BTZS Exp/Dev Palm software.. OR?

[Kip Duff]

Dear Group:
Havn't shot for a while and am interested in "new" help for exp/dev/pull/computing/record keeping. Just saw the Exp/dev software for Palm Pilots at BTZS and want to buy it or something like it- looks great. Are there other software products and handhelds setups like this that I should consider? Is this (or other programs like it) being used widely by you guys? Do you like it? Any advise on which of the million Palm models to get? I'm thinking Palm Zire 21 monochrome (online $59US "blem"). I usually shoot 8 x 10 TXP/D-76 but am trying HP5/Xtol 4 x 5 now. Thanks, Kip.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The palm program will be useless unless you have done your own film exposure and developing testing. You can have the view camera store do the exposure and send you the negatives so that you develop them your way, mail them back and they can do all the curves. But as I said, the BTZS palm programs are not just so that you can keep track of your exposures.

Get the cheapest Palm that uses the latest palm OS, the Zill be a little hard to see outside, try and get one with a color screen, I use a tungsten T2 and it works great.

Good luck.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know how widely used the program is used, my impression is that it has a small but dedicated following.

I used the predecessor of the current program for about the first four or so years I was involved in large format photography. I liked it fine when I was using it. However, when the computer (a Casio pocket computer at that time) broke I decided to see how things went without it and frankly I've enjoyed photography a lot more now that I no longer stand there pushing buttons ten or twelve times before every photograph. I knew how to use a spot meter and had already done my own testing (and then later started using the service Jorge mentions) so that I didn't need the computer to obtain exposure and development times and everything else it did was o.k. but not really necessary for me. The only things I kind of miss are the convenience of its timing and record-keeping functions, I thought the depth of field information is more suited to studio work where precise measurements are easier, the exposure-with-filter and bellows factor adjustment are simple enough to calculate without a computer program, etc. etc.

I spent quite a few years as a dedicated follower of Phil's BTZS system, including attending two of his workshops and reading his book many times. I'm very glad I did it all, I learned a lot, but I have come to believe that in practice it aims for a degree of precision that isn't necessary for black and white photography and that for some people can get in the way of seeing by almost becoming an end in itself. That's obviously just my opinion with which others I'm sure will disagree.

[John Cook]

I’m not precisely sure just what data you are wishing to record or calculations you want to make.

Perhaps we could all list some of our little online discoveries, such as:

http://www.dofmaster.com/

and

http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/

I tend to agree with Brian's excellent, articulate assessment of the work of Phil Davis. I have, over the years, purchased, studied and attempted to understand two different editions of BTZS. Really more than I ever wanted to know about making an exposure.

Based on these years of personal misery with Davis’ writings, I would now tend to avoid his software.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am one of those who disagree with Brian. I have found the BTZS great and has freed me from the drudgery and uncertainty of exposure. I no longer worry about bellows factors, filter factors, dof, etc, etc. The palm does all that for me and I can concentrate on composition.

For those who think the BTZS is all about testing, they either have not read the book or did not understand the simple principles in which the BTZS is based on, since I started using the BTZS 3 years ago I have done 2 film tests, it was all I needed for my work. Nevertheless I find it somewhat contradictory from someone who has moved to make ink jet prints because he has more "control" with PS to say that the BTZS tries to achieve a degree of control not necessary in black and what. I say it is necessary if one wants to make the best possible negative.

[Oren Grad]

I agree with Brian. I think BTZS is a superb tool for learning about how photographic materials work. As such, I recommend it highly for anyone who is at least minimally comfortable working with graphical representations of quantitative data. But for my purposes too, it's overkill in the field.

As for the original question, the data recording tools I use in the field are a ballpoint pen and a plain, spiral-bound pocket notepad.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

I just bought the palm and plotter software about 3 weeks ago and it's the best investment I've made in the 2 years of shooting film! PERIOD! If you want to REALLY know what your materials are doing and how to make them do what YOU want them to, get the system first thing in the AM. I'm no math wiz or scientist, I'm an every day guy that loves photography and I want to know my stuff. Everytime I read a post knocking the system I shake my head. Why? Because it is at first difficult to grasp and can be a little scary hence the reason for so many giving up on it before they see it for all it's worth. Get the video and BTZS light pdf's as well. The video will explain things that are unclear in the book and v.v. Putting all of the teaching materials together really helps. Then you will have the breakthrough. It will all be PERFECTLY CLEAR. Only then will you realize what a gift you have in your hands and how simple the system really is! I started with digital photography 5 years ago and now shoot 4x5 and 8x10 bw film. I LOVE IT. And, it's great to know that once you find a developer/film combo that turns you on, you can tweek it and make it do exactly what you want it to. No Guesswork. You will be able to do in an afternoon what would take others years of trial and error.

Go for it!

Bob

[Kip Duff]

Group:
Thanks. Today I went to MicroCenter to check out the Palms. I liked the simplicity and price of the Zire 21, but , Jorge, I think you're right: too dark. Also, on c/net, alot of bad reviews (failures). The Tungstens kinda bug me: it seems these days everything has tons of bells and whistles and this is no exception and for some reason, I want monochrome screen- probably not available. In general, I don't like the way industrial design is going these days. I use an ancient Sharp Wizard "personal information organizer" for addresses and thought I'd "upgrade" to an HP Jornada PDA (original list: ca $350) about 2 years ago. Couldn't read the screen in indirect daylight (to say nothing of direct sunlight), run-time very short, couldn't stand messing with the stylus trying to "write", OS ridiculous: I gave it to my daughter and it's gathering dust (looks pretty though)- still using the Sharp Wizard. I guess what I'm trying to say is the initial apppeal of these gadgets for me is greater than their actual value once you get over the capitalist "thrill of the purchase". What I'm also trying to say is that I kinda arrived at the same conclusion you guys did about whether or not this would be a permanent part of my routine. Is a pencil, custom blank data record sheet, and a ring binder something that's easy to improve upon? Probably not. But I may buy the $129 BTZS special anyway to expand my skills and see what's going on. The book also (or BTZ lite). Also, the 4 x 5 hood looks good (?).

Why am I attracted to it? I would use it mostly to calculate and log exposures and dev processes- sometimes I start to fumble when I'm juggling shifting exposure indexes, bracketing, how much to pull-develope which sheet of film, etc. It looks pretty good for calculating and logging push/N/pull- time/temp exp. and dev. values. I could log this into my PC and print the data on a custom page that would go with the films in the binder. When I'm not shooting people, I think I'll try using the spotmeter a little to see how many f-stops in a given frame. I will at least buy the book if I don't get the Palm setup. If I do get the computer, I think I'll use it as a learning device and probably eventually discard it. If I use it, I'm going to try to make it a brief as possible and not feel like the guy on a remote camping trip talking on his cellphone. I don't know if I'll do the densitometer tests. Down-side of computer setup: just more stuff- if it's not necessary, toss it!! Reminds me of my day-job: I'm a BMW mechanic but I drive a 1984 modified 528e sedan. Not because I'm nostalgic, old fashioned, low tech, "old school". I drive it because it's a better piece of machinery (for the real world job I need it to do) than the newer ones. Really. In this case less is more. On the subject of exposure calculating: 2 somewhat bullet-proof knuckle-dragger shot-gun approaches. 1) Polaroids (for exposures close to N- but too much $); and- my Nikon digital camera set on manual to the proposed ASA, shutter speed, and f-stop of the shot. Good for seeing over and under exposed areas. Also keeds record (exposure number) to ID shot and person, date, time, etc. If you screw up the film, it will be the only thing left of the shoot. Down-side: more junk to juggle, lose, drop, or get stolen.

John: I briefly checked those sites and will download and digest them. I hav'nt had alot of trouble with DOF and when it was an issue (studio close-up product work), always used Polaroids. Sounds like one could learn alot about technical issues/specs on those sites and could be downloaded to Palm.

Nice to meet you guys. Thanks for responses- sorry to ramble. Kip.

[sanking]

If the issue is merely the use of BTZS derived data for calculating exposure and development in field work I definitely don't find it overkill, and in fact it is not even particulary complicated. You do the initial tests for your process and film and there you have it. The rest is simply making one or two simple meter calcuations in the field to determine how to exposure and develop your film. Much simpler than the Zone system IMHO, and gives much more consistent and reliable results. (And I knew and used the Zone sysetem well before learning BTZS.)

As for the use of the Expol-Dev software in the field, I am less enthusiastic. Entering data in the PDA does interfere with the process of seeing and photographing, and in any event I can calculate exposure and anticipate development just as easily in my head. The Expo-Dev software has been useful to me, however, in my complicated lighting situations, say when you have a combination of things such as bellows draw, reciprocity failure, and the use of filters. In these cases I would rather trust the data from Expo-Dev than my own calculations.

[Don Hutton]

Dear Group:
Havn't shot for a while and am interested in "new" help for exp/dev/pull/computing/record keeping. Just saw the Exp/dev software for Palm Pilots at BTZS and want to buy it or something like it- looks great. Are there other software products and handhelds setups like this that I should consider? Is this (or other programs like it) being used widely by you guys? Do you like it? Any advise on which of the million Palm models to get? I'm thinking Palm Zire 21 monochrome (online $59US "blem"). I usually shoot 8 x 10 TXP/D-76 but am trying HP5/Xtol 4 x 5 now. Thanks, Kip.

I used to be a poor record keeper with my LF shooting (except with Readyloads, because the film comes in those nice packets with the white strip on it which is great for putting note on). I find the BTZS ExpoDev software to be excellent - and the ability to remove issues surrounding the correct exposure is very liberating to my photography. I no longer spend time in the field rechecking my calculations and worrying - I let the Palm do the sums and have confidence that I will get the correct results. I spend more time concentrating on my photographic vision than I copuld before. I also actually record what I am doing because the Palm software makes it so simple.

As has been mentioned though, you really need to go through the whole process to understand where the numbers come from and why they work. As an example, a while back I was shooting in an old factory - very dim interior. I did a close up of a piece of equipment - I did two incident readings, put the numbers into the Palm and made the exposure. After bellows factors, reciprocity failure etc, the computed exposure was 24 minutes on TMax 400 (!! that's how dim it was). I processed the sheet of film last night. I set my BTZS data up to produce a neg with a UV DR of 1.65 - after the neg had dried, it looks perfectly exposed and the DR measures 1.69 in UV mode. That's simply mind blowing to me. As a result, I seldom shoot two sheets of the same subject anymore.