Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,693   Posts: 1,548,986   Online: 776
      
Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 120
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    463
    Images
    6
    X and Y and logs & whatnot... I don't even own a calculator.( I know there is one somewhere on this electronic hellbox but I haven't found it yet & haven't wasted time looking)

    I just go by experience & guesstimating. So when someone posts a basic list of times and adjustments for FP4+ I'll look at it. My math ability ends at counting change back properly & handing the clerks at McDonalds two $2 bills for a purchase a little over $2 just to watch the system crash since it can't make change for $4 this way. (Just $3, $5 or $2 and change)

    So someone put this up in an easy to read list & I can look at it for reference.

  2. #42
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    For those who prefer numbers to charts, some selected numbers using Pat's formula & tc,1 values.

    [CODE]METER TMY 400TX TMX HP5+ 100Delta
    TIME
    1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0
    2 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.1
    3 3.4 4.0 3.4 3.6 3.3
    4 4.6 5.6 4.7 5.0 4.4
    5 5.8 7.3 5.9 6.4 5.6
    8 10 13 10 11 9
    10 13 17 13 14 12
    15 20 29 21 23 19
    20 28 42 29 33 26
    30 45 72 47 55 41
    40 64 107 67 80 58
    50 84 146 89 107 76
    60 106 188 112 137 95
    90 179 338 191 238 157
    120 262 515 281 356 227
    180 455 941 491 635 387
    300 928 2041 1011 1341 774
    600 2532 5952 2785 3798 2057[/CODE]

    Cheers, Bob.

  3. #43
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    I think these numbers are low. - I have exposed a lot of TRI-X, metered at 5 sec and exposed correctly at 10. Metered at 10 and exposed for 30. Of course metering is not that good in low light - It quickly becomes - open it up for a minute or 5 .....

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Walnut Creek, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    558
    Images
    14
    I found my source of development adjustment times on the Kodak Site:

    Kodak Technical Publication E-31 July 2002

    Exposure and Development Adjustments for Most Black & White Films

    Indicated
    Exposure Development
    Time Adjustment

    1/1000,000 +20%
    1/10,000 +15%
    1/1000 +10%
    1/100 None
    1/10 None
    1 -10%
    10 -20%
    100 -30%

    A tad out of date as some of the films mentioned are no longer with us So it would probably be worth carrying out a few tests to see if these development time adjustments are applicable for the more modern versions.

    - Mike

    - Mike

  5. #45
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by Will S
    I do, however, carry around a piece of paper in my wallet that says:

    TMAX100 MeteredTime ExposureTime Dev
    4 5 N
    8 14 N
    15 27 N-1/2
    30 60 N-1
    60 150 N-1
    120 360 N-1.5
    4min 15min N-2
    3min 35min N-3
    15min 1hr15min N-3

    Which I think I copied from somewhere here. This seems to work. I'm not sure if it graphs to a straight line though. Would this be in line with what has been described so far?

    Thanks,

    Will
    Well, here's a graphical answer to your question, on linear rather than log axes if you're more comfortable reading them as curves. This graph is a comparison of Will S.'s "data" listed as Recommended, Gainer's calculations from the Bond data with the derived TMX factor of .069, and the traditional Schwarzschild formula using Robert Reeves' test results for a Schwarzschild exponent of 0.81 .

    If you read this simply, you might get the _mistaken_ idea that this somehow discredits Gainer's and Bond's work, but that is certainly not my intention, nor necessarily the case. The closer fit between the Schwarzschild calculations and the "data" you have in hand is most likely a reflection of the fact that the numbers you have were generated using the Schwarzschild formula to generate numbers that are a close fit to some unknown number of test observations. I've never seen any description of the exact method used by the manufacturers to determine reciprocity adjustments. Maybe someone on this list knows. I'd be interested in hearing about it. Since Mr. Bond is a meticulous worker and Mr. Gainer's calculations are such an excellent fit to this published data, I see no reason to consider their work as anything less than accurate.

    In any case, within the range of exposures tested and recommended, there is no more than about a 1/3 stop discrepancy between the two methods of calculating an adjusted exposure time. That's not a very significant practical difference given the vagaries of meters, shutters, etc.

    Lee

    P.S. I converted the typo "3min 35min N-3"
    to "8min 35min N-3" for my calculations and graph.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails ReciprocityComparison.png  

  6. #46
    PieterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    near Aalter, Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    809
    Images
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by John McCallum
    Incidentally, it is interesting just how many avid photographers here have metioned they are also musicians - quite a few!

    Well, two people of my family play music as well, and they're also interested in photography. I think it has something to do with creativity.

    "Blockflute" in Germany is 'blokfluit' here in Belgium.
    I'm not good in German either, so I don't know where the 'umlaut' (special character) belongs. Worldlingo gives me "Blockierensystem Flöte" But I think that's not correct
    "The camera can be the most deadly weapon since the assassin's bullet. Or it can be the lotion of the heart - Norman Parkinson".

  7. #47
    rjr
    rjr is offline
    rjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Mosel, SW Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    409
    Images
    4
    Pieter,

    it´s "Blockfloete"/"Blockflöte". 8-)
    Tschüss,
    Roman

  8. #48
    Will S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    698
    Images
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L
    Well, here's a graphical answer to your question, on linear rather than log axes if you're more comfortable reading them as curves. This graph is a comparison of Will S.'s "data" listed as Recommended, Gainer's calculations from the Bond data with the derived TMX factor of .069, and the traditional Schwarzschild formula using Robert Reeves' test results for a Schwarzschild exponent of 0.81 .
    Thanks Lee! You were right about the typo of course.

    Will
    "I am an anarchist." - HCB
    "I wanna be anarchist." - JR

  9. #49
    Bruce Osgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn, N.Y. USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,441
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer
    SNIP.....
    Due to the fact that the factor 1.62 works for these diffeent films of different manufacturers, it is my opinion that it will work for any current emulsion to acceptable accuracy. That is to say that I expect it to be within the spread among readings of indicated exposure made by a number of proficient photographers of the same scene. If this is the case, all one needs to know is the reciprocity correction to one indicated exposure to find the correction for any other indicated exposure. ....end snip
    So, after all the graphs and charts are drawn is it not true that a metered exposure of 10 seconds can be be multiplied by 1.62 to become 16.2 seconds and a 100 second exposure becomes 162 seconds? I don't really need a graph or chart for this do I?

  10. #50
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,247
    Images
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce (Camclicker)
    So, after all the graphs and charts are drawn is it not true that a metered exposure of 10 seconds can be be multiplied by 1.62 to become 16.2 seconds and a 100 second exposure becomes 162 seconds? I don't really need a graph or chart for this do I?
    It is not linear -For TRI-X, based on Kodak pub F4017, if the EV indicates a 10 second exposure, the correction is +2 stops - or 40 seconds - with a 20% reduction in development. At an EV indicating 100 seconds the corrections is 3 stops or 13.3 Minutes with a reduction in development of 30%. Even a one second exposure is supposed to be at +1 stop. (I generally don't start correcting till there is an indication for 2 sec or more.)

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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