How many of you have done this to find your "personal film speed"?

David Allen said:

These are based on teaching a lot of students - all of whom made rapid progress in achieving consistently well exposed negatives that delivered good quality prints / scans. This, in my opinion, was what the OP's was seeking to achieve. The OP had been using box speed and standard development and was not achieving the desired results.

Click to expand...

True.

Now it may be that the OP has poor metering technique or not the very many years of experience of some of the people posting on APUG.

Click to expand...

True again.

So does telling the OP that they have poor technique or lack of experience actually help them? Does telling the OP that all tests are senseless help? In my experience, the test and subsequent exposure methodology that I suggested will deliver consistently well exposed and developed negatives - which, presumably, is what the OP is seeking to achieve and was the reason the OP started the thread in the first place.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm hoping to develop consistency in my negatives. And I appreciate the test outline also. I'm going to give it a whirl this week.

2 thoughts:

When I got back into darkroom & film a couple years ago (mainly studio shooting with lights) I found that one of my fave combos - hp5+ with Rodinal - consistently needed to be rated around 250 to get the shadow detail I wanted. Didn't matter which camera or lens or shutter, or whether 35mm or 6x7. Those who say "but Rodinal - etc - etc - loses speed - bla bla". Well, rating my film as labeled and developing a standard time didn't work for me; and no amount of dev time messing opened up the shadows. It took a lot of rolls and finally some formal testing to figure out how the combo worked for me. The pro and con arguments about film speed on this thread are interesting and compelling... but the reality for me was "I needed to test this and find a better speed".

I really like how, in the 2 web pages that started this thread, the tests deal with the paper's D max and D min, in a simple way that doesn't require a densitometer. I have to agree that having negs that need filtering at the printing stage, often adjustments of 1.5 or 2 grades - is likely wasting a lot of your paper's potential for tonal range.

rpavich said:

Well..it's settled.

It works.

It's myth

Don't do it.

do it.

Oh well...I'll check it out and see if it has any effect on my consistency and exposure. It will be fun.

Click to expand...

Isn't it great to have so many Experts?

This is a re-post (italics) of a previous post in a similar thread. A couple of friends have been using it and feel it is worthwhile so I am sharing again:

Here's a down and dirty system that I use... First of all, I am a nut job with 3 densitometers and have been back and forth with many trials, mostly out of curiosity and wanting to learn over the years. Still, I normally rely on the following and general experience.

I have mounted a Stouffer RZ9 Zone strip to a Kodak gray card edge. I can quickly see if there is separation at the extreme zones and make some reasonably accurate decisions on exposure/development times, etc from a quick look. I always do this on new films or developer combinations. When I have a spare frame and/or remember to, I include a frame on known materials and equipment to catch if anything is going amiss on metering, solution activity, etc. I can also do subsequent frames up/down in exposure to determine shifts.

I've attached the card/zone combo to illustrate. The large gray card area also gives me a readable area for checking on a densitometer so I find it a usable, consistent reference point. I can also plot projected curves from the smaller step wedge areas if I want to delve further. I find myself doing less of this as experience starts to allow a lot of interpretation from a simple inspection with a loupe on the film.



This also allows for flare effects at the taking point. I believe that flare has much more effect than one would initially expect. I helped resurrect a local school darkroom a few years back and was pleased that the equipment was nice, respectable gear (good enlargers, various heads and 6 element Comp S, Rodagon and Nikkor lenses). Everything appeared in good order and the optics looked nice and clean at quick inspection. We chased our tails, getting bland, low contrast results. Inspection showed a very, very slight haze (almost imperceptible) in the lenses. I brought some optics from home and the difference was dramatic. It was at this point, I became less obsessed with hair-splitting densitometry testing!

I'm going to take saturday and do this test (described in post 20) but a question popped into my mind.
Let's say I find my personal optimum EI for HP-5 and my developer and all, and let's say it's 1/2 box speed. (making it 200)

If I spend a lot of time indoors and want to shoot HP5, normally I'd push it to 800 or 1250 and not give it a second thought, but how does this EI thing factor into that? Is it sort of an offset scale now? (For example; let's say my EI is 1/2 of what HP5 is rated at, so I'd shoot at 800 but develop as if it were 1600?) Does that "1/2 speed" idea carry over to pushing or would you stay away from pushing or what?
I'm just thinking out loud and I'd like your input.

I took the easy way out.

I noticed that just about everyone who did tests to find their personal EI ended up exposing for half the rated ISO (i.e. one extra stop of exposure) and reduced their development time by about 25%

I tried it and liked it - no tedious testing required!


Steve.

Steve Smith said:

I took the easy way out.

I noticed that just about everyone who did tests to find their personal EI ended up exposing for half the rated ISO (i.e. one extra stop of exposure) and reduced their development time by about 25%

I tried it and liked it - no tedious testing required!


Steve.

Click to expand...

Lol...I may do that also!

What about pushing? Do you apply the 1/2 and 25% factor to the push recipe?

Sirius Glass said:

I only have over fifty years experience with many different slide and print films in cameras ranging from single frame 35mm to 4"x5" including processing and printing. I also have over four decades of designing optical systems, telescopes, remote sensing instruments and focal plane arrays. That includes working for a little yellow box company in upstate New York. You probably never heard of the company. It was Eastman Kodak.

Click to expand...

Gerald C Koch said:

Film manufacturers spend a lot of time, energy and money on quality control. My question for the testanistas is what makes you think that you can really do a better job? They have all the necessary equipment to do it right. Additionally if you are getting an EI very different from box speed you need to look not at film testing but your equipment.

Click to expand...

Coming from a guy who has never done any sort of testing (but seriously considering doing it now), why are you so resistant to the idea of such simple tests? I don't mean to come across as antagonizing; I seriously want to know why it is you think it's a complete waste of time.

For example, if I get mediocre results now without any sort of formal testing (I sometimes getting great prints so easily and sometimes I work hours on a print only never to be satisfied) and then I change my techniques based on the simple testing and I actually get above mediocre results, isn't it a plus? Believe me, I don't want to spend days and days and rolls and rolls on testing, I think I'd give up photography altogether if I had to do that. But this 1h test seems to make a whole lot of sense. It could mean saving 2-3 hours working on a print I never would have had.

To sum it up, if a tested regime works out better than an untested (for the individual), isn't it worth it?

KidA said:

To sum it up, if a tested regime works out better than an untested (for the individual), isn't it worth it?

Click to expand...

people should do what they want, and not really listen to extremes. if you want to do a simple bracket and develop test, by all means do it.
your meter might be off, your shutters might be a little fst or slo, and in the end, let the folks who are saying "don't test its a waste of effort and time"
say it, maybe it is a waste FOR THEM .. but you should really be the judge of whether it is a waste.

KidA said:

Coming from a guy who has never done any sort of testing (but seriously considering doing it now), why are you so resistant to the idea of such simple tests? I don't mean to come across as antagonizing; I seriously want to know why it is you think it's a complete waste of time.

For example, if I get mediocre results now without any sort of formal testing (I sometimes getting great prints so easily and sometimes I work hours on a print only never to be satisfied) and then I change my techniques based on the simple testing and I actually get above mediocre results, isn't it a plus? Believe me, I don't want to spend days and days and rolls and rolls on testing, I think I'd give up photography altogether if I had to do that. But this 1h test seems to make a whole lot of sense. It could mean saving 2-3 hours working on a print I never would have had.

To sum it up, if a tested regime works out better than an untested (for the individual), isn't it worth it?

Click to expand...

There is a difference between testing to permit you to decide what sorts of results appeal most to you/are most useful for you and testing for the purpose of formulating conclusions that you intend to apply in multiple situations.

If using a particular EI and a metering approach that makes sense and equipment you like to use and films you like to use to gives you negatives or slides you like working with, than that is a good personal EI.

So yes, if a tested regime does work better for you, it is a good idea.

Where the problems arise is where people try to deduce general rules from personal experiences.

Steve Smith said:

I took the easy way out.

I noticed that just about everyone who did tests to find their personal EI ended up exposing for half the rated ISO (i.e. one extra stop of exposure) and reduced their development time by about 25%

I tried it and liked it - no tedious testing required!


Steve.

Click to expand...

That makes sense if you are happy with the results and it does not involve endless useless redundant testing.

I wonder if people so against shooting a few rolls to gauge processing, and equipment
are also against exposing a few rolls of c41 Orr e6 to gauge film bias and how a lab works with
the film, if you haven't shot it or sent it to the lab before.
it's the same thing.
if these same folks do that ( test roll to a lab )
than I find it strange they are so against someone doing the same thing with b/w.
not quite sure how 2-3 rolls is the same as endless tests. granted there are
people who spend all their time doing one test or another with every film or developer
they can find... if that's what they like that's great ... but a couple of rolls isn't the same thing

Steve Smith said:

I took the easy way out.

I noticed that just about everyone who did tests to find their personal EI ended up exposing for half the rated ISO (i.e. one extra stop of exposure) and reduced their development time by about 25%

I tried it and liked it - no tedious testing required!


Steve.

Click to expand...

Yep! I heard Ralph Gibson tell a story about him asking Edward Weston once about Ansel and the zone system and exposure techniques etc. Apparently the response was Weston took an incident meter reading and added one stop.

Steve Smith said:

I took the easy way out.

I noticed that just about everyone who did tests to find their personal EI ended up exposing for half the rated ISO (i.e. one extra stop of exposure) and reduced their development time by about 25%

I tried it and liked it - no tedious testing required!


Steve.

Click to expand...

Great if that works for you and, yes, a number of people practicing the full Zone System and testing with densitometers do seem to end up with 1/2 box speed with roughly 20 - 25% reduction in development.

However, this is wildly different from the results obtained via the testing method I set out earlier in this thread which aims to identify an EI that relates to how someone meters, how their equipment is performing, how they process, etc.

I have recently done a number of tests with students using this methodology and using HC110 Dilution B as the starting point (all are currently not developing many films per month - or come from places where it is hard to buy chemicals - and so HC110 was chosen for its remarkable storage capacity).

In all cases, film development was:
2 Min pre-soak
6.5 Min development in a Paterson tank with 4 inversions in the first 30 seconds and then 1 inversion every 30 seconds thereafter.
Rapid fixer
Ilford wash sequence

In all cases, print test development for Minimum black, EI and development time (Zone VIII) tests were:
using Foma Variant RC glossy, development time of 2 Mins in Dokumol 1 + 6

Results were:
Various Leicas all with modern ASPH lenses = EI 200
Nikormat with same era 35mm lens = EI 400
1950s Rolleiflex with 80mm lens = EI 400
Minolta SRT 101b with period 35mm lens = EI 800 (a subsequent test revealed this to be the result of the shutter running consistently slow across the whole range)
Nikon FM with same era 28mm lens = EI 200

In all cases, the development time was no more than 10% out either way (very minimal when you consider the range of grades available on modern VC papers).

It is because of these remarkable variations that I have seen over the years (even differing EIs between the same make of camera) that I recommend to someone like the OP to undertake this simple but boring test so that they can then get out taking photographs with confidence in obtaining consistently technically good results.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

That's VERY interesting David, I'm looking forward to testing tomorrow and reporting what I find.

Michael R 1974 said:

Hi Doremus, as you know we've been through this in great detail in many threads. I started out, like many people, with the Zone System. When I eventually learnt a little about film speed, exposure, sensitometry, and tone reproduction, I realized many of the things we do when it comes to "calibration" are superfluous and/or misleading. It isn't all bad, of course, but a lot of it is.

Re why so many Zone System practitioners advocate finding a personal EI, mostly tradition, combined with a lack of understanding of exposure/film speed and tone reproduction.

a. We are commonly told things such as testing for an EI yields a film speed based on how "you work". This is mostly incorrect. We are led to believe there are all sorts of processing differences which will lead to different film speeds. Actually the biggest variables are in metering and evaluating subject luminances. The standard Zone System EI test doesn't address these factors. Further, even if it did, differences in the ways each of us judge subject luminances are unlikely to be consistent. We are also sometimes told finding a personal EI compensates for things like aperture or shutter inaccuracies. Again, the test doesn't really address these. Unless you test for an EI with every lens on every camera at every aperture/shutter speed combination, under a variety of scene situations...

b. With the majority of modern films, used with properly formulated developers, the EI result of a Zone System test is predictable, and doesn't tell us anything new - unless your equipment is way out of whack. With few exceptions, people come up with EIs 1/2 to 1 stop lower than ISO speeds. Why? Because the Zone System methodology locates the speed point 2/3 stop below the ISO speed point. Why? Basically because it has a larger safety factor dating from when meters, shutters and emulsions were much less consistent/reliable.

c. The Zone System test is a no-flare test. Under actual photographic conditions, flare distorts the way low subject luminances fall on the characteristic curve. From a Zone System perspective (ie fixed density target for speed point), this means speed under shooting conditions will always end up higher than in a no-flare test, and contrast in the lowest "Zones" will end up lower than we expect. Flare is another very important reason why contrary to what we're sometimes told, a Zone System EI test does not give us more "realistic" film speeds for use under actual shooting conditions (we are also often told ISO speeds are "laboratory" numbers).

d. ISO speeds are rooted in tone reproduction and print quality. A fundamental concept is that the speed point has to do with contrast in that area relative to overall contrast. Zone System EIs don't do that since they are based on finding a fixed density speed point (usually .10 above fog). One interesting consequence of this is that when developing to higher or lower than normal contrast, Zone System EIs move more than exposure theory says they should

e. Related to the points above, Zone System calibrations tend to give us a false sense of the control and precision we can achieve when making negatives.

It follows from all of the above that barring extreme procedures/materials, there isn't much need to actually test for a Zone System EI. Rather than it being a test which somehow "reveals" new information, all it really does is confirm the difference in methodology relative to what's on the box. You can just skip the test, know that a Zone System EI will nearly always end up around 2/3 stop below ISO by definition, round that to 1 stop, and you're done.​

Please excuse typos, etc.

Click to expand...

Hi Michael,

Just now saw your reply and do appreciate your taking time to go into detail. I am aware of all of this and concur; and, I don't want to flog a dead horse here, however, if you're not opposed to continuing the discussion I'd like to run a couple of things by you to get your opinion about them.

First, my "calibration" for E.I. and development times is completely visual out of necessity. I have (and had) no densitometer to measure film or paper density. I therefore used the method outlined in "The New Zone System Manual" which seems to work well, albeit unquantified, for me.

I shoot Zone 0 through Zone VIII or IX on a few sheets of film with my camera and a reliable lens with tested shutter speeds (and using lower speeds to minimize error) of a real-world subject in natural lighting conditions. This should add flare to my system in about the same amount as regular shooting. I develop these negatives and print them with an enlarger (i.e., not contact printing) at about my standard enlarger height with my good old Componon or Rodagon enlarging lenses. This should introduce about the same amount of flare at this step as normal enlarging. I indeed print to achieve a "minimum time for maximum black" with the qualification that my "maximum black" is visually determined under what I consider to be typical display lighting (maybe a bit on the bright side...). I then make Zone Rulers (as outlined in the "Manual") at that exposure/aperture/enlarger height combination. Important for me is not only where the Zones fall in relation to shadow detail and paper-base white, but how they relate to each other in terms of higher or lower amounts of separation and where "Zone V" really ends up. I make my best "Ruler" that still gives me a visually deep black under my chosen lighting on a paper I use most and consider "standard" for the work I do and the look I like. I do the same for contraction and expansion development schemes as I do for "normal."

Completely subjective, I realize, but this gives me the visualization tools I need to work with. I know where "Zone V" is going to end up with N, N-2 and N+2 (and it's rarely 18% grey...) I can visualize the mid-tone and shadow separation for each of these a whole lot easier by having had my "Rulers" to consult as I was learning the scale of tones. I'd be interested to hear your take on this method.

FWIW, my E.I.s are normally 1/3 to 2/3 stop slower than ISO speeds (often erring on the side of overexposure and safety factor) and they don't vary that much for extended or contracted development; one stop more for N-2, 2/3 stop less for N+2...

The chief benefit of these tests, however, is not finding my E.I. or developing time, but being able to see the range of tones and how they spread along the curve so that I can better visualize what's going to happen before I release the shutter. For that reason, I really think some kind of testing is more than useful to the beginning large-format photographer (less so maybe for roll-film users).

Best,

Doremus

Well...weekend over, testing over and it was all interesting.

I found that for me, I have to shoot Kentmere 400 at 200 and develop it for 10% less time than recommended in D76.

I also found that I can shoot it at 800 and develop it in D76 for the recommended time + 15% (on Massive Dev Chart) and it will yield acceptable negs and printing.

I haven't gotten my loupe yet, these are just the observations by looking at the negatives as closely as possible and printing a few samples.

I'm glad I did it, it inspired me to go back and redo my old contact sheets to truly evaluate my previously shot and developed negs, and also it forced me to make an effort to become more consistent with my exposure technique. Both were positive steps for me.

Thanks again for all of your help.

You will need a very heavy dense neg for this to work. Been there, done that.

I use a grey scale. Shoot at least exposure to get printable separation in two darkest steps. Develop so the highlight is pure white or close and the lightest grey step next to it prints properly.

Same method for 120, 4x5, and 35 mm any film for 50 years now. Perfect prints

Ronald Moravec said:

You will need a very heavy dense neg for this to work. Been there, done that.

I use a grey scale. Shoot at least exposure to get printable separation in two darkest steps. Develop so the highlight is pure white or close and the lightest grey step next to it prints properly.

Same method for 120, 4x5, and 35 mm any film for 50 years now. Perfect prints

Click to expand...

Very interesting! I never thought of that.

So, why is that the article says to shoot for shadows on zone I and for highlights zone VIII? Wouldn't you want the highest highs printed to be at least zone IX or X? And also for the blackest blacks: why zone I and not 0 for the complete blackness? In theory, this particular method is cutting the toes and shoulders short, no? Is zone I close to base+fog is that why it's is used instead of zone 0 on the shadow side? But the highlights, I really don't get why such a quick cut-off.

Another Vestal student here--I worked through his plan, which is well explained in one of his books. Not only did it help me develop a strategy for getting good exposures, it also helped me zero in on what I really wanted to see in a print. It also taught me not to blindly accept what other people regard as "standards". Over the years my tastes have floated around a bit, but Vestal's approach helps me know what's going on and where I need to go.

I have never understood why some people feel the need to be dismissively scornful of things which they so very obviously don't understand.

KidA said:

So, why is that the article says to shoot for shadows on zone I and for highlights zone VIII? Wouldn't you want the highest highs printed to be at least zone IX or X? And also for the blackest blacks: why zone I and not 0 for the complete blackness? In theory, this particular method is cutting the toes and shoulders short, no? Is zone I close to base+fog is that why it's is used instead of zone 0 on the shadow side? But the highlights, I really don't get why such a quick cut-off.

Click to expand...

Anybody?

When "shadows" and "highlights" are used in that phrase, what is meant is "shadows with usable detail" and "highlights with usable detail".

Zone 0 and Zone X are reserved for featureless shadows and highlights.

Zone IX? Best to have room for a bit more at the top.

Sirius Glass said:

I only have over fifty years experience with many different slide and print films in cameras ranging from single frame 35mm to 4"x5" including processing and printing. I also have over four decades of designing optical systems, telescopes, remote sensing instruments and focal plane arrays. That includes working for a little yellow box company in upstate New York. You probably never heard of the company. It was Eastman Kodak.

Click to expand...

From kodak . "With black-and-white films there is a wide range of possible film and developer combinations. The choice of developers can be a significant factor in what film rating should be used. Accordingly, an EI is used to reflect the speed obtained with that developer"

Kodak's website explains the reasons why kodak itself often favours an EI over iso

https://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis185/cis185.pdf

sorry forgot link.

Replicating lab conditions at home perfectly seems unrealistic to me - your shutter speed, agitation, water and thermometer vs an industrial testing facility...

If one gets an EI of 1/3 or 1/2 stop less than box speed - then one is losing 1/3rd or 1/2 stop of shadow detail. Hardly the end of the world but if one wants to wring the most detail from a negative then its still a loss.

Doing the development test to see if you can actually get zone 9 to print as zone 9 rather than pure white - likewise. Not much point carefully metering a scene and then blowing out highlights in development.

To be honest thats not my way of printing - other people can do it infinitely better than me but it hones down the spot where film x in developer y for time z prints a full range of tones on paper a. From there you can jump off to do whatever you like with consistent and replicable results

10 shots - 9 on one roll - 1 on another - and 30 mins in darkroom over 4 sessions and thats it for a simple test.