I found out so far that when it comes to attachments, 600X800 is not the same as 800X600, that things sometimes go into limbo and that I don't know how to get them out.gainer said:That last attempt didn't go so well.
You must read Howard's report for that information. I presume that the tests were developed to nearly the same contrast index, as that is what Howard would require for his work. It has been a while since I read his paper. We corresponded enough to learn that he plays trumpet and I play oboe and we both are music lovers.PieterB said:This is very interesting. But how about development times?
Ha ha. The fact that the testing by its nature is slow, wouldn't help.gainer said:I did try it on the corrections Kodak supplied for the old Tri-X and it worked, with a different intercept at 1 second of course.
You only need to find the reciprocity correction for one indicated exposure time, but two would be better. The problem is that these experiments are quite tedious, as Howard Bond pointed out. I think it was several months after that project before he could stand to hear the word "reciprocity".
It has been my experience that there is a correlation between musical and mathematical ability also. Any semipro community symphony orchestra will have its share of mathemeticians, doctors, and other scientists, usually in the string section, but also among the winds.John McCallum said:Ha ha. The fact that the testing by its nature is slow, wouldn't help.
Thanks again. I've been a little unsure of Ilford's published reciprocity correction values for some time. Looking forward to giving your method a try.
Incidentally, it is interesting just how many avid photographers here have metioned they are also musicians - quite a few!
gainer said:It has been my experience that there is a correlation between musical and mathematical ability also.
METER TMY 400TX TMX HP5+ 100Delta
TIME
1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
2 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.1
3 3.4 4.0 3.4 3.6 3.3
4 4.6 5.6 4.7 5.0 4.4
5 5.8 7.3 5.9 6.4 5.6
8 10 13 10 11 9
10 13 17 13 14 12
15 20 29 21 23 19
20 28 42 29 33 26
30 45 72 47 55 41
40 64 107 67 80 58
50 84 146 89 107 76
60 106 188 112 137 95
90 179 338 191 238 157
120 262 515 281 356 227
180 455 941 491 635 387
300 928 2041 1011 1341 774
600 2532 5952 2785 3798 2057
Will S said:I do, however, carry around a piece of paper in my wallet that says:
TMAX100 MeteredTime ExposureTime Dev
4 5 N
8 14 N
15 27 N-1/2
30 60 N-1
60 150 N-1
120 360 N-1.5
4min 15min N-2
3min 35min N-3
15min 1hr15min N-3
Which I think I copied from somewhere here. This seems to work. I'm not sure if it graphs to a straight line though. Would this be in line with what has been described so far?
Thanks,
Will
John McCallum said:Incidentally, it is interesting just how many avid photographers here have metioned they are also musicians - quite a few!
Lee L said:Well, here's a graphical answer to your question, on linear rather than log axes if you're more comfortable reading them as curves. This graph is a comparison of Will S.'s "data" listed as Recommended, Gainer's calculations from the Bond data with the derived TMX factor of .069, and the traditional Schwarzschild formula using Robert Reeves' test results for a Schwarzschild exponent of 0.81 .
gainer said:SNIP.....
Due to the fact that the factor 1.62 works for these diffeent films of different manufacturers, it is my opinion that it will work for any current emulsion to acceptable accuracy. That is to say that I expect it to be within the spread among readings of indicated exposure made by a number of proficient photographers of the same scene. If this is the case, all one needs to know is the reciprocity correction to one indicated exposure to find the correction for any other indicated exposure. ....end snip
Bruce (Camclicker) said:So, after all the graphs and charts are drawn is it not true that a metered exposure of 10 seconds can be be multiplied by 1.62 to become 16.2 seconds and a 100 second exposure becomes 162 seconds? I don't really need a graph or chart for this do I?
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?