Reciprocity misbehavior.

John McCallum

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,407
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
Gainer "...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"

This is tremendously helpful. I'd like to chime in my vote of thanks for sharing your work also Mr Gainer.

I do have one question, and pls accept my apologies if the implication is already clear.
From your statement we can assume the 1.62 to be a constant factor for all current emulsions (then it would make sense for it to apply to FP4 and 320TXP OK). I guess if we wished to establish the reciprocity correction for different emulsions from those established by Howard Bond, we would need to do our own experimentation?
 
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
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".
 
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
My reciprocity charts.

Here they are, I hope.
 
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
My reciprocity charts.

That last attempt didn't go so well.
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
Gainer reciprocity compared to Schwarzschild

Well, I couldn't let this go without comparing the results of Gainer's equations based on Bond's testing with the old standard Schwarzschild formula and tests done by Covington and Reeves.

For those unfamiliar with the Schwarzschild exponent, I'll just briefly explain it (using "spreadsheet mathematical notation"). Let p be the Schwarzschild exponent and t equal to exposure time in seconds. For a given effective film speed to be corrected in the range where the reciprocity law fails, the following equation applies:

Effective speed = Standard speed * t^(p-1)

Covington (page 180, Astrophotography for the Amateur, 2nd ed. ISBN 0-521-62740-0) says the following is more accurate, especially nearer the range where long exposure reciprocity is just beginning to fail:

Effective speed = Standard speed * (t+1)^(p-1)

This equation can be reworked to give revised exposure times as opposed to film speed:

Corrected exposure time = (Metered exposure time+1)^(1/p)-1

I've picked one film tested by both Covington and Bond, Ilford Delta 100, which Gainer gives a reciprocity factor of 0.046 using his equation. Covington's 1996 tests on Delta 100 assign an approximate Schwarzschild exponent of 0.85. Covington's tests are approximations to about 1/3 stop. I haven't read the Bond article, so I don't know his method, but from his other work, I expect accuracy and meticulous testing to be the norm, probably to a higher degree than Covington for several reasons. Astrophotographers are plagued by a host of other factors that rapidly overtake attempts to be very highly accurate when calculating exposure times, so it's pointless in that application to be overly careful with such testing. They mostly do this for relative comparsion of emulsions in deciding which film to use, not to nail down exposure times to a fraction of a stop with a particular film. Covington tests with this in mind and warns against using his results for elaborate calculations.

Given all that, I forged ahead and graphed the results from Covington's 1996 emulsion test and Bond's 2003 tests on Ilford Delta 100, using the appropriate Covington revision of the Schwarzschild formula and the Gainer formula describing Bond's data. The attached graph is the result. Covington's results run about 1/3 stop more correction early on, but Gainer's formula crosses over at a bit over 400 seconds metered exposure time. In practical terms the difference in using either equation in this instance is about 1/3 stop or less. Covington reports that reciprocity failure variations from batch-to-batch emulsion changes can be greater than this.

Covington (and Reeves in Wide-Field Astrophotography, ISBN 0-943396-64-6) list Schwarzschild exponents for a number of films in their books, but all on pre-2000 emulsions. Reeves includes 45 film tests, 12 of them B&W.

As Pat Gainer says, the testing is time consuming, but you could use the methods of Covington (also adopted by Reeves) to do some rough testing using a few frames on each roll during "normal" photography to get a data point for determining a Gainer film factor, or a Schwarzschild exponent for a given film. As always, doing this with sheet film will require more work, and very consistent processing methods.

Lee
 

Attachments

  • GainerVsSchwarzschildReciprocity.png
    6.1 KB · Views: 292
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
gainer said:
That last attempt didn't go so well.
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.
 

Attachments

  • 2figures.gif
    71.1 KB · Views: 294
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
OK, there it is, rotated 90 degrees so it would meet the 800X600 (or is it 600X800) pixel requirement. Raw data on top of fitted lines.
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format
A little got lost in translation to the smaller size. Is the Y-axis labled "Added time in seconds" as opposed to "Adjusted time in seconds", meaning the number on the Y-axis should be added to the original exposure time to get the reciprocity adjusted exposure time?

Thanks,
Lee

Did the math, and the answer appears to be "yes". I won't bother changing my earlier charts, as it seems to me that having the adjusted number is more useful for field work than having the adjustment and doing the addition in the field. But readers comparing the Gainer article chart to the others here should be aware that his graphic tells you how many seconds to add to the base exposure, whereas the other charts posted and linked to from this thread so far give the total _adjusted_ exposure in seconds. That also accounts for the straight lines in Gainer's chart and the slight curvature in the other log scaled charts.

-Lee
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
PieterB said:
This is very interesting. But how about development times?
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.
 

John McCallum

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2004
Messages
2,407
Location
New Zealand
Format
Multi Format
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!
 

kaiyen

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
330
Location
bay area, ca
Format
Multi Format
A quick question - is the t(c,1) value something one can derive looking at the charts available from ilford, kodak, etc, or something determined through actual testing? In other words, if I wanted to generate graphs of other films, can I do this myself or do I need these values first?

allan
 
OP
OP

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
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.

My sister Miriam Goder got a BS in chemistry and an MA in music and taught for years in the Fine Arts department of Keene College in New Hampshire. My daughter Christine used to keep a math and recorder notebook in grade school, recorder being the musical instrument the Germans call blockeflute (there are some umlauts in there and I may have misspelled it).
 

Will S

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
716
Location
Madison, Wis
Format
8x10 Format
gainer said:
It has been my experience that there is a correlation between musical and mathematical ability also.

I spent about 10 years pursuing a PhD and have a MM and an MA from a very prominent school of music.

I can't make heads or tails of your formula.

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
 

WarEaglemtn

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2004
Messages
461
Format
Multi Format
X and Y and logs & whatnot... I don't even own a calculator.( I know there is one somewhere on this electronic hellbox but I haven't found it yet & haven't wasted time looking)

I just go by experience & guesstimating. So when someone posts a basic list of times and adjustments for FP4+ I'll look at it. My math ability ends at counting change back properly & handing the clerks at McDonalds two $2 bills for a purchase a little over $2 just to watch the system crash since it can't make change for $4 this way. (Just $3, $5 or $2 and change)

So someone put this up in an easy to read list & I can look at it for reference.
 

Bob F.

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
3,977
Location
London
Format
Multi Format
For those who prefer numbers to charts, some selected numbers using Pat's formula & tc,1 values.

Code:
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

Cheers, Bob.
 

fhovie

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Messages
1,250
Location
Powell Wyoming
Format
Large Format
I think these numbers are low. - I have exposed a lot of TRI-X, metered at 5 sec and exposed correctly at 10. Metered at 10 and exposed for 30. Of course metering is not that good in low light - It quickly becomes - open it up for a minute or 5 .....
 

MikeK

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
556
Location
Walnut Creek
Format
Large Format
I found my source of development adjustment times on the Kodak Site:

Kodak Technical Publication E-31 July 2002

Exposure and Development Adjustments for Most Black & White Films

Indicated
Exposure Development
Time Adjustment

1/1000,000 +20%
1/10,000 +15%
1/1000 +10%
1/100 None
1/10 None
1 -10%
10 -20%
100 -30%

A tad out of date as some of the films mentioned are no longer with us So it would probably be worth carrying out a few tests to see if these development time adjustments are applicable for the more modern versions.

- Mike

- Mike
 

Lee L

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
3,281
Format
Multi Format

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 .

If you read this simply, you might get the _mistaken_ idea that this somehow discredits Gainer's and Bond's work, but that is certainly not my intention, nor necessarily the case. The closer fit between the Schwarzschild calculations and the "data" you have in hand is most likely a reflection of the fact that the numbers you have were generated using the Schwarzschild formula to generate numbers that are a close fit to some unknown number of test observations. I've never seen any description of the exact method used by the manufacturers to determine reciprocity adjustments. Maybe someone on this list knows. I'd be interested in hearing about it. Since Mr. Bond is a meticulous worker and Mr. Gainer's calculations are such an excellent fit to this published data, I see no reason to consider their work as anything less than accurate.

In any case, within the range of exposures tested and recommended, there is no more than about a 1/3 stop discrepancy between the two methods of calculating an adjusted exposure time. That's not a very significant practical difference given the vagaries of meters, shutters, etc.

Lee

P.S. I converted the typo "3min 35min N-3"
to "8min 35min N-3" for my calculations and graph.
 

Attachments

  • ReciprocityComparison.png
    6.8 KB · Views: 245

PieterB

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
81
Location
Belgium
Format
Multi Format
John McCallum said:
Incidentally, it is interesting just how many avid photographers here have metioned they are also musicians - quite a few!


Well, two people of my family play music as well, and they're also interested in photography. I think it has something to do with creativity.

"Blockflute" in Germany is 'blokfluit' here in Belgium.
I'm not good in German either, so I don't know where the 'umlaut' (special character) belongs. Worldlingo gives me "Blockierensystem Flöte" But I think that's not correct
 

Will S

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
716
Location
Madison, Wis
Format
8x10 Format

Thanks Lee! You were right about the typo of course.

Will
 

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
2,642
Location
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Format
Multi Format

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?
 

fhovie

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2003
Messages
1,250
Location
Powell Wyoming
Format
Large Format
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?

It is not linear -For TRI-X, based on Kodak pub F4017, if the EV indicates a 10 second exposure, the correction is +2 stops - or 40 seconds - with a 20% reduction in development. At an EV indicating 100 seconds the corrections is 3 stops or 13.3 Minutes with a reduction in development of 30%. Even a one second exposure is supposed to be at +1 stop. (I generally don't start correcting till there is an indication for 2 sec or more.)
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…