getting a personal EI without an enlarger or densimeter?

[Bill Burk]

This must be why I am so totally confused about determining personal EI. I have several texts including The Negative, The Zone VI Workshop, and Perfect Exposure by Hicks and Shultz (sp?). None read like an engineering test procedure.

If Barnbaum and Thornton are so utterly wrong, where is the procedure to be followed if one does not have a densitometer? Is the below any good or is it utterly wrong too?

http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html

Regards,
Rob

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure about that article, I'd be more tempted to check out Zakia/Lorenz/White New Zone System Manual, because Zakia writes clearly and accurately.

But while I might say that most Zone System write-ups contain errors... Most of the errors cancel each other out, are minor, and in the end turn into reasonable procedures to follow.

 

[rbultman]

I'd be more tempted to check out Zakia/Lorenz/White New Zone System Manual, because Zakia writes clearly and accurately.

On order...

Regards,
Rob

 

[markbarendt]

None read like an engineering test procedure.

Giggle. Nor should they.

The ISO standard is "the" engineering test procedure.

The intent of creating/using an EI is to make "your" photographic system work better. It is there to account for the difference between "your" system and the engineering test. "Your" lenses, "your" shutters, "your" agitation, "your" print preferences, "your" blah, blah, blah ...

Using somebody else's EI for your work is a guess at best, a folly more often IMO because it confuses the science in the users head and nudges people toward doing things that don't help. I believe that many of the systems build in bad decisions (for the student) based on the teacher's assumptions for his own work and worst of all upon the foundation of fixed grade paper.

 

[pdeeh]

The intent of creating/using an EI is to make "your" photographic system work better. It is there to account for the difference between "your" system and the engineering test [snippetysnip]

Using somebody else's EI for your work is a guess at best,

This is why it amazes me that the MDC is taken as seriously as it is, when in essence it is not much more than a huge compendium of other people's EIs.

I often wonder if it's a measure of how much slack there is available in film's response to exposure and development that the MDC can nevertheless prove apparently useful

 

[Saganich]

Since doing this a lot with a Macbeth densitometer I realized Zone I density is just obvious enough compared to the film edge so you really don't have to squint at the thing to tell there is a difference. My advise is make a couple Zone I exposures under same lighting situations, one at box and one at half-speed and compare the results but don't develop at full time, develop at half-time. If box speed is too much you will not see an obvious density difference with the film edge, so go with half speed. This will be as good as using a densitometer. Determining development times is another problem.

 

[markbarendt]

This is why it amazes me that the MDC is taken as seriously as it is, when in essence it is not much more than a huge compendium of other people's EIs.

I often wonder if it's a measure of how much slack there is available in film's response to exposure and development that the MDC can nevertheless prove apparently useful

Yep, hearsay gets turned into a chart and then all-of-a-sudden, it is taken as a standard.

 

[pentaxuser]

This raises the question. How are the MDC figures arrived at? Are they averages, based on everyone who submits their own figures. If so how many submissions might there be that lead to a figure for say D76 and Tmax 400 compared to a figure for a much less frequently used film and developer?

If the D76 figure is an average of say 200 submissions this might make it more reliable than 1 submission for a rare combination

What vetting is there for the submissions made? If my submission for a frequent combination of film and developer is a lot different from all the others received is it simply excluded?

At what point, if any, are submissions closed for the most frequently used combos?

I could see nothing on the MDC that indicates how each person's submission is used

pentaxuser

 

[rbultman]

Giggle. Nor should they.

The ISO standard is "the" engineering test procedure.

The intent of creating/using an EI is to make "your" photographic system work better. It is there to account for the difference between "your" system and the engineering test. "Your" lenses, "your" shutters, "your" agitation, "your" print preferences, "your" blah, blah, blah ...

Using somebody else's EI for your work is a guess at best, a folly more often IMO because it confuses the science in the users head and nudges people toward doing things that don't help. I believe that many of the systems build in bad decisions (for the student) based on the teacher's assumptions for his own work and worst of all upon the foundation of fixed grade paper.

What procedure do you use for determining your EI?

I'm not interested in what your actual EI is, but I am interested in how you get it. This is the "test procedure" aspect of it, the how do you do it. The differences in our personal EI's would then be the result of our equipment, film, developer and development regimen, and what you consider to be a "normal" scene for film testing. These items are the variables that then could cause us to have different EI's.

Here is the closest thing I have found to a somewhat simple explanation of a process of establishing an EI and something that comes close to a test procedure: http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/zone-system-film-testing.htm

I have completed the exposure step of this procedure but have not yet done the developing.

If the key to having a really great print starts with having a properly exposed negative for your process, I would think that this would have been fairly well understood and documented in the first 100 years of photography, including easy to follow procedures for various types of equipment (e.g. with or without a densitometer). It either really is hard to document, the people who have done the documenting are idiots, or there are multiple ways of arriving at an EI with none really being "better" than the others.

Regards,
Rob

 

[rbultman]

This raises the question. How are the MDC figures arrived at?

pentaxuser

The few I have looked at match the film/developer combo from the film data sheet. I'm not sure where the data comes from for combos not listed in the data sheets.

Regards,
Rob

 

[pdeeh]

MDC is a mixture of manufacturers' data (some of it wildly out of date) and user-submitted data.

Anyone can send DigitalTruth their film/dev/time information and there's every chance it will make its way onto the MDC. It's not vetted in any way.

 

[Xmas]

You would learn more by buying a box brownie and contacting each neg with a improvised frame than reading this thread.

 

[markbarendt]

What procedure do you use for determining your EI?

I shoot at several EI's in each given situation. (Studio, Back Lit, Front Lit, ...) Lets say 6 * 6.

I shoot tests with each of the specific tools I want to use: Holga, Nikon with old lens, Nikon with new lens, Mamiya, ... Lets say 12.

I shoot each film I might want to use in each situation. Lets say 5.

(Please notice that the number of possibilities of tests is getting large.) 6*6*12*5=2160

Then I print the resulting negatives onto my chosen media a few times each to see what works. 3*2160=6480

That's kinda how I started out. It became obvious to me though very quickly that that path was overwhelming and that I needed to generalize.

This process, and an incident meter, taught me how to meter better/right.

Once I sorted my metering techniques I realized that box speed worked just fine for me.

The printing exercise taught me that I could generally print any negative from "1-under" to "2-over" and get exactly what I wanted.

The printing exercise also taught me that regardless of how I developed the film (+,-,or N) I could generally tweak the final print contrast with the VC paper where ever I needed it.

What I found was that taken as a whole the system had so much latitude that a personal EI didn't improve anything, it was a distraction that led me through many urban mythologies.

My advice to anyone is 1-to get an incident meter and learn how to use it, at least as your reference point to learn reflective metering if nothing else. 2-start experimenting with printing and ask would an EI change matter. 3-generalize where you can.

 

[pdeeh]

And if you want help with point 1) of markbarendt's short checklist, here's a very good place to start: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[baachitraka]

Where is the difficulty in exposing 2-stops under and 2-stops over with the metered value from your meter and develop according to the manufacturer data and later adjust the developing time according to the required contrast?

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

 

[Xmas]

Where is the difficulty in exposing 2-stops under and 2-stops over with the metered value from your meter and develop according to the manufacturer data and later adjust the developing time according to the required contrast?

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

Way too practical...

 

[Maris]

I can do fancy tests if I have time but my quick 'n dirty approach with an unknown film goes like this:

I shoot the standard day-light scene (trees, houses, sky, clouds, road, cars) that's just a few steps beyond my darkroom door at a sequence of exposures.
The film is developed immediately and the negative with the shadow detail I want is the correct exposure.
Within minutes, before the light changes, I walk back into the scene with my light meter and do my standard metering procedure.
The EI setting that gives me the exposure I already know is correct is my "personal EI' for that film

 

[RobC]

The thing is that all us old codgers who have done all the sensitometry testing over the years and have a pretty good idea of how it all hangs together, can tell all the newbies we know best, which we probably do and have 100% confidence in what and how we're doing it. BUT enquiring minds want to go through the initiation process themselves and get it wrong just like we did before we finally undestood we'd been had with all the technical hype only to find it was really so simple if we just used manufacturers ISO speed and recommended developer dilutions, temps and times.

Sensitometry is a rite of passge for B+W photographers which MUST done before you can call yourself a real B+W photographer

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Towards the end of Thornton's article, he says, "I have never yet known a film speed that a zone 1 test did not discover to be lower than the maker's rating." This is expected as the the methodology between the Zone System and ISO speed standard are different. You wouldn't expect zero degrees to match up between a Fahrenheit thermometer and a Celsius thermometer.

How do I find my EI. I have a calibrated sensitometer. Well, it was once calibrated, but no one does that anymore. The resulting speed is what I set the meter to. The rest is understanding how I meter. The object of film speed testing is to determine the effective film speed by eliminating all the variables so all that remains is how the film responds to exposure under a given development. The rest is about application. Test it in the field. If you don't like the results then you know it's the equipment, or more likely your metering preference. As the effective film speeds tends to fall at or close to the ISO with most general developers, the simplest approach would be to skip the sensitometric testing, set the meter to the ISO speed, and then work to understand your metering preferences.

The Zone to Tone site appears to be just more Zone System regurgitation. Same stuff, stop down 4 stops, negative density range 1.25-1.35. Technically incorrect. These sites always have detailed testing instructions, yet they invariably fail to include many important variables. I've yet to see any of these sites refer to hold time (latent image keeping), or a meter's spectral biases, or have an accurate understanding of flare. What I do find positive about these types of sites is they teach the importance of consistency; however they also tend to impart a false sense of accuracy and precision.

 

[Bill Burk]

On order...

Regards,
Rob

I should have clarified... I haven't read it yet but I trust the author.
I ordered a copy too, so I will be able to critique it fairly.

 

[Bill Burk]

How do I find my EI. I have a calibrated sensitometer. Well, it was once calibrated, but no one does that anymore. The resulting speed is what I set the meter to. The rest is understanding how I meter.

That's what I do too. To those who don't already know - I bought Stephen's "extra" sensitometer. I find it is remarkably consistent, and even if I can't claim standard quality results, I can trust fresh Kodak TMY-2 film to be 400... when developed to the ASA parameters (to the best of my ability). I just move the speed scale of my graphs to align the test results with "400". Presto... calibrated well enough for what I am doing.

 

[RobC]

Thornton was adamant that the film rebate which is fb+fog is zone zero. If you apply the zone system full on then this is wrong. Why? becasue to get a visible difference between zone 0 and zone 1 in your print you need a minimum of 0.07 density difference between zone 0 and zone 1 in your negative. Using the film fb+fog (the film rebate) as zone zero doesn't usually give you that as you are too far down the curve where toe is virtually flat and zone 1 is too close to fb+fog. So zone zero should usually produce some density in the neg and the shallower the toe of the film the more that density for zone zero should be.

Now I realise the difference is porbably not worth worrying about but if you are trying to work to that level of accuracy and putting your exposures as low on the curve as you can, its technically wrong. It would be better to push them up the curve a 1/3 or half stop and ensure sufficient separation between zone zero and 1.

The point being that he, like a lot of zone system zealots got it wrong and wouldn't here otherwise. That's the way he did it. The next person would do it differently and swear their way is the best way. Well so what, who cares. If you get the results you want then it matters not a jot how you get there. But it is nice to understand what is happening and have 100% confidence in what you're doing and know how much to adjust things to get it right when you've been getting it wrong.

I have a densitometer and I do find it a useful time saving device whenever I test a new film dev combo. I can only do that because I have done tests previously and know what to expect and what my targets are. Without those tests there's always a small element of doubt so for me I guess its just an aid to confidence in knowing my materials and how they respond but knowing what I know now I understand that I really don't need it. But I just had to prove these things to myself, largely I think, becasue of all the conflicting and different methodologies for doing an EI test that are to be found in books and web forums.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

The point being that he, like a lot of zone system zealots got it wrong and wouldn't here otherwise. That's the way he did it. The next person would do it differently and swear their way is the best way. Well so what, who cares. If you get the results you want then it matters not a jot how you get there. But it is nice to understand what is happening and have 100% confidence in what you're doing and know how much to adjust things to get it right when you've been getting it wrong.

It starts to matter when they set themselves up as authorities and attempt to teach.

 

[Xmas]

The thing is that all us old codgers who have done all the sensitometry testing over the years and have a pretty good idea of how it all hangs together, can tell all the newbies we know best, which we probably do and have 100% confidence in what and how we're doing it. BUT enquiring minds want to go through the initiation process themselves and get it wrong just like we did before we finally undestood we'd been had with all the technical hype only to find it was really so simple if we just used manufacturers ISO speed and recommended developer dilutions, temps and times.

Sensitometry is a rite of passge for B+W photographers which MUST done before you can call yourself a real B+W photographer

'Which we probably do' ... ?

I went to a different school were you dropped off the film at the local chemist (pharmacy) and the camera only had one exposure setting.

It is important to tell people that fixing and washing are the critical steps... You can use coffee or pain killer for developing.

 

[markbarendt]

... if you are trying to work to that level of accuracy and putting your exposures as low on the curve as you can, its technically wrong. It would be better to push them up the curve a 1/3 or half stop and ensure sufficient separation between zone zero and 1.

Ok, so I'd like to call attention to what Rob is saying.

This statement shows two characteristics of the zone system that drive me nuts.

• The expected exposure accuracy.
• Just how close the zone system runs to under-exposure as a matter of course.

Minimizing exposure has benefits: minimizing grain and shutter time; but minimizing exposure means "your" EI has to be dang near perfect and your metering needs to be just right because when the target for "Zone I" is just a hair "thicker" than f+fb, then you are always just "that" one hair away from an underexposure. I will grant that when shooting at very small apertures, like f/32 with a slow film, shutter speed can be a big concern. We do need to ask ourselves how often most of us are there though.

The accuracy of the Zone system is not without practical benefit either: this makes 1st proofs/contacts easier/more standard to print; but what many people miss is that this "minimum exposure target" is really just the lower threshold of a wide range of exposure levels that can and will produce absolutely excellent, and IMO, no compromise prints.

Most people don't need to run as tight to the toe as the zone system asks, to do good work.

 

[removed account4]

the way i see it is
there are as many ways to make an exposure
and many ISOs as there are people, and are cameras
(because camera's shutters may not be accurate )
and if someone wants to go out of their way and make
all sorts of tests to accurately make an exposure
that is dovetailed to their camera and developing methodes
and maybe their paper/enlarger ( or sc-machine ) more power to them !
they have patience, and get an A+ for effort !
i don't worry about it. i over expose a litte ( or maybe a lot )
and i sometimes know what to exect and even if i don't
i don't worry about it because chances are i will be able to print it ...
(or sc- it ) and if my negtive is a little thin or a little dense my world won't end.
i gave up on perfection a long time ago .. and i don't really care if my negatives aren't perfect ...
YMMV