Awesome. Do you happen to know how I can get to replenished XTOL fairly quickly, without having to go through several films before it becomes properly replenished? Is there such a thing as an XTOL starter? I'd love to try both XTOL stock and replenished with those ISO 3200 films.But I am interested in Tmax 3200 and Ilford Delta 3200 both @Iso 3200developed in XTOL and replenished XTOL. That is where the rubber meets the road.
Is there such a thing as an XTOL starter?
Awesome. Do you happen to know how I can get to replenished XTOL fairly quickly, without having to go through several films before it becomes properly replenished? Is there such a thing as an XTOL starter? I'd love to try both XTOL stock and replenished with those ISO 3200 films.
Isn't it just develop half a dozen rolls normally and then start replenishing?
I have a few questions about @aparat 's graph in posting #20, which shows how zones on a negative are changed to zones on a print using the paper's H-D curve.
Well, that's four questions.
- AA's definition of zone V is middle gray, so I would expect 18% to be in the middle of the range for zone V on this graph. But on the right side of this graph, 18% is at about the three fourths point of the zone V range instead of its middle. Why?
- Are there standard definitions of the midpoints or range-boundaries of the zones? On page 116 of Way Beyond Monochrome (2nd ed), Ralph Lambrecht provides a table of densities for the zones. I presume these are midpoints of those zones. He states that these are "standard Zone System values", implying that such a standard exists.
- On the lower-right corner of the graph, print density of 0 corresponds to Dmin. But no paper can achieve a density of 0. Is this an error?
- On the lower-right corner of the graph, zone IX is shown as extending down to density of 0. But that's impossible because the definition of zone IX is "slight density without texture", which means density is nonzero. No density (paper-white, Dmin) is the definition zone X. Is this a mistake?
I implemented zones in my LED-head controller, giving the user the ability to place an element on the easel on a zone. The answers to these questions will ensure I got the details perfect.
I can take a stab at these. One, Zone V is the perceptual / psychophysical middle. Two, Zones aren't real and don't have any definite value (except for maybe Zone V). They are a visual tool. Some produce a reference scale. Three, it appears the measurement and consequently the scale is zeroed on the paper base - ie 0.04 over Pb+f. That should also answer number four.
All good questions. First of all, I must apologize for the confusion. I did not mean to include that plot in #20 toward our discussion of the Kodak and Ilford ISO 3200 films. It took the discussion off course. It was just an example of how Phil Davis chose to depict the division of the "Print Zones," 2 through 8, and how it depends entirely on the contour of the selected paper curve when matched to a particular film curve. So, I guess, the short answer is to just disregard that plotI have a few questions about @aparat 's graph in posting #20, which shows how zones on a negative are changed to zones on a print using the paper's H-D curve.
Well, that's four questions.
- AA's definition of zone V is middle gray, so I would expect 18% to be in the middle of the range for zone V on this graph. But on the right side of this graph, 18% is at about the three fourths point of the zone V range instead of its middle. Why?
- Are there standard definitions of the midpoints or range-boundaries of the zones? On page 116 of Way Beyond Monochrome (2nd ed), Ralph Lambrecht provides a table of densities for the zones. I presume these are midpoints of those zones. He states that these are "standard Zone System values", implying that such a standard exists.
- On the lower-right corner of the graph, print density of 0 corresponds to Dmin. But no paper can achieve a density of 0. Is this an error?
- On the lower-right corner of the graph, zone IX is shown as extending down to density of 0. But that's impossible because the definition of zone IX is "slight density without texture", which means density is nonzero. No density (paper-white, Dmin) is the definition zone X. Is this a mistake?
I implemented zones in my LED-head controller, giving the user the ability to place an element on the easel on a zone. The answers to these questions will ensure I got the details perfect.
Yes, this does sound much easier. I will mix 5 L of XTOL, then I will put aside 1 L for "tank solution" and 4 L for "replenisher." I will then add 70 mL of replenisher XTOL to the tank solution or each roll. How does that sound?This is the easiest.
Do tests first with stock X-Tol and keep the used developer afterwards.
If you do six of those, you will have enough byproducts in the used stuff that, when you add it back to the unused stuff, you will be very close to the steady state.
When I took the summer seminar from Minor White in the 60s, he was clear as was AA that the zones of system are not a quantitative values, in the 1968 edition of the negative Adams states that Zone V is a emotional value. Adams and Archer decided on 10 zones as the Weston meter of day had a dial that was easily matched to the 10 zones. I have not spent much time studying Beyond the Zone System, it seemed to me that David was applying a more rigorous approach to improve the quantitative aspect, yet it still based on the Zone System and the Weston dial of 1938. I understand that some have used the Stuffers (sp?) Step Wedge used in the printing trades to calculate a films curve, John Schaefer in his Ansel Adams Guide comes to mind.
Yes, this does sound much easier. I will mix 5 L of XTOL, then I will put aside 1 L for "tank solution" and 4 L for "replenisher." I will then add 70 mL of replenisher XTOL to the tank solution or each roll. How does that sound?
@Stephen Benskin Thank you for the thorough explanations. I am impressed with your program. It gives a very flexible and highly informative view of tone reproduction. And thank you for the papers you wrote and generously shared here. They contain a lot of detail that is otherwise scattered over a number of, by now obscure, journal articles. I really appreciate it. Edit: Quick question, in Q1, your mcs value of 0.067, is that for a film of about ISO 125?
@Stephen Benskin Your program looks very sophisticated! I particularly like the tabbed UI. Currently, all my constants, settings, and options are in a flat text file, so it's easy for me to miss things when I run the analysis.
This is very, very cool. I really like how it ties all of these variables together into a coherent and meaningful display of numerical values and graphical elements. Are all the UI elements reactive? So, say, you enter a different LSLR value in its box, does the display automatically redraw with all the new values calculated? I'd love to be able to do something like that, but in a web browser.Thanks. I wanted options. Most have to do with the camera image and the choosing a sensitometric or Zone System analysis.
One of the things I did was to compare up to 6 tests. The three tests below are from a 9 stop luminance range. The test compares compensating with development vs paper for higher luminance values. It uses same film but developed to a different CI. The paper's LER matches the NDR as closely as I could. In the comparison window, quad 4 is chosen and the gradients from each step can be compared. Reflection density for the paper, Density of the film, or exposure can be compared for each of the respective quads.
Here are the results of a single test (Zone analysis using 12% as Zone V - the meter reading). The data points are from the guidelines. Please note the higher than 1.10 gradients in the reproduction curve?
I wanted options.
So, say, you enter a different LSLR value in its box, does the display automatically redraw with all the new values calculated?
One option might be to add another quadrant, which I guess would make them "pentants".
Would it be helpful to add a quadrant/pentant for enlarger-flare? An enlarger adds flare:
The Beseler 45M-series tends to leak light horizontally at the neg-holder, emitting a ring of light hitting all four walls, some of which lands on the paper. OTOH, perhaps this source of flare has been found to be insignificant and thus not worth including in quadrant graphs. But I thought I'd mention it.
- In the chamber between negative and lens;
- In the lens itself;
- From the enlarger's light-leaks finding their way on to the paper.
I think maybe the Zone System was complicated enough, at least as a marketing construct. Companies like Zone VI needed to keep it relatively simple for photographers to buy in. But, of course, you're right, these incongruities do exist in various text books. The Zone System can be a bit dogmatic at times. I think the younger crowd are not very keen on using it from what I've seen on this forum. Maybe that's a good thing. People can get great results developing film in coffee, using decades expired film, shooting with toy cameras, etc.The answer is testing methodology. The above example uses the same film curve. Zone testing doesn't incorporate flare, sensitometry does with interpreting the curve. There wouldn't be a problem if the Zone System was aware and incorporated flare at some other time, but it doesn't. Since flare exists, the flare example is in better agreement with reality, and since the different testing methods both indicate the same CI, the resulting negatives in practice will necessarily have the same NDR. The difference is one method reflects reality and one doesn't. Like I said, the film data is just a starting point.
Your family of curves looks good. May I suggest adding a Time/CI curve from which you can determine development for any set of conditions. I've written a paper on determining a developmental model if you're interested. Something not well know is the gradient of the time/CI curve and point of gamma infinity can help determine the uses of the film, like if it's a good film for pushing for speed or how forgiving it is in development.
I think maybe the Zone System was complicated enough, at least as a marketing construct. Companies like Zone VI needed to keep it relatively simple for photographers to buy in. But, of course, you're right, these incongruities do exist in various text books. The Zone System can be a bit dogmatic at times. I think the younger crowd are not very keen on using it from what I've seen on this forum. Maybe that's a good thing. People can get great results developing film in coffee, using decades expired film, shooting with toy cameras, etc.
You mean like these two plots? Or do you mean something else entirely? Yes, I'd be interested in your paper on the developmental model. Thank you!
View attachment 322334View attachment 322335
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?