Assessing film speed and development time without a darkroom.

[JohnF]

Most of my photography is film based. I don’t have a darkroom or enlarger and ‘digitise ‘ my 35 mm, medium format and 5x4 negatives either by film scanning or photographing negatives with a macro lens on a digital camera, then processing these digital files via Lightroom and Photoshop.
I am keen to arrive at an optimum film speed and development time for any particular combination of film and developing agent.
I don’t have a densitometer.
Is there any technique available to me to achieve my objective in the absence of darkroom facilities?

[Drew Wiley]

Find someone else who can do the processing and take the readings for you, as well as explain how to take relevant test shots with a good gray scale or gray card target. If you shoot roll film, you could use a light-tight film tent or dark closet to load the film into a hand-inversion processing drum, alleviating the need for a complete darkroom. But without prior darkroom experience or taking a class, that might prove clumsy at first.

[BrianShaw]

A really useful way to start is by following the film data sheet recommendations and that film manufacturer’s processing recommendations. The major film companies have plenty of free documents to download on how-to.

As someone already said, there are daylight tanks for both roll and sheet film and you can do all of the dark work in a big changing bag. Not ideal but it can be done.

[JohnF]

A really useful way to start is by following the film data sheet recommendations and that film manufacturer’s processing recommendations. The major film companies have plenty of free documents to download on how-to.

As someone already said, there are daylight tanks for both roll and sheet film and you can do all of the dark work in a big changing bag. Not ideal but it can be done.
I process my own B&W negatives using Patterson or Stearman tanks. I have used manufacturers or Massive dev charts to arrive at development times but have no objective way of assessing Zone 1 and Zone 9 densities. This is usually achieved by running test strips on paper at incremental increases of exposure, but no enlarger, timer or darkroom means this is not an option for me.

[koraks]

Using a known-density reference (e.g. a stouffer wedge) you can use your scanner as a densitometer. Scan the reference along with the film in one go and 'measure' densities in Photoshop etc.

[Doremus Scudder]

Or, you can just adjust on the fly, optimizing your negatives for your digital printing method using the time-honored advice:

If your shadows don't have enough detail, rate the film slower.
If your negatives are too contrasty to print well, develop for a shorter time, and vice-versa.

What you are looking for is the minimum exposure that will give you the shadow detail you need and the minimum developing time that will give you the print you want at "average" or "normal" settings (whatever those might be for your method).

Now, if you want your negatives to be printable in the darkroom, then you'd have to take this into account by making sure you expose and develop enough for conventional printing. Still, the same parameters apply, it's just that it's the photographic paper that will tell the tale instead of your digital scan or copy shot.

For that, you'll need somehow to measure densities and contrast gradient, or get someone to print your negatives conventionally and see how they print at a medium contrast setting. If you don't anticipate ever needing to print conventionally, then optimizing for your workflow is just fine.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

There's also the old do-it-yourself "visual densitometry method". Take some black card stock and punch two holes in it several inches apart. Put your film on a light box along with an adjacent calibrated Stouffer step wedge, each adjusted below its own respective hole at the point you want to compare them. Each step of the wedge is about .15 density apart. With your eyesight alone, you should be able to discern density differences within .05, plenty good for most black and white film purposes.

[JohnF]

Thanks everyone for all the input.
I like the Stouffer step wedge approach. So for clarification; if I expose a 35 mm or 120 roll film at a series of exposures of a plain evenly lit surface, making a note of the Zone values I think they represent at a given film speed, and then compare these with a Stouffer step wedge by the naked eye alongside my film, I should be able to discern how close to actuality I am with Zone 1, and then adjust film speed accordingly? And would the same approach work for determining the optimum developing time by matching Zone 9?
Thanks

[Drew Wiley]

It's a valid start. With most films and developers, you want the darkest evident shadow texture or differentiation (Zone II) to correspond to around .15 density on the step wedge. But there are somewhat different opinions on this depending on the actual application of the film afterwards, since you see to be planning on scanning. The point is, a little extra exposure to the shadows is better than too little. Then the amount of development controls the density of the highlights. You will need to experiment a bit with scanning and printing to iron out everything to your own taste. It helps to standardize on just one film and developer when starting out. But some of the ancient common sense advice about how much development is too much still applies : After development, if your negative is too dense to read or discern the text of a book through, it's probably unprintable in those areas with respect to top highlight texture (around Zone IX).

It might be wise to aim for a VERSATILE density range in your negatives. I have noticed that those who in the past made excellent darkroom enlargements from their negatives, and then later began digital black and white printing, found those same negatives to be especially cooperative for scanning because the density range was sensible. Or it could work the other way around, and someone who begins with digital evaluation later acquires a yen for darkroom printing.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Most of my photography is film based. I don’t have a darkroom or enlarger and ‘digitise ‘ my 35 mm, medium format and 5x4 negatives either by film scanning or photographing negatives with a macro lens on a digital camera, then processing these digital files via Lightroom and Photoshop.
I am keen to arrive at an optimum film speed and development time for any particular combination of film and developing agent.
I don’t have a densitometer.
Is there any technique available to me to achieve my objective in the absence of darkroom facilities?

You have got a densitometer: the spot metering funktion in your camera.

All you have to do is developing your negatives and metering them out.

[Drew Wiley]

Even true spotmeters are no substitute for a densitometer; and in-camera spotmeter functions are nowhere near same league as spot meters per se. How ya gonna selectively read some little spot on a neg maybe only a couple mm across? Spotmeters can't read into strong densities atop a the modest illumination of a light box, and typically aren't really accurate more than 1/3 stop - that's a fairly whopping.10 density increment at best. I own a projection or easel densitometer that has almost ridiculous range, and can accurately read inside 1cc (.01 density). My official XRite transmission densitometer is nearly as accurate, but has nowhere near the range; yet it can read areas as small as 1mm. And I'd personally resort to elementary visual densitometry before I'd use my spotmeter. And yeah, I have experimented with both of those alternate avenues.

At one time, all densitometry was done visually. Some of the old Kodak Visual densitometers still exist, and even turn up for sale, though those old ND filters have probably faded or terribly yellowed by now.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Even true spotmeters are no substitute for a densitometer; and in-camera spotmeter functions are nowhere near same league as spot meters per se. How ya gonna selectively read some little spot on a neg maybe only a couple mm across? Spotmeters can't read into strong densities atop a the modest illumination of a light box, and typically aren't really accurate more than 1/3 stop - that's a fairly whopping.10 density increment at best. I own a projection or easel densitometer that has almost ridiculous range, and can accurately read inside 1cc (.01 density). My official XRite transmission densitometer is nearly as accurate, but has nowhere near the range; yet it can read areas as small as 1mm. And I'd personally resort to elementary visual densitometry before I'd use my spotmeter. And yeah, I have experimented with both of those alternate avenues.

At one time, all densitometry was done visually. Some of the old Kodak Visual densitometers still exist, and even turn up for sale, though those old ND filters have probably faded or terribly yellowed by now.

Maybe you can concretize the approach of Doremus Scudder and Drew Wiley. And yes, a densitometer is always better than a spot meter. But: what you don't own, you can't work with. And: my photographs are mostly N+1, so you always have leeway when working with N.

Here you can see a nice black textured wool sweater. https://www.militaershop.ch/bekleidung/oberbekleidung/pullover/1692/pullover-troyer-schwarz-mit-reissverschluss?number=MF-05505A-M I'm sure you have such a garment. A ball of wool will do.

If you want to place the sweater in Zone III, you would have to underexpose by two EV - if you measure the exposure with the average light meter. F-stop 22 instead of 11. You can do that with two negatives, with the speed on the film box and with half the speed on the film box.

Now you develop the negative, and then you put it on photographic paper, as a contact copy. You don't need a darkroom for that yet, just some photo paper and developer and fixer. You make a test strip. You take as standard print time the time it takes to get the clear negative edge completely black.

The negative, where the wool sweater then appears as a clearly textured dark, but still different from pure black, has the right effective sensitivity.

You can also measure texture with a digital camera's (even smartphone's) spot exposure meter, without photo paper, without a darkroom. You first measure the clear negative edge and take the result as the zero point. Then measure the difference to the wool sweater in zone III. Each change of one EV equals a density change of 0.3. A change of 0.33 EV equals a density change of 0.1. In zone III you need a density of about 0.4.

Here is the hint: https://www.cameramanuals.org/flashes_meters/gossen_profi-flex.pdf, page 14

Once you have the effective sensitivity, you can test the development. Now work with the effective sensitivity, but overexpose the sweater by two EV, f-stop 5.6 instead of 11. It is best to do two developments, with two negatives. Once the development according to the manufacturer's specifications, once a development minus 25%. Instead of 10 minutes now 7.5 minutes. If the manufacturer says 7.5 minutes, that's 450 seconds, 25% is 112.5 seconds, leaving 337.5 seconds, which is 5 minutes and 37 seconds. That's short. The best way is to use a developer that takes longer.

The contact copy, where with the standard print time the sweater comes as a just clearly structured highlight, zone VII, has the correct development.

The density difference to the clear film base should be 1.10, in zone VII. That is 3.33 EV if you measure the density with the spot exposure meter.

There is a good book, by White, Zakia and Lorenz: "The New Zone System Manual". P. 48ff shows the procedure. What I have described above is actually only a simplification to Zone III and VII.

If I have explained something incorrectly here, this can have various reasons. I am not a native speaker. I can be fundamentally wrong. And others have their own experiences. That is why I am grateful if people correct my explanations. Solving the problem is worth the effort, because many need a simple procedure to get the right process.

[Drew Wiley]

Hi, Daniel. Yes, that all works in terms of Zone System theory on the subject end. But how do you read specific densities in small areas of a real world final negative, and not just bracketed test negatives? That's pretty clumsy to do with any kind of spot meter. But it can be done with the simple black card method I already explained. And here the point is not necessarily an introduction to Zone System theory anyway, though that could potentially help him.

[koraks]

Now you develop the negative, and then you put it on photographic paper, as a contact copy. You don't need a darkroom for that yet, just some photo paper and developer and fixer. You make a test strip. You take as standard print time the time it takes to get the clear negative edge completely black.
While in principle this could be done without a darkroom, it sure is rather inconvenient to contact print negatives without a darkroom.

Yes, I've seen people make wet prints without a darkroom.

No, I wouldn't ever want to go through that mess myself.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes and No. ... I would never want to go through that AGAIN.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

As I said, you don't need a darkroom or contact prints. The DSLR light meter is all you need.

It's best not to theorize too much, just try it out. If I photograph the sweater (test subject) at 4x5 inches, it will be between 2 x 3 to 4 x 5 inches on the negative. That should be enough for spot metering with the digital camera, with the macro lens and the negative on the light desk. For zero metering and basic density, you can use an unexposed but developed sheet of 4x5 film.

Another question: why torture yourself with film photography if you don't want a darkroom and prefer to do everything digitally instead? A completely digital workflow results in better image quality, greater dynamic range, easier manageability, lower running costs. The tripod is lighter, the camera too, everything is smaller, more manageable, less bulky. You see the results immediately, and for the analog touch, there's Photoshop.

In my opinion, the analog process is not interesting it unless you want to produce expensive images with heavy film cassettes, on baryta paper, mounted with dry mount film on museum board. This is, of course, a classic view. But that's what it's all about, in my opinion: the classical process (which can do without museum cardboard and dry mount film) and the value of the artifact that it achieves.

[Tin Can]

Sunny 16 works fine

All I used for 40 years

Then I took a Darkroom class

[JohnF]

Another question: why torture yourself with film photography if you don't want a darkroom and prefer to do everything digitally instead? A completely digital workflow results in better image quality, greater dynamic range, easier manageability, lower running costs. The tripod is lighter, the camera too, everything is smaller, more manageable, less bulky. You see the results immediately, and for the analog touch, there's Photoshop.


No torture. I love the tactile element of loading and unloading film, the swishing around in chemicals, the variability of treatment of film with regard to developers and development times, and that moment when the negatives are lifted out of the developing tank for first review. Film makes me work differently from digital capture, more studied, more selective with no option for immediate review. I did practice darkroom printing for some years before I moved house, and though I could set up a darkroom once more, I am not at all motivated to do so. I find the quality of baryta inkjet papers to be be superb.
Digital processing of the image, for me, gives much finer control than in the darkroom, at least at my level of darkroom skills, and digital processing gives the opportunity to get it exactly right before printing, rather than the additional prints required in the darkroom.
Yes, it is more expensive than a solely digital workflow. I am fortunate to be in my mid 70’s and a retiree, where cash flow is not as pressing as for some. And as a bonus, the mental gymnastics in pursuing the technology of film photography, helps to stave off incipient brain rot!
5 rolls of FP4 arrive today together with a Stouffer step wedge. If it’s not too tedious, I will feed back future progress.
Thanks one and all

[Tin Can]

After 70, be retired

and do whatever you want

Cheers!



No torture. I love the tactile element of loading and unloading film, the swishing around in chemicals, the variability of treatment of film with regard to developers and development times, and that moment when the negatives are lifted out of the developing tank for first review. Film makes me work differently from digital capture, more studied, more selective with no option for immediate review. I did practice darkroom printing for some years before I moved house, and though I could set up a darkroom once more, I am not at all motivated to do so. I find the quality of baryta inkjet papers to be be superb.
Digital processing of the image, for me, gives much finer control than in the darkroom, at least at my level of darkroom skills, and digital processing gives the opportunity to get it exactly right before printing, rather than the additional prints required in the darkroom.
Yes, it is more expensive than a solely digital workflow. I am fortunate in my mid 70’s and a retiree, where cash flow is not as pressing as for some. And as a bonus, the mental gymnastics in pursuing the technology of film photography, helps to stave off incipient brain rot!
5 rolls of FP4 arrive today together with a Stouffer step wedge. If it’s not too tedious, I will feed back future progress.
Thanks one and all

[jnantz]

Most of my photography is film based. I don’t have a darkroom or enlarger and ‘digitise ‘ my 35 mm, medium format and 5x4 negatives either by film scanning or photographing negatives with a macro lens on a digital camera, then processing these digital files via Lightroom and Photoshop.
I am keen to arrive at an optimum film speed and development time for any particular combination of film and developing agent.
I don’t have a densitometer.
Is there any technique available to me to achieve my objective in the absence of darkroom facilities?

good luck with that !

you might become good friends with your lab / the people who develop your film into negatives and bracket rolls / do test strips on sheets of film using your dark slide to mask your film ... and hope after you get your optimal times figured out that your lab doesn't change anything they are doing. also make sure all your shutters are CLA'd on a regular basis so your exposures will all be the same. you might end up realizing that sunny 11 might be good enough, and / or film that is a little thin rather than dense. I never bothered with tedious film and developer tests. just bracketed exposure and since I was able to , I bracketed development, printed / scanned to figure out what worked for me the best. since you can't bracket your development on your own you might talk to your lab ( where the being friends comes in ) to ask them to increase and decrease your development times by 50% so you can do something similar .. only thing is labs sometimes charge a premium for special instructions, so I hope you have a kidney or spleen to sell on the dark web.

ps. don't forget to have fun

[JohnF]

good luck with that !

you might become good friends with your lab / the people who develop your film into negatives
I shoot only black and white and develop it myself at home

[Doremus Scudder]

I think the point jnantz is making is a good one, though. Many labs would be happy to give you densitometer readings for a minimal charge. You might just track one down and see if you can bring/send in your test negatives for readings.

Doremus

[jnantz]

I shoot only black and white and develop it myself at home

I thought you said you didn't have darkroom facilities


Is there any technique available to me to achieve my objective in the absence of darkroom facilities?

sorry for my misunderstanding !


I think the point jnantz is making is a good one, though. Many labs would be happy to give you densitometer readings for a minimal charge. You might just track one down and see if you can bring/send in your test negatives for readings.

Doremus

exactly !

==
but ... do you actually need to have densitometry readings ? I know a lot of photography people love to talk about log curves they plotted, and data and base plus fog lingo but is it really necessary for your application?
in actuality you might be able to get away with just exposing your film, bracketing it, bracketing your development photographing/scanning and seeing which ones you like the best / easiest for you to work with without getting bogged down in gymnastics. time shooting, film and chemistry is expensive, and even though a lab would probably do it for you at a minimal charge, it still adds up and you might not really need to know the readings for you to know your own optimal exposure, optimal iso, optimal film processing times &c. the info manufacturers give is pretty much on target for most applications ( and chemistry makers like Sprint Systems have up to date info on every film made on their website ) ...
I hate to admit how long I have been making photographs but I've never done densitometry or sensitometry readings, I've just shot and printed and proceeded from there blindly ...
ignorance is bliss.. ( especially when you are making photographs on a shoestring budget, and you don't go to cocktail parties where people talk about B+F values, curves plotted, logs, shoulders &c )
good luck !

[Tin Can]

Yes

Just do it

Shoot process repeat


I thought you said you didn't have darkroom facilities


sorry for my misunderstanding !



exactly !

==
but ... do you actually need to have densitometry readings ? I know a lot of photography people love to talk about log curves they plotted, and data and base plus fog lingo but is it really necessary for your application?
in actuality you might be able to get away with just exposing your film, bracketing it, bracketing your development photographing/scanning and seeing which ones you like the best / easiest for you to work with without getting bogged down in gymnastics. time shooting, film and chemistry is expensive, and even though a lab would probably do it for you at a minimal charge, it still adds up and you might not really need to know the readings for you to know your own optimal exposure, optimal iso, optimal film processing times &c. the info manufacturers give is pretty much on target for most applications ( and chemistry makers like Sprint Systems have up to date info on every film made on their website ) ...
I hate to admit how long I have been making photographs but I've never done densitometry or sensitometry readings, I've just shot and printed and proceeded from there blindly ...
ignorance is bliss.. ( especially when you are making photographs on a shoestring budget, and you don't go to cocktail parties where people talk about B+F values, curves plotted, logs, shoulders &c )
good luck !

[Drew Wiley]

Just bracket, bracket, bracket? For heaven's sake, this is a large format forum. Is everybody here rich enough for that volume of sheet film? Sounds like a snipe hunt; and at least some form of map up front might be helpful before getting lost.

[LabRat]

Remember the old foto rule "Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights"... In this case it means there must be enough exposure to give the darkest (thinnest) area some information, but development controls the maximum density of the brightest highlights...

So your testing will include the level where the bottom of the shadow areas will be visible in the thin areas of your neg... (There is very little change in this area during duration of development, and this area is the EI of the exposed film)... But the highlight areas have the most chemical activity, and can "run away" with overdevelopment... So your developing time is about those areas...

Developing just long enough where the highlights don't block up in Dmax where there is still some transparency through them is where they should be... If you exposed a sheet for this highlight exposure, you develop so you can just barely see through it when held up to a light is correct...

You can eventually do some calibration tests, but you will find the above very close for normal negs/exposure...

Steve K

[Tin Can]

Some here suggest using 1/2 Box ASA/ISO speed as starting point for SHEET film

I shoot Ilford HP5 which is factory rated at 400, at 200 ASA/ISO

Many more will suggest insanely complicated exposure systems, contraction/expansion, ZONES

BUT you better check your actual shutter speed, they vary

Plus or Minus 20/30 % is NORMAL

Bellows factor will get you often and early

[Michael R]

Agreed.

Drew mentions having a map instead of flying blind, which of course makes sense, but when it comes to exposure the map is already given to us in the form of ISO speed.

Cutting ISO speed in half for sheet film essentially puts the former safety factor from the standard (pre-1960) back in, which is fine. It will also line you up very closely with Zone System speeds without having to do any testing because the Zone System EI is 2/3 stop lower than ISO.


Some here suggest using 1/2 Box ASA/ISO speed as starting point for SHEET film

I shoot Ilford HP5 which is factory rated at 400, at 200 ASA/ISO

Many more will suggest insanely complicated exposure systems, contraction/expansion, ZONES

BUT you better check your actual shutter speed, they vary

Plus or Minus 20/30 % is NORMAL

Bellows factor will get you often and early

[jnantz]

Just bracket, bracket, bracket? For heaven's sake, this is a large format forum. Is everybody here rich enough for that volume of sheet film? Sounds like a snipe hunt; and at least some form of map up front might be helpful before getting lost.

yes, ... 3 sheets of film, bracketed like a test strip with a dark slide. Each developed a little different.
your exaggerations area too funny, Drew, 3 sheets of 4x5 will make someone poor or it's like a snipe hunt?
exposing 12+ sheets of film to map out exposure / development for each film won't make someone broke, LOL, that's too funny.

.. yes, quite right, this is the LF forum a place where people will drop IDK $3,000 or $6,000 on a lens or camera body ...
I don't think 3 sheets of film and IDK 40cents worth of developer will break anyone's bank. even if the person is like most, on a shoestring budget.



BUT you better check your actual shutter speed, they vary

<...>
Bellows factor will get you often and early


BINGO

[Alan Klein]

How do you use the densitometer on a scanner and what does it mean? I have an Epson V850 scanner and a lab develops my film. I shoot Tmax for BW and various chromes for color.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh, using a darkslide test-strip style, John ... I never thought of that. But in that case, one should be confident they have an even field of illumination to begin with, or the middle portion will come out unduly dense,
a risk with wide-angle lenses or lenses not adequately stopped down. So I wouldn't likely try that myself, regardless. When I do bracket tests on an unfamiliar film, I reach for a roll film first camera instead.

But that $$$ remark ... It's not all that unusual for a box of sheet film these days to cost MORE than numerous LF lenses do, at least used. And logically, that would make "box cameras" more valuable. Then all you need is a "pinhole lens" in the clamshell box - no need for even sheet film holders. Don't say I'm not innovative.

[jnantz]

Oh, using a darkslide test-strip style, John ... I never thought of that. But in that case, one should be confident they have an even field of illumination to begin with, or the middle portion will come out unduly dense,
a risk with wide-angle lenses or lenses not adequately stopped down. So I wouldn't likely try that myself, regardless. When I do bracket tests on an unfamiliar film, I reach for a roll film first camera instead.

But that $$$ remark ... It's not all that unusual for a box of sheet film these days to cost MORE than numerous LF lenses do, at least used. And logically, that would make "box cameras" more valuable. Then all you need is a "pinhole lens" in the clamshell box - no need for even sheet film holders. Don't say I'm not innovative.

no nothing's too dense, its exactly like making a print. and yup. simple cameras are way more valuable, and they already have simple lenses that look like they cost $3000 pre-installed by the factory. only problem is the user has to be able to judge light. it's like shooting on the lumiere brother's crank movie camera vs using a modern camera / bolex ... if you ever watched the compilation film "lumiere and company" ( I think that's what it's called ) David L!ynch seemed to be the only film maker who figured out how to use it to make.a film... 1 take ..

again, it doesn't matter anyways

good luck OP!

[Drew Wiley]

Alan - Transmission densitometers measure the density of film (the developed negative itself) in log units according to the amount of light which comes through that density at a given point aligned to the instrument aperture, which might be 1mm or 2mm or 3mm across. These are not designed for use directly with scanners, but potentially prior. For example, such a reading might reveal a negative density too high for the scanner itself, or if plotted, a curve shape needing quite a bit of post-work to make cooperative.

In the case of the original query of this thread, understanding some of the practical limits of film density with at least casual visual comparison to a step tablet is likely to facilitate negatives which are the most cooperative overall. Yeah, a certain amount of the extremes might be recoverable with a high-end scanner and curve manipulation afterwards; but then, excessively dense negs would be a shame if useless in the darkroom, if one wanted to go that route instead later.

Color transmission densitometers work a little differently, by taking the three relevant color density readings separately. With black and white film, the unit is engineered either for neutral density, or in a few special models, tweaked to read UV light density instead, for sake of UV printing processes. Then there are reflection densitometers, either black and white or color, which read opaque prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, John, yeah, it's all been done. I've accidentally dunked my light meter in mountain streams a couple of times, and came back with even my color chrome sheets all correctly exposed. But that was based on memory, due to analogous lighting many times before, and properly metered over and over again. And memory ... well, we all know that ain't always gonna be dependable. But there's always room in this world for the scent of fresh mercury fumes when sensitizing newt mucous emulsion rapidly with a broom before being struck by arrows, or getting gnawed by a bear.

But not everyone prefers dicey methodology. The whole problem is that if you lose more than two fingers to a bear, the Zone System will become harder to understand. I guess you could count toes instead. It's all so dang complicated, ciphering the difference between two and eight, and so forth. I don't pay much attention to ZS theory myself; but it is surprisingly simple once one gets past certain terminological speed bumps, along with fanatical religious overtones concerning, "define gray".

[Bernice Loui]

Stuff to consider...

Seems the majority of film users today digitize the film (roll or sheet) image then apply image fix up in software then produce the print via digitized printer..

Software bending of the digitized film image allows all sorts of alterations previously not possible with the optical film based print making process.. This can promote sloppy creation of the original film image.. from exposure to processing and ....

Personally, have yet to see any digital printer based image equal to the best full optical process silver gelatin, carbon, platinum prints and color ciba-ilford chrome prints made. This Assessment and Judgement comes from viewing prints in the most famed art museums, famed art galleries, what are considered to be the "best" digital image hardware sellers...

Back in the film image centric days, the film image had to be made to fit the print materials used to make GOOD print. Today due to digital software bending possibilities, this discipline of getting the original film image best possible to meet the demands of the print materials is often neglected..

All this mostly goes back to the goals of the image maker, their understanding and points of reference as to what is a "GOOD" print, their skills, technical abilities of fully understanding the abilities and limitations of the image making materials involved then getting the very best within the baked in limitations of these materials to achieve their image goals.

As for bracketing film exposures.. this is much an expression of not fully understanding the limitations, abilities of the imaging materials involved to achieve the print goal. Fact is, if the image maker is any good, exposure and production of the finished print goal in mind requires a single image exposure of film or digital.. noting more.



Bernice

[Michael R]

That's not a fact. It can be difficult to determine the "right" exposure under tricky conditions. An alternate exposure or bracketing can be worth it. The best photographers I know often make several exposures regardless of format.

[jnantz]

That's not a fact. It can be difficult to determine the "right" exposure under tricky conditions. An alternate exposure or bracketing can be worth it. The best photographers I know often make several exposures regardless of format.

!!!

[Drew Wiley]

Bracketing is sure a lot of fun, Michael, just like lugging around an 8x10 pack all day long on a steep hill with double or triple the number of holders, just for the privilege of bracketing. Of course, light NEVER changes between exposures, does it, or the position of a cloud? And let's see, what is TMY 8x10 per sheet these days? Glad we're not talking about out the price of color 8x10 sheet film instead, which makes even TMax seem like a bargain. So I'm not quite sure what you mean by "best" photographers.... They must be the best if they can they afford to hire their own elephant replete with mahout to haul around what is necessary for all those redundant additional exposures. Or maybe they just don't know how to use a light meter correctly.

Yeah, I'll admit I took some duplicate exposures a couple days ago. But that was of a nervous running-around goat herd using a Nikon with 35mm TMY in it. Today I'm loading up the pack with a day hike's worth of 8x10 gear, and you can be dern sure I ain't totin' any spare filmholders, and won't be shootin' twitchy goats neither.

[Alan Klein]

I bracket medium format 6x7 roll film but don't bracket (usually) since starting 4x5. It's pretty cheap and convenient with roll film. I will bracket an extra shot in 4x5 if I'm shooting in difficult "magic hour" times when the light to get the right exposure for me can be hard to assess. Gasoline, time, car depreciation, etc also cost money besides film and processing. You have to trade that against the extra cost for bracketing.

[Drew Wiley]

Alas, Alan, when one's transportation is one's own feet for days on end, every single sheet of film must be circumspectly used. I've even been on several long road trips when the very best shot finally showed up, but I was already out of film! Now my strategy is to use roll film backs for the majority of shots, or even regular MF gear, and conserve the sheets for those extra special shots which warrant bigger enlargements. My next serious road trip might involve a combination of MF and 8x10 cameras, with the 4x5 gear left home. Hoping the price of gas will keep dropping until Autumn, my favorite travel season.

[Alan Klein]

Alas, Alan, when one's transportation is one's own feet for days on end, every single sheet of film must be circumspectly used. I've even been on several long road trips when the very best shot finally showed up, but I was already out of film! Now my strategy is to use roll film backs for the majority of shots, or even regular MF gear, and conserve the sheets for those extra special shots which warrant bigger enlargements. My next serious road trip might involve a combination of MF and 8x10 cameras, with the 4x5 gear left home. Hoping the price of gas will keep dropping until Autumn, my favorite travel season.

Weeks often months can go by before I shoot a shot. If it's not what I want or think it's anything special, I won't bother. So when I finally feel it's worth taking the camera out and setting it up and actually shooting, the extra shots to make sure I got the exposure right are worth the cost. Especially because I shoot chromes mainly with their more limited range over negative color and BW.

[Michael R]

You got it. And many (probably most) people at the top of the field do the same.


Weeks often months can go by before I shoot a shot. If it's not what I want or think it's anything special, I won't bother. So when I finally feel it's worth taking the camera out and setting it up and actually shooting, the extra shots to make sure I got the exposure right are worth the cost. Especially because I shoot chromes mainly with their more limited range over negative color and BW.

[Bernice Loui]

Bracketing exposures on film remains an extension of not fully understanding the limitations_abilities of ALL the photographic materials and process involved with print making and the image maker's print goals. This included having and knowing how what tools are required and using them to the best of their abilities and capabilities.

To gain understanding and behavior of photographic materials demands testing ... as was the beginning of this LFF "discussion".
In the specific case of color transparency film, this previous post examples how this was done decades ago as a common daily event.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169347-Color-Transparency-film-18-gray-card-test-(expanding-on-quot-be-technical-perfect-quot-)

Once actual film speed to produce a given density and overall color balance of the color transparency film has been measured and determined, these metrics become the basis for how that specific lot/batch of film will be exposed coupled to the limits of the dynamic range of color transparency film. Much identical applies to B&W films like Kodak TMax... Don't believe for a moment B&W film is more forgiving than color.. to achieve GOOD print results demands the same degree of attention to testing as color transparency film. Doing less results in wasting photographic materials, YOUR time (not replaceable once spent), YOUR resources and much more..

The working "pro" foto industry back then developed specific tools to stop the practice of bracketing film exposures by applying science and technology to remove the need for bracketing exposures which is in many ways guessing to deal with uncertainty.

Clip from Sinar Info# 31 on Contrast Control..
229924


It is much about fully understanding the dynamic range and Latitude of a specific photographic material. It is why and how the Sinar ground glass metering system came about.. This is also why properly using a GOOD accurate/precise spot meter can work wonders to eliminate bracketing exposures.. to about zero.
229925

Back in them days of color transparency film centric images for color printing and other means of printed materials, Fotographers that bracketed their film exposures lots were considered incompetent and "lesser" in many ways as long experienced working "pro" photographers considered exposure bracketing a serious wast of film and much more.. This discipline of making each and every frame or sheet of film exposed count seems lost today.. due to the non-cost of digital image making.. but appears to have been some what re-discovered by folks new to film image making.

Take the time to read the complete Sinar Info# 31 on Contrast Control as it directly applies to this specific discussion and speaks directly to the belief bracketing exposures is needed.. the .jpg versions to follow..
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01388/01388.pdf

Discussion by Olympus Lifescience on film exposure.. info applies here.
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/photomicrography/filmexposure/

As for, "Weeks often months can go by before I shoot a shot.".. Non-option for photographers that make images to put food on their table, roof over their head and meeting the demands of daily life and living... This is one of the differences between some of the very best artistic commercial photographers back in the day -vs- hobbyist or artist wanna be..


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar info# 31, Contrast Control..
229926

229927

229928

229929


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Sinar info# 31, Contrast Control..con't.
229930

229931

229932

229933


Bernice

[bdkphoto]

Bracketing exposures on film remains an extension of not fully understanding the limitations_abilities of ALL the photographic materials and process involved with print making and the image maker's print goals. This included having and knowing how what tools are required and using them to the best of their abilities and capabilities.

To gain understanding and behavior of photographic materials demands testing ... as was the beginning of this LFF "discussion".
In the specific case of color transparency film, this previous post examples how this was done decades ago as a common daily event.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169347-Color-Transparency-film-18-gray-card-test-(expanding-on-quot-be-technical-perfect-quot-)

Once actual film speed to produce a given density and overall color balance of the color transparency film has been measured and determined, these metrics become the basis for how that specific lot/batch of film will be exposed coupled to the limits of the dynamic range of color transparency film. Much identical applies to B&W films like Kodak TMX... Don't believe for a moment B&W film is more forgiving than color.. to achieve GOOD print results demands the same degree of attention to testing as color transparency film. Doing less results in wasting photographic materials, YOUR time (not replaceable once spent), YOUR resources and much more..

The working "pro" foto industry back then developed specific tools to stop the practice of bracketing film exposures by applying science and technology to remove the need for bracketing exposures which is in many ways guessing to deal with uncertainty.

Clip from Sinar Info# 31 on Contrast Control..
229924


It is much about fully understanding the dynamic range and Latitude of a specific photographic material. It is why and how the Sinar ground glass metering system came about.. This is also why properly using a GOOD accurate/precise spot meter can work wonders to eliminate bracketing exposures.. to about zero.
229925

Back in them days of color transparency film centric images for color printing and other means of printed materials, Fotographers that bracketed their film exposures lots were considered incompetent and less in many ways as long experienced working "pro" photographers considered exposure bracketing a serious wast of film and much more.. This discipline of making each and every frame or sheet of film exposed count seems lost today.. due to the non-cost of digital image making.. but appears to have been some what re-discovered by folks new to film image making.

Take the time to read the complete Sinar Info# 31 on Contrast Control as it directly applies to this specific discussion and speaks directly to the belief bracketing exposures is needed.. the .jpg versions to follow..
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01388/01388.pdf

Discussion by Olympus Lifescience on film exposure.. info applies here.
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/photomicrography/filmexposure/

As for, "Weeks often months can go by before I shoot a shot.".. Non-option for photographers that make images to put food on their table, roof over their head and meeting the demands of daily life and living... This is one of the differences between some of the very best artistic commercial photographers back in the day -vs- hobbyist or artist wanna be..


Bernice

For the professional world bracketing was how it was done - there isn't a single professional photographer that I met in my 40+ year career that didn't bracket or proof his/her film - most everyone "overshot" by a wide margin depending on the project and type of photography being done. There are a myriad of reasons, economic and aesthetic that this is done especially if you are working on location where the lighting conditions are variable or you are mixing strobe with ambient - there it is necessary to cross bracket (bracketing both the overall exposure and the ratio of strobe to ambient). When I was doing assignment work for Architectural Digest (4x5) I would average 16/20 frames per shot (bracketed -1 to +1 in 1/2 stops, 2 sheets each) and 10/16 sheets of polaroid (type 54) - we would do 12 -15 shots over 2 days - 250+/- sheets per job plus the same in polaroid. And I brought both daylight and tungsten film just to be sure, and a full 2 1/4 kit with film/polaroid as well.

[jnantz]

hard to believe bracketing and a film test is somehow considered "unprofessional" and really kind of funny.

[Tin Can]

Agree


hard to believe bracketing and a film test is somehow considered "unprofessional" and really kind of funny.

[Tin Can]

No images


Sinar info# 31, Contrast Control..con't.
229930

229931

229932

229933


Bernice

[jnantz]

Agree


I guess we all can't be the GOAT...

[LabRat]

"Bracketing" is a smaller than large format option, as it's no big deal to just wind another frame forward to try different settings, but in LF, sheets take up a lot of "real estate" and costs (film, processing, handling etc)...

In pro color chrome LF shooting, the film latitude is narrow so essential to nail exposure through careful metering, care in lighting where someone good could pull perfect exposure even without a "pull-o-roid", but usually we would shoot four sheets of chrome film at a single setting, and off to the lab to process one sheet at a time... First sheet was called "sacrificial" processed normal on the automated E-6 line and looked at on the lightbox... If a little dark/light, next sheet was compensated then... If all was well, other sheets were processed, or one could be held for further testing so last shot could be safe (if still issues)...

But for B/W, not as critical as chromes, but sometimes multiples if concerned about handling issues, dust etc... But it creates a burden just shooting an additional sheet each shot, as that doubles the film amount and processing runs... (I had read Dorothea Lang only shot one sheet of film each shot as that "doubled" everything...) But I still am superstitious if all that set-up for one sheet, and is that enough insurance if one sheet has issues for an important shot??? Maybe two just in case, but same exposure, maybe different aperture for DOF effect...

Generally, for "normal" scenes/processing B/W, about 1/3 to 1 stop overexposure (from "box" speed) ensures good shadow detail, then about 10% underdevelopment ensures good highlight detail without blocking up highlights and prints well with no to little burning/dodging...

For process testing, maybe a few test sheets are ok, will save other sheets down the line... ;)

Steve K

[JohnF]

Generally, for "normal" scenes/processing B/W, about 1/3 to 1 stop overexposure (from "box" speed) ensures good shadow detail, then about 10% underdevelopment ensures good highlight detail without blocking up highlights and prints well with no to little burning/dodging...

For process testing, maybe a few test sheets are ok, will save other sheets down the line... ;)

Steve K

But developer dependent? I have been following Peter Finch's 'Pictorial Planet' Youtube feed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIdQ5CZsFVA&ab_channel=PictorialPlanet on testing FP4+ with Crawley's FX55 developer where his admittedly personal results suggest exposing FP4+ at ASA 200-225 with FX55

[Alan Klein]

Bracketing exposures on film remains an extension of not fully understanding the limitations_abilities of ALL the photographic materials and process involved with print making and the image maker's print goals. This included having and knowing how what tools are required and using them to the best of their abilities and capabilities.

To gain understanding and behavior of photographic materials demands testing ... as was the beginning of this LFF "discussion".
In the specific case of color transparency film, this previous post examples how this was done decades ago as a common daily event.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169347-Color-Transparency-film-18-gray-card-test-(expanding-on-quot-be-technical-perfect-quot-)

Once actual film speed to produce a given density and overall color balance of the color transparency film has been measured and determined, these metrics become the basis for how that specific lot/batch of film will be exposed coupled to the limits of the dynamic range of color transparency film. Much identical applies to B&W films like Kodak TMax... Don't believe for a moment B&W film is more forgiving than color.. to achieve GOOD print results demands the same degree of attention to testing as color transparency film. Doing less results in wasting photographic materials, YOUR time (not replaceable once spent), YOUR resources and much more..

The working "pro" foto industry back then developed specific tools to stop the practice of bracketing film exposures by applying science and technology to remove the need for bracketing exposures which is in many ways guessing to deal with uncertainty.

Clip from Sinar Info# 31 on Contrast Control..
229924


It is much about fully understanding the dynamic range and Latitude of a specific photographic material. It is why and how the Sinar ground glass metering system came about.. This is also why properly using a GOOD accurate/precise spot meter can work wonders to eliminate bracketing exposures.. to about zero.
229925

Back in them days of color transparency film centric images for color printing and other means of printed materials, Fotographers that bracketed their film exposures lots were considered incompetent and "lesser" in many ways as long experienced working "pro" photographers considered exposure bracketing a serious wast of film and much more.. This discipline of making each and every frame or sheet of film exposed count seems lost today.. due to the non-cost of digital image making.. but appears to have been some what re-discovered by folks new to film image making.

Take the time to read the complete Sinar Info# 31 on Contrast Control as it directly applies to this specific discussion and speaks directly to the belief bracketing exposures is needed.. the .jpg versions to follow..
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/01388/01388.pdf

Discussion by Olympus Lifescience on film exposure.. info applies here.
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/photomicrography/filmexposure/

As for, "Weeks often months can go by before I shoot a shot.".. Non-option for photographers that make images to put food on their table, roof over their head and meeting the demands of daily life and living... This is one of the differences between some of the very best artistic commercial photographers back in the day -vs- hobbyist or artist wanna be..


Bernice

Bernice. That's great for work in a studio with controlled light or at a photo shoot in midday light where you have loads of equipment and helpers. But for the average, non-pro (even pro) photographer shooting landscapes quickly during "magic hour" with fast-changing light that's often hard to assess, bracketing works and could save the time spent in the field. It may save the photo shoot. It's not a contest. Bracketing is another tool in the toolbox. You use it when you need to use it.

[LabRat]

Yes, there are developers that can cut or bump-up the EI of your film, but the majority are formulated to give about box speed to the film for a given developing time, but there are outliers... Your testing for speed involves looking at density that starts building in the shadows in the clear areas after development (where base fog starts building density)...

Correlating this with metering is the key... As a general metering plan, use a narrow ° spotmeter where you can measure shadow & highlight values... The meter measures spots as middle grey (zone V) values, but if you measure the middle grey brightness first, you will find in practice that most common scenes, highlight areas you are trying to hold detail in are usually about 1 f stop above the middle grey reading in normal scenes, but shadow regions have 2 stops under the middle grey reading that will safely record lower value detail, but 3 stops below will start to record detail, but only rough dark forms... Your developing time test involves not developing too long where the highlights start to block up and extends the printable range of the highlights... This is about the practical "dynamic range" you get with standard B/W developer development... You find much indoor/outdoor scenes will work if your exposure is placed between these readings, and you get a good rough exposure for your simplified film testing... Together, these work well until you get into advanced calibration tests, but above works great!!!

Good luck!!!

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Well ... not exactly bracketing to accommodate potential exposure errors... but there is that "magic hour" drama which Alan referred to, when the light is constantly changing, and there is likely going to be not just one "best" image, but potentially numerous as the hues change in the sky. I have often worked with that "hour" and two in the mountains, both dawn and dusk. But sometimes the shifts are so rapid in the tropics as the sun sets that it's hard to re-meter fast enough to keep up with sheet film exposures. The key is practice and experience; but that might be hard to achieve on a one-time opportunity.

Black and white film can be more forgiving in that respect, since hue reproduction isn't involved. But other than the shifting sequence style of photography just described, I can't even remember the last time I ever bracketed per se in the mountains with either color or black and white film. I do customarily do bracket tests on roll film for any new film I'm not already familiar with, and under anticipated field conditions as well as analytically using standardized targets, including with the potential filters I might use too. My early learning curve, however, was more of a Clint Eastwood "Hang em High" experience, yet in the shoot myself in the foot mode. One learns fast when it hurts.

[neil poulsen]

For standard black and white film like Tri-X, HP5, or TMax 400, you're pretty safe in using a speed that's half the manufacture's recommended ASA. (e.g., 200ASA for 400ASA film, 60ASA for 125ASA film, etc.) That's assuming that you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

But without a darkroom, I'd suggest just using the manufacture's recommended ASA, or a little less. But, don't expect the same quality of results

For color, I would use the manufacture's recommended or a little less. (e.g. 126ASA instead of 160ASA, etc.)

[Drew Wiley]

I wouldn't call overexposing Tmax a full stop safe at all unless it's a mild contrast subject to begin with, or an odd developer. With more conventional films with a longer toe like FP4 or HP5 or Tri-X, cutting the box speed in half often does work decently, depending.

[Alan Klein]

Well ... not exactly bracketing to accommodate potential exposure errors... but there is that "magic hour" drama which Alan referred to, when the light is constantly changing, and there is likely going to be not just one "best" image, but potentially numerous as the hues change in the sky. I have often worked with that "hour" and two in the mountains, both dawn and dusk. But sometimes the shifts are so rapid in the tropics as the sun sets that it's hard to re-meter fast enough to keep up with sheet film exposures. The key is practice and experience; but that might be hard to achieve on a one-time opportunity.

Black and white film can be more forgiving in that respect, since hue reproduction isn't involved. But other than the shifting sequence style of photography just described, I can't even remember the last time I ever bracketed per se in the mountains with either color or black and white film. I do customarily do bracket tests on roll film for any new film I'm not already familiar with, and under anticipated field conditions as well as analytically using standardized targets, including with the potential filters I might use too. My early learning curve, however, was more of a Clint Eastwood "Hang em High" experience, yet in the shoot myself in the foot mode. One learns fast when it hurts.

Not everyone shoots as much as you do. So if bracketing allows less experienced photographers to capture the right exposure under especially difficult lighting conditions, and go home bagging the game, I don't see why they owe anyone an apology. Why turn it into an ego trip?

[Drew Wiley]

How much do I shoot, Alan? I've come back from strenuous ten day treks with only two chromes exposed, plus a few black and white sheets. There's no ego trip involved. Conserving film was just a fact of life until Quickload and Readyload sleeves finally got the bugs worked out. 8x10 is an even more restrictive format. And only a small percent of shots ever get printed anyway. But if a shot doesn't at least seem worthy of printing some day, I simply don't press the shutter. That's how I approach it. Even Babe Ruth struck out more often than he hit a home run. But it's helpful to increase the odds in any manner you can; and when that is itself restricted by the parameter of tightly rationing sheet film for sake of the duration of a trip, so be it.

If there's any doubt in my mind, taking roll film backs instead makes more sense, with perhaps just a few full-sized 4x5 filmholders along too. My era of 85 lb packs for two weeks at a time is over anyway. The last three long hikes I took involved roll film, either 6x9 backs for my little 4x5 Ebony, or an actual 6X9 rangefinder camera. And it won't be long till Ill need help with some of my load. The clock is tickin'.

[Alan Klein]

How much do I shoot, Alan? I've come back from strenuous ten day treks with only two chromes exposed, plus a few black and white sheets. There's no ego trip involved. Conserving film was just a fact of life until Quickload and Readyload sleeves finally got the bugs worked out. 8x10 is an even more restrictive format. And only a small percent of shots ever get printed anyway. But if a shot doesn't seem worthy of printing to begin with, I simply don't press the shutter. That's how I approach it. Even Babe Ruth struck out more often than he hit a home run. But it's helpful to increase the odds in any manner you can; and when that is itself restricted by the parameter of tightly rationing sheet film for sake of the duration of a trip, so be it. If there's any doubt in my mind, taking roll film backs instead makes more sense, with perhaps just a few full-sized 4x5 filmholders along too.

Well, as I said in an earlier post, I always bracketed with roll film. I'ts just so easy and convenient and cheap. I agree now that I started 4x5 2 1/2 years ago that I don't bracket except in tough lighting conditions. I just think it's smarter for me to admit I'm not perfect and take two shots than insist I am and go home with one shot that's too dark. ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Quick and Ready Loads were around a quite awhile. The first version involved early Fuichrome 50 packaged by Polaroid in an adhesive closure sleeve using the Pola 545 holder. Worked well except that the film wasn't held sufficiently flat for big enlargements. Kodak came out with double-sided Readyload sleeves containing two sheets each, which could be unreliable; and their special holder had its own flatness issues. Fuji then came out with single sheet Quickload sleeves of both chrome film and Acros black and white, then finally Kodak with single sheet Readyloads in a variety of film types, which were a big improvement. I customized my own holder to accept either brand, and do a better job with respect to film flatness. I don't know when all of these were officially discontinued, maybe around 15 yrs ago when the necessary packaging machinery wore out, and neither company was willing to re-invest. I have one sealed box of E100G Readyloads still in the freezer, and have no idea whether it's still good or not (probably mfg 20 yrs ago).

[Drew Wiley]

Alan, ya gotta understand the logistics - I had to tote two weeks of food, clothing, and a tent worthy of severe weather, often ice climbing gear too; then add to all that the weight of a Sinar monorail with an 18 inch rail, the lenses and accessories, plus a dozen 4x5 holders. That factors out as an average of only two shots allowable per day. I do own film changing tents; but those didn't work out very well during long difficult days with potential serious storms. It wasn't like being a kid again moving along quick with a little Pentax 35mm camera around my neck and Kodachrome in it.

And now I'm on the reverse curve, constantly trying to figure out how to lighten my load. But putting more emphasis on day hiking options at this point in time, or even road trips, isn't just about the carry weight, but due to a far higher risk of being caught deep in the back country choking from tons of forest fire smoke. That has always been a moderate risk, maybe once a decade; now it's an almost constant severe threat. Times have changed. I'm just glad my sister and her husband got back from a delightful June trip to Spain and Italy, with a lot of walking opportunities in the Pyrenees and Alps, and lowland areas as well, before everything went wacko in that part of the world too due to forest fires and extreme heat.

[Drew Wiley]

Duuuh ..... If one is realistically rationed to only two sheets of film a day, how many can you afford to waste bracketing? It's not like you can peek behind the nearest rock and find a camera store with your preferred film in stock! People are perfectly welcome to bracket if they choose so, and might have an entirely valid reason. But there is also an entirely valid reason why one can only carry so many filmholders at a time, and how that inherently limits this particular kind of choice.

Hypothetical concepts wear pretty thin when you have four rough high passes to still get over during the next week before you finally reach your car. Frankly, the last time I did something like that was just shy of my 70th BD, and I wisely opted for a couple of roll film backs instead. But I still didn't feel the need to bracket in a single instance.

[Alan Klein]

Drew, I'm not as confident in my ability as you are in yours to get the exposure right the first time. I also don't hike miles but rather a few hundred yards from my car at the most. I even have a wheelie to carry the camera bag if the "trail" can handle it. So I usually have eight 4x5 holders with me, way more than I ever use in one outing with different film emulsions. So for me, bracketing when called for with 4x5 makes sense. Of course, with 120 6x7 roll film shooting, bracketing really wastes no time or energy.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

So many opinions, during so many days, and without reaching a clear result.

If one had put the mentioned woolen sweater in diffuse daylight (shadow) and taken the four, five necessary shots and analyzed them with the spot light meter of the digital camera, it would have taken a total of two, three hours.

You would then have the N-sensitivity and the N-development for brilliant N-negatives with structured shadows and delicate highlights. You would have gotten to know your film and your developer and developed a sense of what more could be imaged.

A very straight thing. One would have found out everything there is to know about N-development in no time. Too bad.

[Bernice Loui]

Please do share your published color transparency images over exposed and under exposed by ~ONE~ f-stop .. Curious as to what these look like in print.

Fact and reality of color transparency film's designed in behavior remains, it has a workable range of four f-stops with an error margin of maybe plus/minus 1/2 f-stop.. before color shift happens. What is the realistic f-stop range that can be "bracketed"?

Why use Pull-A-Roids if you're bracketing your exposes with color transparency film?

After a stack of Pull-A-Roids (like Polaroid# 54) to check exposure, lighting ratios and all, still need to bracket color transparency exposures.. really?

How does a photographer do multi-exposures on a single sheet of film with bracketing ... This means additive images on the same sheet of film.


Tools that GREATLY reduce the need for bracketing exposure is a GOOD light meter, controlling the lighting with as much and as many electronic strobe units with light modifiers as needed. This could be several thousand watt/seconds from several strobe units .. explain how using this approach to lighting with extremely tight control over lighting.. the need for bracketing exposures.. Keep in mind color transparency film has a error window of maybe..plus/minus 1/2 f-stop..

Mixed lighting brings on a different challenge, this is where a GOOD color meter with recording electronic strobe coupled and each and every CC filter in the CC filter range becomes very useful.

~Explain how this can solve a long list of why using a color meter and CC filters can and does help greatly to resolve mixed lighting and color shift issues for color film images?

Back in the days of The New Lab, They had process request sheet pads, Normal, Push, Pull. The most often used was "Normal".. There were days when TNL ran out of the process "Normal" sheet pads.. reverting customers to writing process normal on plain paper.. Why is this?


Bernice




For the professional world bracketing was how it was done - there isn't a single professional photographer that I met in my 40+ year career that didn't bracket or proof his/her film - most everyone "overshot" by a wide margin depending on the project and type of photography being done. There are a myriad of reasons, economic and aesthetic that this is done especially if you are working on location where the lighting conditions are variable or you are mixing strobe with ambient - there it is necessary to cross bracket (bracketing both the overall exposure and the ratio of strobe to ambient). When I was doing assignment work for Architectural Digest (4x5) I would average 16/20 frames per shot (bracketed -1 to +1 in 1/2 stops, 2 sheets each) and 10/16 sheets of polaroid (type 54) - we would do 12 -15 shots over 2 days - 250+/- sheets per job plus the same in polaroid. And I brought both daylight and tungsten film just to be sure, and a full 2 1/4 kit with film/polaroid as well.

[Bernice Loui]

Consider...

folks like Drew that makes contrast mask for contrast control and MUCH more during the optical printing process would have LOTs of experience in exposure AND controlling contrast of the print being made... This need, reality and practice enforces the discipline of exposure control to a degree and in ways the majority of photographers never experience or will experience.. This is likely the root and foundation of why folks with this kind and degree of experience exposing photographic film materials deeply frown on bracketing exposures.. They FULLY understand the personality, limitations, capabilities of these photographic materials in special ways..

There was a time when it was common for photographers did the entire process from loading film to mounting the finished print.. These photographers get forced to deal with the realities of making film images that can be printed optimally with the available print making materials with the least amount of grief.. This happens due to Darwinism and the need to reduce frustration, excessive work, conservation of materials and their irreplaceable time..

This was the motivating force and passion to why Ansel Adams & Fred Archer created the Zone System.. or a simplified way of presenting the un-bendable and designed in demands of photographic film materials.

Except in these days of scanning film coupled with software extremely capable of bending the image data to what the image maker essentially wants.. greatly distorts the perception and need for the discipline of creating a film image that is forced into the range and demands of the optical process print material..

~That appears to be the frame of reference for so many film photographers today.. Now, compare that to the frame of reference and world folks like Drew has lived in.. Wanna bracket your film exposures, absolutely do so.. All that might not result in meeting your image goals in mind..

~To Alan, that magical hour about dusk/dawn. Colors recorded on color film (specially color transparency film) is due to rapid shifts in outdoor light's color temperature and intensity of light. Both these factors have profound effects on color rendition of the color film image. This could be managed by using a GOOD incident/spot light meter and GOOD color temperature meter and TESTING of the color film under varying color temperature and exposure.. Test like these can provide reference information as to how a specific color film will shift/behave under these light conditions that the film was not designed and produced for.. much about color rendition for artistic goals.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Appears Ansel Adams is well known among folks on LFF..

Here is Ansel Adams "bracketing" exposure on 8x10 B&W film.. to meet his print image goals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQT_rzI1Xdw



Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Appears Ansel Adams is well known among folks on LFF..

Here is Ansel Adams "bracketing" exposure on 8x10 B&W film.. to meet his print image goals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQT_rzI1Xdw



Bernice

Thanks for that link. Ansel had constant midday lighting in that video clip. He had plenty of time to get the exposure where he wanted. However, shooting color chromes during magic hour with quickly changing light is harder, especially for an amateur photographer like me. I need all the help I can get. ;)

When Ansel shot his famous Moonrise, he had to shoot it fast because the light was changing so quickly. He got it a little wrong (overexposed?) and had to correct a lot in the darkroom. Maybe bracketing would have helped him had he had the time.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrFGImq0_hiNb4P81yJzbkF;_ylu=c2VjA3NlYXJjaARzbGsDYnV0dG9u;_ylc=X1MDOTYwNjI4NTcEX3IDMgRhY3RuA2NsawRjc3JjcHZpZANEMGZmaERFeU55N0xvbEljWXBHUnN3U0NNall3TVFBQUFBQkx5cmNnBGZyA21jYWZlZQRmcjIDc2EtZ3AEZ3ByaWQDbjUzSkFSbGtTYlcxOU05ZGNlaW5uQQRuX3N1Z2cDMARvcmlnaW4DaW1hZ2VzLnNlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDNDYEcXVlcnkDYWRhbXMlMjBhbnNlbCUyMG1vb25yaXNlJTIwb3JpZ2luYWwlMjBuZWdhdGl2ZQR0X3N0bXADMTY2MDQ3NDMyOQ--?p=adams+ansel+moonrise+original+negative&fr=mcafee&fr2=sb-top-images.search&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt&type=E211US105G0#id=152&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fblog.main.wattsdigital.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F12%2FRAW-AA_07-20.jpg%3Fresize%3D1024%252C884%26ssl%3D1&action=click

[koraks]

Maybe bracketing would have helped him had he had the time.
My memory isn't 100% reliable, but as far as I can recall, the account I read about the Moonrise shot was that he didn't have time for exposing a backup plate because after the first shot, the light had already changed and the shot was gone. Which implies that he by all means had the intention to shoot at least a backup, possibly even a bracketed one.

Under the condition of course that he somehow didn't have his light meter at hand for this shot. I think that's a rather important 'detail' if you want to make an argument about Ansel Adams and bracketing...

[jnantz]

Ansel Adams / Fred Archer created the zone system as much as George Eastman invented roll film ( one might want to talk to Mr Houston about that, ... and come to think of it, he probably used something like the zone system).

[Michael R]

The most popular recounting of the story that made into most of the books is that he couldn’t find his meter fast enough, but there is another version in which he did meter the scene (not that meters were great in those days). Exposure uncertainty aside, his preference where possible was to make backup exposures for various reasons - processing, dust etc.


My memory isn't 100% reliable, but as far as I can recall, the account I read about the Moonrise shot was that he didn't have time for exposing a backup plate because after the first shot, the light had already changed and the shot was gone. Which implies that he by all means had the intention to shoot at least a backup, possibly even a bracketed one.

Under the condition of course that he somehow didn't have his light meter at hand for this shot. I think that's a rather important 'detail' if you want to make an argument about Ansel Adams and bracketing...

[Michael R]

Some people seem to misread/misunderstand the Zone System and come away with the impression they can know exactly what they will get. There’s evidence of that in this thread (and many others). On the other hand, negative films typically have quite a lot of latitude on the overexposure side.


Ansel Adams / Fred Archer created the zone system as much as George Eastman invented roll film ( one might want to talk to Mr Houston about that, ... and come to think of it, he probably used something like the zone system).

[Bernice Loui]

Two accounts of Moon Rise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Pe9gsbSqLI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ZaD0W3yms

Ansel was rushed to make this single image on B&W negative film.. while not ideal, the negative was good enough to work with (telling of Ansel's optical printing skills) in the darkroom to produce the prints we see today.. Having seen the original Ansel prints of moon rise, there are several variations of this print (Weston gallery, museum exhibits, &...) depending on when the specific print was made.. Given the conditions of how this image was made, bracketing exposure was not possible due to the rapidly changing light ala "magical hour"..

It is an example of doing the entire process.. from loading film to mounting the finished print. B&W negative film is more error forgiving compared to color transparency film which is FAR less error tolerant. Back in the decades past, color transparency film was only used under highly controlled lighting conditions and for very specific reasons. Typically color press print process (highly preferred by the litho and color printing folks back then) or Ciba-ilfordchrome prints.. Otherwise it was color negative film.

Back in 2001, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art put together a 100 year exhibit of Ansel Adam's images:
https://www.sfmoma.org/press/release/ansel-adams-at-100-offers-a-surprising-new-look-a/

Part of this exhibit had reproduction prints of famed AA prints.. made by Tim Hall at Color Three Lab. Tim and me chatted about this project. The curator and organizer of this exhibit noted how excellent Tim's reproductions were of AA's images.. Much care was put into creating these repro exhibit prints. This print making process involved contrast masking to control the exhibit print's contrast ratio..

Amateur.. comes from the Latin word amator = Lover.. Some of the best artistic work done was created by "amateurs". They create what they create out of passion and love for what they do.. or zero lesser.. than so called "professionals" that get paid for what they do. That is the only essential difference.

Difficulty with making color transparency images during that magical hour is the rapidly changing light.. the image that is recorded is often full of uncertainty. Applying any tools or methods that can achieve your image goals is what matters. This means running an entire roll of film, using a light meter or color meter or sunset/sunrise chart and other information/tools to aid in achieving your image goals.. What matters is the image results.. the means are mere tools and methods to achieve this.. There is indeed joy and satisfaction in serendipity and discovery.


Bernice



Thanks for that link. Ansel had constant midday lighting in that video clip. He had plenty of time to get the exposure where he wanted. However, shooting color chromes during magic hour with quickly changing light is harder, especially for an amateur photographer like me. I need all the help I can get. ;)

When Ansel shot his famous Moonrise, he had to shoot it fast because the light was changing so quickly. He got it a little wrong (overexposed?) and had to correct a lot in the darkroom. Maybe bracketing would have helped him had he had the time.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrFGImq0_hiNb4P81yJzbkF;_ylu=c2VjA3NlYXJjaARzbGsDYnV0dG9u;_ylc=X1MDOTYwNjI4NTcEX3IDMgRhY3RuA2NsawRjc3JjcHZpZANEMGZmaERFeU55N0xvbEljWXBHUnN3U0NNall3TVFBQUFBQkx5cmNnBGZyA21jYWZlZQRmcjIDc2EtZ3AEZ3ByaWQDbjUzSkFSbGtTYlcxOU05ZGNlaW5uQQRuX3N1Z2cDMARvcmlnaW4DaW1hZ2VzLnNlYXJjaC55YWhvby5jb20EcG9zAzAEcHFzdHIDBHBxc3RybAMEcXN0cmwDNDYEcXVlcnkDYWRhbXMlMjBhbnNlbCUyMG1vb25yaXNlJTIwb3JpZ2luYWwlMjBuZWdhdGl2ZQR0X3N0bXADMTY2MDQ3NDMyOQ--?p=adams+ansel+moonrise+original+negative&fr=mcafee&fr2=sb-top-images.search&ei=UTF-8&x=wrt&type=E211US105G0#id=152&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fblog.main.wattsdigital.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F12%2FRAW-AA_07-20.jpg%3Fresize%3D1024%252C884%26ssl%3D1&action=click

[jnantz]

Some people seem to misread/misunderstand the Zone System and come away with the impression they can know exactly what they will get. There’s evidence of that in this thread (and many others). On the other hand, negative films typically have quite a lot of latitude on the overexposure side.

I just watched Sister Bertrille bracketing exposures from 100 feet up above San Juan it was magnificent ! The images are in the convent ..

[BrianShaw]

I just watched Sister Bertrille bracketing exposures from 100 feet up above San Juan it was magnificent ! The images are in the convent ..

Hi John. I think Michael wrote “latitude”, not “altitude “. LOL. Is Sr Bettrille still cute?

[Bernice Loui]

Another.... Sally _?_

Bernice



LOL. Is Sr Bettrille still cute?

[jnantz]

Hi John. I think Michael wrote “latitude”, not “altitude “. LOL. Is Sr Bettrille still cute?

ahh .. she can sing, roller skate and teach kindergarten .. and bracket what could be better ?

[Drew Wiley]

Let's see .... walk into the steak house and order, can't make up your mind. What's gonna taste best ... well done, medium rare, rare, downright bloody? So order one of each; that strategy should work. The only problem is that then you have to pay for them all.

Ansel resorted to water bath development on that moonrise negative. Ever seen what a straight print of Moonrise looks like? Quite a splotchy mess in the sky, and very difficult to correct by just dodging and burning. So the strategy behind the later intensification of the neg probably wasn't simply to create more contrast for sake of pictorial drama, but to allow certain portions to print near black, to disguise that lack of evenness. I have read that, given the trickiness of the shot, he was hoping for a spare neg; but that doesn't necessarily mean he was going to bracket using a different exposure. Moot point - too late anyway. And that is often the case in the field, especially with the slower mode of working which sheet film imposes - the fleeting nature of the lighting itself has the say, and you get only one crack at it.

[jnantz]

Let's see .... walk into the steak house and order, can't make up your mind. What's gonna taste best ... well done, medium rare, rare, downright bloody? So order one of each; that strategy should work. The only problem is that then you have to pay for them all.

Ansel resorted to water bath development on that moonrise negative. Ever seen what a straight print of Moonrise looks like? Quite a splotchy mess in the sky, and very difficult to correct by just dodging and burning. So the strategy behind the later intensification of the neg probably wasn't simply to create more contrast for sake of pictorial drama, but to allow certain portions to print near black, to disguise that lack of evenness. I have read that, given the trickiness of the shot, he was hoping for a spare neg; but that doesn't necessarily mean he was going to bracket using a different exposure. Moot point - too late anyway. And that is often the case in the field, especially with the slower mode of working which sheet film imposes - the fleeting nature of the lighting itself has the say, and you get only one crack at it.

did you order a cheeseburger ?!

https://kintronics.com/technical-jokes-and-cartoons-17/

does it matter ??
I certainly couldn't care less what ansel adams did ..

[Drew Wiley]

Cute cartoon.

[JohnF]

I now have a Stouffer 21 step wedge, and have exposed several frames on roll film of a white card out of focus at zones 1-8. I am wanting to assess visually the tones on my negatives against the step wedge - I do not have a darkroom.
I have read that a negative has a density of 0.1 at Zone 1 and 1.3 at Zone 8. So I need to get the Zone 1 tone on my negative to match Step 2 on the Stouffer wedge for film speed.
The specification on the Stouffer wedge is that a density of 1.3 approximately matches between Step 9 and Step 10. Since each step is half a stop, this is only a difference of about 4 and a half stops and not the 7 stop difference on Ansel Adams Zone system.
Can I in fact use the step wedge in this way to assess film speed and development time, and how can I reconcile the above disparity?

[Michael R]

Think of the stouffer steps as neutral density filters you might put on a taking lens. Each density increment of 0.15 reduces the amount of light passed by 1/2 stop of exposure. Those increments would only be equal to the increments in the developed negative if the contrast gradient (ie slope) of the negative was the same as that of the wedge. The wedge has a slope of 1. However in typical photography we don’t develop negatives to a gradient of 1. “Normal” is typically a gradient between 0.5 and 0.6. This explains the apparent disparity.

Given the methodology you are using, don’t think of the stouffer wedge increments in terms of zones. Just use the densities of the wedge for visual comparisons with your test negative.

Keep in mind your roll film test negatives include the densities of the film base and fog. You are interested in image density above the constant density of base+fog. One relatively simple way to do this visually is to sandwich an unexposed but fully processed piece of your chosen film with the stouffer wedge. Just to keep things simple for the sake of this example, suppose you target a Zone I density of 0.2, and a Zone VIII density of 1.4. You would then want the density of the Zone I exposure on the test roll to match the combined density of step 2 on the wedge sandwiched with the unexposed, processed piece of film. Likewise for Zone VIII, you would want the density of the Zone VIII exposure on the test roll to match the combined density of step 10 on the wedge sandwiched with the unexposed, processed piece of film.

Alternatively, you could first try to find a close match between the unexposed, fully processed piece of test film and the stouffer wedge. This would give you a density number for base+fog. You could then compare the test film densities with the wedge directly and do the math to subtract base+fog density. Same result in the end.

[JohnF]

Hi, Michael. That was really helpful.
I tried the first option, overlaying the Stouffer strip on an unexposed developed frame and aligning it with the Zone 1 and then Zone 8 exposures to compare.
To my delight, Zone 1 matched step 2 and Zone 8, step 10. This was FP4 exposed at ASA 80 and developed in Ilford DD-X for 9 mins.
I enjoy trying different films so now feel emboldened to testing as I go along.
Thanks again.