Stouffer - Scanner & Photoshop

[IanBarber]

I have just borrowed a calibrated Stouffer 21 step wedge mainly because I have never seen one and was curious to what they look like.

I have just created a Raw scan with Vuescan of the step wedge and also a negative. Armed with Photoshop the scanner and the step wedge, can I use it in any way to determine if the negative is well exposed / developed ?

The file which is in the Gray Gamma 2.2 Color space can also be downloaded from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/21-Stoufer-Step-Wedge-Flamborough-Arch.jpg

159937

[Peter De Smidt]

What is the density of step 17 of the wedge? It's equivalent to the highest density in your negative. It looks like you have plenty of detail in the lower luminous scene areas.

[stawastawa]

Thank you for asking this question! now I will play with my step-wedges too!

[IanBarber]

What is the density of step 17 of the wedge? It's equivalent to the highest density in your negative. It looks like you have plenty of detail in the lower luminous scene areas.

According to the chart supplied with the Stouffer, the density of step 17 is 2.44

[IanG]

It's not the best negative for testing film speed and developing time due to the extremes in lighting with the very bright sea/sky behind the rock. You would need to increase exposure and cut development to cope with this dynamic range. So this negative is under exposed and over developed.

There's another issue there appears to be a high level of base fog.

Ian

[IanBarber]

It's not the best negative for testing film speed and developing time due to the extremes in lighting with the very bright sea/sky behind the rock. You would need to increase exposure and cut development to cope with this dynamic range. So this negative is under exposed and over developed.

There's another issue there appears to be a high level of base fog.

Ian

In your opinion, what contributes to a high level of base fog

This is the first time I have used T-Max and I have noticed that the film even the edges appear to have a pinkish colour to them which I am guessing is the dye. Should I be thinking about using some hypo to remove the dye or even giving it a pre-soak before development.

[IanG]

You need to fix Tmax for longer than other films to remove the pink dye, it will disappear. Base fog can be caused by a variety of things, ageing or poor storage, minor darkroom light leaks, led/neon bulb on electrical equipment and choice of developer can play a part as well. It's most likely the pink dye in this case.

Ian

[IanBarber]

You need to fix Tmax for longer than other films to remove the pink dye, it will disappear. Base fog can be caused by a variety of things, ageing or poor storage, minor darkroom light leaks, led/neon bulb on electrical equipment and choice of developer can play a part as well. It's most likely the pink dye in this case.

Ian


Thanks, I usually fix FomaPan for 5 minutes, with T-Max I try 10 minutes.

Do you recommend a pre-soak ?

[IanG]

Do you recommend a pre-soak ?

No. I've never used a pre-soak and it's not recommended by the film manufacturers. When I used Tmax films I fixed until the pink dye cleared because of their high Iodide levels Tmax films tend to exhaust fixer faster than other films.

Ian

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Ian that's the negative is over developed. There seemed to be plenty of shadow detail, but lessening the development will effect the shadows a small amount, and so it's hard to be sure about that.

[IanG]

Ian, you might try looking atKodak grey card usage"] this post on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/kodak-grey-card-usage.135637/page-9#post-1773822).

Look at the densities mentioned then compare them to the image you posted. It should be helpful.

Ian

[IanBarber]

Ian, you might try looking atKodak grey card usage"] this post on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/kodak-grey-card-usage.135637/page-9#post-1773822).

Look at the densities mentioned then compare them to the image you posted. It should be helpful.

Ian

Thanks for the link, had a quick look but it looks heavy going, might need to revisit this one tomorrow.

To pick up on some comments about the negative I posted been over-devloped.

I think I have finally managed to develop some test negatives to reach my personal EI which is giving me around 0.1 above the film's base and fog reading.

With regard to the over development, I used the times from the Big Dev chart ( I appreciate these are only a guide)

As I have no darkroom and all my work is outputted digitally, how would I go about trying to find out the correct development time to give me a density of say Zone VIII.

Would this theory work or am i way off track?
Spot meter an even lit surface and open up 3 stops (zone III)

Develop the film normally according to say the Big dev chart and measure the density.
Keep repeating the exercise and lowering the development time by 10% until the measured density is around 2.29 which I understand to be Zone 8

[IanG]

As I have no darkroom and all my work is outputted digitally, how would I go about trying to find out the correct development time to give me a density of say Zone VIII.

Would this theory work or am i way off track?
Spot meter an even lit surface and open up 3 stops (zone III)

Yes that post is heavy reading but to make it more simple just look at the last image/graph and see the 8 density it's only around 1.5 any greater may print/scan as white.

Because you're scanning you can use slightly flatter negatives than I'd prefer for darkroom printing which gives you a touch more latitude. My experience is that these Big/Massive development charts are wildly inaccurate and unreliable. Go for manufacturers data sheets instead they are far better and will get you in the ball park and closer to the optimal EI/Dev time you need.

I think you'd be better to get some help - save yourself a lot of film, time and testing. I'd volunteer but I'm about 90mins drive but you're welcome if you have the time.

Ian

[Peter De Smidt]

Ian, for silver gelatin printing Zone VIII density should be around 1.25 above fb+f. (2.29 is way too much for sg printing.) But you aren't printing that way. I'd try a negative with about 1/3 stop more exposure developed 25% less of a good test scene. Scan and see if it gives you what you want.

[Pere Casals]

Well... IMHO a negative, more than well exposed/developed.... it has to be well exposed/developed to get the result you want.

If you are to scan the negative, get it adjusted with Photoshop, and then you are to send it to a lightjet/lambda then the priority is to capture the maximum detail, tonality can be adjusted very well with Photoshop.

If you are to make great genuine optical darkroom prints then very dense areas will need special work to make detail appear, burning or masking (CRM, SCIM, etc). So better if your max densities are fom 1.2D to 1.6D, IMHO.


BTZS calibration of paper will show if your negative is easy to print or it will need a lot of extra work.

[Ken Lee]

As I have no darkroom and all my work is outputted digitally, how would I go about trying to find out the correct development time to give me a density of say Zone VIII.

You might find this article helpful: Testing B&W Film with the Zone System (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php)

As the article suggests (and as pointed out by Peter in this discussion (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?129848-Scanner-performance-v700-and-Vuescan-Pro-in-relation-to-step-wedges)) an Epson scanner has a fairly wide dynamic range: we don't necessarily want to develop our negatives to match it, since additional development increases grain.

Even simpler: why not shoot at 1/2 the box speed and develop for standard times ? I'd be surprised if that doesn't get you what you are looking for. After a lot of fiddling with both Zone System and BTZS, that's where I arrived, and I'm not the only one.

[IanBarber]

I think you'd be better to get some help - save yourself a lot of film, time and testing. I'd volunteer but I'm about 90mins drive but you're welcome if you have the time.

Ian

Thanks Ian. Is that 90 mins South of me in Yorkshire

[IanBarber]

You might find this article helpful: Testing B&W Film with the Zone System (http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php)

As the article suggests (and as pointed out by Peter in this discussion (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?129848-Scanner-performance-v700-and-Vuescan-Pro-in-relation-to-step-wedges)) an Epson scanner has a fairly wide dynamic range: we don't necessarily want to develop our negatives to match it, since additional development increases grain.

Even simpler: why not shoot at 1/2 the box speed and develop for standard times ? I'd be surprised if that doesn't get you what you are looking for. After a lot of fiddling with both Zone System and BTZS, that's where I arrived, and I'm not the only one.

Thanks Ken, book marked these for reading tonight

[IanG]

Thanks Ian. Is that 90 mins South of me in Yorkshire

Approx, depending on traffic. I'm just under 20 miles SW of Birmingham.

I've always done all my testing using 35mm or 120 film, these days the emulsions are essentially the same that cuts costs and also make it far easier. So when testing Fomapan 100 I used a couple of rolls of 120. The first to establish optimal EI, the second to fine tune developing time.

Ian