PDA

View Full Version : Btzs Testing Questions



Hedd-wyn
22-Nov-2018, 21:54
Hi, As a relative newbie to 4x5 photography I have decided to go down the rabbit hole of film testing. I have become intrigued with the testing method as outlined in the BTZS 4th ed. book by Phil Davis. I have read the book and now have a very basic understanding of the testing, have gone through a great number of threads on this forum with regards to the subject and have also gone through the forum located at BTZS.org. There are still a few points I need to have clarified.

1. I am assuming that I don't have to do the initial test with an ASA 100 film like Delta in DDX 1:1 and that I can use HP5+ ASA 400 in HC-110
1:63 (correct me if I'm wrong but I got the impression that you test with an ASA 100 film first if you are going to use the Plotter program as
this is how you calibrate the program, otherwise you can test what you want)

2. I will be using my enlarger for contact printing the step wedge. For ASA 100 film the book says initial testing should be f11, and EV4 @ 0.4
sec. therefore for ASA 400 I should use f11, and EV2 @ 0.4 sec. Correct?

3. I have a 31 step wedge that I will be using as I don't have a 21 step. The book calls for a 21 step wedge but on the BTZS forum site the
question of being able to use a 31 step was asked and Phil Davis replied that he hadn't done it himself, but didn't see why not and listed the 21
steps out of the 31 that he would use for the plotting. I would like to hear from someone who has used a 31 step wedge to find out if it
provided a satisfactory result.

4. It is also my understanding that Fred Newman at the View Camera Store now tells clients that are going to use his film testing service that
they should run the 4 minute film first of all and see if it shows an SBR of approximately 9. If over or under, the developer dilution should
changed and the 4 minute test done again. e.g. if the SBR is too contrasty (SBR 7) then the developer dilution should be increased. If the SBR
is too high (SBR 10) the dilution should be decreased. Once the SBR of 9 is achieved, then all 5 films are exposed and developed at that
dilution. This is where I need help. I am assuming that when he says the film should exhibit an SBR of 9 he means it should show a range of 9
stops which on a 21 step wedge would mean that there should be 18 steps visible, each step representing 1/2 stop. Correct? I would have e-
mailed Fred but the website says he is away until Nov. 29/18 and I would like to start testing.

Thanks for your input. Feel free to offer any other gems not in the book that will make the testing go a little easier. I know I could use the testing service at the VCS but that wouldn't give me the satisfaction of doing it myself. I'll eventually buy the Plotter and Expo/Dev programs once I can get satisfactory results this way. An acquaintance thought that a lot of the PTSD found in photographers could be related to BTZS testing! I'll see.

Hedd-wyn
22-Nov-2018, 23:36
Just realized that the correct answer to question #4 is that I have to plot the 4 minute curve and measure the distance between IDmin and IDmax to get my SBR expressed in stops. Duh.

Pere Casals
23-Nov-2018, 03:28
2. I will be using my enlarger for contact printing the step wedge. For ASA 100 film the book says initial testing should be f11, and EV4 @ 0.4
sec. therefore for ASA 400 I should use f11, and EV2 @ 0.4 sec. Correct?


EV4 x 0.4s is 16 LUX新econd.

I'd recommend you to work with LUX units, for that you may want a cheap ($30) luxmeter with 0.01Lux min. If you review the TMX datasheet you will see absolute "lux during seconds" scales, this is better than Ilford scales with arbitrary relative units for exposure, as you take that effort then better to do it with technical units.

Later you can correlate your Lux based graphs with field EV's.

Also in the TMX datasheet you will find (page 8) that film is saturated by 10 Lux Second, so with 16 Lux惹 you will test pretty well highlight condition for ISO 100 films. (In the Kodak graph you have a Log scale, so 1 is 101, so 10).

0.4S exposure may be good depending on the illumination you have. There is a trade, a long exposure suffers LIRF (reciprocity f) in the denser steps, while a short exposure does not allow the filament get hot and the transitories in the light power also have LIRF. A 1 second exposure it looks safer to me, so I'd use instead 16 LUX and 1 second.

... but be creative and determine the effect of exposure time (with eq adjusted powers), just at the same time make a 3s, 1s, and 1/3s tests, with x1/3, x1 and x3 LUX, and determine if the factor has an effect for a film.





3. I have a 31 step wedge that I will be using as I don't have a 21 step. The book calls for a 21 step wedge but on the BTZS forum site the
question of being able to use a 31 step was asked and Phil Davis replied that he hadn't done it himself, but didn't see why not and listed the 21
steps out of the 31 that he would use for the plotting. I would like to hear from someone who has used a 31 step wedge to find out if it
provided a satisfactory result.


This is irrelevant, the important thing is having a calibrated wedge (you have the density readings for each step) or having a densitomer. From the LUX惹econd reaching the wedge you can multiply by the transmission of each step to get the actual LUX新econd reaching the medium. ...just divide the original lux新econd by 10step_density.

If the wedge does not have all density range you want then you can expose a second film strip with lower illumination, at the end you want to know the density obtained from a Lux . Second exposures.

You can scan your test strips alongside with a calibrated (or mesuared) wedge, (disable any auto seting, scan 16 bits/channel, save in tiff, mask around the film to avoid scanner flare ), and then you can compare (or interpolate) from the readings in the wedge, cheking the 16 bit pixel levels in Photoshop.

If you don't have a calibrated wedge you can use the the theoric values of the uncalibrated wedge for the moment, not big mistakes there in a good wedge.




4.


See Stouffer Industries page to get specs of the wedges

Hedd-wyn
23-Nov-2018, 13:30
Hi Pere, Thanks for the input. I am trying to follow a very specific methodology as outlined in the BTZS book. Non of the graphs that I am going to plot use lux.seconds. I am a neophyte film tester and I will admit that I don't really understand the math behind a lot of it so I am reluctant to try and change units or anything else where I don't have concrete examples to follow. I am using an ASA 400 film and will be using EV2 @.4s as that is what has been recommended. I assume that would be 8 lux.seconds, correct? Is there a reason to use lux.seconds? Would it change the results I would arrive at? I have a Metrolux II electronic timer which is calibrated in tenths of seconds so there shouldn't be any issue with the actual exposure timing. I have been warned not to go lower than .4s or higher than .5s because of reciprocity issues. The height of the enlarger or the fstop should be altered if I need to make any changes, not the timing. I do have a calibrated step wedge and access to a densitometer for all my readings so I'm good there. I am still hoping that someone who has gone through the BTZS testing method will respond and correct any misconceptions that I have. All the best.

Pere Casals
23-Nov-2018, 23:06
See this table:

https://www.sekonic.com/united-states/support/evluxfootcandleconversionchart.aspx




using EV2 @.4s as that is what has been recommended. I assume that would be 8 lux.seconds, correct?

From the table EV2 is 10 lux, so by 0.4 seconds this is 4 lux新econd.


Is there a reason to use lux.seconds?

Conceptually it's the same, but with EVs you meter in fractions of step, while with lux新 you may metter 0.01 Lux, so it's a more precise way of measuring exposures, and this locates the toe with more precision, personally I may want to know if the toe starts 1/3 of stop here or there...



I don't really understand the math behind

It's really plain math, I'd recommend you make the effort to understand/learn the basics of logarithms, it would not take you much and you'll find it will be useful to understand clearly calibrations and sensitometry, and other concepts not related to photography like sound level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQTWzLpCcW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dUSNdZspQc

Hedd-wyn
24-Nov-2018, 17:50
Alright, now I understand why you suggested lux.seconds, More precision. Makes sense. Thanks for the links as well. You have motivated me to start dealing with logarithms.

Cheers.