I am planning on getting a calibrated no.2 Kodak photo tablet, and I can cut the film to 120 and LF.Theoretically what you are trying to do is a good idea, but as you have discovered it's difficult to do in practice. You don't mention which type of Kodak step table you are using or what film format you use, and those make a difference, as well.
I have a speed and a few dev times that I think is good, just trying to figure out if it’s in the ballpark. If I had access to a densitomiter getting a super accurate ISO might be something I would look into, but until then “generally close” is fine.Instead, you can use a grey card and expose the film at different film speeds. But it's best to determine the development time of the film first. How do you determine that? It depends of what paper you are using and how you expose and develop it.
On a scale of 1 to 10 (EZ to COMPLEX) how accurate do you want your ISO to be?
Problem is this is an EI 3 film…Your enlarger should be fine. When I tested various 100 ISO films, I got good results with 2.5 or 5 Lux (depending on the film) at 0.8 seconds. For that, the enlarger head was pretty high above the film + steo wedge.
Of course, the lower you go, the more light you'll get. My suggestion would be to figure out how much Lux you want/need, and move the head while measuring the light until you reach your number.
this is an EI 3 film…
Wouldn't that be the EV indicated by a light meter if you were to expose the film through a lens? Note that this is not the same as the intensity of the light that you'll project onto the contact printing frame with your enlarger.I found that assuming EI 3 and 1 sec exposure with a 5.6 aperture, I need an EV of ≈4
Honestly no clue, guess the only way to find out is to just test it.Wouldn't that be the EV indicated by a light meter if you were to expose the film through a lens? Note that this is not the same as the intensity of the light that you'll project onto the contact printing frame with your enlarger.
Honestly this is just for my own curiosity since I happen to have the opportunity to get a step wedge.
But paper is designed to be exposed by an enlarger, not film.
Assuming you don't have a meter of some sort to use, since you only want a good approximation, just use your eyeball.
Since you have the development details set, all you need to do is take a few shots of a grey card -- or suitable substitute -- and vary the exposure.
Given that it is an ISO 3 film, it's probably fairly high contrast.
Start by taking an exposure at the ISO 3 setting, then -1f (under-expose the equivalent of a stop), then 2, then 3 , then four, then five. Develop and look at the negatives. Where do you lose the ability to see the difference between the exposed film and the unexposed edge? Was it 3, 4 or 5? Then fine-tune between those two exposures by 1/2f or 1/3f depending on your gear. With the ISO at 3, you will know what the approximate C.I. is at that development time. If you want a flatter C.I. then move the ISO down as much as you want.
By stopping down, you are effectively creating dark shadows, and when you can barely make out a very dark shadow, that's the bottom of your C.I. curve at that ISO.
Thanks, I was kind of hoping this would be offered by someone who knew (i.e. - not me: I just know of it, haha)! In hindsight, I should have just tagged you into the thread right away, my apologies.To get you into the ball park with exposure, using the conditions for ISO 6, the Hm for a EI 3 film would be 0.80 / 3 = 0.267 lxs. If you want that to fall around the 2.70 density on the step tablet, you will need 134 lxs of exposure.
Sounds fine to me, really. Since you're indeed working with these speciality films (@Stephen Benskin, you're right; look at e.g. what @MCB18 offers for sale - it's things like imagesetter film rolled into 120 etc.), you're not really looking at regular curve shapes to begin with. This means that whatever 'ISO' speed you attribute to the film, will have limited meaning as it doesn't really compare well with normal camera film. Based on how people decide to develop it, for instance, but also what their tolerance for open shadows is, effective EI's based on personal evaluation can differ over a range of many stops. I understand / assume you want to give a kind of ballpark figure for others who end up using your films. For that purpose, the 'throw at a wall, see what sticks' approach IMO would be just fine, especially if you include a few examples and notes on how you metered, exposed and developed the images. Added to that, you can of course still produce H+D curves using your step tablet. The only drawback is that you may not be able to put an absolute value on the horizontal axis, and as a result, not be able to determine an ISO speed that way. But it would still show curve shape under your testing conditions, which will certainly be useful to people.I think I’m just gonna take the approach of “throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks”.
Note: if you're trying to vary the exposure through camera settings, such as shutter speed and aperture,your results are subject to a great deal of variation, exactly what trying to use a step wedge is eliminating. If you have trouble fitting a step wedge into your camera or into your holder, try tapiing it to a window and take a close-up shot of that.
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?