Film Testing Without a Densitometer [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

windpointphoto

4-Dec-2005, 15:08

Load your holders and go out and make a a series of photos under different lighting conditions, esp the conditions you like to photograph under. Make an exposure for each asa speed, say 100 thru 400 for TriX. Develop in the developer you'll use. I use a hole punch and punch a hole 1 thru whatever in each neg and keep notes on how many holes to what asa. Develop and make prints. Whichever one looks good to YOU is the best one. Now here's the hard part: stick to that film, asa and developer combo. You can adjust if needed later but this will answer ALL your film questions and you can than make pictures and not waste your time as so many others do testing to the nth degree. Test once and be done with it!

Ron Marshall

4-Dec-2005, 16:10

Paul Butzi outlines the proceedure in detail on his website. It is quick, simple and requires only three sheets of film.

steve simmons

4-Dec-2005, 16:37

View Camera is doing an artile on how to deterjine your proofing time, your personal exposure index and your normal developing time in the Jan issue. It is simply a description of the minimum time for maximum black that Fre Picker wrote about in his book The Zone VI Workshop

steve simmons

www.viewcamera.com

John Berry ( Roadkill )

4-Dec-2005, 16:37

I would do the nine negative test.

Kirk Gittings

4-Dec-2005, 17:22

I have used the Picker method for 25 years with great results. Pick up an old copy off ebay or wait for Steve's article. It works very well.

Robert C. McColloch

4-Dec-2005, 18:34

Might be helpful for you to have a little more information regarding Kirk's suggestion. The book by Fred Picker is probably out of print (6th printing 1977). But you could probably find one in a used book store. Look for "The Fine Print in Black & White Photography" published by Amphoto, ISBN 0-8174-0574-7.

Brian Ellis

4-Dec-2005, 19:34

Last time I looked there were quite a few transmission densitometers for sale on ebay for very little, including several nice Macbeths and other well known brands on which nobody was bidding. So if you wanted one you probably could pick one up for $100 or so.

Kirk Gittings

4-Dec-2005, 20:47

I was actually thinking of the Zone VI manual. ASfter years of trying to figure out the zone system with minor Whiyes book and AA's first version of the Negative, Pickers Z6 manual was a beam of light.

sanking

4-Dec-2005, 21:05

Just for the record, Fred Picker's method of determining personal film speed depended on the use of a densitometer. He describes the proper personal ASA speed rating as one that produces the minimum printable density of log 0.8 to .10 above film base plus fog. And he states that"the proper Zone 1 density is accurately determined by a machine called a densitometer." (Fred Picker, The Fine Print in Black and White Photography, Amphoto, 1977, p. 19). In fact, Picker placed so much importance on where to place Zone I that he voluntereed to read the negative densities and indicate which negative was exposed at the correct meter setting for any person who had "trouble finding one conveniently."

Unfortunately some persons have erroneously interpreted his instructions and conclude that the personal speed rating is determined by the exposure that produces maximum black. In fact, this will result in underexposure and reduce shadow separation because it will place the shadows too low on the toe.

Jay DeFehr

4-Dec-2005, 22:09

Old-school. Shoot, develop, print, assess, adjust, and repeat until satisfied.

Jay

Hans Berkhout

4-Dec-2005, 22:32

Norman Sanders wrote in the 70's "The Photographic Tone Control System" Very informative. No need for densitometer. A form of occupational therapy as well, if that's what you need during a long winter. Requires a lot of film. Could be combined with Paul Schrantz's B&W Calibration and Film testing (Photo Techniques). George deWolfe has very useful, fast method with mountingboard patches spread one zone apart, in early View camera isssue. Needs densitometer.

Shooting full scale scene, assigning and writing down the Zones assigned by you with help of spotmeter makes a lot of sense. At a few different filmspeeds, starting out with Manuf.suggested dev time.
Good luck.

Brian Ellis

5-Dec-2005, 06:02

"Just for the record, Fred Picker's method of determining personal film speed depended on the use of a densitometer"

Right. From page 22 of the Amphoto "Zone System Workshop" book, p. 77, "After development, find the negative with a density of .08 to .10 above film base and fog or send the film to me if you can't locate a densitometer."

steve simmons

5-Dec-2005, 07:52

"Unfortunately some persons have erroneously interpreted his instructions and conclude that the personal speed rating is determined by the exposure that produces maximum black. In fact, this will result in underexposure and reduce shadow separation because it will place the shadows too low on the toe.

--Sandy King 2005-12-04 20:05 PST "

This is confusing statement. One's personal ei is not determined by the exposure that poduces maximum black. One's personal exposure index is determined by the amount of exposure on the film that gives you a zone 1 tone that is slightly less than maximum black when given the proper proof time

"Just for the record, Fred Picker's method of determining personal film speed depended on the use of a densitometer"
Right. From page 22 of the Amphoto "Zone System Workshop" book, p. 77, "After development, find the negative with a density of .08 to .10 above film base and fog or send the film to me if you can't locate a densitometer."

--Brian Ellis 2005-12-05 05:02 PST "

I have done this test hundreds of times without a densitometer. It works without one. When I checked my test negs after the test my zone 1 tone/density on the negative was always .09 to .14 abive film base plus fog.'

A densitometer can be an interesting tool but it is not a requirement. Hw many of the masters do you think used one. Sure White and Adams did but how about any others. Too often ths becmes a study that goes beyond what is necessary to make good photogrpahs.

This is a fight that started on another forum and does not need to be repeated here. There are different schools of thought. Lets just respect each other and move on.

So Robert, you now can make your own choice. Let us know how you do.

steve simmons

View Camera magazine

sanking

5-Dec-2005, 10:02

Steve Simmons wrote: "This is a fight that started on another forum and does not need to be repeated here. There are different schools of thought. Lets just respect each other and move on. "

Curious comment. As far as I am concerned this has nothing at all to do with anything that took place on another forum, only with what has been said in this thread. As far as I am concerned what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

As for this thread, here are the simple fact.

Robert asked for a recommendation for a system of film testing to determine one's film speed without use of a densitometer.

You responded by announcing that a forthcoming issue of View Camera would include what you call "a description of the minimum time for maximum black that Fred Picker wrote about in his book The Zone VI Workshop." Your reference to Picker, without the context of this thread, strongly implies that his system did not use a densitometer, which is not true.

I pointed out the fact that Picker himself *did* in fact use a densitometer with his system of determining personal film speed, and he clearly felt it was an important part of the process. In fact, he considered it so important that that he offered to read the negative densities of persons who did not have access to a densitometer. Both Brian and I provided documentation of the above.

Regardless of what you may personally think about the use of a densitometer Fred Picker obviously believed it was important in determining personal film speed. Therefore, if you plan to wrap your writings in the authority of Picker, as would appear to be the case, you might at least mention this *minor* point.

ronald moravec

5-Dec-2005, 10:05

I use an indoor test setup that includes detailed whites and blacks. Expose just enough to get black detail in the neg and develope long enough so the whites are white, not grey and yet they need not be burned in to show detail. An uncalibrated test wedge print is included. You want separation in the two darkest and two lightest steps. You might use black socks and a white shirt.

Take into account bellows extension for the set or you will overexpose outside.

A white cross lit stucco house with black roof or shutters or a white car with black tires make good outside test subjects. The problem with outside is you are at the mercy of the weather.
Indoors I use electronic flash.

Jorge Gasteazoro

5-Dec-2005, 10:29

As I understand it te human eye can evaluate a change in density of about 0.05 units. It is for this reason that many chemical field colorimetric tests rely on an operator being able to tell the difference between color densities between the samples and the standard to judge chemical concentrations. If any of you have a pool you know what I am talking about.... :-)

In fact, Kodak many years ago used to sell a little kit that used the same method as described in the Sullivan book and it is the method I would use if I did not have a densitometer.

Evaluating the first step or frame that is just slightly less black than the paper black can lead to errors that can be as great as 1 stop. This gets more complicated if one is using staining developers.

In any case Robert, you do have access to a densitometer if you are willing to pay for postage. Many of us here have them and would be glad to read the negatives for you, I know I am.

steve simmons

5-Dec-2005, 10:31

I never said Picker dd not use or recommend a densitometer. I have been explaining that the test can be done without one. In my own testing since 1979 I have done it both ways. Both ways I end up with a zone 1 density between .09 and .14. This is the density I need, and that has been suggested by people such as Picker, Adams, etc. as the requred /suggested density for zone 1.

I have not said it is wrong to use a densitometer. I have simply said it can be done both ways and the results are the same. As Kirk Gittings said a few posts up Picker's book was very helpful to many people.

I am not simply wrapping my article on the authority of Picker. I am giving him credit for developing the procedure and citing my source of education. I am then going on and sharing how I have been able to use the testing procedure and how it works.

Take your choice.

Lets let people judge for themselves. I trust them.

steve simmons

Brian Ellis

5-Dec-2005, 13:06

Steve Simmons said: "It is simply a description of the minimum time for maximum black that Fred Picker wrote about in his book The Zone VI Workshop. . . I have done this test hundreds of times without a densitometer. It works without one. . . A densitometer can be an interesting tool but it is not a requirement . . . This is a fight that started on another forum and does not need to be repeated here."

What fight? Relax Steve, I didn't say anything about your system not working nor did I say a densitometer was a necessity . The question asked was "can you even do a film test without referencing a densitomer." You responded by referring to Fred Picker's book in conjunction with your magazine article that presumably will describe a method of determining film speed without a densitometer. Someone else also responded to the question by referring to the Picker method. Both references created the obvious implication that Picker's method didn't involve use of a densitometer.

So without saying anything at all about the merits of your system, whatever it might be, Sandy
correctly pointed out that the "Picker method" does involve use of a densitometer for the film speed test. And also without commenting in any way about the merits of your method, I confirmed his statement by quoting from the Picker book to which you referred. Nothing at all was said by Sandy or by me about the merits of your system or whether a densitometer is a necessity. Our only point was that Picker's method in fact involves use of a densitometer for film speed testing, nothing more. No fight, no argument, at least not until you created one.

Kirk Gittings

5-Dec-2005, 13:46

In that case let me restate my position, since I probably haven't looked at Pickers book in 20 years.

I have used a simplified version of the Picker method for 25 years without using a densitometer with great results and have taught it in workshops and universities to hundreds of students who also use my simplified version successfully.

steve simmons

5-Dec-2005, 14:34

"Steve Simmons said: "It is simply a description of the minimum time for maximum black that Fred Picker wrote about in his book The Zone VI Workshop. . . I have done this test hundreds of times without a densitometer. It works without one. . . A densitometer can be an interesting tool but it is not a requirement . . . This is a fight that started on another forum and does not need to be repeated here."

according to Brian Elis

Ok. You've taken statements from at least two, possibly three posts and strung them together to try and distort what I said. You did this all within the one set of quotation marks which is dishonest. If you were going to pull from different posts you should have used separate sets of quoatation markes when quoting sentences from different posts.

The question at the top of the thread was

"Does have a recommendation for a film test to determine one's film speed and "N" development time that does NOT reference a densitometer? I do not have access to one, but would sure like to try to work out my film speed and development times. Can you even do a film test without referencing a densitometer? "

This is a complete quote, not somemthing I strung to gether from different posts.

The first several responses were suggestions on how to do what he was asking. I then added that it was also possible to do what he was suggesting.

This topic was played out about two weeks ago on another forum and became quite ugly. Some people apparently were embarrassed by their posts and went in and tried to soften them so as not to seem so inflammatory. This is the fight I was referring to and I did not want this thread to go down the same road.

Some of the people who became so inflammtory on the other forum were now chiming in here defending the use of a densitometer whch was outside the question.

As I remember it the service Picker was offereing was in the section of the book where he was selling several of his products. It was not in the main body of the book where he described the testing procedure. If I am correct, then to clam that Picker required the use of a densitometer to do the testing is a bit of a stretch. He was simply offering the services of a densitometer which is a little different then what has been suggested by some people.

steve simmons

sanking

5-Dec-2005, 14:57

"I have used a simplified version of the Picker method for 25 years without using a densitometer with great results and have taught it in workshops and universities to hundreds of students who also use my simplified version successfully."

Which means what? Michael Smith, who is a lot better known for the quality of his work than any of us, develops by inspection and has probably not made more than two tests of any kind in his entire life. And so far as I know he does not even know how to use a densitomer. So understand that no claim is being made here that one has to use a densitometer, or even to test film for that matter, to make great prints. On the other hand, the work of Dick Arentz would suggest that sound testing and the use of good sensitometry, does not impede vision and great printmaking.

But why do you suppose it was that Fred Picker recommended the use of a densitometer in his system of testing, if it were not for some reason important to him? I am certain that from a purely practical consideration he was well aware of the fact that people could do the tests without a densitometer and get perfectly acceptable results, if for no other reason than the simple facto that there is considerable latitude in exposing, developing and printing.

No, the reason, at least IMHO, is that Picker recognized that 1) the eye is not capable of discriminating between very small, but significanty important, differences of reflection and transmission density, and that 2) these small differences make a big difference in the effective values of film speed, whether this is determined by visual analysis or by sensitometry.

So the fact of the matter is this. The Picker system of film testing is perfectly adequate for determining personal film speed for practical use. However, if that determination needs to be made to better than about 1/2 stop it won’t work without a densitometer.

If you really believe the testing without the use of a densitometer can give you consistent accuracy in EI to better than 1/2 stop you are either an incredible human being with extraordinary powers of visual discrimination, or the error in the real value of EI is masked by the latitude of the process. And after all, all clocks give the right time at least once every 24 hours.

sanking

5-Dec-2005, 15:13

"As I remember it the service Picker was offereing was in the section of the book where he was selling several of his products. It was not in the main body of the book where he described the testing procedure. If I am correct, then to clam that Picker required the use of a densitometer to do the testing is a bit of a stretch. He was simply offering the services of a densitometer which is a little different then what has been suggested by some people. "

Not so. The statement by Picker offering to test negatives was on p. 19, right in the middle of the body text, in the third paragraph of the section called Determination of Personal Film Speed. So ergo, you are not correct and the rest of what you say is a "stretch" on your part.

Discriminating readers can check it out. Fred Picker. Zone VI Workshop: The Fine Print in Black &White Photography. Amphoto Book, 1977. p. 19.

steve simmons

5-Dec-2005, 16:04

I never said that testing impedes anything. unless people become so obsessed with testng thast they don't photograph.

As I have stated many times my 'eyeballing' as always brought me zone 1 densities of .09 to .14. This in the range of what all of those masters who do test have suggested for a zone 1 density above film base plus fog.

The point is to get the density high enough on the lower end of the film's curve to begin registering on the paper. The exact density requred to do this will depend on the curve of the higher densities of the paper. To argue that there is some preset perfect value is to argue that the negative is the end produt. For me the print is the end product. To many times there is a dogma that is preached that those who do not test do not undersand and are somehow uninformed. Most working photographers do not do the extensive testng that those who write books and teach do. The time required simply does not seem to pay off except in an academic or publishing environment.

steve simmons

Mark_3632

5-Dec-2005, 16:28

Sandy, Steve,

Would you two mind stopping the childishness.

Back to reality:

I am very interested in the answer and I see there are some ideas that make some sense to me. Hutchings has an idea but I do not have access to the book. Does his method require a densitometer? If not what is the method?

steve simmons

5-Dec-2005, 16:39

Gordon understands, appreciates, and sometimes teaches the Picke method without a densitometer. This procss works both with standard and staining developers.

steve simmons

If you want to ask him directly go to theView Camera web sie and into the forum. You will have to register but it is open to everyone. You can ask him and he will answer through the forum.

steve simmons

sanking

5-Dec-2005, 16:52

"The point is to get the density high enough on the lower end of the film's curve to begin registering on the paper. The exact density required to do this will depend on the curve of the higher densities of the paper. To argue that there is some preset perfect value is to argue that the negative is the end product. For me the print is the end product. To many times there is a dogma that is preached that those who do not test do not understand and are somehow uninformed. Most working photographers do not do the extensive testing that those who write books and teach do. The time required simply does not seem to pay off except in an academic or publishing environment."

Anybody who claims that the "point" is this or this or that misses the point from my perspective. There is no exact point on the toe or lower part of the curve where the lower densities need to be placed, but there are better points than others, depending on the nature and type of the shoulder, and the process being used. And, though not stated, you appear to operate from knowledge of only one or two printing systems.

To say that for you the " print is the end result" demeans the nature of this exchange since the statement is probably true for most of us. I am reasonably confident that I print at least as well as you do, and for me the print is also the end product. I am also sure that is true for other photographers who have used sensitometry in their work, including foks like Ansel Admas and like Dick Arent.

There is more. Testing of the type you propose, because of the cumulative nature of system degradation (i.e. cumulative errors caused by tolerance factors in shutters, lens apertures and development, as well as density measurements) is just as likely to suggest an inaccurate film EI as an accurate one. In fact, if one were to just check the accuracy of their metering equipment and the accuracy of their shutters and lens apertures I suspect they would be better of just using film ASA on the box than to trust a personal film speed derived from the type of testing you propose. This is due to the fact that your method of testing will result in degradation at every step. But you get away with this type of testing, not because it is inherently accurate, but because of latitude in the system.

steve simmons

5-Dec-2005, 17:02

I give up Sandy. You are in academia, I think, and can afford this type of attitude. Most working photographers can not and do not. They make wonderful prints and do not do the type of testing you think is so important.

Many ,many people eithe test as am describing or as Michael Smith does or something similar. They make good prints which shows your level of testing is beyond what is necessary.

I am not going to respond to this any more. It has become nothing but mashing pulp.

steve simmons

Brian Ellis

5-Dec-2005, 17:21

"Ok. You've taken statements from at least two, possibly three posts and strung them together to try and distort what I said. You did this all within the one set of quotation marks which is dishonest. If you were going to pull from different posts you should have used separate sets of quoatation markes when quoting sentences from different posts. "

Actually it was taken from two of your posts that followed each other in short succession in a single thread. I fail to see what difference that makes or what difference using two sets of quotation marks instead of one would have accomplished from the standpoint of honesty or distortion. Are you saying the quotes weren't accurate? Of course not, they were perfectly accurate.They were quoted in the sequence in which they appeared and I indictated by ellipses that some portions were omitted. Nobody is out to get you, nobody has distorted anything, nobody is being dishonest. You in fact said what I quoted you as saying, whether you said it in one post or two posts or ten posts has nothing to do with its accuracy or honesty.

"This topic was played out about two weeks ago on another forum and became quite ugly"

I have no idea what topic you're talking about or what other forum you're talking about. The only thing I've said is that Fred Picker used a densitometer for his film speed tests and I provided a quote from his book as authority for that statement. Period. That's all. Why that bothers you I have no idea.

"Some of the people who became so inflammtory on the other forum were now chiming in here defending the use of a densitometer whch was outside the question"

I don't know what other forum you're talking about or why you keep dragging something that happened somewhere else into this discussion. I also don't know who those people were nor do I care. I certainly wasn't one of them. I also didn't defend the use of a densitometer, I simply said that Fred Picker used one.

"As I remember it the service Picker was offereing was in the section of the book where he was selling several of his products. It was not in the main body of the book where he described the testing procedure. If I am correct, then to clam that Picker required the use of a densitometer to do the testing is a bit of a stretch"

I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference to anything I've said but since you brought it up, your memory is wrong. The quote that I provided earlier was from the main section of the book, page 22. Other mentions of using a densitometer are on p. 19, also in the main section of the book. But even if he had mentioned a charge for providing a densitometer reading, what relevance would that have to my statement that he used a densitometer for his film speed tests? I also didn't say that Picker required the use of a densitometer. I said he used a densitometer for his film speed tests and offered to do the same for others, all of which he clearly did.

Brian Ellis

5-Dec-2005, 17:32

"Hutchings has an idea but I do not have access to the book. Does his method require a densitometer? If not what is the method?"

I'm not sure what idea you're talking about but Hutchings does discuss use of a densitometer on p. 65 of "The Book of Pyro," if that's the book you're thinking of. However, he doesn't say it's required for anything. He says "there are many different methods of testing film," as there obviously are. He then goes on at some length to describe a method but I haven't used that method and couldn't summarize it here.

Joe Smigiel

5-Dec-2005, 17:55

OK. You want to test sheet film for EI without a densitometer, here's the easiest cheap route. Buy a wratten #96 0.10 neutral density filter.

Load a sheet film holder with your film, point the camera at an evenly-toned wall at infinity focus (to eliminate extension factor) in even light. Take a reflected meter reading of the wall being sure not to cast a shadow on it. Use the manufacturer's ISO rating for the first sheet test. Pull the darkslide halfway out and make an exposure 4 stops less than indicated by your meter.

Develop the film. When dry, put it on a light box and place the ND filter on the part of the film that didn't get exposed adjacent to the exposed part. If the density appears the same, voila, you have your film speed point of 0.10 net density above film-base + fog density.

If the filter is denser, lower the ISO and run the test over. If the filter is less dense, increase the ISO and run the test over. Repeat until the filter on the film matches the exposed portion. At that point you now have the film EI for the equipment you've used and the process you've applied to the film.

You have now determined the proper EI ala Picker or Adams without using a densitometer.

Doesn't mean that EI will give you the best print quality or that your development is proper, but at least you have the standard starting point being discussed in the Zone System texts of various authors. Nuances and proper development rely on testing the other end of the scale and doing paper tests.

To get the proper "N" (N-, N+, etc.,) development time you have to make choices about your personal visualization of the zones and know the response of your paper. By this I mean are you going to call zone IX white, or zone X white? In other words, (using that evenly-toned wall again as subject) is the highlight threshold 4 stops above the indicated meter reading, or is it 5 stops above? Makes a difference. Once you determine that, then you can start testing different highlight exposures and developments and see how they interact with the paper to give you predictable highlight print values. You really don't need a densitometer to do this. You just need to print the tests at the standard minimum time that gives you the effective maximum black of the paper as described by Picker and others (i.e., the "proper proof" time). At that time your 0.10 net density sheet should print just slightly lighter than maximum black and you should be able to test for highlight thresholds visually at the other end.

Matching the numbers stated in the books isn't going to get you there. It may only get you close. However, comparing your film to known values on a 21-step transmission density wedge will probably get you there quicker, and a lot more inexpensively.

Joe Smigiel

5-Dec-2005, 18:27

OK. Now here's the rub with Picker. After advocating all that "proper proof" stuff and EI based on the 0.10 density above fb-f, he goes off in his Zone VI newsletter, #51, June 1987, page 7: "I found myself constantly breaking both the 'expose for the shadows' rule as well as my own modification. It finally dawned on me that when I made two exposures of a subject (to be absolutely sure I had enough exposure) the 'overexposed' one always made the better print. Right? The best negative is the one that places all values as high as possible without blocking. So I began to consistently place the high value on zone VIII, regardless of where I wanted that value to end up in the print."

So first of all, he's now bracketing and secondly, he abandons the strategy of printing with an eye turned towards maximum black. He basically adopts Mortensen's system by doing this new MPD ("Maximum Printable Density") modification of the zone system.

He further states: : "I always expose for the maximum printable density, except sometimes, I expose less when I know I want a large contrast increase. To increase the contrast, I place the high value on VI-and-a-half (rather than VIII) and develop plus one-and-a half."

Sure sounds very similar to Mortensen's "7D negative" to me.

And why in the first place is any emphasis ever placed on maximum black proofing when SOP is to "print for the highlights"? Add to this the fact that proof sheets print with less contrast than with condenser enlargements, and the whole maximum black target loses its practicality IMO.

I just picked up a copy of Arentz' book and am looking forward to reading it as I suspect it address this issue and also help crystallize the BTZS approach outlined by Davis.

sanking

5-Dec-2005, 19:06

Joe,

Good points about Picker's comments about placement of shadow densities. I agree with his later assessment that for many processes, placing the shadow values higher on the toe than log 0.8 - .010 above B+F gives better separation in the shadows with most films. We tend to do this routinely in printing with alternative processes such as Pt./Pd., and it also works very well with AZO.

Have fun with Arent'z book. He studied with Davis and understands and applies BTZS better than anyone I know. It is important to understand, however, that when printing with alternative processes there are ways of controlling density in the highlights that are even more extensive than what is possible with silver VC papers. For that reason alternative printers tend to place more emphasis in exposing and developing negatives on where to place the shadows on the curve, and one the shape of the film curve, than on where highlight values fall. That is true because highlights can be easily controlled by contrast controls that are routinely used to expand and contract exposure scale.

In any event, BTZS is extremely precise, much more precise than Zone, and the testing is easier and takes much less time.

And you don't even have to use a densitometer. You can make the tests yourself and send them to the View Camera store for analysis.

Robert Ruderman

6-Dec-2005, 09:16

Thank you all.

I was not expecting my questions to start such a debate among the community. I very much appreciate everyone's response and thoughts on my question.

I am still learning my way around the Zone system of exposure and was not sure how (or if) I could establish my personal EI and "N" without a densitometer. From reading the responses, the world has many opinions/ideas on this thought. And, much to my delight, there are at least a couple of references in this thread to try a test without a densitometer. I am also looking forward to Steve's upcoming article in View Camera (I had a copy of Picker's book in high school, but it was promptly borrowed by a teacher and never returned).

The cause for my question is that my current negatives are rendering way too much contrast. I want to keep things simple with respect to using the Zone system. I see the Zone system as a way to meter and help give a degree of confidence that the "range of light" that is in the scene can be fully accounted for in the exposure of the negative.

I want to go the simplest most effective route. I simply want to get in the right ballpark with respect to exposure. Remember, Ansel Adams said "The perfect is the enemy of the good". For me, the determination of a personal EI and "N" are necessary things to bring my negatives back into line and get some degree of predictability and control.

Thanks again for everyone's input,
Robert

Hans Berkhout

6-Dec-2005, 15:09

Joe-Fred Picker's pre occupation with Zone VIII led to interesting debate with Howard Bond, in Photo Techniques mag.
Sandy- I take it that you mean to place shadows on IV - IV raher than III? Or expose for quite a bit higher than 0.1 over fbf for zone I. You wouldn't use ozne I for placement of shadows, but that's how I interpret your writing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

sanking

7-Dec-2005, 07:46

"Joe-Fred Picker's pre occupation with Zone VIII led to interesting debate with Howard Bond, in Photo Techniques mag. Sandy- I take it that you mean to place shadows on IV - IV raher than III? Or expose for quite a bit higher than 0.1 over fbf for zone I. You wouldn't use ozne I for placement of shadows, but that's how I interpret your writing. Please correct me if I'm wrong."

If what I said was not clear my apologies. What I mean is that with many films, certainly ones with long toe films such as TRI-X, I would give more exposure than the minimum necessary to place Zone I at .08-0.10 above B+F. This will in effect shift all Zones higher on the curve and give better separation in the shadows. . On the other hand, with films that have very short toe and long straight line, such as TMAX-100 and TMAX-400, this kind of slight over-exposure is not needed.