X-Rite 334 Sensitometer: Inspection and Analysis

$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 5
  • 3
  • 105
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 136
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 2
  • 2
  • 131
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 6
  • 0
  • 107
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 8
  • 134

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,799
Messages
2,781,044
Members
99,708
Latest member
sdharris
Recent bookmarks
0
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
If you can't read them with your densitometer (it may not be able to get good readings with the diffuser attached) you could still make nice film curves using the nominal values for the wedge. I made multiple readings of all the steps and averaged them and they came very close to the nominal values.

0, .15, .30, .45, .60, etc..

For example my readings of the last step averaged 2.9 and the nominal value is 3.0, etc.
 
Last edited:

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
Oh yeah I think I see what you mean. Yeah I think for what I need, that would work.

I did go ahead and read the step as best as I could and this is what I ended up with:

# Read Diff
21 0.72 ----
20 0.95 0.23
19 1.08 0.13
18 1.25 0.17
17 1.40 0.15
16 1.56 0.16
15 1.72 0.16
14 1.87 0.15
13 2.01 0.14
12 2.17 0.16
11 2.31 0.14
10 2.38 0.07
09 2.52 0.14
08 2.66 0.14
07 2.76 0.10
06 2.83 0.07
05 2.89 0.06
04 2.93 0.04
03 2.98 0.05
02 2.98 0.00
01 2.95 -0.03

This is with the lightbox on since the readings were lower without it (no real surprise there). I figured the light might help the dense portions over at the end.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,613
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Comparing speed and contrast between films or between processes, the sensitometer light did not make a significant difference in my darkroom.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...ction-and-analysis.180579/page-2#post-2365797

I don't know. It seems like not using white light is potentially problematic. It doesn't represent use and leaves open too many variables. Remember the ISO b&w speed equation needed a change in the constant because the exposing color of the sensitometric light source was changed from sunlight balance to daylight balance. With a blue or green light sensitometer, you're not utilizing the full range of the emulsion. An incandescent bulb is closer and it can be filtered to match for daylight balance.

I can't imagine using the X-Rite for much more than process control.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
The results speak for themselves. I can't add anything without suggesting bias.

Most B&W film on the market show similar sensitivity spectrum. Comparing the speed of two emulsions of drastically different sensitivity spectrumn will be fraught with potential errors irrespective of the light source.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
The green vertical line represents the peak for the GREEN channel of the X-rite 334.

film spectral sensitivity copy.jpg
 

m00dawg

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
192
Location
Earth
Format
4x5 Format
I've been thinking about this for a few days. While testing with a daylight source is best since it most closely matches shooting outside with no filter, we manipulate what wavelengths film can see pretty often by way of BW color filters. If one is going super deep down that rabbit hole, doing tests in camera and with all the filters one would ever use would be the next option, but I don't know of anyone offhand that does that. Similarly, as I recall the BTZS book mentions the use of tungsten light when using an enlarger to do film tests. I forgot what it mentions exactly, but seem to recall it didn't consider it a big difference. I do see Fomapan 400 in the above charge ends up being most sensitive to red. That's maybe the only film I can see where there might be some notable impact.

For me I think I'll continue to use my enlarger with an 80A filter for film testing since that's what I already have data with. But I think there is a case to be made to use something like the 334. It trades consistency for the color spectrum and that might be a worthy trade-off. I guess since I have both options, once I finish getting my 334 ready for use (it needs new padding) I can try to do a comparison between the two sometime.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,613
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
The results speak for themselves. I can't add anything without suggesting bias.

Most B&W film on the market show similar sensitivity spectrum. Comparing two emulsions of drastically different sensitivity spectrumn will be fraught with potential errors irrespective of the light source.

With respect, I'm going to have to remain skeptical. Plus, I'm probably the only one here who has a calibrated sensitometer. Technically, not anymore, but at one time calibrated by EG&G. . Even then someone at Kodak gave ma a hard time about using the wrong type of sensitometer.
 
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
This thread may have no value if the market changes so white and green/blue sensitometers are priced the same on the used market. In that case there would be no reason to use green/blue.
The green/blue are so affordable (I bought one for $19 USD just to take apart and show everyone here) right now it is crazy, everyone that process film on their own should have one for process control.

Realize is a "Sensitometry for beginners" thread that cost $20 to participate.

We could have a more detailed shootout of EG&G vs BLUE/GREEN vs White LED vs Incandescent, in another thread. But, as a fellow EG&G owner, realize that EG&G is not the end-all. For example my impression is EG&G might actually lose out in the test of platen evenness of illumination. Also, consistency through time, aging of the flash bulb and capacitor IR changes with time will count against the EG&G. The EG&G's slowest exposure time is 1/100 which is not consistent with a lot of Large Format work. Realize the X-rite monitors the exposure with a microprocessor circuit. These X-rite sensitometers are pretty amazing devices that cost over $1000 new, currently devalued to one-cent on the dollar.
Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 10.37.20 AM.png
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
With respect, I'm going to have to remain skeptical. Plus, I'm probably the only one here who has a calibrated sensitometer. Technically, not anymore, but at one time calibrated by EG&G. . Even then someone at Kodak gave ma a hard time about using the wrong type of sensitometer.
All good points that I share.
I was prepared to show how bad these green/blue units are indicate they should be avoided in spite of the low cost. Since I like electronic projects, I was going to try to show how one could modify these green/blue units to be useful. But my results indicated they can be worthwhile without modification.

I have calibrated* my X-rite against my EG&G (for my commonly used films) in the event my EG&G fails. My X-rite is the backup.

Post #56 above. If the same films are exposed on both sensitometers and processed together, the alpha, beta and dmax all cancel out. So one can use the speed point (inflection point) for the calibration. That simply is the distance on the x-axis between the two speed points.
 
Last edited:

dkonigs

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
358
Location
Mountain View, CA
Format
Multi Format
This thread may have no value if the market changes so white and green/blue sensitometers are priced the same on the used market. In that case there would be no reason to use green/blue.

Is it even possible to find a "white" sensitometer that doesn't look like a dusty and dirty old relic of the 70's that's held together with duct tape, broken, and sold for parts and a high price? (Somehow every attempt to search for "EG&G" on eBay brings up results that look like this, but I have no idea what other options even exist to be found.)
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,613
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Is it even possible to find a "white" sensitometer that doesn't look like a dusty and dirty old relic of the 70's that's held together with duct tape, broken, and sold for parts and a high price? (Somehow every attempt to search for "EG&G" on eBay brings up results that look like this, but I have no idea what other options even exist to be found.)

Even if you could find one you liked, it would just be for consistency of exposure. The rest is best guess. The only way to know the output is to meter it with a very expensive lux flash meter. Plus the illuminance has to be brought down with filters. Gels can work but the best came from EG&G. I've actually used both to achieve the aim exposures I wanted. To top it off for accuracy, you'd need a calibrated step tablet from Kodak which I don't think they sell (calibrated, not regular). A few years ago, I Googled EG&G. I don't think they are still in business and if they were, they probably would have a department that works with sensitometers any more.. p.s. just did another Google:

EG&G Technical Services (now part of URS Corporation)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,613
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Exactly. I eventually decided it would be easier (not easy) to just build my own makeshift device that would be good enough for photographic film and paper tests. It was not an enjoyable project at all.

Too bad it wasn't a good experience. DIY sensitometers was the direction the thread was heading.
 
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Is it even possible to find a "white" sensitometer that doesn't look like a dusty and dirty old relic of the 70's that's held together with duct tape, broken, and sold for parts and a high price? (Somehow every attempt to search for "EG&G" on eBay brings up results that look like this, but I have no idea what other options even exist to be found.)
If you are producing a product for sale, you might be one of the few on the forum that needs a calibrated instrument. Otherwise, for your personal photography, film calibration of the sensitometer works well. This is because ISO documentation does not specify development conditions for the film. So you specify the development conditions for yourself. Just be sure to also calibrate your meter to the film with in-camera testing.
 
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Just for fun, attached the calibration sheet from EG&G. I asked for a few extra readings. View attachment 274218
Thanks for sharing.
You probably know these, but for others to see, here are the nominal values from the EG&G owner's manual and the measured fall in output with use:
10-2 = 800 mcs
10-3 = 4000 mcs
10-4 = 70 mcs

Screen Shot 2021-05-11 at 12.25.19 PM.png
 

MsLing

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2023
Messages
103
Location
Guangzhou China
Format
Multi Format
Sorry to wake the thread up,but I have a doubt that how I can use xrite sensitometers which were designed for x ray film which may have low speed,to meter high speed film.Won't the film be overexposure?It's believed that photography film can be faster than x ray film.According to my experience,x ray film often locates from ISO 50 to 100.
Another question is that how to know LOG E of different settings.Both 334's and 396's manual didn't mention this.
Thanks for answering.
 
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Sorry to wake the thread up,but I have a doubt that how I can use xrite sensitometers which were designed for x ray film which may have low speed,to meter high speed film.Won't the film be overexposure?It's believed that photography film can be faster than x ray film.According to my experience,x ray film often locates from ISO 50 to 100.
Another question is that how to know LOG E of different settings.Both 334's and 396's manual didn't mention this.
Thanks for answering.

In terms of light output adjustment. It depends on the unit:

This 334 uses dip switches on the bottom.
Wejex uses a rheostat on the bottom
EG&G recommends sheets of ND filter (which would work for just about any sensitometer).

99% of the time I'm only interested in the difference in Log e between two films. I have taken all my sensitometers apart to measure thebult-in step wedges on my calibrated densitometer.

If you look on-line there are places that will do a measurement of the light output. In fact last I checked there were two placed within driving distance of me.

Once I did work backwards from some Ilford Delta 100 to find the light output (based on the Ilford Delta by my definition being ISO 100).
 

MsLing

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2023
Messages
103
Location
Guangzhou China
Format
Multi Format
In terms of light output adjustment. It depends on the unit:

This 334 uses dip switches on the bottom.
Wejex uses a rheostat on the bottom
EG&G recommends sheets of ND filter (which would work for just about any sensitometer).

99% of the time I'm only interested in the difference in Log e between two films. I have taken all my sensitometers apart to measure thebult-in step wedges on my calibrated densitometer.

If you look on-line there are places that will do a measurement of the light output. In fact last I checked there were two placed within driving distance of me.

Once I did work backwards from some Ilford Delta 100 to find the light output (based on the Ilford Delta by my definition being ISO 100).

Thanks and I'll try ND filter.Maybe I can use a Illuminometer to confirm the lux?A intensive study must be done so that I can use sensitometer well.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,809
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Maybe I can use a Illuminometer to confirm the lux?

You could, but what really will it tell you? Light measurement sounds simple, but gets really complicated, really fast. You end up realizing that it's only worthwhile if you can actually do a spectral output plot across the entire range of wavelengths the light source emits.

Keep in mind that if you try to measure the lux output of a narrow-bandwidth light source (e.g. an electroluminescent panel), you get wildly skewed results because the lux scale is a weighted scale based on a bell-curve that roughly matches human spectral sensitivity. For example, look at a plot of the scotopic and photopic luminosity curves (a lux measurement will be based on either; the measurement instrument should have this info in its specifications somewhere), and two theoretical single-wavelength light sources of 450nm blue and 540nm green. Assume that both light sources have the same electrical efficiency; i.e. they generate the same number of photons per amount of energy put into them:
1711703130706.png

Note how the blue light source will register virtually nothing on the lux scale if based on the photopic curve or substantially more of the measurement is based on a scotopic response. For the green source, a similar pattern is visible, but more importantly, it registers a far stronger signal than the blue source. So the way the measurement is weighted is quite relevant as this skews the results massively.

A further concern is that I argued that both theoretical light sources have the same electrical efficiency. But this in itself is actually inconclusive in itself, if you think about it. After all, blue photons have a shorter wavelength and thus are higher-energy photons than green ones. So even if both light sources emit the same number of photons, the amount of energy they emit in the form of light still differs. So which would you want to measure - number of photons, or amount of energy?

Finally, there's the question of the observer; we touched upon it above when discussing lux/lumens, and the story changes yet again if you take one particular film or paper and consider its spectral sensitivity. What will be the benchmark for your measurement?

So by all means, measure the lumens your sensitometer puts out, but the problem is that the number you will get will be very difficult to interpret, and it will most likely be meaningless from a practical viewpoint.

So latching back to something mentioned earlier in the thread, I think by @ic-racer : that the USAF relies/relied on comparative measurements only. I think there's very good reason for this, and it's mostly because an absolute measurement will be very difficult to establish and it's doubtful it adds much value in the real world.
 
OP
OP
ic-racer

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,544
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
Yes, as pointed out above, measurement with a common light meter (graph below) might lead to a path of misinformation about the light output. A special instrument with known even light senitivity across the spectrum would be needed.

Screen Shot 2024-03-29 at 3.39.30 PM.png
 

MsLing

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2023
Messages
103
Location
Guangzhou China
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for your suggestion and I'll try to do comparative measurements instead of doing light measurements.Doing more tests and burning more film can be the most effective way for me to understand I think.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom