Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,331   Posts: 1,537,221   Online: 866
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,228
    Images
    46
    Hi Rafal Lukawiecki,

    Looking forward to your test results and how you interpret them. I'd recommend picking up a box of a single grade of paper.

    Use multigrade paper when you have to and use the fixed grade when you a negative is good for it.

    At first, the box of fixed grade paper will sit mostly unused. Soon enough, you will start going through the box of single grade paper faster.

  2. #12
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    Thank you, Bill, for the explanation regarding a reflectance target, and for the kind wishes of ever needing just a one, single grade of paper. I hope I can get to that point at some stage, again. Again, because that's how I used to print 30 years ago, not by choice, except I like my current results much more.

    At the moment, I enjoy the look of Ilford Multigrade Warmtone glossy fibre, processed in PF130 and Se toned, very much, so I am unlikely to change away from it. Also, while weaning myself off split-grade approach, I don't mind having the option of a very occasional burn-in with a different-grade.
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,640
    Rafal - not sure why you are against using different grades of paper, split filtering etc. These are tools, not crutches. You mentioned John Sexton - who knows a thing or two about making good negatives. Yet, it is not uncommon for a single print to require all of the following:

    -Extensive burning/dodging and/or multiple grades
    -Flashing
    -Masking
    -Local bleaching

    Making good negatives is important, but I disagree with the notion the goal of testing should be to use a single paper grade. Particularly when high contrast lighting is involved, targeting specific paper grades can cost you.

  4. #14
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Rafal - not sure why you are against using different grades of paper, split filtering etc. These are tools, not crutches.
    Michael, I am not against any of these. They are wonderful tools, indeed, and I have greatly benfitted from them. I am trying to simplify everything I do as much as possible. I suppose it is a kind of a minimalistic quest in terms of the photographic process. For that reason, I wish to remove split-grade printing from it. It is a great technique, as I mentioned, I have to thank it for a successful exhibition, but I do not want to default on it at the moment, as I did for a few years. Also, as I mentioned in my reply to Bill, I am unlikely to move to single graded papers, but I would like to have enough control over my negative so that I could target a grade when I photograph a scene, rather than arrive at the grade only when printing. Perhaps it is an unnecessary goal in your and other's opinions, yet I would like to improve my craft to be able to do that.
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,640
    Ok. Do post your results as Bill suggest above. I'm always curious. I must admit as much as technique is a means to an artistic end, I'm still a sucker for densitometry, a bit of a test data junkie I suppose...

  6. #16
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,228
    Images
    46
    Yes, I agree you don't need to carry the paper aim too far. I like doing it and can talk about it endlessly... But in a recent sidebar with CPorter, I see that Alan Ross develops his N+2 longer than I would, and he thus would need a flatter paper... but his highlights remain clean and separated, instead of shouldering off because of insufficient processing.

  7. #17
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafal Lukawiecki View Post
    I think I understand why it is necessary to have the entire optical system in use, lens, bellows etc, so as to account for the flare, shutter behaviour, aperture etc, while performing the test. I wonder if having the tablet sandwiched to the film, as Nick and Chuck mentioned, would make a significant difference to the results.

    You really should consider eliminating as many variables as possible. The idea is to obtain good data and then incorporate all the variables, determined individually, when interpreting the data. If you are testing for the film's characteristics, you need to separate it from the optical system, and that means contacting.

  8. #18
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,467
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    You really should consider eliminating as many variables as possible. The idea is to obtain good data and then incorporate all the variables, determined individually, when interpreting the data. If you are testing for the film's characteristics, you need to separate it from the optical system, and that means contacting.
    very true, but i find contacting difficult to do. that said i once made my self an adaptor to fit an lftaking lensto my enlarger,which alloed me to use it's shutterand expose filmcontacts from 1/250s to 1s .it worked wellwhen i used it to make msks for unsharpening.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  9. #19
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,467
    Images
    1
    i have made myself a 4x5 slide holder now, but before my contraption , i just taped the step tablet tightly to a window and photographed it. as long as you taped it down nice and flat reflectionsare no issue. flare is almost eliminated by a black card board mask taped over it.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  10. #20
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    I'm also considering stuff like shutter efficiency, for example. Slower shutter speeds and small apertures are more efficient than faster shutter speeds and larger apertures. It's a simple question of the percentage of the exposure time the shutter covers the aperture. Here's a graph of it from Photographic Materials and Processes.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Shutter Efficiency001.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	83.4 KB 
ID:	52752

    Tests that use only a single exposure aren't as effected as doing a Zone System type test which consists of multiple exposures using different combinations of shutter speeds.

    Also, any optical system produces flare. Even if everything is masked off, flare will still be coming from the thinner steps on the tablet. Not only is there veiling flare, but local flare, where one step on the step tablet will influence the one next to it. Veiling flare will not only reduce what the results of the contrast testing, it will also increase apparent film speed. And since flare is hard (next to impossible) to measure, you can never adjust for it. It's always best to do a flare free test and factor in flare later. This is how the ISO standard for black and white film speed determination does it.

    This isn't all make of break kind of stuff. It's just something to consider when testing. Each variable has the potential to influence the test and the influence from multiple variables could be cumulative.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 06-21-2012 at 07:35 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin