Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,974   Posts: 1,523,625   Online: 1065
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    983
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by bwrules View Post
    Slow films in particular are known to have poor latent image stability... Old Pan-F+ and Tech Pan show faint or lost rebate markings.
    OK, that brings up a question I had: I recently started playing with some old supposedly well kept 35mm Tech Pan from a factory sealed 150 ft roll. There are no rebate markings of any kind. I assumed maybe there just weren't supposed to be any, but now I wonder....

    Duncan

  2. #12
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen Friday View Post
    ... But, a drop from EI 71 to EI 65 is within my margin of error. ...
    And then some. A drop from EI 71 to 65 is a bit more than 1/10 stop. My margin of error (considering measurement, shutter and aperture inaccuracies, and all processing errors) is far higher! I'm glad to be within 1/3 stop.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #13
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Thanks for posting that.
    Anything else in the ISO specs to be aware of. I suspect the spectrum of the EG&G is compatible. How about exposure duration, are you using 1/1000? How do they specify the developer, brand name or composition? Is there an allowable deviation or +/- range in the standard?
    Many of the changes to ISO 6 was to bring it more in line more with real world usage. It eliminated the ISO developer. Some might remember that TMX and TMY didn't have ISOs when they were first released. T-grain films didn't do well under the ISO developer. Kodak tested the Tmax films using D-76. Kodak couldn't release the Tmax films with ISO speeds because the speeds resulting from the ISO developer wouldn't represent the results obtained from most general purpose developers. I believe this motivated the change in the standard. According to ISO 6, manufacturers can use any developer and any method of development they want. They are supposed to note it in accompanying literature (which most don't).

    The EG&G has is balanced to daylight. Interestingly, the 1960 standard changed from sunlight to daylight which changed the film speed constant. Under sunlight, it would have been 1 as in 1/Hm, but the increased level of blue with daylight caused the constant to be adjusted to 0.8 (0.8/Hm). This is a perfect example of how controlled scientific testing conditions can produce the same results as from real world usage.

    I just double checked ISO 6 and it now says that speeds "may be determined using ISO sensitometric daylight, studio tungsten, or photoflood illuminants. Since the speed of film/process combinations will depend on the type of illuminant used for determining ISO speed, the illuminant should be specified in use instructions." Good luck finding those.

    I always use the 10^-4 setting because 1/1000 sec is within a regular range of use and the illumination was low enough. For some reason EG&G had 3440 mcs at 1/100 sec and 59.4 mcs at 1/1000 sec. I would then use filters to bring the illuminance down to a more usable range. The ISO standard has it as between 5 sec and 1/1000 sec.

    Temperature is something many don't consider. Latent image regression increases with higher temperatures. That's why you are supposed to store control strips in the freezer or fridge. The standard has the test to be held at 23 degrees C +- 2 degrees at a relative humidity of 50% +- 5%.

    How much do you think this affects gamma? For a routine development time control strip, OK to fire off the test strip and process right away?
    The film gradient is supposed to also drop some. With the lab work, I would take the Kodak control strip out of the freezer and hold it for one hour before processing. With the sensitometric tests, I would hold them for two hours after exposing them.

    To answer Ralph's question about keeping the test data from the latent image test, I wish I did. That was before my programs and I did all paper plots. It was easy to misplace them or simply throw them out because they were talking up too much room. The beauty of the developing part of that test is that I was using a Refrema dip-and-dunk which held 10 sheets. I loaded nine sheets and just before it took the rack, I exposure the 30 second sheet and literally loaded it while the rack was being picked up. It's not something one can do with a Jobo.

    What is important to take away from this test is to have a reasonable hold time and be consistent with in in your testing if you want consistent results. Being aware of the need for a hold time probably comes first though (something Adams never mentioned).

    Last and OFF TOPIC: You are one of the few here that has sent their EG&G to be measured/calibrated. When you do an ISO test and the results differ from the box speed what is your response? Calibration off? Error in testing conditions? Bad film? or "I wouldn't even try to exactly duplicate ISO conditions"
    When I did it for the labs, we were processing in seasoned chemistry. I never expected the speeds to be optimum. But if I had a question, I would retest. It wasn't my money so I could be as anal as I wanted. Everyday, I'd run a morning Kodak control strip and a sensitometric test on 4x5 TMX. Control strips were made on TMY. Different films will react differently to changes. I'd see the control strip's speed drop while the TMX remained consistent. The TMX "wedge" could also be used to gauge consistency of the sensitometer's exposure. At one point when we were running tons of film, the wedges were dead on the same day to day.

    One interesting example came from HP5-Plus in T-Max RS. The RS was rather active and would achieve normal (CI 0.58) at around 3 minutes. The very short development time would produce effective film speeds of around 100. For unexpected results like those, I can tell you there was more than a single retest involved. This finding eventually lead to modifying the RS and then ditching it the moment Xtol came on the scene.

    ISO conditions aren't that far off from normal conditions except for the precision in exposure in order to get knowable and repeatable exposures. Believe it or not, the EG&G sensitometer doesn't conform to the ISO standards. It has an intermittent system for the exposure (flash). ISO states a non-intermittent system. I once had a yelling match with some jerk at Kodak over the precision of an intermittent system.

    From Ralph
    Very interesting! First, I was surprised to see this rapid of a loss, but thinking about it (and apart from 30 s), it's not that big of a deal.
    I like to take these results and apply them conceptually to reciprocity failure. With long, low energy exposures, you can imagine the loss of speed as the latent image in the shadows keeps regressing before receiving sufficient exposure to stabilize it.

    And then some. A drop from EI 71 to 65 is a bit more than 1/10 stop. My margin of error (considering measurement, shutter and aperture inaccuracies, and all processing errors) is far higher! I'm glad to be within 1/3 stop.
    As Ralph can tell you, that is why film is rounded to the nearest 1/3 stop and ISO film speeds aren't determined from a single test, but from multiple tests over a period of months using film from a number of batches. The biggest problem when using a calibrated sensitometer and a small sample population is when the speeds fall close to the rounding point - an 89 would round to 80 and 91 would round to 100. With a densitometer only as accurate as +- 0.01, it can become anyone's guess in any one test.

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,932
    Images
    65
    Most all current films contain from 2 - 3 emulsions. Each emulsion responds to LIK differently and therefore the contrast changes and the speed changes individually.

    The true measure is not an ISO "point" but rather the entire curve. Any other measure is misleading to say the least.

    If the speed point changes, but the mid scale stays the same, can we say that the film has changed speed? This is where the image goes, so what can be said, must be said about the actual image, the curve if you will!

    PE

  5. #15
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    If the speed point changes, but the mid scale stays the same, can we say that the film has changed speed?
    I believe we can. The relationship between the speed point and the metered exposure or k1 is 10. By defining the speed point as 0.8/Hm, the metered exposure will fall at 8/ISO. What density this is isn't part the film speed / exposure meter relationship. So, if the mid scale stays the same, it isn't a factor in determining film speed. The loss of density is proportionally greater in the areas low exposure so in effect even without dealing with multiple emulsions, the speed point will generally change and the mid scale stays close to the same anyway. So yes, the film speed has changed. This is how the ISO standard defines film speed (ISO 6 1993), and I don't believe there has been a need to update it. It defines the hold time for a reason.

    The purpose of the original post is to illustrate the importance of a hold time in testing to eliminate possible misleading and inconsistent results.

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,932
    Images
    65
    We might say OTOH, that the toe contrast has changed. Or we might say that the fast component has changed if the other parts of the curve remain unchanged. In either case, I would change the fast component in some if this is a problem. The only way to determine if it is a problem is to check it under normal use.

    Basically though, a single point does not define LIK in the same manner as a single point does not define reciprocity.

    PE

  7. #17
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    To this I agree.

  8. #18
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,370
    Images
    1
    Stephen

    Can you check if you still have the density values from your test?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  9. #19
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Ralph,

    I believe they are long gone. Those were hand drawn from a time before I began writing the plotting programs.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,546
    Stephen, what is your photographic and/or scientific background. I remember seeing your name referenced in the Film Developing Cookbook (it might have been the Darkroom Cookbook, I can't remember). Sorry if it's a dumb question, I was just curious. It occurred to me the other day to try (mostly through mindless name "Googling") to find out more about some of the people on here who have been helpful to me over the past year as I started re-testing/calibrating my materials, people like yourself, Ian Grant, Ralph Lambrecht and Ron Mowery.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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