So many variables!

[Stephen Benskin]

Attached are the guideline data points for the above example. FYI, both the four quad and the guideline data points are generated by a program I am currently writing.

[Chuck P.]

All I was suggesting is to do some critical thinking and not blindly accept everything unquestioningly.

That's just it, you assume everyone that tests this way is just blindly moving forward with their results and that they may be understanding the wrong idea behind what it is that they are doing and the results that they are producing.

I will always contend that your arguments on this subject (regardless of validity--I'm sure they are valid, never said they were not) serve your own intellectual ego more than for any other reason.

Like I said, what matters are results, there are many that have experienced excellant results with this method and have the prints to prove it-----but I suspect you will always contend that there results were reached the wrong way.

Or, perhaps if one could be so lucky to be standing in a gallery viewing a fine Adams or Sexton print next to you, they would be so fortunate to know that the negative the print came from is flawed because the testing method that guided the making of the negative did not consider "off axis light falloff".

If there is someone reading this that wants to test using what is in the AA Guide Basic Techniques of Photography Book 2 by Schaeffer, then do it! Your photography will improve by leaps and bounds. Don't allow the anal and intellectual musings of someone else stiffle your curiosity and desire to improve in the simplest manner that may be available to you. Listen first to your "results", both in the negative and how it transfers to the print. If you then feel that splitting the frog hair is warranted, then by all means, man, split it.

I am done, you can have the last word. Have a good day.

[Stephen Benskin]

That's just it, you assume everyone that tests this way is just blindly moving forward with their results and that they may be understanding the wrong idea behind what it is that they are doing and the results that they are producing.

Yes I do. And so do all those others who come up with their own methodology. BTZS falls into that category. Schaffer's book does too. It's obvious even from a cursory point of view as Adams never taught the use of step tablets and they do.

It's the same in the photographic scientific community. How many different methods of determining film speed have there been over the years? Should everyone have stopped experimenting for a better approach after the inertia method? Should they not have challenged the assumptions that went along with the various methods that were in use and eventually discarded?

I, for one, want to know to the best of my ability that after putting all the time and trouble into determine the speed and contrast of my film that the results are accurate. That's one of the reasons why I use a calibrated sensitometer with a calibrated step tablet. Yet I know that isn't enough to insure the results. I know I have to incorporate a "hold time" between exposing and processing the film. A topic I have yet to see discussed in any popular "system". I know that determining the film speed using a fixed density method isn't as accurate as using the fractional gradient method, to name a few.

I can name three or four contemporary ways to determine the contrast of film. They can't all be 100% accurate in all aspects, yet they all have to produce quality results or they would no longer to be used. Why care which one works best in the greatest number of situations? To some of us, it is who we are and it is important. The Sun going around the Earth seems to work as an explanation of the observed phenomenon. Why challenge it (sadly a recent poll shows 18% of the population haven't)?

Do any of these universally heard "facts" sound familiar?
- Meters sees 18% reflectance.
- Speed Point (and I'm not talking Zone I) is four stops down from the metered reading.
- 0.10 is the minimal usable density.

They are all incorrect to some degree. So yes, I do think it's important to have a good portion of intellectual skepticism and not to blindly accept as faith everything one reads.

This is a technical forum and should be open to technical discussions even if they challenge fundamentalist beliefs. If someone disagrees with a point, they have the option to challenge it using facts. Others then can support it also using facts. Everyone benefits from such exchanges. The entire structure of the four quadrant reproduction curve I uploaded is based on theory. Explore it, challenge it, prove it wrong. Whatever the outcome, the end result will be a better understanding of the photographic process.

No one benefits from defensive non-sequitur ranks devoid of facts. Those who want to ignore facts and suppress information can saddle up their Triceratops and ride over to a young Earth site where they can deign science all they want.

[rdenney]

I, for one, want to know to the best of my ability that after putting all the time and trouble into determine the speed and contrast of my film that the results are accurate.

Stephen, we should remember that the OP was suffering from technical overload, and needed a way to simplify his testing, not complicate it. We should also remember that people got pleasing, consistent, and even predictable results without ever using a sensitometer or a rigorous testing regime. Those things are fun to do and to discuss, and for someone asking about those technical issues, let the details fly. But we have to be careful not to present someone already paralyzed with too much to think about with even more detail to ponder.

From a systems engineering point of view, your process seems to be focused on verification--whether the system fulfills the requirements. And the requirements are defined in detail in your model, including density targets and so on. The question is whether those requirements do really trace back to what any given user might need.

But the OP was asking for validation, to determine where to start with a process needed to meet his needs and support his photographic objectives.

It is useful to keep these processes separate. Verification should serve validation, not the other way around.

Rick "often in the role of monitoring the test plan development and the testing of highly complex systems" Denney

[Stephen Benskin]

My first post was for the benefit of the OP. The other two were directed elsewhere.

I believe if you are able to define the variables one by one, you can take control and not be overwhelmed. It's taking on everything at once before understanding the component parts that appears to be the cause of the OPs stress.

[Jay DeFehr]

Steven,

I agree with you 100%, and thank you sincerely for your original thinking and detailed explanations.

To the OP: Why bother testing at all? The manufacturers of your films, papers, and developers have done more than enough testing to provide you with the information required to produce good results. Shoot at box speed, develop according to instructions, and print on VC paper to make any necessary corrections. If you want to know about sensitometry, you'd do well to pay attention to Mr. Benskin's posts.

The idea that "The proof is in the pudding", and good prints equate to good sensitometry is, of course, ridiculous, and illustrates just the kind of irrational thinking that confounds so many dark room workers. I think most photographers would agree testing is not a prerequisite to producing excellent work, and some would even agree that testing can be a needless distraction. I believe testing and making photos are related, but separate pursuits, and the more testing I do, the more liberal I become in my approach to making my photos. I rarely use a light meter, and estimate my development based on my subjective evaluation of the lighting conditions and my goals for the print. While it's undeniable my estimations, evaluations and guesses are informed by my intensive testing, there is no direct application of my testing to my photography. So, test if you like, or don't; I don't think it matters much, and I don't think your photos will be remarkably different, either way. The most important thing, is to enjoy your process, whatever it is. Good luck, and have fun!

[Stephen Benskin]

The idea that "The proof is in the pudding", and good prints equate to good sensitometry is, of course, ridiculous, and illustrates just the kind of irrational thinking that confounds so many dark room workers. I think most photographers would agree testing is not a prerequisite to producing excellent work, and some would even agree that testing can be a needless distraction. I believe testing and making photos are related, but separate pursuits, and the more testing I do, the more liberal I become in my approach to making my photos.

I wish I had said that.

[Bill Burk]

Ah, but there _is_ a purpose to this testing. By whatever form it takes, it gives the photographer a deeper understanding. I would assert it is the learning, it is the journey that is important, not the results.

Musicians practice their scales. This helps them learn their instruments quickly. You can play by ear with no formal practice and still make beautiful music.

Photographers can acquire understanding very quickly by performing _any_ systematic testing. It's similar to playing scales.

But even without doing any system testing, like playing by ear, beautiful images can be made.

[BillA]

You may have heard "The first film you develop should be with the lights on." This is good advice since film/developer combinations can be quite different from one another. With sheet film under white light, pull one sheet out of the stack in the developer every minute.

I realize that this thread is a bit stale, but I would like to thank you all for great advice. Neal, in particular, gave me a great starting point that I could not discern from books and other sites that I've visited. We all learn differently and sometimes a gem comes along like an electric shock. In my case, it was this advice. I'm doing exactly this right now and seeing great results.

Thank you!
Bill

[Tim k]

Remember that Ansel Adams did not devise the Zone System, per se, until many years after he had started as a professional photographer. When he was first learning, he realized that if he set his exposure for the shadows, he could then control the highlights on the basis of how long he developed. He then started experimenting with different development times to see how much he could control the development of the highlights with respect to the shadows. By the time he applied real rigor to that test, he had already cemented his basic technique.

If your film is coming out with even development, then your agitation method is fine, at least for now. Do it that way every time. Establishing that technique is more a matter of what physically works for you moving film sheets in and out of trays, so that you know you can do it that way every time.

If your shadow details have the texture you intended, then you are exposing properly. If you set your exposure on the basis that Zone III measurements would fall on Zone III, and they do, then you have your film speed and basic exposure technique down. Do it that way every time.

Then, it's a matter of determining how long to develop so that the highlights do what you want them to do. If you have texture on subject scenes that fell on Zone VIII, then your basic N development is on target. You'll develop less to attain less contrast and more to attain more contrast. But get that basic development to your satisfaction before trying to alter it. Getting that consistent development will require careful temperature control, but again it's not so much whether it's 68 or 75, but that you can do it that way every time.

Once you have control over basic technique so that you are unconsciously repeatable, then you can start to vary this and that to see what you might achieve in addition to that. By that time, you'll know that you can produce a proper negative for any normal scene, and you'll be able to make adjustments one at a time and see their effects.

Adams made revolutionary photos before he had the details of the Zone System really worked out. It's worth remembering.

Rick "who can only test one thing at a time" Denney

I think this is very sound advice.