Film demo/testing procedure advice

[Sizam]

Hi All,
I just ordered 2 rolls each of 5 different B&W 120 film to run through my 6x17 camera to get a feel for how each of the films look. For each of the pairs I plan on sending one to my local lab and one off to dr5.com to see what difference having a B&W transparency makes for scanning.

I'm going to use two different lenses, a 150 f2.8 Xenotar and Schneider 80mm XL f4.5,
I get 4 shots each so I figured I'd do one architecture/landscape with the 80mm (both at f4.5 and f16) and one still life/portrait with the 150 (both at f2.8 and f16) so I can see how the films render bokeh and detail.

Any suggestions from anybody who has done this before and wished they had done it differently?

Thanks

[mikew]

Hi Sizam. The only thing that I'd caution you about is to make sure that your testing consistently. Using a subject like a landscape or piece of architecture, the luminance of the scene can change quite dramatically in a matter of seconds and that can augment your results if you're comparing the same subject on different films. 1/2 stop difference in a particular shadow caused by the movement of the sun or a cloud or even a different camera position can be the difference between what you want and don't want.

That's also all assuming that you're exposing your film at the right film speed for the way you plan to process.

Personally, I've always tested film the Ansel Adams way by exposing a sheet of film with the bellows focused to infinity (at that focal length) to a non-textured surface illuminated to within +/- 1/10 stop. I turned a table upside down, taped a matte board to it, and moved it around until I got the right angle. I won't lie and say that it isn't a pain in the butt, but it's the best way I've found to determine film speed, even with flare, and other Zone System applications. I know it's not what you're looking to do, but exposing a given roll at a different film speed will make a big difference in comparison of tonal values and such.

My advice is to control as many of the variables as possible, otherwise comparisons can be quite useless. If you plan it all out you'll be fine.

Hope that helps a bit. Best of luck!

Mikew

[Pawlowski6132]

He's obviously not talking about that kind of testing.

Hi Sizam. The only thing that I'd caution you about is to make sure that your testing consistently. Using a subject like a landscape or piece of architecture, the luminance of the scene can change quite dramatically in a matter of seconds and that can augment your results if you're comparing the same subject on different films. 1/2 stop difference in a particular shadow caused by the movement of the sun or a cloud or even a different camera position can be the difference between what you want and don't want.

That's also all assuming that you're exposing your film at the right film speed for the way you plan to process.

Personally, I've always tested film the Ansel Adams way by exposing a sheet of film with the bellows focused to infinity (at that focal length) to a non-textured surface illuminated to within +/- 1/10 stop. I turned a table upside down, taped a matte board to it, and moved it around until I got the right angle. I won't lie and say that it isn't a pain in the butt, but it's the best way I've found to determine film speed, even with flare, and other Zone System applications. I know it's not what you're looking to do, but exposing a given roll at a different film speed will make a big difference in comparison of tonal values and such.

My advice is to control as many of the variables as possible, otherwise comparisons can be quite useless. If you plan it all out you'll be fine.

Hope that helps a bit. Best of luck!

Mikew

[johnielvis]

forget testing in that "systematic method" in my opinion....treat the films like chicks and date as many as possible.....just shoot them...get familiar to their various proclivities.....and experiment with developers....etc....after a while you may find the one you want to "marry"....maybe you marry one but cheat sometimes.....

it's like that....trying to systematically figure out what you like is like the problem with computer dating.....

besides, your tastes will change over time....so the more experience you have with everything the better...just shoot one till you hate it or till you get bored...then pick another.....if you find "the one" then your set...otherwise..you pick what you think is best for the job based on your past experience.....real practical experience....not controlled testing...that don't work (for me anyways)

[mikew]

Pawlowski6132...LOL...yeah, I got that thanks...which is why I offered up what I did. The point I was getting at is: how are you supposed test and compare different new films without establishing a baseline to test them somewhere? It'll all be a shot in the dark if there's no system...but thanks.

Johnielvis...I don't know why people get spooked about controlled testing but that's the idea behind testing...controlling variables...in fact, that's the idea behind the mechanics of photography...controlling variables. So your dating analogy is a wee bit off...but creative and ideal for someone not so serious about the medium. Using different films with different developers without a system of testing and comparing them is useless because you'll never get consistent results to compare (HP5 is an entirely different film when exposed at ASA200 relative to ASA400). It's not like you can just pick a film and developer, work with it for a few weeks, and then skip on to the next one. If you do, you're results will always be mediocre because you've haven't explored the film/developer combo nearly enough (6 months min). The only experience you'll gain by rifling through films and developers that fast is that you've inconsistently tested a bunch of film with inaccurate results that are, for the large part, useless beyond your own undertaking. That's not where "real practical experience" comes from...at least if you want make money as an artist. Personally I'd rather take the time to figure out what I like so that when I'm out in the field its only a matter of execution.

And all this "controlled systematic" testing takes a day or two. It's not rocket science.

All the best,

Mikew

[Pawlowski6132]

I hear what you're saying Mike. And I've been down that road before. I've tested various films to establish my PEI (I like Fred Picker's Method). But, I never realized the value in it. I never figured out how to meter a scene using a spot meter. I never figured out how to extend development times to "place" my highlights in zone VII, etc. I can't match my negative to the contrast range of a paper. I can't keep my developers at a constant temperature. I cant previsualize etc., etc. Basically, I can't use the zone system. I don't have the acumen or the patience. Nor, do my photographs require it and so, it's not worth all the time and trouble. I'm just a weekend hack who does this for a hobby.

While I've settled on HP5, I did often try different films and had been curious about the differences and similarities. What I did was try each film in my half-ass system and treated each exposure, development and proof print equally ineptly. That was my consistency. My judgement is always the same.

Today, I try to keep things simple and consistent. I use a reflective meter, I use a liquid, one shot developer, I always use fresh film and paper (for my proofs at least) and I have even taken to using a pinhole camera recently.

So, I (or anyone that doesn't want to use a densitometer) can use different films to my hearts content and not use a sophisticated scientific test mthod as loing as I can approximate my same mistakes and simpleton methods repeatedly.

[mikew]

Pawlowski...I appreciate that...it really is a matter of approach and the manner in which one chooses to engage the medium. I come at it from one extreme for sure. I've always found the Zone System quite easy, oddly enough, and finding a densitometer isn't that hard...especially on Ebay...if that's the route you want to go. So when it comes to a person's approach, to each his-or-her own...but as far as comparing different films, developers, papers, etc. go, I've gone down the path of just haphazardly experimenting and I got no where because at the end I wasn't comparing apples to apples. I wanted - and have it - such that I can go into the field with any subject/situation and know definitively that I'll get the result that I envision. That said, if your methodology - flawed or unflawed - is consistent, that's what's important...that essence of consistency for the basis of comparison. That's all I was getting at.

Happy New Year everyone!

[Jim Noel]

Testing for your personal EI and development time is simple and quick. It is easily done with no more than 2 rolls of film and does not require a densitometer.
First, check your shutter speeds - these are often the biggest deterrent to consistent exposures.
Then utilize the 9 negative test, or in the case of 6x17, cut that to the 4 negative test stressing lower film speeds, and slightly longer development times.
Make good prints and choose the one which pleases you the most, not what the densitometer says.
Jim

[Sizam]

Thanks for all the feedback guys, in this particular case Pawlowski has it right, I'm not testing in order to create consistant results from development, I'm shooting the different flim so I can get a feeling for what each looks like given the same subject.

Its kinda what John is suggesting on 'speed dating', I want to know, if I'm going for a certain look, which film(s) work well given the output I'm looking for. I imagine some films will have more/less contrast, more/less/different grain, more/less apparent sharpness etc.

[mikew]

Sizam...sorry...not sure why this is so confusing or even a point of contention: you can't get a "feel" for what a film can do without determining its speed and development times -- and working with that film extensively. I've done it both ways and you just can't. The whole speed dating analogy is wrong, period. What if you were shooting Tri-X at an ISO of 320 or 400? The look of that is going be really different than if you expose it at 160 or 200. And thinking that you're going get a feel for all those variables of grain, contrast, accutance, without testing it wish specific developers is pretty useless. At the very least find out what chemistry and agitation cycles will be used.

I'm not sure what else to say other than that this kind of attitude and approach to the medium is better suited to digital photography or scanning for a digital output.