I am still trying to make sense of this:
Then there is a chart for Super-XX at f/16 like this: f/8 32 seconds, f/16 8 seconds, f/22 2 seconds, and f/64 1/2 second.
I am still trying to make sense of this:
Then there is a chart for Super-XX at f/16 like this: f/8 32 seconds, f/16 8 seconds, f/22 2 seconds, and f/64 1/2 second.
...Dilettante! Who you calling a Dilettante?
Super XX in its relatively modern rendition was true ASA 200 speed with many developers. But if you happen to still have some, it's already going to be quite old and probably will not respond like it once would have fresh. So all this discussion is not only arcane, but futile. And hypothetically transferring the "extinction" analogy to other films is not realistic either, because Super-XX differed from current films in being both thick emulsion and having an extremely long straight line amenable to a very wide range of development. It's like debating how to carve the best spear for hunting a Triceratops.
What I don't get is
Super-XX at f/16 like this: f/8 32 seconds, f/16 8 seconds, f/22 2 seconds, and f/64 1/2 second.
I thought smaller aperture need more time.
Key thing to note is the following:
"When your eyes have become fully adjusted to the light on the ground-glass image, close the lens diaphragm gradually until details in the share are barely distinguishable."
This can be interpreted as follows: if the details become barely distinguishable at f8, then expose for 32 seconds. And if they become barely distinguishable at f64, then expose for 1/2 second. This makes sense as details becoming barely distinguishable at f8 means light is low compared to the scenario where details become barely distinguishable at f64.
Last edited by Raghu Kuvempunagar; 6-Jul-2021 at 20:51. Reason: grammar
That explaines and I will try it with a light meter to compare. Thanks.
Bookmarks