Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,149   Online: 986
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,420
    Images
    2

    Determining Exposure For Contact Copying Onto Sheet Film

    Howdy all,

    I have here a confounded set of calculations that could benefit from your looking over. Rude-Golberg would be fond of such a "proof", and it is born from my lack of densitometer and a desire to waste as little film as I can in making exposure tests.

    What I'm looking to do is copy a 4x5" slide to b&w film by contact under my enlarger, ultimately with tri-color filters to make separation negatives.

    I'm able to take an incident reading of the light at the baseboard (EV 1.66), and I'm trying to determine how much light, on average, the slide will block, and consequently how much extra exposure to give above the incident reading (figured from f/1 and EV 1.66 on an exposure table).

    The slide I have in mind is low contrast (overcast day) and exposure was on the money, so I can safely assume that it's within the dmin/dmax, or on the straight line portion.

    The straight-line portion of Kodak EPP appears to have a density range of ≈ 0.66 to 2.75 (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe.../e113/e113.pdf).

    So, if I turn the density into opacity, using D=logO, I get about 4.6 and 562 O for 0.66 & 2.75 D respectively.

    This is effectively my "filter factor", is it not? So that 4.6 equates to about 2 stops and 562 to about 9 stops, for an average of 5.5 stops.

    Is there anything obviously amiss with my calculations or assumptions?

    Thanks in advance
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  2. #2
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I'd start with the incident meter reading and see what happens. The exposure given by the meter should place a mid-tone on the transparency as a midtone on the negative, and all else should fall into place on the neg. Whether or not the full range of the transparency is captured is another story. Due to the wider density range of the transparency film, you may need to change exposure and development significantly to get a full-ranged negative that holds all the information you want.

    I used to do them by contacting as well, until I learned on this Website that projection is better, for quite a few reasons.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  3. #3
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,420
    Images
    2
    But I'm putting a powerful "filter" (a.k.a. the slide) in front of the film, therefore I need to account for this or it'll be underexposed.

    By what criteria is projection better? I'm under the assumption that eliminating an optical system is better (consider the fidelity of contact printing).
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  4. #4
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,394
    Images
    60
    The highlight area in the slide is very, very close to transparent.

    Do you have a piece of transparency film that is essentially clear (developed leader?)

    If so, insert it into your light path and determine how much the incident meter reading changes.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #5
    Greg Davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Crestview Hills, KY
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,923
    There should be a filter factor for the film under tungsten light. You should apply that factor to the incident reading.
    www.gregorytdavis.com

    Did millions of people suddenly disappear? This may have an answer.

    "No one knows that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." -Matthew 24:36

  6. #6
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,420
    Images
    2
    Good point Greg, I will definitely do that.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,052
    Some experimentation is in order. I would use 2F/2F's method with a little change. I would measure the light at the easel with an incident light meter set to the EI of the film you are using. Then I would back off 4 or 5 stops and contact print a step tablet. (You could use a properly exposed negative or transparency, but the results would be harder to read.) Then develop the film and adjust the exposure as necessary.

  8. #8
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,420
    Images
    2
    Hmm, that's odd... I think I saw a shorter version of 2F/2F's response last night, and thus my reply doesn't address all that he said. It must've been edited(??)

    At any rate, won't the density range of a slide be significantly shorter than the brightness range of a real-world scene? It seems that the b&w film should have no trouble getting all the information from the slide... but what do I know?

    nworth, now when you say "back off 4 or 5 stops", do you mean decrease exposure from the incident reading? Now I'm even more confused, because let's assume I'm doing this under a step wedge, at the metered reading I'm theoreticaly giving the clearest portion of the wedge a medium grey exposure, and thus the darker densities of the step wedge will only get whiter, whiter, whiter... so where is my black?

    I think I need to increase exposure from the incident reading to place the medium grey exposure somewhere that corresponds with the middle of the wedge/transparency. This was my reasoning behind figuring out the opacity of an average slide. Sure, the highlight portions of a slide are quite transparent, but a straight incident reading will put the highlights on middle grey, and where does that leave my shadows?

    Density in my negative is not a problem, it's the lack of information from underexposure that will be detrimental.

    I appreciate the advice so far, but have we thought this through all the way??
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,052
    Holmburger. I think you are right about the exposure. Use the exposure indicated by the incident meter and go from there. I was thinking of the way I use a reflection meter with a light table. You are also right about slide film. But rather than a short range, it more exhibits high contrast when you photograph it. You may have to use minus development to get a good negative. Try to get the exposure right first, then deal with the contrast. Once you get it right for one slide, similar slides should be the same.

  10. #10
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,420
    Images
    2
    So maybe err towards shadow exposure and then reduce development?... sounds good!
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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