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.
For those who prefer numbers to charts, some selected numbers using Pat's formula & tc,1 values.
[CODE]METER TMY 400TX TMX HP5+ 100Delta
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]
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 .....
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
A tad out of date as some of the films mentioned are no longer with us So it would probably be worth carrying out a few tests to see if these development time adjustments are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.
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 .
Originally Posted by Will S
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.
P.S. I converted the typo "3min 35min N-3"
to "8min 35min N-3" for my calculations and graph.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by John McCallum
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".
it´s "Blockfloete"/"Blockflöte". 8-)
Thanks Lee! You were right about the typo of course.
Originally Posted by Lee L
"I am an anarchist." - HCB
"I wanna be anarchist." - JR
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?
Originally Posted by gainer
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.)
Originally Posted by Bruce (Camclicker)