Why do some photographers use sensitometry?

[sanking]

Rob: "I wonder how many of you sensitometry nuts"

I don't consider myself, or others like me who use BRZS, "sensitometry nuts," and your language is abusive and offensive.

But in answer to y our question, yes, I have made the tests you describe, and BTZS is more precise.

[sanking]

Kirk Gitting: "I'm sure you were just pulling numbers out of the air for discussion purposes, but yes I can easily be as accurate as that example (at least) with my methods and test it with a simple proper proof every time I make a contact sheet."

Kirk, thanks for that comment, which says a lot about your integrity.

I am sure Jorge was doing just that, pulling numbers out of the air to make a general comment about the limits of precision. Rather misplaced priority to piss all over him for that.

Sandy

[robc]

Sandy,
My use of "nuts" was not intended to be abusive or offensive. I think maybe its a cross Atlantic interpretation thing, maybe not.

Anyhow, tell me how BTZS can be more precise than the negative fitting the paper exactly.

[Paul Butzi]

Simmons writes: It would make more sense to me to present this more 'scientific' approach as one way but also to allow for the possibility of a softer approach. It feels like a little too much dogma sometimes about the right(one and only way) to do things. I realize that some people are more comfortable with a little harder approach but others see numbers, formulae, and a densitometer, as roadblocks.

and: If you are going to BTZS and then average your development what is the point. In a situation like this you are off by 20% on your development time. You are plussing by 1 some of the negs and minussing by 1 others. Are you adjusting the exposure indices for this plussing and minussing?I would never do this. I develop 6-8 negs at a time for their specifc needed development time and I always adjust my ei for plussing and minussing..

Don't you ever give another lecture on why sensitometry is necessary or helpful. This post you made undoes all your claims of precision or the love of craft.


Let me see if I've got this straight.

You make a long series of posts arguing that people are being overly anal about technique, that they're worshiping technique to the detriment of art and making it intimidating for newcomers to get started.

And then, when Jorge discusses how flexible he is, you insult him?

This causes the word 'hypocrite' to reverberate loudly here in the room where I"m typing this.

I would point out that many great photographers have made many fantastic photographs WITHOUT USING ANY PER EXPOSURE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS WHATSOEVER.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is much sloppier than those of us testng w/o a densitometer would ever do. We would know better!!!

Once again Mr. Simmons you fail to see the forest for the trees. At the extremes of the curves, variances in time are negligible. For example, a negative developed to 3 min , and one developed to 4 minutes under my procedures only varies in the slope of the curve from 0.29 to 0.38. Given that I have included a margin of error on my printing so that I can print negatives which have a density range from 1.0 to 1.8 I can easily print a negative that has that 20% "error" you mention. Lets take the other end, a film developed for 15 minutes and one developed for 14 minutes, only vary on the slope from 1.0 to .91. Once again, this variance under my procedure it taken into account and it is easily printable. Of ocurse, one has to understand testing and sensitometry to be able to make these kinds of desicions.

I hope this gives you an example of how powerful a systematic methodology can be when making printing desicions. It seems to me for all your ranting about our method being too "difficult" that you spend far more time checking and rechecking your values as well as testing any time you change a paper. You seem to be far more worried about the consistency of your results than we are......

As I explained to Kirk, I can easily change from printing pt/pd to silver and use the same film tests I made to beguin with, all I have to do is tell the palm I want it give exposure and developing times for a density range of 1.0 instead of 1.45. You on the other hand, would have to redo all your tests and even when you do, you seem to be unclear as to the limits of the tests and what can be done with them.

I can easily say this because not only I have the curves to prove it, but I have done your kind of testing as well as the zone system and BTZS. Of all, the BTZS is the most powerful, easier and accurate. So, instead of arguing about this, get back to me and tell me I am wrong when you have become proficient in the BTZS.

It seems you really "dont know better" !!!

[sanking]

Rob: "Sandy, My use of "nuts" was not intended to be abusive or offensive. I think maybe its a cross Atlantic interpretation thing, maybe not."

Tell me more about this cross Atlantic thing. Are you a native speaker of English? I have been in many English speaking countries and in most of these places describing someone as a "nut" is offensive. But tell me why that is not offensive in your opinion?

As for your question as to how BTZS is more precise, please go back to my initial post, and read the second position of Phil Davis that I mentioned, i.e. "The procedures provide much more data – and more accurate data, than can be discovered by trial-and-error testing. It also provides working information for all conditions of use, not just the specific conditions of the test. "

Place particular emphasis on both sentences. For any given specific test conditions the Zone type testing you mention can provide absolute precision. However, when one diverts in any way from the standard, the precision is lost. BTZS data, on the other hand, has great precision over a much wider range of processes and development condition.

Just try it yourself.

Sandy

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I'm sure you were just pulling numbers out of the air for discussion purposes, but yes I can easily be as accurate as that example (at least) with my methods and test it with a simple proper proof every time I make a contact sheet. Don't forget I did the full blown Zone System for years and taught it at university level before backing off to a simpler approach. So I carry all that testing around in the back of my head just as you do.

Sort of but not far from the truth. Let me give you a real example since I just went and checked the data from my last outing. I had 3 negatives that I developed for the same time. One was supposed to be developed for 4 min 27 sec, one for 4 min 54 sec and another for 5 min 8 sec. I put them all together and developed for 4 min 45 sec. this is the result from one of them (the scan blew the highlights, you can see the lighted wall and edge of the wall in the print)



In addition, I no longer make test strips or proofs, pt/pd is too expensive to be fooling around with that. With the negative I get, I read the low zones with detail, I read the light zones with detail, check my printing curves and make a desicion on contrast and printing time from this. 7 times out of 10 I nail it on the first try. Once you become proficient in this system it is so simple as far as time and money savings is concerned that it really should be outlawed.

[robc]

Sandy,

Nut equates to Fan. You need to consider it in the context it was used. If you choose to interpret it as offensive or abusive now that I have expressly said it was not intended as such then that is your prerogative. I have no further interest in the discussion which is mine.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

What's up with all the arguing boys? Let's face it. Art is to please both the artist and the recipient of the art. The latter doesn't care how the art was created, but the artist does. So, if you feel more in control, more free, or just plain happier by using one system vs another, so be it. Pleasing yourself is just as important as pleasing others. It's kind of silly to get on someone for doing it their way. In fact, I believe many misunderstandings arise because as lovers of photography we get excited when we discover a better mousetrap and want to share it with our pals. And besides, I hardly believe a new commer might be scared from photography because some promote the use of a densitomer and I doubt anyone might be swayed from trying to understand sensitometry because many beautiful photos were made without knowing the meaning of the word.

So, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect...

Merry Christmas

[sanking]

Paul Butzi wrote:

"Let me see if I've got this straight.

You make a long series of posts arguing that people are being overly anal about technique, that they're worshiping technique to the detriment of art and making it intimidating for newcomers to get started.

And then, when Jorge discusses how flexible he is, you insult him?

This causes the word 'hypocrite' to reverberate loudly here in the room where I"m typing this."

Paul,

Congratulations. !Y en hora buena naciste, fuiste criado, y hablaste!

You just made it to my all-time Hall of Fame for the most intelligently conceived and precisely expressed four sentences ever made about linguistic discord between phtographers.