Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,849   Posts: 1,582,844   Online: 724
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,565
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    ... I'll ignore the BTZS suggestion for now and do my first exposure test (for ISO100) at 4 lux-s (f/1+0.7) instead of 16 lux-s.
    Sounds right... just don't do all 5 sheets before you see where it lands.

  2. #12
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post

    Second question is "what is the offset between speed point and metered reading?". In other words, where on that H-D graph is the "average reflected reading" going to fall? Is it at n, i.e. Hn = Hm+1.3? This is basically a re-statement of my original question for this thread, trying to directly relate light readings in lux-s at subject and at film.
    You've already answered this. The ratio is usually noted as n sub 1. I did a thread on this subject "What is the relationship between film speed and camera exposure?" I've also attached a paper that you might find interesting, Connelly's "Calibration Levels of Film and Exposure Devices."

    Calibration Levels of Films and Exposure Devices, Connelly.pdf

    Did you successfully make a test-strip at that exposure and have the speed-point land where you expected it on the test strip? What if you set the meter to ISO400, that should get it to read a larger aperture: f/1+0.7 at the correct light level (assuming the limitation is the meter's display and not its sensitivity).
    My sensitometer is (or at least was) calibrated. I did use those Log-H equations to determine which step tablet density I wanted the speed point to fall. Worked perfectly.

  3. #13
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,334
    Images
    12
    Cheers for the PDF.

  4. #14
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    As for f/0.7 for ISO400, that agrees well with these calculations rather than the BTZS suggestion. Hm = 0.002 lux-s plus 9 stops = 1.024 lux-s = -1.29AV, which is 1/3 stop less than f/0.7; or f/0.5+0.7 if your meter will read f/0.5 Did you successfully make a test-strip at that exposure and have the speed-point land where you expected it on the test strip?
    f/0.7 proved to be too high exposure, and I had not enough of a toe in my tests. I estimated a new exposure, about 1.5 f lower, and that worked well for HP5+. I fudged it with 320TXP, which needed a little less exposure, about 0.5f, but I dialled down too much, and ended up having pretty toe but no DMax for the 4, 5.5, and 8 minute dev times.

    I second Bill's suggestion to shoot just one sheet to test exposure. You can develop it quickly in a tray, even if the main test uses a tank etc. That's what is holding me back from doing it once more (3rd time!) for 320TXP: needing to do 5 tank-loads of several sheets, as I am lead to believe I would get incorrect results if doing less than the full load each time (I usually do 5 or 6 sheets at a time). Also, all of this testing is getting film-cost pricey.
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post

    Finding log-H
    log((1 / antilog Step tablet density) * Illuminance) = log of transmitted light or log-H
    ..............................
    Also, note you can convert transmittance, density, illuminance etc to logs then you can add and subtract rather than divide and multiply. So the exposure to your film at the speed point is the sum of the log of step density, log of additional ND over the light and the log of the lamp's meter-candle-second (or lux-seconds)

  6. #16
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Here's a graph showing the standard model of how the scene luminance fits on the characteristic curve. The log-H values are for a 125 speed film.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Speed Point - Standard Model.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	184.5 KB 
ID:	59243

  7. #17
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Here's a graph showing the standard model of how the scene luminance fits on the characteristic curve. The log-H values are for a 125 speed film.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Speed Point - Standard Model.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	184.5 KB 
ID:	59243
    Metered exposure to ISO speed point = 1.0 log H? Not 1.2?

  8. #18
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,334
    Images
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Metered exposure to ISO speed point = 1.0 log H? Not 1.2?
    That's what you'd get from the ratio of Hm=0.8/ISO and P=8/ISO. Not that I have any citation/justification for the latter formula other than posts in this thread.

  9. #19
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Metered exposure to ISO speed point = 1.0 log H? Not 1.2?
    I'm surprised you don't remember either thread. The 1.0 ratio is the reason why there's a consistent discrepancy between ISO speeds and Zone System EIs.

    The proof for the ratio is with exposure meter calibration and how it relates to the metered camera exposure point.

  10. #20
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,565
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    I'm surprised you don't remember either thread. The 1.0 ratio is the reason why there's a consistent discrepancy between ISO speeds and Zone System EIs.

    The proof for the ratio is with exposure meter calibration and how it relates to the metered camera exposure point.
    I see how this discrepancy (between 1.2 Zone System and 1.0 ISO) can explain 2/3 stop (of the 1 stop typical) discrepancy between ISO and Zone System speeds...

    Zone System: Meter Zone V, stop down once Zone IV (0.3), twice Zone III (0.6), three times Zone II (0.9), four times Zone I (1.2)... where you expect 0.1 density speed point to exist on Zone I (four stops below metered point)...

    versus

    ISO: Meter, stop down 1 stop (0.3), 2 stops (0.6), 3 stops (0.9), 1/3 more stop (1.0)... where you expect 0.1 density speed point to exist at 3 1/3 stops below metered point.

    Tell me... That's why I shoot TMY2 at 250 instead of 400... It's that simple?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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