Precision and Accuracy in LF Photography: How much is enough? [Archive]

Drew Bedo

2-Jun-2021, 06:32

There have been a couple of interesting threads lately on gear and technique that devolve into discussions of accuracy and precision.

One had to do with the potential for focus shift when stopping down. Another revolved around the quality and precision of spirit levels used in LF photography.

some responses on these threads involved discussions of precision in alignment and leveling that only a machinist would worry about. Which brings up a question in my mind: How much precision and accuracy is enough? Alignment and plumbnb-ness are just two parameters of what we do though.

So just how accurate are shutter speeds? A speed of 1/500th should equal 2 mili secs. Setting 1/250th should be 4 mili sec and 1/125th ought to be 8 mili sec if I have counted on my fingers correctly. A half sec should be 500 mili sec.

So how close is close enough? Is plus-or-minus 10% acceptable? Do we even get +/_ 10%? What should we expect as to accuracy and reputability (precision) from a new-ish Copal shutter? How many sequential tripps of a shutter come how close to the nominally set speed? What about older designs; Compur, Alphax, etc. ?

What about Lightmeters?

What about aperture settings or focal length? How close are the markings to acrtual and how close do we need them to be?

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 06:55

It depends on whatever aspect/part of the process you’re talking about, along with one’s aesthetic preferences etc. Some parts of the process inherently have, and tolerate a lot of slop. Other parts are potentially more problematic. But it is all quite subjective. There is also the enjoyment factor, since nearly all LF photographers are hobbyists. What is an irritant to one person is a non issue to another.

I guess you can sum it all up with the often used “YMMV”.

When it comes to specifics, I can only speak for myself, and I really can’t relate to how most other people do this stuff. :)

Havoc

2-Jun-2021, 06:56

Good questions for having discussions at the picolux and femtolux protection society. But just like you, I feel that some are only of concern for machinists and lab equipment.

For me the greatest question is alignment between film plane and ground glass. Is my ground glass where my film will be? Shutters, I think we can be happy if we get +/- 10-20%. Just the way between the lens shutters work makes the point where you measure that a shutter is open or closed is already debatable.

And then you have not touched iso, spectral sensitivity and whatever joins the club when you start developing.

Also, let us not forget that a lot of what we play with are not linear functions but logs and powers. So what is the influence of 10% on a parameter that is basically changing by power of 2?

Vaughn

2-Jun-2021, 08:19

Depends on one's personality. Some folks psychologically need precision...they need to know. And some people don't. And most people are in between.

BrianShaw

2-Jun-2021, 08:25

Since the inception of photography, “approximately “ has been good enough. It’s time to re-validate that, even when lots of “approximates” in the same direction cumulate. Of course there are limits and that’s when the negative absolutely can’t be used. Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

Kirk Gittings

2-Jun-2021, 08:30

I like to concentrate on the image and not the technology when I shoot. I want the technology to be tested and dependable whether it is ISO, Zone placement, levels or whatever so I don't have to worry about it in the field.

Drew Bedo

2-Jun-2021, 08:37

I agree, in general, with all of the responses so far. I was a bit surprises when some of the discussions involving a machinist's and other responses on precise, sensitive (expensive) spirit levels and calibration geared movements with laser pointers etc.

I mean, if its good for you . . .go for it. On the other hand, I am working with two wooden field cameras, one of them much older than me, and neither of which have geared anything. . . .and I am OK with what they can do.

And yet I welcome any other discussion of accuracy and precision in LF photography.

martiansea

2-Jun-2021, 09:22

What I've come to find so interesting about analog photography is how it straddles "intuitive" and "scientific." You can take the Kodak scientific approach: expose exactly the 'correct' time based on exacting measurements of light, aperture, etc... develop at exacting 'correct' times and temperatures, etc... and you will consistently get images with the 'correct' density as determined by Kodak's labs. OR... you can wing it, guesstimate and eyeball things, and after enough experiences, you'll probably consistently get good images too. Which is 'right'? Both? Neither?
Personally, when I'm starting off into a new unknown, I will approach it scientifically and do things the 'correct' way until I get a sense for what is going on. After that, I prefer to go full intuitive mode and just have fun creating. I take this approach to most things in life.

BrianShaw

2-Jun-2021, 09:29

“ Kodak scientific approach”

Even that acknowledges variability in many aspects of photography. What it does is standardize those aspects that their products can affect. It significantly increases the probability of success by reducing at least a few sources of variance.

I completely concur that following that kind of wisdom is worthwhile!

Drew Wiley

2-Jun-2021, 09:42

Just depends on what you're trying to achieve. A scientific or technical industrial photographer using large format equipment might have reason to be quite nitpicky. Each minor error tends to adds up to a cumulative loss. Somebody else, perhaps making contact prints and deliberately using a soft focus lens might be more willing to wing it. I suspect that most of us are somewhere in the middle, but on a varying scale in that respect. Esthetically, one ideally wants their tools to match their vision. Some people do chainsaw sculptures using old logs, others need very sharp chisels indeed. Some shoot large format for sake of its potential for high detail rendition in serious enlargements, some do not. After one has been on the road awhile, so to speak, they begin to understand their own specific needs and what it takes to efficiently get from Point A to Point B.

BrianShaw

2-Jun-2021, 09:46

Yes, Drew... that’s absolutely right. Needs vary. And I’d concur that most of us are in that middle ground.

For me, I’m okay with the 1/3 stop error that most mechanical shutter manufacturers accepted. But I’m at the lower end of the middle in that I like well-maintained shutters but don’t bother with shutter testing. I process per Ilford procedures and standards. If a neg starts looking wonky I try to figure out why. At this point I photograph for pleasure with an emphasis on content and composition. But the that’s just me...

2-Jun-2021, 09:51

In the darkroom developing film I like boring robot like precision. Close temperature, same agitation methods every times and every 30s.. Kinda makes up for sloppy metering/exposure... If metering/exposure is good enough and darkroom work is sloppy I can not expect a good negative. Good negatives are easier to print or scan.

Sort of like how planes generally don't crash from one problem, it's an unfortunate and long sequence of multiple problems with multiple opportunities for good decisions. If metering/exposure is good enough and developing is perfect, I can expect a good negative, or at least be able to pinpoint where the problem was along the way.

Good enough metering/exposure means shutters misbehaving in different weather, maybe metering was guessed or I used an incident meter because I don't care about zone spot metering, or it's a tiny bit closer than the usual photos and there is starting to be some bellows factor, or the AE lens has some amber thoriated glass that means f2.5 isn't quite f2.8 bright, etc... I don't mind some of these little things being imprecise as long as other parts of the process are fairly in control. I don't do much movements, so bubble levels and such are of little interest.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eoGsKU_un5k/WHpgltyJvxI/AAAAAAAAfns/vuOTTW2WPuou4PxFG8CZm-PRXXMCROHPgCLcB/s1600/acuracy%2Band%2Bprecision.JPG

Drew Bedo

2-Jun-2021, 10:22

A lot of responses about how we approch work . . .all good stuff.

So what actually is acceptable performances for a shutter?

What should we expect from "modern" gear? What can we expect from a well CLA'd vintage lens/shutter.

What is acceptable performance in a light meter? Do we need to know 1/10th stop?

Just how square, level and plumb must a camera be?

BrianShaw

2-Jun-2021, 10:30

LOL... you already answered those questions... it depends. :)

And a lot of what it depends upon is whether we are actually photographing or pontificating about photography on the internet!

Havoc

2-Jun-2021, 10:35

I think another thing that is missing is repeatability. This is different from accuracy and precision.

Has anyone thought about how much a camera changes when you use it at any other temperature than (25 +/- 0.01) °C? A wooden camera of even a metal one (and certainly one using plastics) will often change/distort more than the accuracy some want to attribute to their spirit levels and parallelism of their standards.

I gave up on photography. My latest tests with 4x5 were so dreadfull that I can't continue. I mean if you focus on a bloody wall at infinity (200 meters) then you at lease expect to see if it is brick or concrete. But exposure is all over the place (all measures with a sekonic L-578) developed at the same temperature and chemicals as usual, the same lens/shutter as other photos. And still, one is sharp with plenty of detail and nice greys. the other a blur with a clear sky and complete black.

Only thing I ever get consistent results are slides (provia and velvia) shot in a Mamiya 6x4.5 and developed in a lab. Even a Praktica with slides and the internal meter is better than 4x5.

BrianShaw

2-Jun-2021, 10:48

I’m sorry to hear that photography is frustrating you, Havic, but photography can’t be blamed for that. Photography works quite well for many people... and chance isn’t why. LF photography is very fulfilling from both a technical and artistic perspective. I encourage you to keep trying!

Willie

2-Jun-2021, 10:51

Summed up in the past by one wag: "It's the Zone system, not the Pinpoint system."

Tin Can

2-Jun-2021, 10:51

Long ago I shot only 35mm slide film in a new 1956? Pentax H1 for decades

Only outside, only Sunny 16, always handheld

Nearly every slide was 'perfect' from the 1 hour labs

I even found them last week, still in long trays, or slide boxes from the processor

All these years, I have few images I really like

Santa Racing brother, 1972

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50946407312_c3b0761479_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kBXDWY)Santa Drag Racing 1971 (https://flic.kr/p/2kBXDWY) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

Greg

2-Jun-2021, 10:57

I think another thing that is missing is repeatability

Anyone who has printed Platinum/Palladium will list this first.

Bernice Loui

2-Jun-2021, 10:57

IMO, completely depends on the creative artist image making goals.

B&W or color negative film images are more forgiving than color transparency (positive) films in the print making process.

Camera precision and accuracy depends again on image goals. For those with the goal of vast majority of the image in perceived focus using small taking apertures, camera alignment, film in film holder flatness accuracy and precision might not be so demanding. In the example of images made using large full aperture lenses with at or near full lens aperture with the demand of what is at lens focal plane to be rendered on film with identical accuracy and precision will place a LOT more demands on camera and film in film holder flatness accuracy and precision than images made at small taking apertures.

Having done so many decades of making images that demand the very best ability from camera, lens, film holders and .. has bent biases towards using only the best monorail cameras like Sinar. There is absolutely a habit of expectation and demands from camera system to lens and all related. Anything less is not ok. Could the same images be made with far lesser camera, lenses and all related, absolutely .. it would take a LOT more effort with FAR less joy in the process of image creation.

The film, lighting, light meter and post film exposure process and print making is system in itself that cannot be ignored. IMO, to do GOOD color transparency based prints today would be extremely difficult to not possible at all due to the lack of a proper high quality print making support system that was in place decades ago. As discussed many times previous, these color print or printed matter goals means consistent hight quality color transparency films, an Excellent E6 color lab that knows how to maintain absolute consistency in processing and chemistry with color densitometer gray card testing. Then there are color print materials like Ilfordchrome-Cibachrome (Ah, really miss these prints) and Fuji's version of the same. Coupled with contrast masking can result in absolute FAB color prints that will stand the test of time.

This brings up B&W silver gelatin prints and alt process prints that IMO, has become the mainstay of view camera images of today.

SOooo, what kind of prints does any given creative image maker wanna achieve, what would be the results of their creative expression of their work.. Only then could the tools needed to achieve this be considered and acquired to turn their creative expression into reality to be shared with others.

Bernice

Heroique

2-Jun-2021, 10:59

There have been a couple of interesting threads lately on gear and technique that devolve into discussions of accuracy and precision.

I like my darkroom thermometer to be accurate each and every time.

Precision is less important.

I don’t think I have that backwards, right? :D

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 11:14

LF is problematic and frustrating in many ways. Rather than necessarily giving up all of photography my two cents worth of a suggestion would be to shoot medium format or 35mm. In my experience, most people do better work with smaller formats anyway, and the smaller formats remove certain aggravating things about LF, in particular certain aspects of camera operation, dust, and film development issues. You can also go digital, which affords even greater flexibility in image editing.

I think another thing that is missing is repeatability. This is different from accuracy and precision.

Has anyone thought about how much a camera changes when you use it at any other temperature than (25 +/- 0.01) °C? A wooden camera of even a metal one (and certainly one using plastics) will often change/distort more than the accuracy some want to attribute to their spirit levels and parallelism of their standards.

I gave up on photography. My latest tests with 4x5 were so dreadfull that I can't continue. I mean if you focus on a bloody wall at infinity (200 meters) then you at lease expect to see if it is brick or concrete. But exposure is all over the place (all measures with a sekonic L-578) developed at the same temperature and chemicals as usual, the same lens/shutter as other photos. And still, one is sharp with plenty of detail and nice greys. the other a blur with a clear sky and complete black.

Only thing I ever get consistent results are slides (provia and velvia) shot in a Mamiya 6x4.5 and developed in a lab. Even a Praktica with slides and the internal meter is better than 4x5.

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 11:19

I can't remember the last time I made a LF exposure shorter than a second, and most are much longer so shutter accuracy is basically a non issue for me. I don't buy used equipment so I kind of just assume my shutters are decent shape. When they stop working I'll just go digital I guess.

A lot of responses about how we approch work . . .all good stuff.

So what actually is acceptable performances for a shutter?

What should we expect from "modern" gear? What can we expect from a well CLA'd vintage lens/shutter.

What is acceptable performance in a light meter? Do we need to know 1/10th stop?

Just how square, level and plumb must a camera be?

Vaughn

2-Jun-2021, 11:20

...Just how square, level and plumb must a camera be?
Sometimes being square just looks wrong.:cool:

But I'll admit, as far as accuracy, precision and repeatability are concerned...thank you Ilford, Kodak and Fuji films.

Drew Wiley

2-Jun-2021, 11:26

Up in the redwoods, they square up everything after they've cut the tree down. I happen prefer the natural look over the stacked lumberyard look. But the owner of the lumberyard made a helluva lot more money that way than I ever did selling pictures of the woods.

Drew Bedo

2-Jun-2021, 11:39

I like my darkroom thermometer to be accurate each and every time.

Precision is less important.

I don’t think I have that backwards, right? :D

Getting the correct temperature reading is accuracy.

Getting it right every time is precision.

The cartoon with the targrts is spot on for illustrating these points.

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 11:44

Getting the correct temperature reading is accuracy.

Getting it right every time is precision.

The cartoon with the targrts is spot on for illustrating these points.

Accuracy can be thought of as "correctness"

Precision is basically "fineness" of measurement

Repeatability is consistency

ic-racer

2-Jun-2021, 12:01

So how close is close enough?

The nice thing about photography is the 'product' shows all and answers all questions; just look at the print.

martiansea

2-Jun-2021, 12:06

Consistent practice is important in any respect.

Bernice Loui

2-Jun-2021, 12:14

Nothing betters uber quality studio electronic strobe (Bronocolor, Elinchrome, Comet and etc) for consistent, reliable, dependable source of high power, high quality light source for color work. Achieving 1/10 f-stop with near absolute stable color temperature per exposure is not that difficult. Arri makes GOOD true 5000K constant light sources, as does Mole-Richardson for tungsten and others. Light sources can be "gel" filtered to adjust color temperature and color rendition as needed. Coupled with an in camera metering system like Sinar Expolux works good to control exposure, compensate for bellows factor and all those potential small sources of exposure error. These days, it would be surprising if this is done much at all these days for color transparency film images.

1/10 f-stop needed, depends. For uber quality color transparency images that is a nice luxury. More often than not 1/3" f-stop is ok enough. Negative films can tolerate 1/2 f-stop mostly easy.

For outdoor color images, the color temperature and intensity varies LOTs over the course of a given day. Give up trying to achieve what can be done using highly controlled studio environment. Knowing this, shutter accuracy, shutter repeatability can be a variable as much as actual light transmission from the front element of the lens to film. What has worked good for ~me~ single Sinar shutter (yes, Drew despises this approach) with barrel lenses where possible. Single quality, reliable-consistent-accurate shutter can greatly reduce exposure variations due to shutter variations. It works good, been doing it this way for decades without fail. Exceptions to this would be modern wide angle lenses. This is why I've essentially given up on using lenses in shutter with some exceptions (modern wide angle lenses) decades ago. And no, this solution-method can never work for all view camera image makers.

Bernice

So what actually is acceptable performances for a shutter?

What should we expect from "modern" gear? What can we expect from a well CLA'd vintage lens/shutter.

What is acceptable performance in a light meter? Do we need to know 1/10th stop?

Just how square, level and plumb must a camera be?

Vaughn

2-Jun-2021, 12:19

The nice thing about photography is the 'product' shows all and answers all questions; just look at the print.

Exactly! And if one keeps decent notes, one can repeat the successes. But the key to this is to have looked intently at a lot of prints (esp. one's own) so one knows what the hell to look for in one's own prints.

"It's the Zone system, not the Pinpoint system." Love it! I just love the discussions about the 2/3 stop or whatever! And there I am looking at the redwoods counting one-ansel-adams, two-ansel-adams, three-ansel adams, and so on for a couple minutes.

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 13:22

The “2/3 stop” is the opposite of what you make it out to be. It could simplify things for people, or at least for aspiring Zone people.

Exactly! And if one keeps decent notes, one can repeat the successes. But the key to this is to have looked intently at a lot of prints (esp. one's own) so one knows what the hell to look for in one's own prints.

"It's the Zone system, not the Pinpoint system." Love it! I just love the discussions about the 2/3 stop or whatever! And there I am looking at the redwoods counting one-ansel-adams, two-ansel-adams, three-ansel adams, and so on for a couple minutes.

Vaughn

2-Jun-2021, 13:54

The “2/3 stop” is the opposite of what you make it out to be. It could simplify things for people, or at least for aspiring Zone people.

Ah...but true Zonies know it is all in the print...

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 14:01

Ah...but true Zonies know it is all in the print...

Not in my experience.

Vaughn

2-Jun-2021, 14:25

Not in my experience.

True Zonies read all of the scripture -- just not the technical notes.:cool:

Drew Wiley

2-Jun-2021, 16:17

Are we nearly through the extra two-thirds of that elusive last zone of the Zone System - the alleged Kuiper Belt way out in the darkness somewhere? Good thing that the Zone System is so elastic, and that they launch its space probes using a big rubber band. Of course, if that springs back too fast, you might get your Stetson cowboy hat knocked off, and end up with a bent nose as well.

Michael R

2-Jun-2021, 17:09

Ha! :)

True Zonies read all of the scripture -- just not the technical notes.:cool:

Nigel Smith

2-Jun-2021, 22:07

otto.f

2-Jun-2021, 23:09

“It’s all very personal and subjective” is a too easy conversation stopper IMO. The subject is a much more important factor than personal taste or style of the photographer. In still life, portrait, architecture a deliberate chosen focus point and perspective control is much more important than in landscape (if ground glass and film plane are aligned correctly indeed). In landscape photography I’m finished in a minute with focusing. With stills I can dream on big time with choosing a selective focus. And at the other side of the spectrum are the ‘happy little accidents’ which turn out to have an artistic value, which often can only be valued after a little change of mind.

Alan Klein

3-Jun-2021, 05:38

I built an Arduino based shutter tester. I'm not sure it's very accurate or consistent when trying to use faster shutters speeds (that's what I want to convince myself of anyway after recording some results!) as it fails to record a result a lot of the time.

I did some tests on 3 cameras where I fired each shutter speed 3 times then averaged the results. Not a great sample, but I ran out of enthusiasm!

216380

If these are indicative of the cameras shutters, then I conclude:
The Minolta is consistently inaccurate, slow by about 20% (a good B&W camera! which is good since it was given to me to give to a youngish lad down the street interested in B&W film)
The Mamiya ProTL was spot on to 1/8sec, then got slower and slower until the 1/1000th speed was actually less than 1/500th (actually ranged from 1/453 to 1/493)
The Mamiya 1000s is ok up to 1/8sec then so inaccurate I gave up...

I have yet to try it on my LF lenses... and probably won't!

I checked my large format lenses 4x5 and found that none of them were off by more than 1/3 stop. I couldn't really measure faster than 1/125th. But slower speeds, that's what I got. Lenses included: 75mm Fujinon, 90mm Nikkor, 150mm Schneider and 300mm Nikkor. Interestingly, I checked my Nikon N6006 35mm SLR electronic controlled camera, around 30 years old. The accuracy was astounding - everything was right on the money. Then I checked my RB67 medium format lenses with built-in shutters. Their accuracies (50mm, 90mm, 180mm, and 360mm) were better than the large format but not as accurate as the Nikon camera.

reddesert

4-Jun-2021, 09:39

As others have noted the need for accuracy and/or precision depends on what you are trying to accomplish. But in all cases, consistency will help you accomplish those ends. The degree of precision or accuracy that is needed or that is achievable is also set by different processes (for example, optics vs chemistry vs artistic needs) and critically, it also depends on what tools are available to make measurements.

For example, if you want to make sharp images on film, then you should be concerned about placement of the lens, film, and focusing device to fractions of a millimeter (and this number is set by optics, the wavelength of light, and the resolving power of film).

Say you want to control the lens to film distance to 0.1mm, and it's a 150mm lens, that means you need to measure to 1 part in 1500 precision. Fortunately, you have a measuring device built into the camera, the ground glass (or maybe a rangefinder), that enables you to measure this accurately and precisely. That's one reason that even if the temperature changes or wood swells or whatever, that you can still make images, as long as the GG back has the correct depth to match the film holders and the camera doesn't flop around. Trying to focus a camera with only a ruler and no focusing aid would be desperate.

On the other hand, when trying to get the exposure time or development time right, your limits are set by how the film density increases with exposure and development time - density vs exposure curves and so on - so that's governed by chemistry rather than optics. Measuring devices are also less accessible. There are people who have densitometers and measure their own HD curves and so on to set developing times and exposure indexes, but many people also use experience and the manufacturer's recommendations. Because chemistry is different from optics, you can get away with less precision in say shutter speeds or dev time than you can in GG focusing. Few amateurs try to control exposure or developing time to less than 1 part in 100, let alone 1 part in 1000. Probably the item in film processing that needs greatest precision is the temperature of color processing.

With either of these aspects of process, it helps to have consistency. If one keeps changing things it is hard to know what is going right or wrong.

Drew Wiley

4-Jun-2021, 10:02

Oh how snooty, Otto! One who does landscape photography can be sloppy; but an architectural photographer never is? What if someone does both, and even with the same equipment and same level of commitment? Heck, I considered architecture easy by comparison; things are more likely to stand still, there is nowhere near as much detail to juggle at the same time, images planes are less complicated, and you can control the lighting and placement of things in studio or interior setups. But outdoors, lightings ratios and sudden shifts can be severe, so one needs to be even more nitpicky about knowing exact shutter speeds, especially if chrome film is involved. But maybe you think we're just a bunch of postcard types taking pictures of cute chipmunks.

Of course, I don't think that is what you actually meant; but it's how your statement came across.

Bill Burk

4-Jun-2021, 10:07

@jp I like the precision/accuracy scale. The one with no precision and no accuracy should have fewer marks on the target though (because some will miss the entire dartboard).

I see I fall into the accuracy without precision boat. I like to understand the different factors and make sure my aim is true. Then I fire away with reckless abandon knowing I will hit the dartboard every time.

otto.f

5-Jun-2021, 00:15

But maybe you think we're just a bunch of postcard types taking pictures of cute chipmunks.

Of course, I don't think that is what you actually meant; but it's how your statement came across.

I reread my post but I cannot find the reason for that, sorry. I’m not a native English speaker, perhaps it’s that. I just told about my way of working, never had in mind to lecture anybody, neither do I see myself as a very experienced LF photographer

Drew Bedo

5-Jun-2021, 06:26

And sometimes dumb luck (or Karma?) comes into play.

Last shot in the twilight at the pond of a local park. Nice stuff going on but not that special thing. Without warning, the breeze shifts and my corner of the pond becomes mirror smooth. So instead of rigging down, I get out the last loaded film holder, meter, set and shoot. Then flip the holder to bracket and just as the shutter is tripped a duck swims into the compositing . . .click. The next day i had total hip replacement surgery. Whenever I can get back to my camera gear, I'll unload that batch and send it off to a lab (Denver Digital).

When it comes back from the lab I'll let you know how it turned out. Wish me luck.

otto.f

5-Jun-2021, 10:57

Nice story Drew, we’ll keep our fingers crossed for your hip recovery and your decisive moment

John Layton

5-Jun-2021, 12:47

Alan Klein

5-Jun-2021, 16:17

At the end of the day, at least for "personal work," and in the realm of learning one's craft...I think consistency is the most important thing. Shutter speed accuracy makes no difference...so long as speeds are consistent. Film speed ratings make no difference...as long as a given film's sensitivity does not vary. A light meters ability to measure to a "standard" makes no difference...so long as that meter will, over time, give the same reading for a given amount of light. Its all about learning the materials. Take consistency out of the equation, and the pursuit becomes meaningless. This is why I have such a hard time with the concept of "student-grade" materials, which may lack consistency and thus the whole learning enterprise becomes moot.

But the problem with large format equipment, especially old lenses, is that they are old and often not accurate or consistent. That makes life difficult. It often becomes a distraction and new, modern equipment with high accuracy and repeatability allow you to accomplish getting the picture easier. I just started LF about a year ago and find it very fiddly. It's often like a contest. I often wonder if it's worth my time.

Bernice Loui

5-Jun-2021, 16:34

Solution to the overly common wore out vintage or inconsistent shutter problem, implemented since the late 1980's.. Sinar shutter (Drew, will not agree) with lenses in barrel and done. Only exceptions are modern wide angle lenses. This solution resolved a long list of view camera lens issues and allows virtually any lens-optic to be used on sheet film. The advantages to this solution is not small or insignificant in many ways, yet often never considered by many. If not for having done this decades ago, the fondness for vintage lenses like Kodak Ektars and many, many, many more in barrel with nice round iris would have not happened. Modern lenses can be Sinar DB or DBM mount if needed and they historically have been low market value, yet very nice to use in many ways.

Culling out all the lenses in shutter recently as they have not been used in decades. Better for them to find a good new home with an image maker that will used them to create expressive images again.

Bernice

But the problem with large format equipment, especially old lenses, is that they are old and often not accurate or consistent. That makes life difficult. It often becomes a distraction and new, modern equipment with high accuracy and repeatability allow you to accomplish getting the picture easier. I just started LF about a year ago and find it very fiddly. It's often like a contest. I often wonder if it's worth my time.

Drew Wiley

5-Jun-2021, 17:13

Ha! Caught ya on that one, Bernice! I wanted you to ditch your Sinar shutter so I could obtain one for my own use!

LabRat

5-Jun-2021, 17:35

Depends... If you are shooting chromes, there's no latitude there... B/W has some fudge factor but avoid needing it... I found early that LF seemed to have less latitude than smaller formats, so got compulsive then, and gained experience holding that line... Most serviced shutters are good enough...

I would love to let photographers of old see this discussion, before light meters appeared in the 30's, before films were rated, films were not consistent, and a lot of experience was needed to get results...

Still hard, but we have it easier now...

Steve K

Greg Y

5-Jun-2021, 19:04

But the problem with large format equipment, especially old lenses, is that they are old and often not accurate or consistent. That makes life difficult. It often becomes a distraction and new, modern equipment with high accuracy and repeatability allow you to accomplish getting the picture easier. I just started LF about a year ago and find it very fiddly. It's often like a contest. I often wonder if it's worth my time.

Alan, For me, (Thanks for emphasizing the point Bernice), I'm thinking about the print. New lenses (yes i've owned & used Apo-Sironar S...) don't give me the character I'm looking for. My old Dagors and Commercial Ektars do. I'm willing to keep the shutters serviced as necessary (really not all that often). I get all the repeatability i need in the print outcome.

John Kasaian

5-Jun-2021, 19:19

I'm simply grateful for whatever develops. When I loupe a print and read a license plate on a car parked 100 yards down the road from the camera I'm just blown away.
However I do this for fun.

pdmoylan

6-Jun-2021, 05:51

Think of large format color in terms of a classically trained musician. There are the standard procedures, techniques, and to obtain best results, tedious perfection of each element of the process.

As Dykinga says, LF is like peeling an onion. Speaking of exposure for instance, you have the variability of lens exposures relative to others (think of this in terms of T value), filter calculations (polarizers for instance can change exposure over a range from say 2/3 of a stop to 1.4 stops as you turn the filter), along with shutter inconsistencies/lack of accuracy. So many variables, and then you have the question of "interpretation" of exposure. Again paraphrasing Dykinga, sometimes the wrong exposure is the right one. So this implies bracketing exposures, and where wind is a challenge (i.e. fragile landscape work), multiples at the same exposure. So you may easily spend $50 dollars or more to get one "correct image" (5 exposures). And then you have the film rating based upon your own experience. Some would set Velvia 50 to ASA 40 for instance. Once you have figured out all of these "adjustments" to exposure, you have to store them in your head so that with each image you taken all of these into consideration to get a calculated "correct" exposure. You also have reciprocity failure calculations, which given my shooting mostly in lower light, called for a keen knowledge of when to "add" exposure when using shutters speeds in multiple seconds/minutes.

What I would do which most did not, was to use a calibrated 35mm camera with an appropriate FL lens, add filters etc onto it as I was with the LF lens. I would use matrix metering (or spot where necessary) and get a base exposure. Then I would make the aforementioned adjustments for LF lens/shutter variables. This actually worked out very well for me. I rarely had "wrong exposures", just bad images (poorly composed, poor DR etc)

There is much craft involved and figure 6 months in acclimating to the "process" of shooting. Movements alone takes a while to learn and, as with classical music, the more you know how to precisely use movements, the better the outcomes. This may take years to become very competent (it did for me).

What I found particularly with chromes, is that lower light was always better. Catch the margins of light, changes in atmospherics, overcast days. Be very mindful of the DR range in a scene, and generally avoid scenes where it exceeds 5-6 stops (with chromes unless you like deep shadows and blown highlights). With this choice, and maximizing DOF by shooting at upwards of F45 (or even smaller aperture), you are almost always using shutter speeds in the multi-second range. It was indeed a rare occasion for me to use a "fast' shutter speed of 1/4 second.

Perhaps those with infinite patience, perfectionists to a fault, tenacious perseverance, deep pockets, and a clear vision of the intended objectives, all plays well in this genre. Not to discourage, but insistent inspiration and technical expertise are the keys to obtaining consistent results.

Experimenting is important, and making "mistakes" is the only way to learn.

Tobias Key

6-Jun-2021, 06:29

I have found that as I have got better at large format photography, the better I am at spotting and diagnosing small perfections in my images and the more demanding and methodical I have become. The aim is always 'good enough' but that benchmark is a constantly evolving one.

The challenge is finding the right balance between technical skill and creative thinking. In the field I only have a certain amount of 'mental bandwidth' and often I find too much time worrying about technicalities is detrimental to thinking creatively and vice versa. The plus side is that the technical side can become second nature and take up less mental space as you progress. I have particularly found this in the past year as my normal work (portraits) became very difficult and I replaced it with landscapes to keep in the swing of things. Suddenly, I was something of a beginner and I had to learn new things, initially that took up all my concentration and I found it very difficult to 'see' strong images or to improvise from an initial idea.

The challenge with that search for technical perfection is to not end up with a collection of well made, but ultimately boring images.

pdmoylan

6-Jun-2021, 06:53

Respectfully disagree regarding a “balance”. As Charlie Parker, jazz great, once intimated, you learn all the technique, forget it (I.e. absorb it so it doesn’t intrude in the process), then play (with creativity).

One can have fun without achieving technical excellence, but a “balance” should never be considered when trying to obtain ultimate results. A great image combines both vision and technical expertise. One just has to learn the craft so it becomes second nature, then one uses that knowledge to realize his/her vision. Like most successful individuals, one has to have a singular drive to realize the best outcomes.

Bernice Loui

6-Jun-2021, 10:19

Seems much of once was has been forgotten or not considered any more with folks venturing into images made with photographic film.

Realistically, chromes aka color transparency or positives have about 1/2 f-stop of margin if color rendition designed into the film is to be revealed and if density overall fits into a workable range. This stuff is just not forgiving if the goal is to achieve what was designed into the film and how the resulting image is to be uses.

Then comes color temperature of the lighting, which will affect the color balance of the film image. There was a time when CC filters were commonly used and often used with controlled lighting to achieve proper color balancing.

To apply any of these corrections, testing had to be done. Batch specific to the film brand's lot and ya hope it was consistent.

All that said, there were marvelous tools available to achieve these demands and needs.

Multi Kilo-watt second strobes that had consistent color temperature and light output over their adjustable power range made controlled strobe lighting simple in many ways. These remarkable items of technology allow the creative artist to apply lighting as needed to achieve their creative expressions with consistency, reliability, and significant ease. Just add cubic $$$$$$ back in the day to gain this luxury.

There are flash light meters and metering systems that measured to 1/10 f-stop with remarkable accuracy and repeatability.

There are camera systems that had essentially no limit on the demands made by it's creative user. Quality and ability of lenses were effectively a non-issue in so many ways.

Processing labs were a world all their own with their specific technologies to serve their customer's needs and expectations of excellence. Some customers were good with virtually any print or film processing provided over the counter. Other customers were beyond picky rejecting print after print (made the printers go nuts at times) until they got pretty much what they demanded.

Seems the commercial ad demands from back then seems more that what it is today based on the commercial ad image creators books from decades gone by.
What was once done in camera is now done via software with good enough being the common goal today. This is not to say excellent creative work is not done today, it just seems diluted in the mass consumption sense of highest speed digital data rates of today.

More than a few times, the feeling of writing post from the memories of a time long gone permeated what gets written. Some of the audience reading this remembers well those bye-gone days, others these stories are essentially alien in every way.

Bernice

Depends... If you are shooting chromes, there's no latitude there... B/W has some fudge factor but avoid needing it... I found early that LF seemed to have less latitude than smaller formats, so got compulsive then, and gained experience holding that line... Most serviced shutters are good enough...

I would love to let photographers of old see this discussion, before light meters appeared in the 30's, before films were rated, films were not consistent, and a lot of experience was needed to get results...

Still hard, but we have it easier now...

Steve K

Alan Klein

6-Jun-2021, 11:48

Alan Klein

6-Jun-2021, 11:55

If modern large format lenses were made with accurate shutters, old lenses would drop to $50 each or less. I think a lot of people would switch to the new design that are accurate, consistent, and have the other advantages of modern lenses. We only put up with the inaccuracies and inconsistencies because we have no other choice.

(This post ought to get the juices stirring.) :)

BrianShaw

6-Jun-2021, 12:08

I’m not convinced that there is enough inaccuracies or inconsistencies in well-maintained older shutters to make that an appealing option. But interesting thought.

Havoc

6-Jun-2021, 14:16

It's often like a contest. I often wonder if it's worth my time.

Amen. I came to the same conclusion. For some reason, LF is just a lottery.

I found early that LF seemed to have less latitude than smaller formats, so got compulsive then, and gained experience holding that line... Most serviced shutters are good enough...

Which is a fallacy. There should not be any difference in lattitude compared to other formats. Any optical property is determined by focal length and diaphragm. Whatever the format behind that. But if you then get consistent good results in 35mm of MF but not in LF, then there is something wrong with LF.

I got fed up with it after I got these images:

https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/4x5_orig_020_m.jpg
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/4x5_orig_142_m.jpg
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/4x5_orig_144_m.jpg
https://quirinus.one/forum_foto/4x5_orig_147_m.jpg

Same lens, same light (images taken seconds apart) light metring incident with a L578, different films, same developer, developed according to the datasheets of the makers of the film. Focused with a Gaoursi 8x loupe and sharp on the GG. Camera was a Wista 45 with a Fujinon 180 CM-W in a black copal on a tripod with a cable release. Negative is just as woozy as the scan. Shoot this with a Mamiya 645ProTL and a 55mm and chromes and you get razor sharp negatives. It is hardly possible to make out if those "towers" are brickwork or concrete.

Thing is the next time you use the same camera, lens, film and developer you get nice razor sharp negatives with plenty of grey.

There just isn't any consistency in LF. It is just guesswork and hoping that the moon, saturn and tides align and that you haven't angered some unknown god. Maybe it helps to draw a pentagram and sacrifice a chicken but you have to draw a line somewhere.

BrianShaw

6-Jun-2021, 14:27

If that’s what you think and have experienced, perhaps water color painting would be a better option. :)

Havoc

6-Jun-2021, 14:32

BrianShaw

6-Jun-2021, 15:10

No, you’re not being aggressive... I understand you completely! Sorry for both your frustration and my snarky response. I cannot explain why your results are so variable. You should have more consistent results. Consistent results with LF have been possible since the dawn of photography.

What film were you using? That’s about the only part of the equipment you didn’t identify. But I really think that something is inconsistent in your process.

Havoc

6-Jun-2021, 15:21

What film were you using? That’s about the only part of the equipment you didn’t identify. But I really think that something is inconsistent in your process.

Those are 4 different films, exposed to their nominal iso rating, developed according to their makers datasheet for the developer used. It was Delta 100, Fomapan 100, FP4+ and Adox CHS100II.

LabRat

6-Jun-2021, 16:18

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

If all things were equal, put your negatives on a lightbox and eyeball... This looks like your negs will have a different overall density, so this would be caused by exposure level differences, which would be the result of the iris or speed setting... The exposure difference is a stop or more between shutter releases, so I'd go with shutter severely inconsistent...

Super sharpness can be inconsistent due to film uneven due to film buckle due to changing temps, humidity, loading tensions etc, but the + one gets not with super sharpness, but the beautiful tonality between sharper points... There are other sharpness eaters with vibration, wind, unstable camera mounting etc, but not in your case probably...

LF photography is not necessarily "bigger is better", but different... It's more about a different rendition of subject... As Bernice always sez: "it's about your image making goals"... One who wants super (unnatural) sharpness has many digi and film choices, but these sometimes over 100 yr (or more modern) systems have a "vibe" of their own to be explored (like musical instruments), so continue the path... But the instruments and "music" need to stay in tune or it "sounds" horrible... But you need the right type of "music" you can "jam" well to...

Don't throw out your camera (s) yet, the best is yet to come!!! ;-)

Steve K

LabRat

6-Jun-2021, 16:49

Those are 4 different films, exposed to their nominal iso rating, developed according to their makers datasheet for the developer used. It was Delta 100, Fomapan 100, FP4+ and Adox CHS100II.

Saw this after typing last post... "Box" speed + different developer/time combinations will produce different results... First rule is to standardize materials and process... And stick with that combination...

Testing, testing, testing...

Steve K

Michael R

6-Jun-2021, 16:53

Part of what makes LF work more predictably is doing it with regularity. The “well oiled machine” analogy applies. If it is sporadic, particularly if you’re relatively new at it, it is clunky, and prone to error.

Even if you’re well practiced, things can and will still go wrong, because several steps in the process of making a large format photograph, from loading film holders onward, are always potentially problematic.

I think the vast majority of people wanting to make the best photographs and prints they can, with higher image quality than 35mm film, are better off with medium format and/or digital.

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

BrianShaw

6-Jun-2021, 17:08

I think the vast majority of people wanting to make the best photographs and prints they can, with higher image quality than 35mm film, are better off with medium format and/or digital.

I love shooting LF but can attest to the veracity of this statement.

LabRat

6-Jun-2021, 19:17

I love shooting LF but can attest to the veracity of this statement.

Yea, in general, with the process individuals use, but practice, testing, and approach makes the difference between good and great... And all formats have their own +/-'s...

I came back to LF after recovering from "pro burnout" having shot way too many 4X5 chromes that were good, but the same film look was getting tedious, and a large rig was bulky for pastime use... I wanted to make a jump upwards to 11X14 to shoot shots that would "count" more for me, but still would not give me the freedom of spending all day on feet exploring urban areas... At the same time, started to experiment with raw chemistry formulas, and while testing with 35mm strips, was getting better and better 35mm test strips, so had to consider 35mm as a major shooting format again... Improved procedures, found the sweet spots on lenses I had, improved enlarger printing etc, and shot major bodies of work on the 35mm... Fine until after 10,000 's of exposures, then wanted to slow down and see one shot going through to the process at a time... (One picky old pro I worked for asked me if the portraits he saw were 4X5 or 8X10 camera negs, and I told him 35mm Nikon... He gasped...) So it's all in the refining the process, not as much with the gear and mastery of the formats used...

Color is different, but after long shifts at color labs (and the perk of cheap/free color film & processing, as well as coping with client's errors), this expanded my knowledge base and expanded my range...

But for the casual user, the more they do, the more they learn, so keep at it!!! After the first few chapters of photo 101, it is about practice, gaining experience, more time in the field, analizing errors as educational, and remembering the 1000's of do's and don'ts... Then film is remarkably consistent... Don't give up, your great shots are coming!!! ;-)

Steve K

Bernice Loui

6-Jun-2021, 19:34

Pick one film and one film only.. Pick one developer and one developer only. Fix the developer mix ratio, Fix the developer temperature, Fix the developing method.. these three basic post exposure items must be maintained consistent. No variations allowed as with film and developer.

Get a gray step scale and 18% gray card. Load film into film holders, one lens-shutter on one camera and one light meter.
Make an image of the gray scale step tablet and 18% gray card, metered using the meter that has been used to date. Ideally, this would be a spot meter (on the 18% gray card), then check with a incident light meter. Add bellows factor compensation. Do this on a "Sunny 16 day".

Make a series of film exposures at say 1/2 f-stop or 1 f-stop increments +/- (this is kind_A big). Develop the film in the chosen developer "normal development time".
Ideally check the negative film density with a densitometer. Alternatively, make a print or scan to calibrate the gray scale step tablet and 18% gray card. Match up gray step tablet and 18% gray card to post process image. Once this is known, the basic density range based on exposure and post process system has some what of a handle allowing assessment of how the taking scene light range might render on the print image.

Essentially you're trying to calibrate the post film exposure process to film and lens-shutter to what your print goals are to within the limits of the film-developer.
What is marked on the box might not meet your image making goals at all. This is why calibrating the system is so important. Once the system mid-point is figured out. Test again for over expose-under develop (contrast range compression) and under expose-over develop (contrast range expansion).

Trying too many variables like film, developer and all that can often result in KYOS, following what is written on the box or instructions is at best guess based on some one's ideal of what the negative to print image should look like.

Stick with one set of photographic materials, and image making tools. Get to know them really well before trying other photographic materials.

Bernice

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

grat

6-Jun-2021, 19:56

@Havoc, I'm not sure what's going on, but as a novice at film, who started with LF, went to MF because I wanted more practice at a cheaper per-frame cost, and then picked up a 35mm because all the cool kids were doing it (not really, but 35mm film is the least interesting format for me-- Until I found this nifty little 35mm rangefinder from 1958), your experience is wildly different from mine.

I've had grossly over-exposed, and under-exposed negatives, but I've always understood what went wrong-- usually operator error (Copal Press shutter bit me, forgot to the put the 6 stop filter on, quite literally set the wrong aperture on a shutter).

I don't think I'd use an incident meter for the kind of test scene you posted above, personally-- but it's hard to say, since you don't list the EV or the shutter aperture/speed settings.

My shutters are all in the "good enough" category-- their speeds are within 10% or so of the rated shutter speed, and they range from my "new" lens (Caltar-II S 210mm f/5.6, aka Symmar-S), to a Fujinon 150mm f/5.6 (in the aforementioned Copal Press), which is old enough that the writing is on the inside of the barrel and it's only 46mm filter thread) to an ICA "Maximar" 120mm f/5.4 from 1914. I don't think I've used my Fuji 90mm f/8 yet.

All produce good enough results with Foma (Arista EDU Ultra) 400, Rollei Infrared 400 and Ilford FP4+ 125, all shot at box speed. My 1946 mini Speed Graphic which according to the seller sat in a closet from 1968 to last year, is reliable enough that I haven't had any issues with Foma 400, FP4+, or Ektar 100-- but that's technically a medium format camera.

I would start a separate thread-- LF just isn't that inconsistent, and it's certainly no different than MF or 35mm. If I had to make a guess, I would say your problem seems to be metering-- but that's a guess, based on very little information.

Havoc

7-Jun-2021, 02:53

I would start a separate thread-- LF just isn't that inconsistent, and it's certainly no different than MF or 35mm. If I had to make a guess, I would say your problem seems to be metering-- but that's a guess, based on very little information.

I'll start a new thread about this when I found where I'd do this best.

Pick one film and one film only.. Pick one developer and one developer only. Fix the developer mix ratio, Fix the developer temperature, Fix the developing method.. these three basic post exposure items must be maintained consistent. No variations allowed as with film and developer.
...
Trying too many variables like film, developer and all that can often result in KYOS, following what is written on the box or instructions is at best guess based on some one's ideal of what the negative to print image should look like.

Stick with one set of photographic materials, and image making tools. Get to know them really well before trying other photographic materials.

Bernice

There is something to be said for a single film. BUT, how do you select a film? I think you can only do that by trying different ones. But even then, a single film with the same developer, temp, time, camera, lens will give results like those above. Completely unpredictable.

I think that you can assume that following the box instructions will give a usable result. That this can vary according to manufacturer and combination I agree. But not like the examples. And even when using the same film and same box recipe the results will vary as much. Not so when I use the same film and box recipe with MF.

Tin Can

7-Jun-2021, 03:32

I picked one film, Single Side 8X10 14X17 Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-ray to practice and use very little other films

Now out of production

I bought enough for my lifetime

I use Rodinol and vary ratios, 90%, I experiment 10% as I nailed my process 7 years ago

STEERMAN Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-ray film testing
https://shop.stearmanpress.com/blogs/news/kodak-ektascan-b-ra-x-ray-film-testing

I listened to advice, that kept saying eliminate variables

I have 'fancy' film for my old age, I am 70

Sealed case of 11X14 'real' Kodak film when I grow up

Alan Klein

7-Jun-2021, 05:08

BrianShaw

7-Jun-2021, 06:16

Michael R

7-Jun-2021, 06:31

I love shooting LF but can attest to the veracity of this statement.

Most people get irritated when I write that, but you know...

BrianShaw

7-Jun-2021, 08:30

“ There is something to be said for a single film. BUT, how do you select a film?”

Pick a “normal” film that will work for the majority of your photography. I live in a sunny land so standardized on FP4+. In winter when the light is lower I use HP5+. Both processed per Ilford specs in DD-X. I can trust both film and chemistry to be reliable so that makes most of the remaining variation either my decision or my fault.

Vaughn

7-Jun-2021, 09:31

Or don't be in a hurry; use whatever films and developers one can find or has around, use them, make lots of prints, keep notes and keep an eye on one's old prints and compare them with the new ones. If things keep getting better, you are on the right track. If not, figure things out and keep going.

Bernice Loui

7-Jun-2021, 10:01

Much a matter of controlling THE process, taking out all variables possible. Do this and the results WILL be more consistent than is believed. Having done this for decades (since the early 1980's) it would be impossible to convince me otherwise. It works, it demands disciple, focus, self-control, respect for the photographic materials and taking zero for granted leaving near zero to chance. This is also why there is so much crowing about image goals first, lens required to achieve these goals then camera required to support the first two objectives as a view camera is essentially nothing more than a flexi light tight box.

The other most important factors are proven accurate light meter, film testing, strictly controlled film processing, high quality and consistent photographic materials. These factors are often FAR more important than any lens or camera or... to achieving image goal results.

This is also the divide in the Foto world, there are those who experiment with no end cost of curiosity and believing in happenstance for an expressive image to occur. Others apply strict discipline and exert as much control as possible to the photographic process to meet their image goals. Knowing what those image goals are to begin with goes a long ways to achieving this.

Ilford FP4 (now plus) has been a staple for decades, it has been essentially consistent, predictable, reliable. Second to this HP-5. Pick one film.

Suggest Kodak HC-110 or Rodinal as a developer. Pick one, then settle on a dilution ratio then stick to it.
Mix with highly filtered soft water or distilled water. Water quality impacts development quality. Get a Kodak Process thermometer or equally reliable-accurate-precise thermometer then stay with one processing temperature be it 68 or 70 degrees. Know hotter develops faster and more difficult to control.

Use a proper stop bath, and fixer at the same temperature as the developer.

Been using a Jobo processed with Epxert drums for decades. They work, they are absolutely capable of producing consistent results. Get spendy on film processing stuff instead of that new lens or camera or related widget as image meets paper during post process.

Do the film testing, film speed on the box often will not meet print image goals. Historically, FP4 has been used at ISO 50, not the ISO 125 as noted on the box. Same applies to development times. This is where the learning curve can get difficult, yet extremely rewarding. Once a system has been figured out via testing producing acceptable print results, STICK TO IT, Don't change for the sake of change or wanting to experiment.

Once the understanding of how metered light intensities and color alters these densities on film, that testing can be applied to gain the tonal range demanded in the print.

Stick to one lens-shutter-camera-light meter for the entire testing process. This goes a way to reduce variables.

It is much a matter and mind set of controlled discipline and working to gain an understanding and respect for these photographic materials and their personality. Once this is achieved, the focus can be pointed to creative image making. Without this, there is no foundation from which creative image making can be built.

Bernice

I'll start a new thread about this when I found where I'd do this best.

There is something to be said for a single film. BUT, how do you select a film? I think you can only do that by trying different ones. But even then, a single film with the same developer, temp, time, camera, lens will give results like those above. Completely unpredictable.

I think that you can assume that following the box instructions will give a usable result. That this can vary according to manufacturer and combination I agree. But not like the examples. And even when using the same film and same box recipe the results will vary as much. Not so when I use the same film and box recipe with MF.

Havoc

7-Jun-2021, 13:13

Ilford FP4 (now plus) has been a staple for decades, it has been essentially consistent, predictable, reliable. Second to this HP-5. Pick one film.

Suggest Kodak HC-110 or Rodinal as a developer. Pick one, then settle on a dilution ratio then stick to it.
Mix with highly filtered soft water or distilled water. Water quality impacts development quality. Get a Kodak Process thermometer or equally reliable-accurate-precise thermometer then stay with one processing temperature be it 68 or 70 degrees. Know hotter develops faster and more difficult to control.

Use a proper stop bath, and fixer at the same temperature as the developer.

Been using a Jobo processed with Epxert drums for decades. They work, they are absolutely capable of producing consistent results. Get spendy on film processing stuff instead of that new lens or camera or related widget as image meets paper during post process.

Well, that is about what I do! Those photos were all in HC-110 dilution B. Got some graduated cups at the drugstore (an apothecary here in europe). And I use a Jobo with a Paterson timer. Always at 20 °C for b&w (with a second thermometer in the water that says the same as the setting on the Jobo). With Ilford stop and rapid fixer (always those). All chemistry diluted with demineralised water and rinsed with it as well. Doesn't matter what film I use, FP4+, Foma 100, Adox CHS100II, Delta 100... they come out different each time.

I just can't get any consistency at all. Use the same film, camera, meter, lens, development next time and I get nicely sharp negatives with plenty of greys, a nice sky and all I like. The time after that it just comes out a clear sky without any detail and ink black everywhere else. Even if I develop films taken at a different time in the same drum.

Drew Wiley

7-Jun-2021, 13:18

Maybe "precision" and "havoc" just don't mix! Try another web name, and maybe it will all work out.

Havoc

7-Jun-2021, 13:43

Don't think I could get used to it. Have been using it since the day we played lan games on the company network during lunch. (anyone feels for some Decent?)

Bernice Loui

7-Jun-2021, 19:02

What brand of light meter, checked for accuracy?
How is the lighting metered for film exposure?

Do the film test with gray scale step tablet and 18% gray card as previously mentioned.

After this comes shutter speed, lens aperture scale correct for the lens cell set.

Source of this problem can be figured out by breaking down the film image making process one item and step at a time.

Bernice

Well, that is about what I do! Those photos were all in HC-110 dilution B. Got some graduated cups at the drugstore (an apothecary here in europe). And I use a Jobo with a Paterson timer. Always at 20 °C for b&w (with a second thermometer in the water that says the same as the setting on the Jobo). With Ilford stop and rapid fixer (always those). All chemistry diluted with demineralised water and rinsed with it as well. Doesn't matter what film I use, FP4+, Foma 100, Adox CHS100II, Delta 100... they come out different each time.

I just can't get any consistency at all. Use the same film, camera, meter, lens, development next time and I get nicely sharp negatives with plenty of greys, a nice sky and all I like. The time after that it just comes out a clear sky without any detail and ink black everywhere else. Even if I develop films taken at a different time in the same drum.

Havoc

7-Jun-2021, 23:06

Where do I start a new thread about this? I have really no idea if this is a lens, shutter, film, development or other issue.

otto.f

8-Jun-2021, 00:16

Where do I start a new thread about this? I have really no idea if this is a lens, shutter, film, development or other issue.

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?19-Darkroom-Film-Processing-amp-Printing

It’s mainly a film development issue, no?

neil poulsen

8-Jun-2021, 01:20

If you know better, then please explain what is the cause. I'm really wanting to know and I want to learn. But your answer doesn't help for that.

Sorry if I sound aggressive but I really am thinking about chucking it all out of the window.

Large format photography is a long term, learning endeavor that requires patience and study. It doesn't happen overnight, and in my view, averaging meters and recommended development times will get you nowhere. Except that, on occasion, you will likely get a nice photograph.

After hearing about, and seeing photographs by Ansel Adams, I became inspired by my 35mm camera. I photographed in black and white Tri-X and developed the film for the recommended time. But the best I could do with my negatives to achieve what I'd seen in Ansel Adams photographs was to increase the contrast and then overexpose. I obtained photographs similar to those that you've shared in the thread.

So I returned to the Ansel Adams books, and others, and I began picking up on Ansel Adams zone system. Decades later, I have a good understanding of this system, and I've spent years developing darkroom and developing procedures that give me the results that I like. And, I've enjoyed making that exploration and journey. So, it's not just about getting the end result.

That's kind of my story, and others may have different stories. But regardless, I think you'll find that LF is indeed a long term endeavor. What kept me satisfied along the way, was that I continued to inch towards the results that I wanted to achieve.

Are you up for that? Are you open to following your own, long term story? If so, as a member of the LF Forum, you'll have a lot of help along the way. What's neat about this environment is that everyone is learning from each other. However, if you're not up for that, and a long term story doesn't appeal to you, then you may want to find a different path.

If not, then you may want to consider a different path.

Tin Can

8-Jun-2021, 03:44

BTW

I selected LF for my final? HOBBY!

for the obvious DIFFICULTY, oodles of old gear and to keep well occupied in retirement

I love projects, always have

Another factor coming on strong, is the bigger the film the easier for me to see, literally.... dimming eyes.

I am actually working on very low vision ULF film cameras for my future

10 years of LF, I just get more interested

PatrickMarq

8-Jun-2021, 07:03

Saw this after typing last post... "Box" speed + different developer/time combinations will produce different results... First rule is to standardize materials and process... And stick with that combination...

Testing, testing, testing...

Steve K

Yes, A while ago I was also on the same path as Havoc. But then I have took a look back to see what has changed: New film (Foma) and developer. Nothing but problems.
I have switched back to Delta 100 and DD-X and voila everything was back as before, one happy person with a 4x5 camera.
The choice to change was only for saving some money.
As I only make contact prints, I know what filter and how to develop my negatives and i'm doing a 'great' job I find, and more important the drive is back to go out and take some images.

LabRat

8-Jun-2021, 09:00

I have one more unpredictable that some others here in that I don't have a darkroom. So I'm depending on a pro lab to be consistent. Frankly, mistakes I've seen in negatives and chromes appear to be mine. But if any one has any suggestions regarding consistency with using labs, I'd be glad to hear them.

For color, really nailing the exposure at the "box speed" EI/ISO speed... Improving metering procedure before exposure... C-41 films have a wider latitude than chromes, but the 3 layers are in best harmony at box speed + Normal processing... Much easier to print/scan without color crossovers and casts... Chromes need almost perfect exposure for a balance of hue saturation and brightness, and to fit the scale where highlights register well into the thinner clear area, while needed shadow information is still visible in the heavier bottom... (I have always called chromes "skinny top/big bottoms")...

Pro labs are usually calibrated to these standards...

Steve K

Havoc

8-Jun-2021, 12:57

What brand of light meter, checked for accuracy?
How is the lighting metered for film exposure?

It is a Seconik L-758D and it agrees with any digital camera I have (Canon 5DII and Mamiya ZD) and it agrees with all MF slides (Provia 400X and 100F and Velvia 100) I have taken the last 10 years. 90% of these is incident measuring, spot is only used if not in the same light or when photographing stained glass. I do know from experience that if the build in meter of a camera says something very different than the Sekonic, it is the Sekonic that can be trusted. Slides developed by a pro lab that has its own machines and does daily development of chromes.

Do the film test with gray scale step tablet and 18% gray card as previously mentioned.

I have not done that test. But I suppose that if I expose at box speed and develop according to manufacturers recommendation I should get something acceptable. It might not be acceptable to "zone system users" but it should be better that those 4 examples I posted.

After this comes shutter speed, lens aperture scale correct for the lens cell set.

If this meter can produce the correct exposure for slides I suppose it is "good enough" for b&w. The same lens can produce with the same film, development and procedure fine results. (obviously with the same shutter) But the result is not consistent. And the non consistency can be in the final image (as in being too light, too dark, no greys) or just not being sharp.

I can accept that exposure might not be always perfect if the shutter is a bit off. But focusing on the GG with a Gaoursi 8x loupe and then having some negatives sharp and other like those above (flou artistique is an understatement) is not something due to exposure or development issues.

Source of this problem can be figured out by breaking down the film image making process one item and step at a time.

You should think so. But when you do everything exactly the same each time and get different results every time, this doesn't work.

But Ok, I give up because you lot obviously don't think this is happening. Discussion is meaningless if you cannot accept me writing down my experiences as dry as possible. Doing that grey scale step test is just useless as each time it will give different results.

As long as taking textbook photos, meaning exposing to box speed with incident metering, on a tripod with a cable release and then developing with the same developer at the same temperature for the same time with the same agitation (in a Jobo CPE) according to manufacturer recommendations for that film, exposure and developerAND not getting consistent results then there is something fundamentally flawed.

Using the same film in a MF system with the same workflow and getting consistent results makes it even more of a problem.

When you get better results from a film that has stayed 40 years in a drawer after being shot with an Agfa Clack (no metering at all) compared to all this... You need a miracle.

BrianShaw

8-Jun-2021, 13:18

“ But focusing on the GG with a Gaoursi 8x loupe and then having some negatives sharp and other like those above (flou artistique is an understatement) is not something due to exposure or development issues.”

In a situation like that I generally assume that I inadvertently kicked the tripod or didn’t lock down the focus. Another thing to check ( and you can see this on the negative) is if the film was properly inserted in the holders by examining the edge pattern. It’s not unheard of that one side or both are not in the film Raul, but in front of it. That would put at least part of the film slightly out of register and there might not be enough DOF to cover it.

Drew Wiley

8-Jun-2021, 13:37

It's amazing how simple things become after habit and intuition take over, versus all the hubub theory in advance.

Bruce Watson

8-Jun-2021, 14:59

How much precision and accuracy is enough?

Accuracy and precision are two different concepts -- they are not synonyms for each other. First thing you have to do in any discussion is to agree how to define your terms. Otherwise, your discussion can be pretty meaningless. So, here's how most engineers and scientists define these terms:

Accuracy speaks to whether or not something is correct. Precision speaks to whether or not something is repeatable.

For example, a darkroom thermometer might give you a different temperature reading each time you use it. If you take 20 readings and average them and you get the actual correct temperature (compared to, say, a NIST calibrated reference thermometer), this thermometer is considered accurate. But since you get a different result every time you use it, it is not precise.

A different thermometer might always give you the same result, and that result might be low by a couple of degrees compared to that same reference. So it is considered not accurate, but it is precise.

Now that you understand the difference... which would you rather work with? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'll take the precision one over the accurate one every time. Why? I can adjust for the precision one's readings, so I only have to make a single reading. If I need my developer to be at 20C, and the thermometer reads 2C low every time, I can heat my developer to an indicated 22C and be spot on, and because of the precision of the instrument, I can do it every time. This is what I want.

Michael R

8-Jun-2021, 15:55

Repeatability can be useless without accuracy, depending on which action is being evaluated.

Drew Wiley

8-Jun-2021, 16:14

A rubber band is repeatable, but hardly accurate. We used to speak of "Fisherman's weight scales" that way; good for tall tales and little else.

Alan Klein

9-Jun-2021, 06:14

It is a Seconik L-758D and it agrees with any digital camera I have (Canon 5DII and Mamiya ZD) and it agrees with all MF slides (Provia 400X and 100F and Velvia 100) I have taken the last 10 years. 90% of these is incident measuring, spot is only used if not in the same light or when photographing stained glass. I do know from experience that if the build in meter of a camera says something very different than the Sekonic, it is the Sekonic that can be trusted. Slides developed by a pro lab that has its own machines and does daily development of chromes.

I have not done that test. But I suppose that if I expose at box speed and develop according to manufacturers recommendation I should get something acceptable. It might not be acceptable to "zone system users" but it should be better that those 4 examples I posted.

If this meter can produce the correct exposure for slides I suppose it is "good enough" for b&w. The same lens can produce with the same film, development and procedure fine results. (obviously with the same shutter) But the result is not consistent. And the non consistency can be in the final image (as in being too light, too dark, no greys) or just not being sharp.

I can accept that exposure might not be always perfect if the shutter is a bit off. But focusing on the GG with a Gaoursi 8x loupe and then having some negatives sharp and other like those above (flou artistique is an understatement) is not something due to exposure or development issues.

You should think so. But when you do everything exactly the same each time and get different results every time, this doesn't work.

But Ok, I give up because you lot obviously don't think this is happening. Discussion is meaningless if you cannot accept me writing down my experiences as dry as possible. Doing that grey scale step test is just useless as each time it will give different results.

As long as taking textbook photos, meaning exposing to box speed with incident metering, on a tripod with a cable release and then developing with the same developer at the same temperature for the same time with the same agitation (in a Jobo CPE) according to manufacturer recommendations for that film, exposure and developerAND not getting consistent results then there is something fundamentally flawed.

Using the same film in a MF system with the same workflow and getting consistent results makes it even more of a problem.

When you get better results from a film that has stayed 40 years in a drawer after being shot with an Agfa Clack (no metering at all) compared to all this... You need a miracle.

Have you thought of joining a local photo club where you have local advice and meet with friends who are doing the same kind of shooting? When I started LF photography about a year ago, I found someone who lived an hour away from me who was graceful enough to spend an afternoon with me shooting our cameras. I learned a lot. A photo club is also a great placed to review your pictures with others and get advice and do photo shoots together. Working and learning from other is a faster way of getting to your objectives. Good luck.

Havoc

9-Jun-2021, 07:05

I did have the luck that someone showed me how to develop and yes, this is still the best way to learn. But there are very few clubs around and none of them have film users afaik.

Bernice Loui

9-Jun-2021, 11:14

Black & White film image-print making is nothing like color transparency or color negative image-print making. They are essentially different critters in their own way. Film exposure techniques that is effective for color often does not work in the same way for B&W.

Color transparency aka "positive" film must be exposed at box ISO "speed" rating, often within +/- 1/2" f-stop (if lucky) AND at the box rated color temperature (typical 5000K to 5500K for daylight, typical 3200K for tungsten) as a starting point.

Much the same applies to color negative film, ISO speed rating at box "speed" often within +/- 1 f-stop at most.

B&W films are essentially light intensity mixed with color response to film density converters, with significant ability to bend light intensity and color response as negative density. Making the print is essentially inversion of these negative densities to "positive". Know the densities on the negative cannot fit the density scale of the print material. To get this system to work at all, it is mandatory to compress or expand the light intensity range in the scene to be photographed into what can be printed.. The negative is essentially an intermediate step in this process. This is one of the many reasons why exposure techniques that are SO effective for color film may not be effective at all for B&W. Know B&W films can have a LOT more density range than color films both positive and negative.

This is why ISO "speed" rating of the film to be used IS so important (and why the box ISO film speed rating is often of limited value)
to get the print image as intended and assure consistency of results.

Give up the incident metering for outdoor B&W images, never got that to work at all.

The only images where an incident light meter works IMO, is for in-studio work using strobes or constant light and figuring out lighting ratios or outdoors with controlled conditions. Incident light meters indicate the intensity of light to produce essentially what would be 18% gray density on film. Meter f-stop reading of the light hitting a white sheet will produce what should be about white on film.

Light meter readings using a Minolta spot F on the white sheet -vs- Minolta incident light flash meter IV reading of the light arriving at this same white sheet.
Both light meters set to 1/8 sec, ISO 100. ~Note the (2) f-stop difference.~
216518

216519

~If the taking lens aperture is set to the spot meter reading of f16.7, that white sheet will render a film density equal to 18% gray, or no longer "white".

~If the taking lens aperture is set to the incident meter reading of f8.9, that white sheet will render a film density equal to white..

One example of how metering light works, and how light meter reading render density on film.

Since you've got that combo spot-incident light meter, point the spot meter direct into the blue sky, what is the meter reading for a set ISO and shutter speed?
Repeat the same using the incident light meter, what is the meter reading for a set ISO and shutter speed? On a sunny day, this is likely going to produce the "sunny 16" rule.

Once that experiment has been run, using ONE type of film do the gray step tablet and 18% gray card test using the spot meter reading on the 18% gray card. Repeat the same using an incident light meter reading. Process/develop film as routine. Examine the resulting film densities.

Post the results to discuss.

Bernice

It is a Seconik L-758D and it agrees with any digital camera I have (Canon 5DII and Mamiya ZD) and it agrees with all MF slides (Provia 400X and 100F and Velvia 100) I have taken the last 10 years. 90% of these is incident measuring, spot is only used if not in the same light or when photographing stained glass. I do know from experience that if the build in meter of a camera says something very different than the Sekonic, it is the Sekonic that can be trusted. Slides developed by a pro lab that has its own machines and does daily development of chromes.

I have not done that test. But I suppose that if I expose at box speed and develop according to manufacturers recommendation I should get something acceptable. It might not be acceptable to "zone system users" but it should be better that those 4 examples I posted.

If this meter can produce the correct exposure for slides I suppose it is "good enough" for b&w. The same lens can produce with the same film, development and procedure fine results. (obviously with the same shutter) But the result is not consistent. And the non consistency can be in the final image (as in being too light, too dark, no greys) or just not being sharp.

I can accept that exposure might not be always perfect if the shutter is a bit off. But focusing on the GG with a Gaoursi 8x loupe and then having some negatives sharp and other like those above (flou artistique is an understatement) is not something due to exposure or development issues.

You should think so. But when you do everything exactly the same each time and get different results every time, this doesn't work.

But Ok, I give up because you lot obviously don't think this is happening. Discussion is meaningless if you cannot accept me writing down my experiences as dry as possible. Doing that grey scale step test is just useless as each time it will give different results.

As long as taking textbook photos, meaning exposing to box speed with incident metering, on a tripod with a cable release and then developing with the same developer at the same temperature for the same time with the same agitation (in a Jobo CPE) according to manufacturer recommendations for that film, exposure and developerAND not getting consistent results then there is something fundamentally flawed.

Using the same film in a MF system with the same workflow and getting consistent results makes it even more of a problem.

When you get better results from a film that has stayed 40 years in a drawer after being shot with an Agfa Clack (no metering at all) compared to all this... You need a miracle.

BrianShaw

9-Jun-2021, 11:21

Hmmmm… with black&white I’ve had success with incident metering and box speed. What am I doing wrong, or right? It’s not the perfect option in all situations but certainly good enough in many and cannot be totally discounted. IMO, of course.

Bernice Loui

9-Jun-2021, 11:36

BrianShaw

9-Jun-2021, 11:48

Highly dependent on the lighting and scene. Incident light meter reading work if the lighting is mostly uniform within the scene without intense sunny sky and extremely dark shaded areas. To make this large range of light intensity to work, will require some Foto futzing and how that large range of light intensity wants to be rendered on the print.
Bernice

Yes, it works when the scene fits into the normal characteristics, “dynamic range, if you will allow that phrase, of the film. We absolutely agree. When the scene exceeds that or there is a desire for specific rendering then spot meter is a necessary tool. I think, especially for a beginner or someone struggling to expose correctly/consistently that denouncing time-honored and effective, albeit within certain limitations, exposure methods like incident and general-coverage reflected metering may not be all that helpful. They could be part of the road to success, and knowledge of when to meter differently is essential for creative growth. I’m totally perplexed why the OP is getting the variability that we have been shown, but convinced that making the process more complicated will not make finding the source of process error any easier. Back to simplicity and square-one might be best at this point.

Bernice Loui

9-Jun-2021, 12:02

Yes and much agreed. Incident light meter reading work.. If the light dynamic range in the scene to be images is not large. Once the light dynamic range is large, making a good-printable B&W image is a real challenge. This is where mastery of technique and photographic materials used becomes a must.

In the keep it simple goal, best to stay away from making images with lots of bright sunny sky combined with dark shady areas in the beginning. Once some mastery of how this B&W stuff works, then more scenes with more challenging lighting can be tried.

BTW, since the early 1980's.. never used B&W negative film at "box rated" speed. That does not accomplish what is needed for the prints to be done.

:)
Bernice

Yes, it works when the scene fits into the normal characteristics, “dynamic range, if you will allow that phrase, of the film. We absolutely agree. When the scene exceeds that or there is a desire for specific rendering then spot meter is a necessary tool. I think, especially for a beginner or someone struggling to expose correctly/consistently that denouncing time-honored and effective, albeit within certain limitations, exposure methods like incident and general-coverage reflected metering may not be all that helpful. They could be part of the road to success, and knowledge of when to meter differently is essential for creative growth. I’m totally perplexed why the OP is getting the variability that we have been shown, but convinced that making the process more complicated will not make finding the source of process error any easier. Back to simplicity and square-one might be best at this point.

BrianShaw

9-Jun-2021, 12:07

LOL, Bernice we've been LF photographers for about the same amount of time yet have totally different experiences. To be exact, February of 1980 for me and with 35mm photography experience before that. (I'll never forget that because a dear friend and colleague sold me an enlarger and threw in a SuperGraphic. I still have the receipt from taking it to Graflex Western Division to replace the missing GG and Ektalite. I could have been one of their last customers!)

I almost never use something other than box speed. I also process "by the spec sheet". Not very adventurous, huh? At times, I've been told by another photographer that my negs were "a bit thin" but never had one that wasn't printable as I desired. Oh well.. that's a difference between you and me, our methods, and our expectations I suppose.

I'm well aware of your on-going philosophy that it's all about the print, and I don't disagree, but in this case it isn't... it's about getting negs that show consistent exposure. I'm totally perplexed by Havoc's situation. What I know for sure is that LF photography actually works as advertised, even when exposure metering and exposure methods aren't optimal. Havoc should not be seeing so much difference in his negs. That isn't normal under any circumstances if the process was really consistent. LF photogprhy isn't "broken" as Havoc might be feeling at this time. :)

Bernice Loui

9-Jun-2021, 13:18

Heh... we have been at this view camera stuff for too many decades.. with too many ingrained habits gained along the way.

Equally perplexed with why Havoc's situation persist, out of insatiable curiosity and want to understand has been the passion and motivation for trying to figure this out.

"Thin" negatives are not always bad, it comes down to the print. Too much overall density in the negative can result in a absurd to print negative with a lot more grain in the print than could be with a lower density negative. This and a very long list of other reasons on the print making journey is why all that lens-camera and hardware stuff is at best one component of what results in the finished print.

That said, a bit of incident light meter "needle_ing".. These images have been posted in LFF before. How does incident metering apply to these two images (made circa early 90's):

The only significant source of light in this room is from that window..
216520

Much the same with this image:
216521

The prints are MUCH better than these low quality quick_ie scans done many years ago. None of the details on white or shadow details are seen on the digital version (and yes, futzing with print making via Durst 138 and etc... makes a very real difference).

Bernice

LOL, Bernice we've been LF photographers for about the same amount of time yet have totally different experiences. To be exact, February of 1980 for me and with 35mm photography experience before that. I almost never use something other than box speed. I also process "by the spec sheet". Not very adventurous, huh? At times, I've been told by another photographer that my negs were "a bit thin" but never had one that wasn't printable as I desired. Oh well.. that's a difference between you and me, our methods, and our expectations I suppose.

I'm well aware of your on-going philosophy that it's all about the print, and I don't disagree, but in this case it isn't... it's about getting negs that show consistent exposure. I'm totally perplexed by Havoc's situation. (I'll never forget that because a dear friend and colleague sold me an enlarger and threw in a SuperGraphic. I still have the receipt from taking it to Graflex Western Division to replace the missing GG and Ektalite. I could have been one of their last customers!)

What I know for sure is that LF photography actually works as advertised, even when exposure metering and exposure methods aren't optimal. Havoc should not be seeing so much difference in his negs. That isn't normal under any circumstances if the process was really consistent. LF photogprhy isn't "broken" as Havoc might be feeling at this time. :)

BrianShaw

9-Jun-2021, 15:30

How does incident metering apply to these two images (made circa early 90's)

Easy quiz... it doesn't (or shouldn't).

Michael R

9-Jun-2021, 15:38

LabRat

9-Jun-2021, 18:42

You’re not doing anything wrong, as you know. You’re just ignoring a lot of bad information. :)

Yea, some element in the chain is causing this...

It's like being a chef... Your soup might be near perfect, but you can't serve it up if there's a fly in it... Get the fly out, and enjoy...

I'm on the road right now, but will post some other suggestions later... Good suggestions posted here, but you gotta find that fly!!!

Steve K

LabRat

10-Jun-2021, 00:08

Looking at your samples (before), it is clear there is a big difference with the overall density of the negatives... I think not the developing because on the thinner negs, there is a lack of detail in the shadow areas...

The film ISO rating is based on how much light it takes to start the density reaction in the darkest (thinnest) part of the negative, where you have the start of shadow detail... This is controlled by exposure level... This level is fairly constant even with differing development... It develops early in the processing, and stays constant unless over developed and a layer of fog comes in...

As development proceedes, the highlight areas have more activity until they block up the density (d-max)... These areas become harder to print through...

I think that the lack of shadow information is being caused by lack of sufficient exposure, while the overall energy of the image is also lower...

Underdevelopment would allow shadow detail to be there, but highlights would be flat and weak, but not enough exposure would cause the shadow information to not be recorded...

I think something like a malfunctioning shutter or not setting iris correctly is likely...

It seems to be about exposure level, as just some variation of developing would affect the density somewhat less than the range of differences you have...

Steve K