I am just going through Phil Davis's BTZS. It says set the f-Stop of the lens to f11 and roughly in focus. Raise the enlarger head to the point where a incident meter set for ISO 100 reads E.V. 4. At this point the exposure time should be 0.4 for 100 speed film.
Thank you PE, you have confirmed a concern I have with the exposure system described by Phil Davis - the colour temperature of the light.
If you test under using an enlarger bulb the colour temp is 2500 ~ 2800K
If you test using an open shadow under a clear blue sky the colour temp is aprox 12000K
If you test with in a sunny position under noon day sun then the colour temp is aprox 5600K
These will all give slightly different results (whether they are significant or not will depend upon a particular films colour response characteristics)
That would ensure optimal shadow renderition - unless
yellow, orange or other warm colored filter is used.
I set my exposure so that the fastest film type I use would give the 0.1 density near the dense end of the wedge. Then, if you standardize your exposure, you can do 'relative' speed comparisons, in addition to getting the slope of the curves.Hi,
I would like to use my step wedge (trasparent) for getting characteristic curves of the films easily.
If I have figured out everything properly, then best way to expose step wedge to the negative is contact printing.
That's okay so far... But how do I determine exposure time?
You will have to do some test exposures. The easiest way to keep things consistent is to use a dedicated light source. Like an extra enlarger. A flash, in a reproducible, fixed position would also work. But, really a sensitometer takes up less space than a dedicated enlarger, and, now days, they can be picked up for cheap. I got a Wejex (tungsten source) for $50 and an EG&G (xenon source) for $35.Or if I do contact printing at the dark room with white ceilings using flashes, how do I measure proper flash power for the print?
I set my exposure so that the fastest film type I use would give the 0.1 density near the dense end of the wedge. Then, if you standardize your exposure, you can do 'relative' speed comparisons, in addition to getting the slope of the curves.
You will have to do some test exposures. The easiest way to keep things consistent is to use a dedicated light source. Like an extra enlarger. A flash, in a reproducible, fixed position would also work. But, really a sensitometer takes up less space than a dedicated enlarger, and, now days, they can be picked up for cheap. I got a Wejex (tungsten source) for $50 and an EG&G (xenon source) for $35.
Why are shadows cool color wise? Dan
After having tested a lot.
One thing that I have found is that after all it is better to put step wedge inside the film back, tightly against the sheet film.
Otherwise there is too often reflections (probably light reflects from the surface of the film, then to the stouffer and then again back to film) which messes all up.
That made me thinking. What if I should build really DIY version of cheap sensitometer. For a short, there would be step wedge sized hole at the cardboard. The top of hole is opaque plastic glued or taped and then wedge above it (taped).
Now it's like a light table, but only opaque in the area of step wedge.
Then put this cardboard thing in the front of the camera, focus to wedge so that it is large enough at ground glass and make precise calculations for bellow extension correction.
Now, back of the back of the cardboard is for eg. white wall, white cardboard or something else that can be easily lit evenly. With a flashes, with a photo lamps, ...
And finally, the space between camera and cardboard must be protected from any light. It can be done by using more cardboard or perhaps some dark cloth..
And there it is. Simple sensitometer implementation which consist of view camera, cardboard, step wedge and lights
I have thought it a lot, but found no critical caveats. This aproach would be also good for roll film. Use 6x9 or 6x12 roll film back and you get several step wedges in the one roll. Then cut roll and give different development to each part. It can't be easier.
Or what do you think? :rolleyes:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?