PDA

View Full Version : BTZS Question



jeroldharter
20-Jan-2011, 10:02
I did BTZS testing for 8x10 TMY-2 and I am getting good results.

However, when printing with a cold light source, I am consistently printing on grade 3. That is not necessarily a problem, but if I wanted the default to be approximately grade 2, what correction should I make in the plotter software?

I have the flare set at 0.02. I think I should adjust the "Exposure Adjustment" field. If I enter "1", would that move me from grade 3 paper to grade 2 paper?

Thanks.

Jim Cole
20-Jan-2011, 16:19
Jerold,

Did you set your Paper ES in the Analyze tab?

sanking
20-Jan-2011, 16:23
Jerold,

Did you set your Paper ES in the Analyze tab?

Good question. I was going to ask if Jerold actually tested the paper for ES with the cold light head he is using?

Sandy

jeroldharter
20-Jan-2011, 17:49
Of course, the answer is a lazy "no." So I should do the paper test, plug in the numbers, and find the calculated ES for say Grade 2 and then enter that ES into the appropriate field on the film plotter? I am a little rusty with the paper testing. Thanks.

Michael Kadillak
20-Jan-2011, 18:24
The alternative is to perform the test with visual results.

I found myself at this crossroads a while back. I decided to use the metering techniques and rely less upon the programs because the results are in the final print. I found myself enjoying the process more because it is more intuitive and less analytical and that was a good thing for me.

jeroldharter
20-Jan-2011, 20:12
The alternative is to perform the test with visual results.

I found myself at this crossroads a while back. I decided to use the metering techniques and rely less upon the programs because the results are in the final print. I found myself enjoying the process more because it is more intuitive and less analytical and that was a good thing for me.

That is kind of where I am headed. No reason for me not to do the testing because I have all the gear. But at the same time, I am trying to find my own simplified BTZS where I lump exposures into whole numbers of SBR 5,6,7,8,9, etc. each with a discrete developing time rather than an infinite array of SBR's with unique development times. I am using a chart that I made to translate measured EV's into SBR, then attach a film speed, then determine exposure based on the EV.

I just did not account for switching to a cold light. I suspect that I need to slide my development times about 1 SBR unit to the right and then I will be in the ballpark. In other words, use my SBR 8 development time for SBR 7. That might not work so well on the extremes so I will do testing to confirm.

Michael Kadillak
20-Jan-2011, 21:05
That is kind of where I am headed. No reason for me not to do the testing because I have all the gear. But at the same time, I am trying to find my own simplified BTZS where I lump exposures into whole numbers of SBR 5,6,7,8,9, etc. each with a discrete developing time rather than an infinite array of SBR's with unique development times. I am using a chart that I made to translate measured EV's into SBR, then attach a film speed, then determine exposure based on the EV.

I just did not account for switching to a cold light. I suspect that I need to slide my development times about 1 SBR unit to the right and then I will be in the ballpark. In other words, use my SBR 8 development time for SBR 7. That might not work so well on the extremes so I will do testing to confirm.

I understand completely Jerold. I have all of the "equipment" myself and have data files up the whazoo to show my efforts. About two years ago I went to highly simplified development and exposure guideline that I just remember and started trying to use the two best "tools" that we all have. Our eyes and our experience. I do not have the program even loaded onto my new iMac and have no plans to do so. Scientists and engineers are trained to use the technical side of the brain. That was getting me in trouble so I stay on the creative side of the brain where I should be. Things have never been better.

Cheers!