Winplotter files

Hi,

I've just started doing the film test thing and have some 'interesting' results. I'm not sure whether the results are to be expected and fairly typical of a dev - film relationship.

Could I ask for some Winplotter files or even just screenshots of the various graphs it produces ?

I'm using FP4 with my own developer.

I'm interested in the EFS -vs- SBR in particular but the others all need to be verified. I'd like to see how varied the shapes of these graphs get. My graph seems the wrong way up ! I've got a bathtub shape and other graphs show an inverted bathtub ?!?!

Part of my curiosity is related to the possibility of there being some sort of limiting factor built into the film.

Cheers,

Steve

swmcl said:

Hi,

I've just started doing the film test thing and have some 'interesting' results. I'm not sure whether the results are to be expected and fairly typical of a dev - film relationship.

Could I ask for some Winplotter files or even just screenshots of the various graphs it produces ?

I'm using FP4 with my own developer.

I'm interested in the EFS -vs- SBR in particular but the others all need to be verified. I'd like to see how varied the shapes of these graphs get. My graph seems the wrong way up ! I've got a bathtub shape and other graphs show an inverted bathtub ?!?!

Part of my curiosity is related to the possibility of there being some sort of limiting factor built into the film.

Cheers,

Steve

Click to expand...

You could post the numbers. And describe your test procedure. If you used a step wedge contacted on film, the densities of your step wedge are relevant info.

It took me a fair amount of reading to figure out where you were coming from on this when you mentioned Windows Plotter files, and all I can say is, whew, talk about over analysis! Just meter your scene for the values that matter to you, and develop it to your liking by keeping accurate, clear, & concise records when you test. Everyone, and I mean everyone, is going to want things a little differently. There are no real standards. One person's over exposure is going to be just right for another person. It's like this all the way down the line, from negative exposure to final print. Really, image making is an intuitive thing, not a huge, standardized science.

And yes, of course, the film will have limits built into it, and those limits depend on which film you're using, how you're exposing it, what developer you're using, etc. But we're far and away from what makes a good photograph at this point.

Momus,

I appreciate your concerns and comments although my work has at this point only made me more empowered. For the first time ever my thinking is aligning with what people say which is kinda nice.

All I'm chasing is a knowledge of the materials so that I can play. Some predictability and reliability is freedom for my creativity - less hit and miss.

Cheers,

Steve

Bill,

I've renamed a pfc file as a pdf so that it can be uploaded.

Cheers,

Steve

Hi Steve,

I should have clarified, I use paper, so would need the numbers that you fed into Winplotter - I don't know if I can read a pfc file.

Michael, it aint a pdf. Rename the doc once you've downloaded it to be a pfc then open it in Winplotter.

Bill, now you're jus' bein' difficult !

Bill,

Here is a full amount of data. Just refer to the shaded parts. If the ISO values come out wrong then shift the whole block of shaded data up or down until the ISO values are reasonable. Just in case you're wondering, the actual shoot data is from Zones 0 through 15 as shown on the leftmost area. This includes actual shoot data in third stops from zone 0 through zone 3. The interpolated results are in the centre section from zones 0 through 15 in half stops. I've fictiously added some values to Zone -2 above the dataset and some value to Zone 18 below the dataset to make for easier polynomial generation in a program called qtiplot.

The actual shoot is a roll of FP4 on a Nikon F100.

swmcl said:

Bill, now you're jus' bein' difficult !

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to be difficult. I was heading out for the day and I wasn't sure I could download Winplotter for free or not.

Great set of data, I am using your 1/3 stop and 1/2 stop data and subtracting the Zone 0 as if it is B+F

I assume the film is fresh and your developer is intended to give full film speed of 125, (If not, let me know what speed the developer is intended to produce with this film).

Here are the results on paper:

Time: 10 min 30 sec
CI: 0.62
*EI: 125

Time: 8 min 50 sec
CI: 0.55
EI: 80

Time: 7 minutes
CI: 0.50
**EI: 50

Time: 5 min 30 sec
CI: 0.34
**EI: 40

* Speed parameters of ASA/ISO met, so this may be considered same as rated speed of fresh film in standard developer - thus 125. (I didn't measure the speed as 125... I took 125 for granted).

**When developed to lower gradients, I don't like to use 0.1 density speed points. I would consider Delta-X speeds for these lower gradients (Or for simplest implementation, I would just use 80 speed for all - except when I really needed EI 125 and I knew I could develop to 0.62 Contrast Index).

Bill,

Your results are very similar to mine in terms of gradient and ISO. In the couple of days since I last visited I've been learning more and more.

If you have Open Office I'd gladly share my files with you. I have a whole bunch of number crunching files.

Cheers,

Steve