Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,515   Posts: 1,572,070   Online: 1184
      
Page 42 of 55 FirstFirst ... 323637383940414243444546474852 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 550
  1. #411

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
    You did your tests "a few years back", so surely Fuji would have discovered this by now. Perhaps it has a small enough effect on most people that they haven't bothered to fix it.

    Mark Overton
    I was referring more to the increase in contrast in the highlights. I did not observe any significant "sag" before the highlights took off. I observed a pretty much straight line until there was a sudden increase in slope - which then remained straight until the rather abrupt shoulder.

  2. #412

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I was referring more to the increase in contrast in the highlights. I did not observe any significant "sag" before the highlights took off. I observed a pretty much straight line until there was a sudden increase in slope - which then remained straight until the rather abrupt shoulder.
    That's just what I'm getting now with TMY2 batch 0167, although I haven't hit it hard enough to see what the shoulder looks like. It sounds like Fuji's curve has changed some over the past few years with the introduction of a sag before the big rise.

    I see little benefit and a substantial cost to having a higher slope in the highlights. If one prints so that shadows and midtones have normal contrast, then the highlights block up more. What good is that?

    Mark Overton

  3. #413
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,379
    Images
    65
    If both batches of Kodak film look the same in D76 at the recommended times/temps, then there is an interesting question here. Can you try that test? you see, there are some classes of developer that just cannot develop some films correctly.

    As for the Fuji film, either there is not enough fast component or the slow component is too fast or both.

    PE

  4. #414

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    If both batches of Kodak film look the same in D76 at the recommended times/temps, then there is an interesting question here. Can you try that test? you see, there are some classes of developer that just cannot develop some films correctly.
    As for the Fuji film, either there is not enough fast component or the slow component is too fast or both. PE
    Yes, I just verified that I have both Metol and HQ here, and I have one roll of TMY2 left, so I can dev it in D76.

    A question about toes:
    Notice the toe between densities of .1 and .2 in the graphs below:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Curve11.25-XTOL.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	65.8 KB 
ID:	62156Click image for larger version. 

Name:	CurveDel400-D316-XTOL.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	80.1 KB 
ID:	62157

    In both, D316 has a slightly softer toe than XTOL. The difference is small, but I see it often enough to know it's really there.
    How can I boost the toe?

    Would reducing buffering by reducing ascorbic acid (AA) and metaborate help? Reducing AA would also restore phenidone less in dense areas (or so my theory goes). Maybe adding KBr or BZT?

    Thanks,

    Mark

  5. #415

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post
    That's just what I'm getting now with TMY2 batch 0167, although I haven't hit it hard enough to see what the shoulder looks like. It sounds like Fuji's curve has changed some over the past few years with the introduction of a sag before the big rise.

    I see little benefit and a substantial cost to having a higher slope in the highlights. If one prints so that shadows and midtones have normal contrast, then the highlights block up more. What good is that?

    Mark Overton
    I think I will run some new tests with Acros to see if anything has changed. As for the utility of such a curve, as I said earlier it can be an interesting candidate for extreme contractions/compensation - which normally flatten highlights too much to print well even though the negative is easier to print. The idea here is the highlights do not block up. They have good local contrast. They may be "blocked up" from the standpoint of the straight print, but as a printer I don't much care about fitting the negative to the paper. I will use printing controls to bring in high negative densities. What I want is good local contrast in the negative.

  6. #416
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,379
    Images
    65
    Mark, it is pretty tough to evaluate the data in those curves the way the data is presented. I'm not sure that there is a significant difference though.

    PE

  7. #417

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    I ran a roll of TMY2 batch 0167 through D-76. The curves (using two lenses):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D76Test3.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	78.0 KB 
ID:	62176

    There's a small inflection at X=-1.4. That also is the location of the transition between the lower and upper rows of the Stouffer step-wedge, suggesting the problem is uneven illumination. But curves for other films look fine, with no inflection there, so maybe that's just a coincidence. It's hard for me to say, and I'm going to change illumination to hopefully insure uniformity by adding more diffusion.

    On a different topic, I plan to reduce both metaborate and ascorbic acid in D316 to see what effect that has on the toe. Some similar experiments I did a few months ago look encouraging.

    Mark Overton

    EDIT:
    Michael R: If you re-measure Acros, could you post the curve? Or maybe post the numbers and I can plot them using gnuplot and will post that. Thanks!

  8. #418
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,379
    Images
    65
    Mark;

    This seems to be a case of the two films being within an hair of each other in D76, but wildly different in your developer. I've seen that and have mentioned my 13 developer experiment where several coatings gave me different results in 12 of the developers but were identical in the release developer.

    This means that your work is not done. If different releases of the same product look alike in a standard developer, but look very different in your developer there may be something wrong with your developer. One way to confirm this is to use another accepted developer such as HC110 to see what happens. If these two films are the same, then the fault lies within the developer and not the coating in the sense of this severe variability.

    That does not mean that these coatings are good IMHO. The curves still sag too much in the middle.

    PE

  9. #419

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by albada View Post

    EDIT:
    Michael R: If you re-measure Acros, could you post the curve? Or maybe post the numbers and I can plot them using gnuplot and will post that. Thanks!
    Hi Mark, just mixed some fresh XTOL and ID-11 forq this so stay tuned. Note however when I do my tests I photograph a uniform masked target with the lens masked as well (lens checked for aperture accuracy), frame by frame rather than photographing a backlit tablet. So I might have slightly less flare in my tests than yours. This could show up near the bottom of the curve, but shouldn't change inflection points further up the curve. Just wanted to point this out as our curves may not match perfectly nominally. Comparatively we should be fine.

    Thanks for continuing your work. This continues to be a fascinating thread.

  10. #420

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    674
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Mark;
    This seems to be a case of the two films being within an hair of each other in D76, but wildly different in your developer. I've seen that and have mentioned my 13 developer experiment where several coatings gave me different results in 12 of the developers but were identical in the release developer.
    This means that your work is not done. If different releases of the same product look alike in a standard developer, but look very different in your developer there may be something wrong with your developer. One way to confirm this is to use another accepted developer such as HC110 to see what happens. If these two films are the same, then the fault lies within the developer and not the coating in the sense of this severe variability.
    That does not mean that these coatings are good IMHO. The curves still sag too much in the middle. PE
    I know I've had problems with non-uniform illumination. Here's an example:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D76Test1.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	78.1 KB 
ID:	62186

    That big inflection is my fault. I'm learning that it's difficult to photograph a back-lit step-wedge through a lens. A uniform light-source usually isn't uniform enough, and lenses introduce variation in brightness from centre (spelled correctly ) to corner, especially wide open. Here are results after supposedly fixing the problem:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	t.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	86.2 KB 
ID:	62187

    My developer (D316) and XTOL are close, and not wildly different, so I think D316 is fine. The curves are much better, but that inflection is still there in both. Rather than blame Kodak, I'm going to assume this is entirely my fault and (1) add more diffusion to the light-source and (2) use a longer lens. I like Michael R's method of simply taking a bunch of shots at various f-stops of a known light-source.

    @Michael R: Flare is another problem that your method avoids. I've recently started taking two shots of the step-wedge, the 2nd with the upper row of wedges blocked to eliminate their blast of light that adds flare to the bottom row. You are correct: That flare pushes up the toe-area. The only reason I'm still trying to get step-wedges to work is so that when experimenting with developer formulas, I can develop two-frame-long strips instead of a roll at a time. I'm interested in seeing your results, and TIA for doing those measurements.

    Mark



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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