sounds a bit more doable for me this way. Since I have to print a lot on grade 3-4 because of that, I have quite thin negs. I even had problems not having enough contrast in the darkroom with underexposed shots.

Testing and trial-and-error is not a bad way to deal with this. I have never owned a densitometer; all my tests are based on making real prints from real subjects. And, unless your equipment is defective, don't bother with the test for personal E.I. Use box speed or about 2/3 slower for more shadow detail as a starting point and nail down your development time first.

Do the few tests you need to arrive approximately where you want and then fine-tune your development times and exposure based on problems that consistently appear in your further work. I'm always tweaking things a bit based on my field notes. I'll paraphrase the Kodak recommendations again, just for emphasis: "If your negatives are consistently lacking shadow detail, increase your basic exposure. If they are consistently too contrasty, reduce your development time, and vice-versa." "Consistently" is the key word here, since there are always scenes that have contrast ranges that are way outside of "normal." Part of your job as a photographer is to recognize these situations and know what to do (or not do) to get a usable negative.

If you consistently print a lot with higher-contrast paper settings, you likely want to increase your development times a bit (unless, of course you are consistently shooting in low-contrast situations, in which case printing on higher contrast would be expected; you have to evaluate the situations for this). Err on the side of overexposure, and fine-tune your development times so that normal scenes print well on a medium contrast grade as first steps.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

 

[Jessestr]

Thanks for the help everyone!!

Jesse,

........

Testing and trial-and-error is not a bad way to deal with this. I have never owned a densitometer; all my tests are based on making real prints from real subjects. And, unless your equipment is defective, don't bother with the test for personal E.I. Use box speed or about 2/3 slower for more shadow detail as a starting point and nail down your development time first.

Do the few tests you need to arrive approximately where you want and then fine-tune your development times and exposure based on problems that consistently appear in your further work. I'm always tweaking things a bit based on my field notes. I'll paraphrase the Kodak recommendations again, just for emphasis: "If your negatives are consistently lacking shadow detail, increase your basic exposure. If they are consistently too contrasty, reduce your development time, and vice-versa." "Consistently" is the key word here, since there are always scenes that have contrast ranges that are way outside of "normal." Part of your job as a photographer is to recognize these situations and know what to do (or not do) to get a usable negative.

If you consistently print a lot with higher-contrast paper settings, you likely want to increase your development times a bit (unless, of course you are consistently shooting in low-contrast situations, in which case printing on higher contrast would be expected; you have to evaluate the situations for this). Err on the side of overexposure, and fine-tune your development times so that normal scenes print well on a medium contrast grade as first steps.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

Thanks again Doremus! So I have a few practical questions right now. I did a series of almost anything indoors with window light, quite diffused, quick falloff in light. So subject contrast was not too big, but the background falls off quite quickly. Still had to print at grade 3-4-5 and sometimes I couldn't print because I underexposed and could not get deep blacks. So I don't know if that's a normal scene or low contrast scene. Which I can tell you is, probably the most brightest part in my scenes were the highlights on the skintones, so no zone 7,8,9. (see pictures as example also had to print these at grade 4 - these are scans that match the print). This is most of the time the type of light I worked with, diffuse window light with falloff But for that purpose I should have used a longer development time right?

The first image I had to print grade 4 to remove the shadow detail from the couch she was lying on.
The second image is just diffuse window light falling on the subject. Also had to print grade 4, probably because the development time was not enough. I had to do this for almost ALL my exhibition pictures, sometimes not, even though the negs looked the same in density.. and was kind of the same lightning..

If this is a low contrast scene (I don't know what you define for a normal contrast scene or high contrast scene) - then it's normal that I have to print higher grades right. But is it a good habit to change my dev time for MY habits? So to make it easier to print every time?



Basically I now switched to a lot to more fashion / hard contrast light like high sun or beauty dishes which cast hard shadows on the face and body. So it might be that these contrast scenes are high which would print better / easier with the same development time than I used for the pictures shown above. So is it a good habit to change the development time to what I currently do (I mostly do series in same light/type of light - so probably will be 1-2-3-4 years with the same type of lightning) sounds easier to adjust the dev time once and be able to print on grade 2 as a start... and change if necessary. Instead of starting at 2 and going higher and higher until you find it's okay.


Also you say this:

Use box speed or about 2/3 slower for more shadow detail as a starting point and nail down your development time first.

Firstly, I never have issues with shadow detail, I do portraits and I never suffered from too few shadow detail ( unless I underexposed when I had too ). So I guess exposure isn't the problem here. Development time is, but let's say I found my development time (just an example) and I feel like I have too few shadow detail, so I expose a little more next time, do I have to compensate the dev time again for the exposure or just leave it unchanged?

Many thanks for helping again..

 

[Jim Noel]

After a great talk on my other topic: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) (Thanks for all the help there).

I decided to make a new topic on a different matter... It comes down to getting to know my own EI and development time.

1. First off a little practical experience. Because I had some problems (see previous topic) I took my Sony A7 with me on the next shoot (rarely gets used). Took exactly the same shots (even the same lens with adapter) with the same aperture/shutter speed and ISO. I had loaded HP5+ metered with my Minolta IVf and took the shot. Developed it in HC110 and I have almost a stop more shadow detail than I have on the Sony A7 ( without adjustments ). I feel like I'm overexposing at ISO 400 on HP5+, but is it possible that there is so much difference even with a speed losing developer like HC110?

2. Something theoretical. Let's just say I figured out my EI and it's 800 for HP5. Effectivly winning a stop of speed. And I have a development time of 5 minutes in HC-110 dilution B. So next time I meter my scene at 800 and get perfect negative exposure. Do I have to develop longer or does the development stay the same? (I'm not trying to push/pull). It's hard to explain but is there a relation between these two? Like will my negative density be the same if I expose at 400 and dev for 5 minutes (but having a stop of extra exposure) or expose at 800 (get the perfect exposure in the shadow) and also dev for 5 minutes. Will my density remain the same or will I need to figure out a new development time too?

Currently trying to figure out where to find a densitometer... Even local labs tell me they don't know what it is or that they don't have it. Very strange.

Thanks

You are mixing not appleas and oranges, but bananas and coconuts when you attempt to make a comparison between digital and analog.
If you tested and discovered your exposure indexis 800 when the film was developed for 5 minutes, then develop for 5 minutes.

 

[M Carter]

Not totally off-topic, but if you want to speed up testing of ISO, development time and agitation effects - and not spend a ton on film...

For 35mm, cut a bunch of little rectangles of blue painter's tape, like 1/8" x 1/4". Fold them in half to make a sticky "tab".

Load your camera and shoot a bracket of your test setup (try to setup a still life with artificial lights so it will stay the same for a day). Put on the lens cap and shoot one blank frame. In the changing bag or darkroom, open the back and stick a tab in the middle of the black frame - just roughly centered at the lens. I keep the tabs on the prism to find 'em in the dark.

Shoot another set of brackets, add the blank frame and tab, repeat until the roll is done. Rewind the film. When you go to load your reel, feel for the tabs - cut the roll at the tab (remove the tape), stash the rest of the roll in a film vial. Run your first dev. test. With one-shot dev, you should still be able to dev all your tests if you mix a full tank of dev. You can see pretty quickly the effects of dev. time on YOUR film, with your gear, and your particular developing techniques. No questions, no what-ifs - this is how your chosen exposures will work with your world. Maybe do a few brackets flat, and then find a high-contrast scene if you want to suss out + or -n times.

It's probably optimal to dry and test-print (or scan) each bracket if you want to know how ISO and developing translates to the final product - before you develop the next bracket, in fact. (I do 5x7's at grade 2.5 or so). I don't go nuts perfecting a print, I just want to see shadow and highlight and DR on my paper, with my enlarger, my process. And you can just pec-wipe and blow-dry the film - not like a scratch or some dust matters for what you're doing. If your shadow detail isn't coming through, more exposure (lower ISO) - which should exist in your bracketing. If your highlights are blown, less dev. (which is why you have some undeveloped, exposed brackets waiting).

For testing 120 film, it's a little less precise. You need an uncut roll of developed negs, and make a "scale" on a piece of long paper. Mark each frame line, and mark the END of the roll, in a way you can feel in the dark (a wadded up bit of tape). For an RB (10 exposures) I'll shoot a 4 frame bracket, shoot 2 blanks, and then 4 more frames. When I load the reel, I'll use the measuring paper to cut the roll in half. So I'll get two tests from one roll of 120. You can get 5 or 6 brackets from a roll of 35.

TAKE GOOD NOTES. Save the film and test prints (or raw scans) somewhere. Good chance you'll want to refer to it later.

 

[Bill Burk]

Although I initially recommended 0.50 gradient (and a test to find that), when you do studio lighting that might have lower contrast subject lighting ratios, you might consider developing longer. It would be great if you could develop a feel for how long to develop for different conditions... and that you vary your development depending on what you shot.