Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,990   Posts: 1,524,164   Online: 1100
      
Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 228
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,556
    Andreas - the point Stephen is making, further to Mark's earlier post, is that we should ask some questions about testing methodologies, sources of error/distortion etc. Otherwise we may not know how to interpret the results, or apply them in a meaningful way to different situations, in which case we can't be sure we're better or worse off than simply using the manufacturer's instructions.

    For example, flare is a significant factor which is often overlooked in typical zone system testing methods.
    Last edited by Michael R 1974; 01-14-2013 at 09:10 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    Yes I agree what you are saying. That is why I test. If people want my results I give them them but I always tell them not to believe them.
    Because there is so much hearsay and myths and legends I prefer to test my stuff. As far as I am concerned too much is passed on from one generation to the next with out anybody checking.
    I really do agree but I want to know for myself, with my equipment etc.

  3. #33
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    As Richard Henry noted (his work pointed in the right direction), myths abound when it comes to the behaviour of photographic materials, tone reproduction, flare etc. Too many methods and instructions published by people who may or may not have done proper testing, and present no data. Many of the books are written by fine photographers and printers. If their information is wrong, with experience they have learnt to work around it without realizing it.
    Even Adams, whom I have learned much from and whom I would suggest that people might study, is out of date. Modern VC papers have changed the reality we live in and films have improved. Adams' concepts are right but the world changed.

    Similarly Dunn & Wakefield Exposure manual. The concepts stand well but modern meters are better at their jobs.

    In both cases it is prudent to modify some specifics to adapt to the new world when it makes sense.

    To Andreas,

    For me "finally" finding out what normal was and getting good at normal allowed me to get much better at everything, it gave me a baseline where things worked well and a way to judge what changes improved things and which didn't.

    I have tested to find the limits of "normal", the range I can shoot in to get a good print, but my intent isn't to find a personal EI, it is to figure out where to stop when I have to move away from normal/box speed.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  4. #34
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    Well I have my personal EI, I have them upstairs. And I don't really care about them anymore. I check my materials once and that's it.
    What this all brought me was finding the limits of the materials. To get a feeling what should or can be done.
    I think at the end of the day we basically do get to do the same thing.
    Adams and all the gurus are a help in getting started going down the path if one wants to test.
    I agree only in part that VC paper has changed the reality we live in. A badly exposed film can't always be saved with VC paper.
    Sure it makes life easier but I have often enough had negatives from people which I could not get a really good print from.

  5. #35
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Yes Andreas we are on the same page I think.

    The thought of finding the limits of the materials though, the range rather than an absolute EI to peg things to, is a sea change from much of the discussion around testing and the traditional wisdom of the community.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,556
    How did you establish your lower limit (ie highest EI)?

  7. #37
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    I expose a step wedge onto film in the darkroom and develope. According to my results I exposure another in the camera (at least for large format ). Then after real exposures I will see if I need to do any ajustments, they are usually seldom and slight.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    273
    OK, I've been reading about all these different testing methods, and I realized I wasn't exactly sure what the purpose was. I was hoping to follow a testing method, and during the process all would become clear. So I thought about it last night. Please let me know if I'm on track, or where I'm going astray.

    1. Testing for personal film speed is essentially learning how to accurately record dark parts of a scene, on film, with your personal equipment. Usually people pick zone III to calibrate to, but zone II could also be used if a person prefers that.

    2. Finding your personal film development time, teaches you how long to develop, in order to print both darks and highlights in the range that you desire. Usually people pick zone VII as the upper highlight range to capture, but you could use zone VIII if you so desired.

    3. Paper-black density test. Unexposed, developed film has some density, film base + fog. This test determines how many seconds it takes for a particular aperture/magnification to print near maximum black, or zone 0, on the paper you're using. These exposure settings allow us to standardize our print testing.

    4. After discovering your EI for shadows and developing time for highlights, you should be able to efficiently record on film, and print, a normal contrast scene containing zone III through zone VII.
    --
    Kenton Brede
    http://kentonbrede.com/

  9. #39
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    How did you establish your lower limit (ie highest EI)?
    I guess you are asking me.

    The minimum film exposure level that can get me a decent print of my main subject matter, say a face. It is not based off an exact amount of shadow detail.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #40
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    352
    Quote Originally Posted by kbrede View Post
    OK, I've been reading about all these different testing methods, and I realized I wasn't exactly sure what the purpose was. I was hoping to follow a testing method, and during the process all would become clear. So I thought about it last night. Please let me know if I'm on track, or where I'm going astray.

    1. Testing for personal film speed is essentially learning how to accurately record dark parts of a scene, on film, with your personal equipment. Usually people pick zone III to calibrate to, but zone II could also be used if a person prefers that.

    2. Finding your personal film development time, teaches you how long to develop, in order to print both darks and highlights in the range that you desire. Usually people pick zone VII as the upper highlight range to capture, but you could use zone VIII if you so desired.

    3. Paper-black density test. Unexposed, developed film has some density, film base + fog. This test determines how many seconds it takes for a particular aperture/magnification to print near maximum black, or zone 0, on the paper you're using. These exposure settings allow us to standardize our print testing.

    4. After discovering your EI for shadows and developing time for highlights, you should be able to efficiently record on film, and print, a normal contrast scene containing zone III through zone VII.
    Yes I would say you about summed it up. If you want to delve deeper into this subject check out Adams, Phil Davis or Ralph Lambrecht. Ralph post here a lot.
    Just don't end up testing too much just remember that.

Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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