I have a friend who is getting into B&W film. He understands that a proper negative is very important and as such wants to test to get his own Exposure indexes, or film speeds, to shoot at. problem is at this time he has no enlarger (he might pick one up if he gets really into it) and no densimeter. he asked me if there is a way to get an EI of his own for his developer without those 2 key items. I had no idea so I thought I would ask you guys for any advice you might have.
thanks
john
Quantitive analysis of a negative can be obtained with a light meter in the absence of a densitometer.
Very interesting.. can you point to some links.. or what do you call it, so one can make a search.. on how to do it.
thanks..
I obsess about shadow detail. If you overexpose a neg somewhat, you might be able to salvage the print; but if nothing is down there in the
shadows to begin with, too late. Same ole rule: expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. But some people sure make this axiom
way more complicated than it needs to be. If I'm experimenting with an unfamiliar film it generally takes me just two or three shots bracketed for ASA to bag my personal EI with any given developer. And I don't even bother pulling out my densitometer for this. With a bit of experience it's pretty easy to evaluate on a lightbox if you've got sufficient shadow exposure. And a few minutes printing tests strips, and I know if I'm right on track or not. One you're actually on the road, it's easier to adjust your style of exposure, 'cause ya gotta mate it to your printing style too!
Bill, do me a favour. Take your kodak grey card, I assume you have one, and zeroise your densitomer on its white side and then measure the density of its grey side.
What is the grey side reading and please explain why its only 2 1/3 stops from pure white. Then explain the relationship of that to a grey card being zone V.
I'm all ears....
It works from the relationship of density and f/stops... an f/stop is 0.30 density units. So if you have a meter that indicates third-stop increments, each increment is 0.10 density...
You can rig up a light table... aim the lightmeter at the light... then put the negative in between and count how far the needle dips.
What kind of light meter do you have? It will help us find a model of a densitometer built from it. For example, I have an old book by Katherine Chamberlain - An Introduction to the Science of Photography - that shows how to use a GE light meter and a door hinge. Phil Davis shows how to convert a Gossen Luna Pro or Minolta spotmeter to a densitometer in Beyond the Zone System.
Once you get the thing rigged up we can explain how to read it.
Bill, do me a favour. Take your kodak grey card, I assume you have one, and zeroise your densitomer on its white side and then measure the density of its grey side.
What is the grey side reading and please explain why its only 2 1/3 stops from pure white. Then explain the relationship of that to a grey card being zone V.
I'm all ears....
I know it's counter-intuitive, but go with grade 2 and expose for shadows rather than highlights. This will most likely render the highlights muddy, at least in my experience and with my equipment.How?
I would like to encourage you to visit the nearest farm producing peppers of any kind.He gets exactly the same SBR for every shot he takes so they all print perfectly [emoji23]
I know it's counter-intuitive, but go with grade 2 and expose for shadows rather than highlights. This will most likely render the highlights muddy, at least in my experience and with my equipment.
I realise that the above is a bit silly.
I know it's counter-intuitive, but go with grade 2 and expose for shadows rather than highlights. This will most likely render the highlights muddy, at least in my experience and with my equipment.
I realise that the above is a bit silly.
Ahh. I think I see where we differ in thought. For me that's not indicating a metering issue, nor a contrast issue.
In the situation you describe I typically see the highlight problem as one to be addressed with a bit of burn.
That's because it's not typically that the highlights are blocked on the negative (which would mean they had reached the negative's shoulder), the highlights are normally for me on the straight line of the negative, they are just out of range of the paper's straight line, maybe falling on the papers toe.
Think you meant shoulder but typed toe?
On a paper's curve the highlights print at the toe end.
well, the brain... will not be posting as he admits if he gets into this "film thing" he could spend all day on this site.
shoot some rolls at box, 2/3 box and half box
Most new photographers will under expose 1/2 of the images by statistical average.
Do you have any explanation why they might do this?
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?