Assessing film speed and development time without a darkroom.

[Drew Wiley]

Even true spotmeters are no substitute for a densitometer; and in-camera spotmeter functions are nowhere near same league as spot meters per se. How ya gonna selectively read some little spot on a neg maybe only a couple mm across? Spotmeters can't read into strong densities atop a the modest illumination of a light box, and typically aren't really accurate more than 1/3 stop - that's a fairly whopping.10 density increment at best. I own a projection or easel densitometer that has almost ridiculous range, and can accurately read inside 1cc (.01 density). My official XRite transmission densitometer is nearly as accurate, but has nowhere near the range; yet it can read areas as small as 1mm. And I'd personally resort to elementary visual densitometry before I'd use my spotmeter. And yeah, I have experimented with both of those alternate avenues.

At one time, all densitometry was done visually. Some of the old Kodak Visual densitometers still exist, and even turn up for sale, though those old ND filters have probably faded or terribly yellowed by now.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

Even true spotmeters are no substitute for a densitometer; and in-camera spotmeter functions are nowhere near same league as spot meters per se. How ya gonna selectively read some little spot on a neg maybe only a couple mm across? Spotmeters can't read into strong densities atop a the modest illumination of a light box, and typically aren't really accurate more than 1/3 stop - that's a fairly whopping.10 density increment at best. I own a projection or easel densitometer that has almost ridiculous range, and can accurately read inside 1cc (.01 density). My official XRite transmission densitometer is nearly as accurate, but has nowhere near the range; yet it can read areas as small as 1mm. And I'd personally resort to elementary visual densitometry before I'd use my spotmeter. And yeah, I have experimented with both of those alternate avenues.

At one time, all densitometry was done visually. Some of the old Kodak Visual densitometers still exist, and even turn up for sale, though those old ND filters have probably faded or terribly yellowed by now.

Maybe you can concretize the approach of Doremus Scudder and Drew Wiley. And yes, a densitometer is always better than a spot meter. But: what you don't own, you can't work with. And: my photographs are mostly N+1, so you always have leeway when working with N.

Here you can see a nice black textured wool sweater. https://www.militaershop.ch/bekleidu...er=MF-05505A-M I'm sure you have such a garment. A ball of wool will do.

If you want to place the sweater in Zone III, you would have to underexpose by two EV - if you measure the exposure with the average light meter. F-stop 22 instead of 11. You can do that with two negatives, with the speed on the film box and with half the speed on the film box.

Now you develop the negative, and then you put it on photographic paper, as a contact copy. You don't need a darkroom for that yet, just some photo paper and developer and fixer. You make a test strip. You take as standard print time the time it takes to get the clear negative edge completely black.

The negative, where the wool sweater then appears as a clearly textured dark, but still different from pure black, has the right effective sensitivity.

You can also measure texture with a digital camera's (even smartphone's) spot exposure meter, without photo paper, without a darkroom. You first measure the clear negative edge and take the result as the zero point. Then measure the difference to the wool sweater in zone III. Each change of one EV equals a density change of 0.3. A change of 0.33 EV equals a density change of 0.1. In zone III you need a density of about 0.4.

Here is the hint: https://www.cameramanuals.org/flashe...profi-flex.pdf, page 14

Once you have the effective sensitivity, you can test the development. Now work with the effective sensitivity, but overexpose the sweater by two EV, f-stop 5.6 instead of 11. It is best to do two developments, with two negatives. Once the development according to the manufacturer's specifications, once a development minus 25%. Instead of 10 minutes now 7.5 minutes. If the manufacturer says 7.5 minutes, that's 450 seconds, 25% is 112.5 seconds, leaving 337.5 seconds, which is 5 minutes and 37 seconds. That's short. The best way is to use a developer that takes longer.

The contact copy, where with the standard print time the sweater comes as a just clearly structured highlight, zone VII, has the correct development.

The density difference to the clear film base should be 1.10, in zone VII. That is 3.33 EV if you measure the density with the spot exposure meter.

There is a good book, by White, Zakia and Lorenz: "The New Zone System Manual". P. 48ff shows the procedure. What I have described above is actually only a simplification to Zone III and VII.

If I have explained something incorrectly here, this can have various reasons. I am not a native speaker. I can be fundamentally wrong. And others have their own experiences. That is why I am grateful if people correct my explanations. Solving the problem is worth the effort, because many need a simple procedure to get the right process.

[Drew Wiley]

Hi, Daniel. Yes, that all works in terms of Zone System theory on the subject end. But how do you read specific densities in small areas of a real world final negative, and not just bracketed test negatives? That's pretty clumsy to do with any kind of spot meter. But it can be done with the simple black card method I already explained. And here the point is not necessarily an introduction to Zone System theory anyway, though that could potentially help him.

[koraks]

Now you develop the negative, and then you put it on photographic paper, as a contact copy. You don't need a darkroom for that yet, just some photo paper and developer and fixer. You make a test strip. You take as standard print time the time it takes to get the clear negative edge completely black.

While in principle this could be done without a darkroom, it sure is rather inconvenient to contact print negatives without a darkroom.

Yes, I've seen people make wet prints without a darkroom.

No, I wouldn't ever want to go through that mess myself.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes and No. ... I would never want to go through that AGAIN.

[Daniel Casper Lohenstein]

As I said, you don't need a darkroom or contact prints. The DSLR light meter is all you need.

It's best not to theorize too much, just try it out. If I photograph the sweater (test subject) at 4x5 inches, it will be between 2 x 3 to 4 x 5 inches on the negative. That should be enough for spot metering with the digital camera, with the macro lens and the negative on the light desk. For zero metering and basic density, you can use an unexposed but developed sheet of 4x5 film.

Another question: why torture yourself with film photography if you don't want a darkroom and prefer to do everything digitally instead? A completely digital workflow results in better image quality, greater dynamic range, easier manageability, lower running costs. The tripod is lighter, the camera too, everything is smaller, more manageable, less bulky. You see the results immediately, and for the analog touch, there's Photoshop.

In my opinion, the analog process is not interesting it unless you want to produce expensive images with heavy film cassettes, on baryta paper, mounted with dry mount film on museum board. This is, of course, a classic view. But that's what it's all about, in my opinion: the classical process (which can do without museum cardboard and dry mount film) and the value of the artifact that it achieves.

[Tin Can]

Sunny 16 works fine

All I used for 40 years

Then I took a Darkroom class

[JohnF]

Another question: why torture yourself with film photography if you don't want a darkroom and prefer to do everything digitally instead? A completely digital workflow results in better image quality, greater dynamic range, easier manageability, lower running costs. The tripod is lighter, the camera too, everything is smaller, more manageable, less bulky. You see the results immediately, and for the analog touch, there's Photoshop.

No torture. I love the tactile element of loading and unloading film, the swishing around in chemicals, the variability of treatment of film with regard to developers and development times, and that moment when the negatives are lifted out of the developing tank for first review. Film makes me work differently from digital capture, more studied, more selective with no option for immediate review. I did practice darkroom printing for some years before I moved house, and though I could set up a darkroom once more, I am not at all motivated to do so. I find the quality of baryta inkjet papers to be be superb.
Digital processing of the image, for me, gives much finer control than in the darkroom, at least at my level of darkroom skills, and digital processing gives the opportunity to get it exactly right before printing, rather than the additional prints required in the darkroom.
Yes, it is more expensive than a solely digital workflow. I am fortunate to be in my mid 70’s and a retiree, where cash flow is not as pressing as for some. And as a bonus, the mental gymnastics in pursuing the technology of film photography, helps to stave off incipient brain rot!
5 rolls of FP4 arrive today together with a Stouffer step wedge. If it’s not too tedious, I will feed back future progress.
Thanks one and all

[Tin Can]

After 70, be retired

and do whatever you want

Cheers!

No torture. I love the tactile element of loading and unloading film, the swishing around in chemicals, the variability of treatment of film with regard to developers and development times, and that moment when the negatives are lifted out of the developing tank for first review. Film makes me work differently from digital capture, more studied, more selective with no option for immediate review. I did practice darkroom printing for some years before I moved house, and though I could set up a darkroom once more, I am not at all motivated to do so. I find the quality of baryta inkjet papers to be be superb.
Digital processing of the image, for me, gives much finer control than in the darkroom, at least at my level of darkroom skills, and digital processing gives the opportunity to get it exactly right before printing, rather than the additional prints required in the darkroom.
Yes, it is more expensive than a solely digital workflow. I am fortunate in my mid 70’s and a retiree, where cash flow is not as pressing as for some. And as a bonus, the mental gymnastics in pursuing the technology of film photography, helps to stave off incipient brain rot!
5 rolls of FP4 arrive today together with a Stouffer step wedge. If it’s not too tedious, I will feed back future progress.
Thanks one and all

[jnantz]

Most of my photography is film based. I don’t have a darkroom or enlarger and ‘digitise ‘ my 35 mm, medium format and 5x4 negatives either by film scanning or photographing negatives with a macro lens on a digital camera, then processing these digital files via Lightroom and Photoshop.
I am keen to arrive at an optimum film speed and development time for any particular combination of film and developing agent.
I don’t have a densitometer.
Is there any technique available to me to achieve my objective in the absence of darkroom facilities?

good luck with that !

you might become good friends with your lab / the people who develop your film into negatives and bracket rolls / do test strips on sheets of film using your dark slide to mask your film ... and hope after you get your optimal times figured out that your lab doesn't change anything they are doing. also make sure all your shutters are CLA'd on a regular basis so your exposures will all be the same. you might end up realizing that sunny 11 might be good enough, and / or film that is a little thin rather than dense. I never bothered with tedious film and developer tests. just bracketed exposure and since I was able to , I bracketed development, printed / scanned to figure out what worked for me the best. since you can't bracket your development on your own you might talk to your lab ( where the being friends comes in ) to ask them to increase and decrease your development times by 50% so you can do something similar .. only thing is labs sometimes charge a premium for special instructions, so I hope you have a kidney or spleen to sell on the dark web.

ps. don't forget to have fun