I am in the middle of my first serious film speed test. I found it convenient to use a clear blue northern sky to represent a uniform surface to photograph, instead of a standard gray-card (which I don´t have). It now strikes me that the blue color/spectrum of the sky, together with the spectral sensitivity of my film (Ilford FP4+), might give me miss-leading results from the test. Does anyone have any comments on this?
What kind of a 'serious film speed test' are you conducting? Be specific, a full blown speed and development test or a simple one-roll speed test for normal development?
By the way you put it, I guess it is more of a simple one-roll speed test. I shot a roll with {blank, -4, -3.5, -3, -2.5, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5} exposures. I intend to use my enlarger meter (Darkroom Automatic) to find b+f and the frame/EI corresponding to an appropriate zone I.5 density. I will use the same measurement procedure to verify if current my development time renders an appropriate zone VIII.5 density.
... I shot a roll with {blank, -4, -3.5, -3, -2.5, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 3, 3.5, 4, 4.5} exposures. I intend to use my enlarger meter (Darkroom Automatic) to find b+f and the frame/EI corresponding to an appropriate zone I.5 density. ...
This is my plan: If the -3.5 exposure renders a zone I.5 density (approx 0.17 o.d.), then I am happy with the speed that I assumed while shooting the roll. Then I will proceed and check the density of the 3.5 exposure. If this exposure has an appropriate zone VIII.5 density (approx 1.37 o.d), then I will also be happy with my dev.time. If the negative is to thin I will have to increase my dev.time. If the negative is to dense, I will have to decrease my dev.time.
As regards my discussion about gray-card vs. the blue northern sky, I realize that a gray-card is more appropriate. I can however not stop myself from reason about the (in)-appropriateness of using a northern sky. Ilfords data-sheet indicates that FP4+'s sensitivity to blue (approx 450nm) is about average as compared to the sensitivity to other wavelengths. My test-roll should therefor be OK to use!?. I will probably develop my film and complete my testing procedure, for curiosity, and then do another test some other time, using a purchased gray-card. I guess the bigger underlying question is to which extent the lightning conditions used while testing for film-speeds should match a the lightning conditions normally used by a photographer...
... Ilfords data-sheet indicates that FP4+'s sensitivity to blue (approx 450nm) is about average as compared to the sensitivity to other wavelengths. ...
I am aware that the wedge diagram was captured using tungsten light. I do not know the corresponding wedge diagram using any other light-source, but I guess any difference could be related to the spectrum of the different sources, thus I predict that a day-light diagram do not have such a strong sensitivity to the yellowish portion of the diagram. Anyhow, this is just speculations. As said, I will complete my test for curiosity and then maybe compare the results with a later new test. I gratefully appreciate the discussion, it made me realize a thing or two....
Look up the recent thread on APUG about Ctein's Post Exposure book being made freely available via download in .pdf format. Download the book. There's a section on testing film/meter spectral sensitivity using a MacBeth (now X-Rite) Color Checker.