Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,475   Posts: 1,542,611   Online: 979
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by cmo View Post
    Many of the experts in this community are perfectionists, testing and calibrating their methods in order to find the best time, temperature, agitation and ASA setting.

    It is not a matter of a quest for "perfection"-----that sentiment misses the mark behind the reason for testing film, but I understand what you mean. It's a sad fact that photographers who test film/developer combinations are viewed in this way.

    Anyway, I found it absolutely worth it----I simply produce negatives that are far greater than I've ever produced and they are much easier to print as well. I am more efficient with paper and chemistry with well executed negatives. Perhaps even more valuable, is the ability narrow down where you went wrong when you have produced a poor negative------much, if not all the guesswork is eliminated.

  2. #22
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by CPorter View Post
    Anyway, I found it absolutely worth it----I simply produce negatives that are far greater than I've ever produced and they are much easier to print as well. I am more efficient with paper and chemistry with well executed negatives. Perhaps even more valuable, is the ability narrow down where you went wrong when you have produced a poor negative------much, if not all the guesswork is eliminated.
    Sounds good. But how did you test your material to get better results?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,212
    Images
    47
    What you need to do to get the results you want requires staying OFF the fast track. Sandy Kings article in View camera about developing for hybrid flow is gonna change how a lot of people do things. Thanks Sandy.

  4. #24
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by cmo View Post
    Sounds good. But how did you test your material to get better results?
    I'm going to suggest that that is where the journey begins---the efficacy of testing film for personal film speed and development times has been proven time and time again. I find it not a very helpful thing to regurgitate my own understanding of it but rather just tell that it is well worth it. An ambiguous answer I know, but I learned from two texts: AA's "The Negative" and John P. Schaefer's "AA Guide, Basic Techniques of Photography Book 2". I caution you on listening to all the supposed shortcuts and personal takes on it because they are numerous to ultimately serve to confuse and frustrate-----I would pick a source(es) and don't deviate. JMHO.

    Those are my only two sources. I Learned about the ZS through AA's book, but I chose Schaefer's method of testing in his book because it saves so much on film and chemistry and frankly it is just simpler and quicker. It uses a step wedge and a densitometer (I would recommend if you can get one, a black and white transmission densitometer on ebay). You will hear that one is not necessary and I guess that's true, but I made leaps and bounds in my learning when I was able to use one. I would not be able to understand the testing if I did not learn the ZS first-----that's just how my journey went.

    Chuck

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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