Film speed test.

[knjkrock]

I am a newcomer with a Tachihara 4x5, 3 schneider lenses(sorry, read too much Ken Rockwell), film holders, loupe, tripod, manfrotto tripod and 410 head, box of txp320, bottle of hc110, combitank, a d2, a pentax analog spotmeter that was calibrated by Mr. Ritter and many of the other essentials. Wanting to do film speed test then development test. Is the featureless target for the film speed test light, dark, white? I've read it a hundred times and can't seem to get my simple mind around it. I'm getting bogged down in the details and yet to take a picture.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi,

There's no need to make it so complicated, especially if you intend to scan your negs, or print on VC paper. Set your meter to match your film speed (what's printed on the box), and follow the manufacturer's instructions for development. Unless you're doing close up work, you don't need to worry about bellows compensation, and if you're working in normal light levels you don't need to worry about reciprocity corrections. Just start shooting, and then refine as required by feedback from actual photos. However hard you try, you can't anticipate everything beforehand, and trying will only keep you buying things you might not need, and not making any photos. Tear yourself away from your reading and go make some photos, imperfect though they may be. Real problems are much easier to solve than potential problems. Good luck, and have fun!

[Paul Hoyt]

For the film speed test you want to expose for Zone I, develop, read the density. A flat black subject in open shade will permit you to expose at a realistic exposure. The brighter the object, the more you will need to stop down/increase shutter speed. I painted a large square of melamine (3X3 feet) flat black. When I wanted to test for developing times with higher zone placements, I turned the melamine around and used the white surface.

I hope this helps. Paul

[Heroique]

I'm getting bogged down in the details and yet to take a picture.

Me, I’d forget the tests for now – just go shoot, see what happens, go shoot again.

Otherwise, you’ll get “bogged down in the details.”

Sure, there’s fun in that too, but save it for later! ;^)

[Leigh]

As Heroique said, the best test is go out and shoot real scenes.

When you're getting started, keep the sun behind you, that being defined as the semi-circle from left to right.
Shooting into the sun, or with the sun in the field of view, presents additional problems that you don't need right now.

Go through a box of film, exposed at box speed and developed normally, then see how the negatives look.
If they're consistently too dense or too thin, you need to make adjustments. This is highly unlikely.

Your analog spotmeter is not the best choice for someone just getting into LF. You've been reading too much.
Get a good incident meter and do what it tells you to do. It will be right in about 90% of the situations.

When you become familliar enough with the equipment and processes to start testing...

NEVER test with a single exposure at one end of the brightness range or the other (i.e. black or white).
When you develop that film, your developer will not work the same as it does with a normal scene containing a range of brightness values.
This is particularly true for an all-white scene (very dense negative); less so for a black scene.

The best target for testing is a step tablet (from Stouffer).
They make a large tablet, nominally for Zone system testing, but it works fine for routine speed tests.

That tablet contains three main areas, one black, one middle gray, and one white.
There's a set of smaller targets with a range of tones.
This is a perfect test target because you get normal developer activity over the film surface.

- Leigh

[jeroldharter]

Obviously you will get different opinions. If you were in the "just shoot lots of film and adapt" crowd you would not be posting the question.

If you are trying to learn film testing, but wanting to expedite the process, do a film speed test from the View Camera Store. Talk to Fred Newman there and he will help you out. Costs ~$50 and saves you time and gives you alot of data about you materials and process.

After that, buy the book Beyond the Zone System by Phil Davis, buy a used X-Rite 810 densitometer (~$99 is a great deal), BTZS Plotter software for Windows, ExpoDev App for iPhone, and do your own testing.

Depending on your personality, you will read all this stuff, say to hell with it, and just wing it - or you will obsess over it all and buy all of the options before you get started. I am more of the latter type, others more of the former type. Either way will work but just get stated with whichever appoach suits you best in the beginning.

[Ed Bray]

buy a used X-Rite 810 densitometer (~$99 is a great deal)

I have been looking for one of these, where is one available for $99 please?

[cosmicexplosion]

As my learning curve has progressed, and knowledge found like gold in the spring
My suggestion would be: choose a scene or make a scene inside that has a good range of light and shadow

Then take photo after photo with different settings make sure you write each shot down and mark each dark slide

Develope

Look at notes.
See which ones you like the most. Go to a new scene and do it all over again, same scene different time of day could be another way.
That way you get familiar whith what you see and what the damera sees
And when you go to shoot next time you start to notice where things go in and out of balance

[jeroldharter]

I have been looking for one of these, where is one available for $99 please?

Looks like they are not as commonly available now. Used to be lots of them on auction. Got mine with calibration plates and manual for $99. But they do come up with just modest demand. In the meantime you could do the film test at the View Camera Store which is still a good deal because it includes all the graphs and data in addition to the step wedge density readings.

[Ken Lee]

There's no need to test at all. There's no time to test. There's no point in even focusing. Just go for it !

[Mark MacKenzie]

You say you have a D2? Is it a condenser light source? Thats what I have and I find I develop at about 80% of recommended time to print consistently.

I did both speed tests and development time tests on FP4 and Acros and it was very very beneficial. I followed the instructions of Fred Picker as recommended by Ken Lee in a Zone VI book. I didn't use a densitometer but just judged by eye. Keep notes on those tests. The result is consistency which makes things easier for me.

Before you get around to testing you might want to shoot the same scene twice and develop one at recommended time then one at say 75% dev time. See which one prints like you like it.

Good luck! The best advice among all the good advice above is to go shoot. Don't worry. You'll have fun...

[Ken Lee]

And don't bother with a light meter either. And whatever you, justify it. That's where the rubber meets the road, because you're always right that way - and the ego needs to always be right. Just do whatever you do, and tell people you're right. If they think you're right, then you must be right.

[Mark MacKenzie]

Ken, you just cracked me up!

[Ken Lee]

Sorry for the rant: I've been moderating here and sometimes the "broad range" of opinion takes its toll :cool:

[Mark MacKenzie]

By the way, Ken has a very nice write up on testing on his website. http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/testing.php

Very helpful to me. Thanks, Ken.

[Leigh]

There's no need to test at all. There's no time to test. There's no point in even focusing. Just go for it !
Ken,

You've obviously misunderstood the thrust of the earlier posts.

When a person first gets a driver's license, you don't immediately counsel them to enter a Grand Prix.
They need to learn the basics first.

Once they understand the basics, they can start learning what controls affect what results.
That's the time for testing and fine-tuning the process.
The first box of film is not.

- Leigh

[bob carnie]

I agree with both sides here.
I think a good dose of shooting to get use to the materials is a very good idea.

A ring around for exposure development printed out.
then a ring around for lighting ratio printed out.
is the most valuable tool in our lab. Right now our main new tech is doing the lighting ratio and exposure dev test.. Last weekend she did the exposure Development test.

These tests are straight from the Phil Davis Manual and was our main assignment first year photography semester.1973

I am enjoying watching her do these tests , as not only do you see the relationships of over and under exposure of film and how it relates to development
but as well the more complex test of various lighting ratio's tighten the learning curve.

Next month she takes on colour wheel and colour ring arounds..

[Ken Lee]

I did my first Zone System tests - with roll film - before my first box of sheet film. I started testing based on the 1968 Minor White book, in 1969. Before that, it was all hit-or-miss.

My earlier remarks were reductio ad absurdum, poking fun at one of the two extremes: no testing at all, and too much testing.

The other extreme is fair game too. Some people do more testing than shooting, and while it may strike us as extreme, we are indebted to them for their efforts.

We all get to draw the line wherever we like.

[Bill Burk]

I did a test yesterday. I'm going out shooting today.

I made four test strip exposures on one piece of film, two with an EG&G sensitometer and two with a DII enlarger and a 21-step Stouffer scale. To illustrate that an enlarger and step wedge can make a good test strip maker. (If you don't have a densitometer to read the test values you can contact or enlarge the test negatives after processing... to see how many stops fit on paper per development time).

The test strips tell how long I need to develop film using my equipment and working habits.

Leigh, I know you'll agree... The development times ARE different for each individual.

Times have changed from when I used six sheets in a tray versus one single sheet in a tray (the current test I am running).

The results I got show the two curves (EG&G versus Enlarger) are similar enough along their length to convince me that I could use an enlarger as a stand-in for a sensitometer... for making test strips to control development time.

But determining film speed is a different beast.

Right now I am working hard to find 2/3 stop of film speed... using an EG&G sensitometer that is designed to do the job. I'm validating my test conditions trying to find what is causing discrepancy expected vs actual results.

I would not hesitate to recommend a camera test for film speed, trusting the box speed, using half box speed arbitrarily, or adjusting as experience proves.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

if anyone needs to have their zone 1 negs read on a densitometer I still have mine set up and working. Its a very accurate McBeth checked against a few different densities.

No charge, of course, but you pay for the postage if you want the negs back.

[Leigh]

The test strips tell how long I need to develop film using my equipment and working habits.
Leigh, I know you'll agree... The development times ARE different for each individual.
Absolutely true. Photography is a very complex art/science, with myriad variables. Each individual is different.

The most obvious and arguably most significant difference is in agitation methods, but there are numerous other processing differences.

- Leigh

[John Koehrer]

If you want to do a speed test and later development test.
Do it or you'll always question your results. Could it have been better(?) or not?
What works for some ain't the same for others.

David Vestal in "The Craft of Photography" uses a ring around method and the "Ansel Adams Guide" Volume 2 uses a test target method. They both work!
The Adams book runs from $20 and Vestal's from less than a buck on Amazon.
Vestals book is one of the easiest to read photo books around. Plain & simple English.

For a target something in a middle tone(gray) lets you compare hi, low and mid from a set of exposures.

[Brian Ellis]

"Is the featureless target for the film speed test light, dark, white? I've read it a hundred times and can't seem to get my simple mind around it."

In theory it shouldn't matter. Regardless of the target, the meter should tell you what combinations of shutter speeds and apertures at a particular film speed will produce a Zone V exposure. You pick one with the film speed at the manufacturer's rated speed and then reduce the exposure by four stops to make a Zone I exposure. Then do the same thing at different film speeds. But even though in theory it shouldn't matter, I never thought it was a good idea to use a black or white target, I sometimes used a gray card and sometimes used a sheet of smooth cardboard like from a cardboard box (with no writing on it of course).

Since shutter speeds are not always spot on from one speed to another it's a good idea to make your first exposure (the one at the film manufacturer's rated speed) at a combination of aperture and shutter speed such that the subsequent Zone I exposures (the ones at different film speeds) will be made by changing only the aperture, leaving the shutter speed the same throughout the series of exposures.

It's also a good idea IMHO to make some dry runs without film so you can get a good idea of what you'll be doing for each exposure, especially if you're doing the tests outdoors. The light needs to remain the same throughout the series of exposures. If the light changes after the first exposure your tests are no good and you have to start over. So you should move through the different exposures pretty quickly.

Someone mentioned the testing that The View Camera Store will do for you. I've suggested using that service myself many times, it's an excellent service at a reasonable cost and provides you with more information than you'll gain by doing the tests yourself. But I do think it's a good idea to do the testing yourself at least once just as a learning experience if nothing else.

Doing a film speed test isn't complicated, time-consuming (as long as the light doesn't change on you), or difficult to do. And at this point of your large format experience I think you'll learn more and get more useful information by doing a controlled test of this nature than you would by just going out and making a bunch of random photographs of different scenes, then looking at the negatives.

[Ed Bray]

Would an x-rite 890 do what is required?

[ic-racer]

Is the featureless target for the film speed test light, dark, white?

You probably know the answer to this, but the light reflected from your test target is dependent upon the light falling on it, in addition to its ability to reflect light (looks white or looks black etc.)

What I do is to use a target that yields a zone I exposure with similar camera settings to the usual type of photography that I undertake.

For example, with ISO 400 film, using a target with EV in the 10 range.

[jeroldharter]

Would an x-rite 890 do what is required?

Not sure but from the looks of it compared to the 810 I would say no.

Although not as good as a densitometer, you could use some color analyzers as a densitometer. For example the Jobo Colorline 5000 has a densitometer mode. As I recall, you use the enlager as a light source, place the film over the analyzer's sensor, and get a density reading. I did that for awhile. Worked OK but my curves were a bit suspect because some readings seemed off the mark.

Sharing a densitometer could work too. Maybe there is someone near you who will rent you one or just read the negatives for you.

[Bill Burk]

Would an x-rite 890 do what is required?

I just read through the instruction manual... If you already own one and want to try to make it work, great! It includes both reflection and transmission densitometer inside a single, compact unit.

But because it is automatic, it may be finicky. You will need to find a test target that it can read. Or you may need to program it. I once spent a day with either one of these or similar unit trying to get past a strip read error, even when it was part of a system that made a test strip that it was programmed to read. I think the feed roller was skewing the sample as it ran it through.

[Ed Bray]

Okay Gents, thanks for the info. I do not have one but there are plenty on ebay for silly cheap money so thought if it will do the job an easy way out.

[koh303]

take pictures first, make lists of equipment later.

[Kirk Gittings]

There's no need to test at all. There's no time to test. There's no point in even focusing. Just go for it !

:) :) :)

[Bill Burk]

If you have made up your mind about the film speed to use...

You can shoot now and test later...

After all, N-development times such as N+1 aren't defined in terms of minutes until desired target paper range is declared and development tests are done...

And by circular definition, you can develop the film for any number of minutes - until you actually develop it.

After that, there is no more need for testing, at least for that negative.

[knjkrock]

Thanks to all who provided a specific answer to my specific question. Also thanks to those who provided all the general comments-I was looking for those too. I have found the forum to be a great resource-better than most books because you get multiple ideas on topic-not just that of the book author. I have printed many of the topics in the home page and placed them in a ring binder for reference when performing a specific task. It is hard to find detailed specific instruction on loading filmholders elsewhere. The question-answer forum has answered many questions by just perusing on a regular basis. For example drying sheets of film was one question and one day there was the question and many answers. Thanls for all your help in my photography. I am grateful. ken

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

People spend a lot of time testing and then things change or you'll have different field conditions or one shutter will be faster or slower than another, etc., etc. Also, in my opinion, people test things bass ackwards. There is so much concern about the negative, and not so much concern about the end product, the PRINT.

I think the one test that is better than any other test is to find the minimum time to print black on your paper using your enlarger and your lens and your negative that has been developed in your chemistry by you.

YOu don't need a densitometer, or a bunch of special stuff. All you need is a blank unexposed negative that has been developed for the standard time, and your paper and your enlarger and your chemistry.

Put the enlarger at the height for an 8 x 10 print, stop the lens down 3 stops, and make a series of short exposures, of say 1 second each. Develop that paper and find the time for the stripe that is as black as the next stripe down. Write that time down. (also, mark the height of the enlarger or you will run into problems with the inverse square law)

Now, put any other negative that you make in the enlarger at the same height and the same lens setting, using the same chemistry at the same temperaure. Print it for the same time as that black stripe. Develop the print the same way.

Then look at your print. You will see whether you have enough or not enough exposure(i.e. your ISO is correct) by the dark tones, and whether you developed long enough or not long enough by the high tones.

Once you do that for awhile you will really start to understand what its all about, and then you can start refining things with densitiometers and pushing and pulling, and all of that stuff.

[DennisD]

People spend a lot of time testing and then things change or you'll have different field conditions or one shutter will be faster or slower than another, etc., etc. Also, in my opinion, people test things bass ackwards. There is so much concern about the negative, and not so much concern about the end product, the PRINT.
.

Kevin, your point is well taken, the print is certainly of equal importance as the negative.

However, a few comments in this thread call to mind the old expression "garbage in - garbage out". While testing can certainly be overdone, and, agreed that a beginner should not be over burdened with "zone test stress", it cannot be overstated that the negative has to range within certain reasonable parameters to get a decent print. This is true particularly if speaking in terms of a "fine" display print.

The beginner's experience should be both enjoyable and disciplined enough to work toward achieving a good quality negative and ultimately a fine print, aided by appropriate negative and print tests which help achieve that goal.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"it cannot be overstated that the negative has to range within certain reasonable parameters to get a decent print. This is true particularly if speaking in terms of a "fine" display print."

I could not agree more. That is why I said that the test will show whether he exposed enough or too little, or developed enough or too little. I should have added "or too much". After all, those "reasonable parameters" are proper exposure and proper development. If I recall there are only 4 mistakes you can make. Under or over exposure and under or over development, and that should be for HIS paper. So the best way to figure that out is to start out by testing HIS paper, and then of course later on getting into all of the refinements that you are talking about which are required to make a fine print - push, pull, dodge, burn, flash, bleach, split develop, and all of the rest of it.

[Leigh]

What the local experts conveniently ignore is the fact that all this testing has already been done by the manufacturers, using
calibrated test equipment that's far more accurate than anything we have, operated by technicians who are trained and
proficient in its use, under controlled conditions, with the goal of optimizing the results obtained by users in the field.

Personal testing is important, but what it tells you if your results are not as anticipated, is that there's a problem at your end,
either with incorrect exposure or incorrect processing. The problem needs to be analyzed and corrected.

But you have not identified a problem with commercial products.

Of course the commercial recommendations are based on "average" scenes, but a large amount of research has gone into
determining what "average" is, and you're unlikely to deviate from that in the general case. If your work really is not "average"
then deviation from the recommendations can be expected. This is pretty unlikely.

Unfortunately this level of standardization does not exist for home-made concoctions.

- Leigh

[C. D. Keth]

Absolutely true. Photography is a very complex art/science, with myriad variables. Each individual is different.

The most obvious and arguably most significant difference is in agitation methods, but there are numerous other processing differences.

- Leigh

It's only as complicated as you want to make it. Plenty of fine photographers have gone their entire career shooting tri-X at box speed, developing in D76 to the instructions on the bottle.

[Leigh]

It's only as complicated as you want to make it. Plenty of fine photographers have gone their entire career shooting tri-X at box speed, developing in D76 to the instructions on the bottle.
I believe that's what I suggested in post #36 immediately above.

- Leigh

[Cletus]

It might just be me, but I've had to look at a LOT of negatives and do a LOT of printing before I was able to even notice or appreciate the subtle changes or adjustments one might make as a result of testing.

It's only after developing and printing (with the same film, same developer, paper and paper developer) upwards of 1,000 sheets that I've even been able to even begin to understand the subtle changes that take place as different variables are adjusted.

Are you confident you can already tell the difference, with a fairly high degree of confidence, between an over/under exposed and over/under developed negative? I can about 1 out of 3 times. On a good day and if I have good notes.

I may just be a slow learner - I'm not usually - but after all that, I'm only just beginning to intuitively understand the meaning of "control over one's materials" and be able to anticipate the results of small, deliberate changes.

I don't want to turn anyone off testing in general, but I think you need to have a good deal of base experience to be able to really understand what you're even doing - or more, what you just did - when you "test" any materials.

I say go out and shoot for awhile so you can truly understand what "normal" looks like, before you start making these tiny
little tweaks.

If testing and reading is the way you want to learn and understand your materials, than more power to ya. I, for one, am doing this (photography) in the first place because I like to make photographs. Testing is for becoming a better photographer, not learning how to be one in the first place.

We're all different and we all learn differently and at different paces. Some people pick this stuff up right away and have eyeballs calibrated for D-log from birth. That sure ain't me! Maybe you're one of the lucky ones.

[Leigh]

Well said, Cletus.

- Leigh

[Cletus]

I was just gonna say "I agree with what Leigh says"! :)

[neil poulsen]

For the film speed test you want to expose for Zone I, develop, read the density. A flat black subject in open shade will permit you to expose at a realistic exposure. The brighter the object, the more you will need to stop down/increase shutter speed. I painted a large square of melamine (3X3 feet) flat black. When I wanted to test for developing times with higher zone placements, I turned the melamine around and used the white surface.

I hope this helps. Paul

What Paul Hoyt said above.

To obtain a Zone I exposure, read whatever card (preferably dark) with a meter and expose by closing the aperture down (smaller aperture, higher f-stop) by four stops more than that exposure recommended by your meter. Then, develop at manufacturer recommended times.

HP5 that I use typically tests out at about half the stated ASA. So, I use it at about 200 ASA.

Of course, the above assumes that, when you photograph, you expose for a Zone III and then expand or contract (increase or decrease development respectively) during processing to get your highlights where you want them. So, how do you predict where the highlights will fall after expanding or contracting your development?

More testing. :)

Sounds like a lot of work. But in my opinion, it's worth it.

[Leigh]

For the film speed test you want to expose for Zone I, develop, read the density. A flat black subject in open shade will permit you to expose at a realistic exposure. The brighter the object, the more you will need to stop down/increase shutter speed. I painted a large square of melamine (3X3 feet) flat black. When I wanted to test for developing times with higher zone placements, I turned the melamine around and used the white surface.
Hmmm... Two techniques virtually guaranteed to give you erroneous results due to skewed developer activity.

For any test you need a subject that has ~18% overall reflectance, so that you get normal development of the negative.

A proper step tablet, designed for the purpose, is the appropriate target.
Stouffer makes a step tablet designed exactly for this type of test.
Position it properly and use an incident meter to determine correct exposure.

Spot meter the various steps if you wish for future reference.

Develop normally and analyze the negative.

- Leigh

[Cletus]

Okay then I have a general question for the panel. And I'm not being sarcatic, this is an honest question since the subject is up...I'm not really a Zoner, but I do generally "expose for shadows, develop for highlights" and that works for most of the subjects I shoot, but I always just expose per below...

I expose HP5 at 320 - my personal EI, established some time ago - and I rarely deviate from this. Alomst never actually, because 99% of the time my negatives are "full range" and very seldom have blocked shadows or burned out highlights. I can usually print on grade 3 or 4 because I like the look of my prints that way.

Given that, I have never been able to really see the benefit over/under exposing and of N+1 or -1 development. As long as I have enough shadow exposure, right?

I know the method is used to expand or contract the contrast range of the negative, but then I usually can get "all of it on the paper" and usually on (VC) grade 3 or 4, as I said earlier. Sometimes grade 2, very rarely above 4. Unless it's a darkened window or a spectral highlight or something, that I dont mind being out of range of the neg, why do I need to worry about this development/exposure control?

Am I missing out on something really fundamental here?

[Leigh]

Hi Cletus,

You're not missing anything. That's the way the whole system should work.

When you get into trouble is trying to resolve detail in the interior of a cave in the desert at noon.

- Leigh

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"I say go out and shoot for awhile so you can truly understand what "normal" looks like, before you start making these tiny
little tweaks. "

I can agree with that. but you can't be jumping all over the place. You've got to have a constant that you can check yourself against.

[Leigh]

...but you can't be jumping all over the place. You've got to have a constant that you can check yourself against.
Hmm... It seems Kevin and I agree for once. :D

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

I developed by manufacturer's recommendation for years and agree it can take you a long way.

Many things can be off by 10% and the worst that happens is you need a different paper grade to print. Other things like picking the wrong bottle of developer can ruin negs completely. So the obvious things - are obvious. And the little things are often no detriment.

If you are interested in testing, it can make things better for you. But you don't have to do it.

I find it helpful to be able to routinely test Contrast Index (CI) and maintain a personal Time/CI curve.

I like the look of a negative developed longer when the subject was low-contrast. So I do that. I go through a lot of Grade 2 paper.

But that was not my goal. A deeper understanding was one of my goals.

[denverjims]

A pretty good middle ground for a testing methodology which does not require the use of a densitometer is that outlined in Barnbaum's "Art of Photography". It is a lot like Paul & Neil (above) outlined. It doesn't require a lot of time & film and, while it will not be as precise as the more formal testing method w/ densitometer, it will do the job of giving you the proper developing times to go with your personal metering methods to get the most out of your film.

As far as your finding you are mostly printing at grade 3/4 is concerned, some might say that you are under developing a bit. Having to use 4 a lot does not give you a lot of room on the up side if you need even more contrast for some subjects. But if it is working for you now, I'd say stick with it as long as you know what to do if you run into issues with your present methods. Remember how much it screwed up Tiger Woods when he changed his swing just to be technicaly better.
Jim

[Robert Budding]

Wow, why the big stink over a little testing? I can nail down a film/developer combination in an evening. It's just not that difficult. But, hey, I did complete all of the course work for a PhD in Physical Chemistry before I bailed for business school.

I thought that large format was about quality. So why would anyone just go out and shoot without a quick test? There's no way to put detail back into the shadows if you miss the exposure.

[denverjims]

Wow, why the big stink over a little testing? I can nail down a film/developer combination in an evening. It's just not that difficult....

I thought that large format was about quality. So why would anyone just go out and shoot without a quick test? There's no way to put detail back into the shadows if you miss the exposure.

I think the big deal for him is that he's new to LF and something he's not done before. But I agree w/ you that I don't know why you'd step up to LF without it given the time, effort & cubic $$ you invest with each single negative.

[Robert Budding]

I think the big deal for him is that he's new to LF and something he's not done before. But I agree w/ you that I don't know why you'd step up to LF without it given the time, effort & cubic $$ you invest with each single negative.

All the more reason to start off with something simple like a film test.

[Leigh]

All the more reason to start off with something simple like a film test.
Newbies don't "start off" with a film test, because newbies have no basis on which to evaluate the test results.

They should start by taking pictures using known parameters, i.e. those supplied by the manufacturers.
Then, as they gain experience with the equipment, materials, and processes, they can start to evaluate various changes, one at a time.

Suggesting that somebody should determine a "personal EI" when he doesn't even know how to cock a shutter is absolute nonsense.

- Leigh

[Cletus]

So why would anyone just go out and shoot without a quick test? There's no way to put detail back into the shadows if you miss the exposure.

Robert - when you say that you wouldn't go out and shoot without testing first, what do you mean? What are you testing for? EI? Or how a certain developer will be different from another? How can you test that before you go out and shoot and process a bunch of film with it, so you can tell the difference?

I can understand testing because you want to fine tune your processes, optimize your exposures for a specific result with a specific film, or a certain look to your prints. What kind of a "quick test" would you do before you even go out and shoot?

I'm only asking this because I'm wondering what kind of test result would prevent you from losing shadow detail (or blowing highlights for that matter) in the negative that you wouldn't have done anyway? You probably already have a pretty good idea how much a given film can handle and how to meter the scene to avoid this happening. What more can testing tell you? (Unless mabe your main subjects are black cats in new fallen snow on bright sunny days, but that's not most people.)

It's an honest question - why couldn't anyone with a little fundamental knowledge and experience go out in the field and make a perfectly acceptable exposure without first testing something?

Or even more, how could someone without any experience go out and apply those test results with any success? Especially in the OPs situation, where he might lack the experience to properly meter a scene, or even be able to just look and know what might or might not work for a particular scene? What's he gonna do different with test results?

[denverjims]

Hi Cletus,
I know not everyone will agree with this but...

Look at it this way. When you get a new car, the first thing you do is read through the manual cover to cover and test it out under all road conditions, right? Heck, no. You get on the road and enjoy it because you can get along in a lot of situations just fine. But if you want to know what to do with that car when it goes into a rain/snow skid, you take it to an empty parking lot and test it out. If you don't understand a little about what to do under extreme conditions, you will loose - big.

Kind of the same thing with what we are talking about here. Sounds like you have some good basic sense about what your setup & developing process can do under a lot of situations. But when that one special photograph comes along with extreme conditons what will you do? Flat Guess? Walk away? Hey if either is acceptable to you, continue on as you are doing. But if you have done some of the testing we have been suggesting, you will have a real basis for understanding what to do. You might even get your own personal Moonrise Hernandez.

Or, you might still blow it. But then look on the bright side, at least you will know, with certainty, why it's a crappy negative. :>)

[knjkrock]

As the OP maybe some personal information and background would help. Cocking a shutter was learned on a mamiya c330, tr-x in d76 1-1. Most of my efforts were lackluster,mostly snapshots and candids of my kids. Perhaps 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 worth printing. I have done too much reading and too much buying but trying to learn more about zone system. Every zone system discussion starts out with determination of personal film speed then normal development time. While I'd rather it be assumed I am a newbie, I did have a crude background in photography before venturing in large format.

At that stage of life where I have the financial resources, but not enough time. The plus side here I my thirteen year old daughter is showing curiosity regarding all this and still wants to spend time with me. She's loving her purple holga and the smell of fixer.

Thanks for all the information.

ken

[Tim Meisburger]

Too much information...

I'm planning to do some testing myself, but that's because I shoot Shanghai and develop in D-23 at 85 degrees with constant agitation, and there is no published recommendations for that combination. I used to develop in chilled D-76 (68 degrees) to manufacturers recommended times and that seemed to work fine.

[Cletus]

Ken -

I'm sure this discussion has gone way beyond the scope of your original question and I'm sure there have been a lot of assumptions made here as well. Not least of which was whether you truly were a "complete noob", or already had some basis and experience to guide you in some of this.

Based on your previous comment, I think you may be new to LF but not necessarily new to film photography, right? The principles are basically the same, regardless of format, the primary difference being that with sheet film you can obviously expose and process individual exposures...individually. Which technically speaking, gives one much more "control" over the end result, the negative (or the print, depending on how you look at it.)

It's pretty clear this isn't your absolute first go with film, or you would probably be asking questions more along the lines of "how do I load a film reel" or "what does fixer do", or something like that. I'm not at all against "testing" either, and I do some myself, even though for the most part this conversation hasn't made a whole lot of distinction about what specific kinds of testing - there are myriad tests one can do throughout this entire process - and only focused on whether a "newbie" should be doing any of it at all. I realize you were looking for a practical, useful test to determine film speed. I think. Looks like you can get just abut as many answers to that question as there are people here.

Let me just share this last thing with you and then I'll desist: When I first started LF, not too long ago either, I already had many years as a photographer and several years working with B+W film in the darkroom, similar to you maybe. One of the things I was most interested in for LF was the ability to expose and develop sheets individually. I really thought that would be a huge boon and result in a great leap forward in my photography and the quality of my prints.

At first, I really tried to pay attention to each exposure - I'd already decided, through testing, that 320 was good for HP5 - for each sheet in true "Zone System Fashion" (N, N+1, etc.) and take good notes and segregate each sheet into its own box for corresponding develpment, and so on. This lasted through roughly my first 50 or so sheets. Then I started to get frustrated with it. If I had bracketed, or made more than one neg of the same subject, I couldn't often tell which one was which after development. Or if I metered the scene and placed the exposure in zone III, say, but it turned out it was really zone IV or V because I had misjudged something, it was often hard to tell by looking at the negative what I had done wrong. It's not that easy to distinguish the difference between a half-stop or a full-stop of 'error' just by looking at the negative. Frankly, as long as it's 'all there', a VC change of a grade or half grade will normally take care of the difference in printing. I still believe the Zone System was really developed and used by Ansel primarily because VC paper wasn't common, or even in existence?, at the time he came up with it.

Bottom line, I now just meter and expose nearly every sheet at 320 for the shadow area (where I want to have detail) and develop normally. By exposing at 1/3 stop under and "over-developing" slightly, I am almost always assured of a good, printable negative. That, and the fact that HP5 and FP4 can both take a TON (like, 5 or 6 stops, literally) of overexposure without losing highlight detail. You just get a really dense, 'bullet proof' negative that isn't as easy to print.

On those rare occasions when there's more than about five and half stops SBR in the scene, I'll just adjust a little and give up some less important shadow or highlight detail. And I can develop all my film at the same, tried and true time and only have one box of exposed film on the road.

So test all you want, if it helps you understand you materials, just don't get so hung up on it that you never go out and shoot for fear of a screwed up negative once in awhile.

All the best - Cletus

[Cletus]

"Brevity is not my strong suit".

I should put that as my little quote under my signature! :o

[neil poulsen]

Hmmm... Two techniques virtually guaranteed to give you erroneous results due to skewed developer activity.

For any test you need a subject that has ~18% overall reflectance, so that you get normal development of the negative.

A proper step tablet, designed for the purpose, is the appropriate target.
Stouffer makes a step tablet designed exactly for this type of test.
Position it properly and use an incident meter to determine correct exposure.

Spot meter the various steps if you wish for future reference.

Develop normally and analyze the negative.

- Leigh

Not if it's done in conjunction with exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. This is the method Ansel Adams used to test film speed.

[Heroique]

As [I’m] the OP, maybe some personal information and background would help. …I have the financial resources, but not enough time.

Then I’ll repeat my post #4 – I’d sacrifice testing on the altar of shooting.

More bluntly, get out there and shoot box speed. ;^)

Back home, your real shots can serve as “test” shots for future outings.

And down the road – when you do find more time – think how easy testing will be in the context of all your practical field experience!

[Robert Budding]

Robert - when you say that you wouldn't go out and shoot without testing first, what do you mean? What are you testing for? EI? Or how a certain developer will be different from another? How can you test that before you go out and shoot and process a bunch of film with it, so you can tell the difference?

I can understand testing because you want to fine tune your processes, optimize your exposures for a specific result with a specific film, or a certain look to your prints. What kind of a "quick test" would you do before you even go out and shoot?

I'm only asking this because I'm wondering what kind of test result would prevent you from losing shadow detail (or blowing highlights for that matter) in the negative that you wouldn't have done anyway? You probably already have a pretty good idea how much a given film can handle and how to meter the scene to avoid this happening. What more can testing tell you? (Unless mabe your main subjects are black cats in new fallen snow on bright sunny days, but that's not most people.)

It's an honest question - why couldn't anyone with a little fundamental knowledge and experience go out in the field and make a perfectly acceptable exposure without first testing something?

Or even more, how could someone without any experience go out and apply those test results with any success? Especially in the OPs situation, where he might lack the experience to properly meter a scene, or even be able to just look and know what might or might not work for a particular scene? What's he gonna do different with test results?

I think testing is important, and I did it even when I shot only roll film. I used to use HP5+ in D76 EI 200. That was based on running a film test to establish densities above BPF. Then I switched to XTOL and I found that I could hold shadow detail at EI320. I suppose that I could have shot at box speed initially, but then I'd have lost shadow detail forever. That matters to me, it may not to you.

For quick and dirty development times I make a few Zone VIII exposures and varying development time. A few densitometer readings and I can plot the Zone VIII exposure as a function of time (Pretty easy to pull that exposure down to Zone VI density for my N-2 or push it to Zone X). That gives me enough info to estimate where the various curves will lie based on development times. I could go whole hog and check my EI as a function of development time, but I've found that adding a bit of exposure when I think I need it is fine.

I could have eventually gotten to the same place without testing, but I'd rather no test on photos that I may actual want.

[Leigh]

Not if it's done in conjunction with exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights.
Sorry, Neil, but you totally misunderstand my statements.

I'm talking about developing single sheets which were exposed under non-average conditions, either unexposed or very saturated (high density).

My point is that development times are based on the amount of developer that's used when processing an "average" scene. If the negative
does not exhibit that overall average density, you may get more or less development than anticipated in a particular amount of time.

The simple solution to this is to expose the negative properly, with select areas having the desired density. It's quite easy to shoot
a test target that has both white and black areas, and a number of gray areas, and has an overall reflectivity of around 18%.

This will yield results that most closely match those of a negative when you shoot a real scene.

- Leigh

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I wonder what happened to Zones 0, 1, 2, 9, and 10.

[Robert Budding]

I wonder what happened to Zones 0, 1, 2, 9, and 10.

Two points determine a line, and I'm always operating on the linear part of the curve. So I find the other zones by using y = mx +b.

[Cletus]

Kevin - Most people don't usually express print tones in Zones 0,1 or 9, 10 as there isn't really any detail at those extremes and are almost indistinguishable from pure black or pure white (or each other). At least that's my understanding. And also my step Wedge tells me so!

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"Two points determine a line, and I'm always operating on the linear part of the curve. So I find the other zones by using y = mx +b."

Perhaps you should try operating at the nonlinear parts of the curve just to see whats there. And if you want to use some math while your there you can take the derivative,

f' (X) = lim f(x+h) - f(x)

h - 0 ------------
h

to find the instantaneous rate of change or slope, although I don't know what good that would do for anything. :)

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"Two points determine a line, and I'm always operating on the linear part of the curve. So I find the other zones by using y = mx +b."

Perhaps you should try operating at the nonlinear parts of the curve just to see whats there. And if you want to use some math while your there you can take the derivative,

f' (X) = lim f(x+h) - f(x)/h as h approaches 0
to find the instantaneous rate of change or slope, although I don't know what good that would do for anything. :)

[Robert Budding]

"Two points determine a line, and I'm always operating on the linear part of the curve. So I find the other zones by using y = mx +b."

Perhaps you should try operating at the nonlinear parts of the curve just to see whats there. And if you want to use some math while your there you can take the derivative,

f' (X) = lim f(x+h) - f(x)/h as h approaches 0
to find the instantaneous rate of change or slope, although I don't know what good that would do for anything. :)

I've done plenty of tests where I expose every zone that I'll use, and a few besides that. Like I said - I work on the linear part of the curve, so there's no need to test the extreme. I understand limits after taking 5 calculus classes in college. And I understand when they are completely and totally irrelevant.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"I've done plenty of tests where I expose every zone that I'll use, and a few besides that"

Good for you.

[Bill Burk]

To the OP, have you picked up a copy of Way Beyond Monochrome? There are a couple people using techniques in that book and accompanying spreadsheet to test 320TXP and HC-110 in a Combi-Plan. So you might be able to compare notes with them.