Awesome! Would be interested to hear what they say.
Modern densitometer choices
-
A
- Thread starter dkonigs
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
Awesome! Would be interested to hear what they say.
OP
OP
Okay, here's their reply:
This kinda screams for a DIY project, except that even a DIY project would still face the same calibration problems.
(At least for now, even if my 810TR isn't giving me "traceably accurate" numbers, its still useful in providing relative measurements... e.g. reference strip vs process strips, or paper base vs exposed area)
Hi Derek,
I'm sorry but we do not have any transmission step wedges that have RGB calibration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Morris
Stouffer Industries
Not the least bit surprising, to be honest. What is surprising, is that I still cannot seem to find ANY new products that would clearly meet my needs. The closest I've come is vague suggestions to "ask a lab who has what you've been unable to find, to help you out." In all my furious searching, I did find one company (Acurad) who claims to service these older densitometers and provide test strips for them. We'll see if they respond to my inquiry.I'm sorry but we do not have any transmission step wedges that have RGB calibration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Morris
Stouffer Industries
This kinda screams for a DIY project, except that even a DIY project would still face the same calibration problems.
(At least for now, even if my 810TR isn't giving me "traceably accurate" numbers, its still useful in providing relative measurements... e.g. reference strip vs process strips, or paper base vs exposed area)
Just calibrate color channels to a ND filter. My calibration patch is made of B&W film, it is not technically Neutral, but the green matches perfect and the red and blue are pretty close. A true ND filter will show all three colors the same density.
Tobias Densitometer Tune Up
Tobias Densitometer Tune Up
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,318
- Format
- 4x5 Format
Have you reached out to X-Rite? Let me know if you need an inside assist.
It’s not true that a neutral gray would read equally on the different channels. That’s why you see different readings written on the calibration scale. The scale itself will fade over time, but nowhere near as much as the effect of dust and grime on the optics. Filters inside the head will fade. Even the electronics will degrade over time more than that standard. There is only one thing that you can know for certain is correct. And it’s that standard, when it is new. But because your standard is old - you just have one more piece of uncertainty.
I think you will be able to trust your existing standard as far as your own “personal, educational” use goes. If your densitometer finishes its “calibration” routine today... great. Write down your results and be glad the machine did its job. It will be very good. I’d guess within +/-0.03 of “reality”.
The only time I fret over the inaccuracy of my measurements is when I am reading sensitometry strips that a friend developed. Then I go so far as read my calibrated scale next to the friend’s negative and interpolate the differences in readings. It’s messy but what I have to with my primitive tools.
In other words it only matters when you are doing it for someone else.
It’s not true that a neutral gray would read equally on the different channels. That’s why you see different readings written on the calibration scale. The scale itself will fade over time, but nowhere near as much as the effect of dust and grime on the optics. Filters inside the head will fade. Even the electronics will degrade over time more than that standard. There is only one thing that you can know for certain is correct. And it’s that standard, when it is new. But because your standard is old - you just have one more piece of uncertainty.
I think you will be able to trust your existing standard as far as your own “personal, educational” use goes. If your densitometer finishes its “calibration” routine today... great. Write down your results and be glad the machine did its job. It will be very good. I’d guess within +/-0.03 of “reality”.
The only time I fret over the inaccuracy of my measurements is when I am reading sensitometry strips that a friend developed. Then I go so far as read my calibrated scale next to the friend’s negative and interpolate the differences in readings. It’s messy but what I have to with my primitive tools.
In other words it only matters when you are doing it for someone else.
OP
OP
So I did reach out to a company that still services and supports these old X-Rite densitometers (Acurad, http://www.acurad.net/ ) and got a rather interesting and detailed response. The short version is that the only difference between the transmission calibration strips that X-Rite still sells, and the one for the 810TR (810-68) is the labeling and calibration numbers provided with it. So they apparently have a way to perform NIST-tracable calibration on their own set of X-Rite densitometers (from the 810TR's era) and will thus provide new test strips they make by calibrating and labeling the current X-Rite ones with the appropriate numbers for the older machines. They also will re-calibrate your old test strips. (And they also service/calibrate the instruments themselves.)
This still doesn't answer my question about actually wanting new products that will perform the same functions, but it does give me a way to have more confidence in my ability to keep something like the 810TR useful and sufficiently accurate for the foreseeable future.
This still doesn't answer my question about actually wanting new products that will perform the same functions, but it does give me a way to have more confidence in my ability to keep something like the 810TR useful and sufficiently accurate for the foreseeable future.
I have been thinking making my own densitometer, just for my own reference (checking if my print has the paper dMax) but maybe it could be calibrated somehow. The idea was presented here (by who else than koraks 
) https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diy-light-meter-for-darkroom.169398/page-2#post-2204322 - where I built a DIY darkroom meter succesfully. Not saying that DIY is an real option but just a notification for DIY'ers that it is totally possible to do a densitometer by yourself. Maybe not calibrated to standards but I am sure it works in my own reference scale.
) https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diy-light-meter-for-darkroom.169398/page-2#post-2204322 - where I built a DIY darkroom meter succesfully. Not saying that DIY is an real option but just a notification for DIY'ers that it is totally possible to do a densitometer by yourself. Maybe not calibrated to standards but I am sure it works in my own reference scale.By the way the way, the Heiland densitomerers come with both, a calibration transmission- and reflection-stepwedge.
(This is explicitedly stated for the white-light version, I assume this is true for the RGB versions too...)
(This is explicitedly stated for the white-light version, I assume this is true for the RGB versions too...)
I found a link http://www.eseco-speedmaster.com/ST5specsheet.pdf would this help?
OP
OP
No. As far as I can tell, that's just an old product spec sheet of something that's not much different from what Stouffer sells off-the-shelf.
However, Acurad (company I mentioned in an earlier post) does sell new calibration step-wedges for the X-Rite color densitometers. I bought one from them, and it got the job done.
Of course the fundamental problem here is that I'm still not aware of any newer product that could take the place of these old X-Rite clunkers.
https://heilandelectronic.de/de_opt08 I'm not sure id the filters are status AorM
OP
OP
I also previously followed up on that one. They're clearly not designed for use as a color densitometer, and that feature is designed more for specific films that might need to be measured against certain colors of light. So its possible that it might work (or get close) by accident, but certainly not by design.
-
- ic-racer
- Deleted
OP
OP
Its easy for me. Modern LED-based light sources and modern sensors aren't going to require constant faffing around to make sure they stay reliably in-calibration. Nor are they going to have the same sorts of age-related degradation/failure issues.
i'm sorry you had a bad experience with your older unit, I'd not call that common. One of my units had a loose connection on the power supply, that was easily rectified. Otherwise, I'm not familiar with any 'faffling around' to stay in calibration. I did have 'age related' issue with the light source, but was clever enough to unscrew the burned-out incandescent lamp and screw in a replacement.
A few months ago (probably around the time this thread was last active) I asked Heiland on their Instagram channel in a post with their densi. They replied that it couldn't be used for reading C41 control strips, because the spectrum of the four colour LED is not was is required. I read this as: it's not Status-M, you're on your own. According to the product page the colour version is useful for other non-photographic applications and possibly when reading b/w negatives made with staining developers.
I just bought the TRD-2 model (Merry Christmas!) and it came with calibration strips for transmission and reflective modes. Each has four values, including zero.
The reflective one looks like matte FB paper and has continuous tone grey patches.
The transmission wedge is film with halftone patches. I.e. dot pattern. I guess the dots are completely opaque.
I have the colour filters from a Kodak Model 1 densitometer. The ancient bakelite one. They are 1x1 cm in size, each. Filter sandwiched between two glass plates. Due to the halftone transmission wedge I read the exact same calibration values through all colour filters (after zeroing on the first one, of course). I didn't play with the reflective mode and colour filters.
But I did try a patch on my 21 step Stouffer wedge and did read different values for different colour channels. I zeroed with only the respective filter on the densitometer.
I'm writing this in this thread only for completeness. I'd like to continue the discussion regarding those Kodak colour filters in another thread called 'Flexicolor Reference: b-2020-c41.pdf' in the Color Forum. I'm wondering if those Kodak filters are Status-M or otherwise good enough to allow me to use C41 control stips. At least well enough to monitor a replenished process and see which direction it is drifting to. My home processing will never be as perfectly in control as it is in a Pro Lab, in any case. But I'd like to keep it good enough to use the negatives for colour printing.
What about this one?
The main issue I have with my X-Ritge 880 is that it is very difficult for any of my 3 sensitometers to make the strips it needs. It is designed for commercial produced test strips.
It is not impossible, however. Do you have the manual?
This first example is the what is required if you want to try to create a commercially produced test strip:
It is not impossible, however. Do you have the manual?
This first example is the what is required if you want to try to create a commercially produced test strip:
If you look in the back of the manual, it shows how to make your own test strip that the machine will read. Realize they are showing this to test INTERNEGATIVE film, as they assume all other negative material will be tested with the commercially available test strips. Of course that is not the case, so you would use this method to test ANY film, not just INTERNEGATIVE film. This is not clear from the manual, so I'm pointing it out.
Otherwise one could read the manual and think the unit is useless without the commercially produced strips.
Otherwise one could read the manual and think the unit is useless without the commercially produced strips.
OP
OP
I'm looking for something (that's not a relic of the 80's on 3rd party maintenance life support) that can do Status A color reflection densitometry and Status M color transmission densitometry. (with Status A transmission being a bonus, but not a requirement)
Looking over the Tobias website, they do appear to sell (or at least support) a few densitometers:
In the reflection category, they have the IQ150/IQ200, which are Status T or E. (Color paper needs Status A)
In the transmission category, they only have the TBX1000C, which is Status A (Color negative needs Status M), though they do claim custom filters may be available upon request.
(Also in the reflection category, there is mention of the IQ1000/IQ1500/IQ2000 which can do Status A, but its unclear if this is a product they actually still sell. This info is buried in the product info for the IQ4000, and not linked to directly.)
So by the public information, which looks like something they had an intern with circa-1996 web skills haphazardly throw together, its unclear if they even still have products that could potentially do what I'm looking for. Its also unclear how anyone even buys their products (outside of establishing some sort of relationship with a middleman dealer).
Its also not clear whether these products are even still in production, or are any better or more reliable/servicable than an old/used X-Rite 810TR.
Hey, dkoings aren't you the one making the fantastic enlarger timer/meter. You can make your dream densitometer. If it is as nice your the enlarger meter, I'd even want one and I already have 3 different densitometers and 3 different sensitometers.
OP
OP
Believe me, the thought has crossed my mind.
The problem is that a densitometer (at least done right) requires a fair bit of care and attention to the optical path. There's also probably a fair bit of calibration necessary to get good results. Finally, spectrum matters, and the parts you'd use aren't always designed for people who care about such things.
That being said, I am somewhat curious about what the cross-section of the Heiland TRD-2 looks like. It does seem like a far simpler (and more modern) design than most of the serious densitometers. However, it doesn't do color, and is essentially useless for "absolute" density measurements. (It works great for relative density, compared to paper or film base, however. That being said, when calibrating my enlarger meter, I do want relative density. But when measuring process control strips, I'd rather have absolute density.)
Finally, I've recently felt that I should add a sensitometer to my collection. It would certainly make B&W process control a lot easier. (As the only off-the-shelf strips still sold are for Ilford FP4, and currently out of stock in the usual places.) The struggle there is deciding which one to actually buy, since most of the obvious hits are for blue/green units designed for different purposes. (And it doesn't help that the majority of existing forum threads on this subject are clogged full of people who think the OP is asking about densitometers, which ends up derailing and confusing the majority of the conversation.)
OP
OP
Honestly, I'd even be fine with old and used. I just don't know what keywords to be searching for. (given that nearly everything I find is blue/green, and its unclear if that's a good or bad thing, or if it requires modifications)
I'd be more concerned with the light path of a sensitometer. For example the light path of the Tobias densitometer is pretty simple. A reflector lamp, small diffusor and the sensor with a rubber o-ring to keep stray light out. It is adjusted for optimum performance by moving the lamp up and down.
The same company (Tobias), in the construction of their sensitometer, has a special design diffuser, a long light path, to minimize cosine, a stepper motor with shutter. In fact the majority of the construction of the sensitometer is the light path; there is not much else in the box.
In a nutshell, the densitometer light path only has to be repeatable and stable, not neccessarily even as long as the target patches are even. Since it can be zeroed before each reading, repeatability is easier to design into the system.
The sensitometer light source has to be perfectly even throughout the entire length of the step wedge. This is a formidable task. And it has to be more perfectly repeatable.
I compared all my sensitometers here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-great-sensitometer-shootout.95837/
The same company (Tobias), in the construction of their sensitometer, has a special design diffuser, a long light path, to minimize cosine, a stepper motor with shutter. In fact the majority of the construction of the sensitometer is the light path; there is not much else in the box.
In a nutshell, the densitometer light path only has to be repeatable and stable, not neccessarily even as long as the target patches are even. Since it can be zeroed before each reading, repeatability is easier to design into the system.
The sensitometer light source has to be perfectly even throughout the entire length of the step wedge. This is a formidable task. And it has to be more perfectly repeatable.
I compared all my sensitometers here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/the-great-sensitometer-shootout.95837/
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |