Assessing film speed and development time without a darkroom.

[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.