UPDATE -- Kodak Model 2 densitometer (X-rite 811)

[tim_bessell]

Hi All,

Just thought I would give an update on this machine.

I installed a new read lamp ($36 USD) and calibrated it with new transmissions and reflection standards. After checking all the patches on the standards I am confident that it is working wonderfully. Also checked my 21 step wedge and it is within specs according the Stouffer documentation.

So, in the end, I diagnosed and verified by using a "off-the-shelf" read lamp that spending $36 on a read lamp from X-rite would be worthwhile. I also bought new standards.

50.00 densitometer
36.00 read lamp
110.00 T/R standards
=============
196.00 Total

Lately, on the 'bay an 811 sold for $500. I'm happy!!!

 

[Eric Rose]

you da man!

 

[tim_bessell]

Thanks Eric.

Now I guess I have to do the film testing routine, huh.

 

[Jim Noel]

Don't do like many new owners of densitometers and get so intrigued by testing that you neglect to make images.

 

[RobertP]

So many people equate using a densitometer to being to technically oriented when it is only a tool in the darkroom. Use it in developing your work-flow and it will take a lot of guess work out of the process. Then just tell people you develop your negatives to meet your eye and feel and you will avoid all the hype from people who don't use one and claim that it isn't necessary.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... avoid all the hype from people who don't use one and claim that it isn't necessary.

It's a universal trait: "I don't have one, you don't need one."

I don't give much weight to a negative recommendation from from someone who, in lack of better words, doesn't know what he is talking about, as they have never used the 'what it is' that is under discussion. It often seems to be jealousy, luddism or fear of being left behind that is talking.

Advice that something is not needed can be very valid, but when it leads off with "I never had/used ... and I am better off ... " I often dismiss it.

The recommendations "I had one and got rid of it because..." or "I have had several, and it is the one I liked the best because ..." carry the most weight with me. Unfortunately such recommendations can be thin on the ground.

 

[tim_bessell]

Well, I must admit that I am a technical minded person, and I enjoy the process of discovering why. What I hope to accomplish by using a densitometer, besides the discovery part, is a little predicability to my photography. Right now, my negatives seem to be all over the place in terms of density and I want to know why. I think when I can answer that question I will be able to produce negs the way I want and that will print the way I want.

After all, isn't that the reason we still use analog methods of photography, so we can create something unique and different, something that will reflect our VISION? Even a camera is just a tool, as is a densitometer, and a darkroom timer, to achieve an end.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Right now, my negatives seem to be all over the place...

I am afraid a densitometer won't fix this problem for you. A densitometer is only useful when negatives are consistent.

My own experience with inconsistency leads me to suggest:

1. Try distilled water for mixing and diluting the film developer. It's a 69 cent experiment with nothing to lose. I had negatives all over the place and was going mad checking shutters and changing metering technique - one jug of distilled water and the problem was solved. Stick with D-76 and other old reliables.
2. Don't use the zone system and don't use a spot meter. Again, an experiment - use an old-fashioned wide reading hand held meter and see what happens. I have made the most gawd awful exposures by fiddling with places and falls and N's - to the point of exposing an ASA 100 film at 1/500 @ f16 in bright sunlight; only the Zone system can do that for you. Check that the metering agrees with 'sunny-16' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule
   http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm

When you find the problem, then get back to complicating things with the Zone system and odd developers.

 

[Removed Account]

ASA 100 a 1/500 @ f/16? Were you trying to place the sun on zone III?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

ASA 100 a 1/500 @ f/16? Were you trying to place the sun on zone III?

Oh, it's easy.

Meter for the highlights and close down 2 stops. That's right, isn't it? Sure it is? Isn't it? (develop film) Not.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have the X-rite 810 and do have an old set of standard. May be I should get a new set.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I have the X-rite 810 and do have an old set of standard. May be I should get a new set.

The standards do not change over time, the original ones are just fine. A set of standards can cost up to $100 and will do nothing to improve your photography.

If you lost/don't have the factory standards you can calibrate a densitometer to any standards you wish. A perfectly workable set of reflection standards are to use fixed unexposed RC paper as 0.02 and blackest-black developed RC paper as 2.00. Your readings may not agree with other densitometers by 0.05 OD on average, but how many times do you compare densitometer readings for the same print?

A modern densitometer - one with a microprocessor inside it and a digital display - does not need a standard to calibrate transmission. A transmission standard is only used for 'customer confidence'.