getting a personal EI without an enlarger or densimeter?

[ic-racer]

Most new photographers will under expose 1/2 of the images by statistical average. They wont be able to judge a correctly exposed negative on the light table unless any of you are present to coach the novice. Quantitive analysis of a negative can be obtained with a light meter in the absence of a densitometer.

 

[Bill Burk]

RobC, I have to disagree with you on this one, we just see the necessity to learn this stuff differently - it doesn't rise to the level of the Mortensen/Adams conflict though.

ic-racer and silveror0, I agree with you both.

A person can go a whole lifetime shooting black and white negative film at rated speed and developing to the published charts... I think the common disclaimer that is supposed to make it work - "use as a starting point and adjust as you see fit" - is lost on most beginners who never learn how to "adjust accordingly".

The results can be beautiful just the same as the results from a person who learns to recognize when film has been exposed enough and developed enough.

But the person who does learn, gains some confidence.

 

[Bill Burk]

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

Let us know what your friend does have... so we can design a densitometer out of it.

 

[peter k.]

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..

 

[Bill Burk]

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..

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.

 

[RobC]

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....

 

[Jim Jones]

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!

I totally agree. If you're worried about blocking the highlights, cut the development a bit and restore contrast in printing. For me, normal development works fine with an exposure index of 1/2 the ISO.

 

[Bill Burk]

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 explained it in this thread...

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

Basically any gray at all will serve if you are doing "meter Zone V and place on Zone I" because you cause a 4 stop difference from whatever value exists to the exposure that you give... 18% gray is not Zone V... But four stops above Zone I is Zone V... And that might be a gray card. But that's just a coincidence.

You are right that in terms of density, 18% gray is nominally 0.74 and the white side is 0.04 with difference 0.70 that is 2 1/3 stops nominally. But this information isn't used in classic Zone System tests. Ansel Adams didn't understand it... So his procedures didn't deal with it.

 

[removed account4]

John (op)
Why don't you suggest your friend bracket 3 rolls.of film and develop 1 as recommended for box speed. 1 30% more and 1 30% less and have him look at the film and prints and decide who h he likes best.
No denitometer needed, nust personal.preference ...no stepwedges, fa cy equipment, maybe even just contact prints.... If your friend is printing with an enlarger, contact printing, or e larging using the devil.machi e his personal iso will be different foe each end print method ..they all.NEED a different type of negative to.mame their best type of prints ....
Good luck!
John

Ps.bulk.rolls.make.small test.rolls ezpz

 

[peter k.]

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.

Haha.. ok I'm a Classic Manual Camera kind of guy... the light meter, converted over to modern batteries, is a Weston Ranger 9... in fact have, an use two of them.
Thanks for the reply, Most likely would not change my work flow... or how I shoot, but I'm intrigued to see how and if this would work ... and ya never know...

 

[Steve Smith]

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....

Is it because the white side isn't 100% reflective?


Steve.

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

How?

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.

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

He gets exactly the same SBR for every shot he takes so they all print perfectly [emoji23]

I would like to encourage you to visit the nearest farm producing peppers of any kind.

Seriously, don't ridicule people like that in a discussion. It is really rude.

 

[Xmas]

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.

If you don't have silver in your grade 1 shadows they are going to be 'dark'.
How you then map the negative on to silver halide paper.

- since you may be developing for 35 other exposures or
- wanting a low or high key shot
- want to emphasise a part

Etc.

One school of printing had the mid range opened out and the shadows and highlights masked burnt and dodged...

So muddy is only if you print for muddy.

If you are shooting plates or cut film you could alter development ...

PS I really liked linkoping green with envy

 

[RobC]

here's what you haven't haven't considered. fb+fog to zone 10 should be density range 1.3. If you are using zone system, zone 1 of 0 thru 10 should be density 0.1.

BUT if you are using manufacturers film speed and dev you only have zones 0 thru 7.5 but they still occupy density range of 1.3. So zone 1 will be 0.173 and not 0.1 which means you have plenty more room for your shadows if your SBR is "normal".

 

[markbarendt]

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.

 

[Xmas]

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?

 

[markbarendt]

Think you meant shoulder but typed toe?

On a paper's curve the highlights print at the toe end.

 

[destroya]

well, the brain (what all his friends call him) has decided to shoot some rolls at box, 2/3 box and half box develop based on the massive chart and the speeds listed for the times listed, gotta start somewhere, and just inspect the negs on a light box to see which looks best. he had a copy of image clarity so he's gonna shoot a blank fram to use as a base fog image and just do a simple comparison to see which has closest match as well as how the normal picts look.

i expect this to take some time. and it would not surprise me for the guy to shoot 10+ rolls for this experiment. but I'll admit, if and when he comes to his preference, I'll be trying out his results out of curiosity.

thanks again for your help guys. he has read the thread and also wants to say thanks. but he will not be posting as he admits if he gets into this "film thing" he could spend all day on this site.

john

 

[Xmas]

On a paper's curve the highlights print at the toe end.

Oops yes

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

In my youth I took precise calibration very seriously. I tested/measured everything and did everything exactly the same every single time. When I finally get back into black-and-white processing and printing then I'll judge my negs and prints with my naked eyes rather than bother with densitometric measurements. I will, however, keep my processes extremely consistent.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

He really is smart.

 

[Bill Burk]

shoot some rolls at box, 2/3 box and half box

Box speed, 2/3 stop beneath box speed, half box speed...
So for example: 400, 250, 200

I'd recommend taking a picture of some flat gray thing at what the meter says, and then opening up two stops and taking a second shot of the flat gray thing again.
-The resulting pair can be used to find out if the development time is good.

 

[Bill Burk]

Most new photographers will under expose 1/2 of the images by statistical average.

Do you have any explanation why they might do this?

 

[markbarendt]

Do you have any explanation why they might do this?

No camera support.