Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,554   Posts: 1,646,467   Online: 735
      
Page 9 of 23 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213141519 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 224
  1. #81
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    I see what you are getting at Stephen, or most of it. I use a enlarger to expose my film but I put in a lens with a shutter so that the times I would suppose is relativly accurate. While there is a strong talk about accuracy here I believe if one is pretty close the parameters should cancel each other out on average.
    Though there may be problems here and there or even false results, by seeing the collected data one does get a knowledge or feeling how ones methods work. This will get us what we want.
    I feel comfortable when I test my materials.
    Andreas, I have no doubt about the quality of your results, or most people's for that matter. The manufacturers have strived to make the photographic process as fool proof as possible. Gone are the days of needing to be a chemist in order to make your own emulsion. When I talk about accuracy in testing, I'm not suggesting everyone has to adhere to the strictest testing standards. This is obviously not necessary for what most people require. What I do feel is important is that we should approach testing from a position of knowledge, to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a methodology, and have a reasonable understanding and expectation of the results. Knowledge is a good BS gauge.

    For an example of the opposite result, you need not go any further than the many posts claiming that a given in camera testing method proves the ISO standard is inaccurate, yet the poster has no idea what the standard contains. Another example is the conspiracy theory over the K-factor in exposure meters. What's worse, unquestioning confidence in knowledge that is wrong or no knowledge at all?
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-18-2013 at 05:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #82
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Yes I know what about the story of a grey card reflecting 18%, a lightmeter is actually calibrated for 12% reflection and if one measures a 50-50 surface of black and white we get a, I think it was 9%. (the last I do not remember) there are so many confusing things stated.
    I feel secure about my own method, always learning something new.
    It was certainly fun reading all this.

  3. #83
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,289
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Yes I know what about the story of a grey card reflecting 18%, a lightmeter is actually calibrated for 12% reflection and if one measures a 50-50 surface of black and white we get a, I think it was 9%. (the last I do not remember) there are so many confusing things stated.
    I feel secure about my own method, always learning something new.
    It was certainly fun reading all this.
    So many sources claim that exposure meters are calibrated to 18% (putting aside the fact that meters aren't calibrated to reflectance). Other sources say it's 12%. This discrepancy can make a difference with certain testing methodologies. Too many simply accept the calibration percentage their chosen method uses or adopt the percentage supported by an authority figure, but I think the smart idea is to do some research on their own?
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-18-2013 at 10:52 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #84
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,970
    Images
    51
    AndreasT,

    To illustrate how you can gain confidence by acquiring knowledge, while at first feeling confused. Here's a thought that is confusing me lately.

    You probably have no trouble thinking of filter factors as simple as 1 stop for yellow, 2 stops for green, 3 stops for red. But lately I've been reading a chapter from LP Clerc which explains the common sense that the factor you use depends on the effect you want.

    If you want to make a gray card gray those factors may be correct.

    But a green filter can be used to lighten greens and darken reds. Really brighten the greens while leaving the reds natural. Or really darkening the reds while leaving the greens natural. You would want to use three different settings for the three different effects.

    I had to think through those last few sentences, because the idea's still sinking in. But it's pretty obvious.

    In sensitometry there is plenty talk of making sure that you use the correct illumination. What if the light source of your enlarger is tungsten and you shoot daylight? Does it invalidate your tests? My opinion is that it matters, but not much. Suppose you develop your film to 0.6 Contrast Index (you think) but in reality you truly obtain 0.5 Contrast Index. You will still get great negatives. So long as you are consistent, you will make adjustments as needed.

  5. #85
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,289
    Bill, this is not about how much one factor or another has on the results or determining what you can get away with. I'm simply advocating a little critical thinking to better understand the process. It's more about the philosophy of testing. I'm tired of reading "I've heard that", or "this famous photographer says", or seeing uncritical and uncommented on links. I brought up the question of the validity of the just black printing method in my first post. This technique is part of a testing method that was linked to in this thread and the OP was considering using. I believe evaluating the strengths and weakness of this method would make for a worthy discussion. Beginners tend not to be aware that there are variances, tolerances, and nuances involved, and few absolutes.

    If one camp claims exposure meters "read" 18% and another 12%, shouldn't a person have the intellectual curiosity to investigate? How many of the people who do Zone System type testing ask themselves why their EIs are almost universally 1/2 to one stop slower than the ISO speed? This would be my second question after wondering if I did the test correctly. I guess it comes down to asking the right questions. Most ask "how to" and not "why."
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-19-2013 at 07:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #86
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Yes Steven you are right. But...
    Not everybody has the will or discipline to find the "why". Starting out one doesn't have a clue where to start so one has to rely on information coming from others. Some find it damn boring trying to find the why.
    It takes time and money to find all this. I have little of both.
    I do believe we may get blinded from all the information out there, while looking for that magic potion.
    How often have I told people to read the Technical Pages published by manufacturers. Either they don't have the nerve or don't know they excist.
    Yes to Bill with the filters, thank goodness I don't use filters that mush, lazy me. But when one has a sound idea how the film react I think not that much can go wrong. Besides when in doubt I just take two photos the second one with a half or full stop more and according to the first film change the processing of the second one as needed.
    We still have multigrade to save us.

  7. #87
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,956
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    D F Cardwell did an article here on APUG way back when that had a big effect on how I thought about metering, developing, and curves. He pegged his curves to the mid-tone in the scene, the most important area to him, and most portraitists, and street shooters, and a few others, rather than to the toe which is more important to Zoners, West Coasters, and a great many landscapers.

    That article laid the foundation that Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual built upon later.

    In the comments to that article you can see several participants asking for un-slid curves. These participants are, IMO, essentially asking for help to square DF's ideas with their reality.

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/...-negative.html

    One of the participants in that discussion 2F/2F, in this thread http://www.apug.org/forums/forum48/9...after-all.html , suggested adjusting the orientation of the incident meter head, rather than keeping the head pointed at the camera. At that point in time I was really having a tough time wrapping my head around that thought. It took a couple years for that to really settle in. Again it was Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual built upon that later.

    Once understood the utility of both of those concepts are really easy to use, very practical, and truly useful in making printing easier and more standard in relation to the original intent when shot.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  8. #88
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,661
    Images
    24
    [QUOTE=Stephen Benskin;1449218]
    If one camp claims exposure meters "read" 18% and another 12%, shouldn't a person have the intellectual curiosity to investigate?
    No, not if they do not wish to take themselves to that level just to improve their photographic skills, it's not a crime. Having one meter and using it intellegently and consistently is the key. I personally don't give a rats ass what my Pentax V spot meter is calilbrated for, my photography in know way is dependent upon knowing it. You get yourself up in arms waaaaaaayyyy too much any time the words "film test" is mentioned in a thread title.

    How many of the people who do Zone System type testing ask themselves why their EIs are almost universally 1/2 to one stop slower than the ISO speed?
    Again, it is not a crime to not have a burning passion to know "why", knowing that it "could be" different and knowing "how" to determine it within the confines of their tools and working process has, for decades, worked so friggin well for many folks. Channeling one's passion into knowing "how" to make themselves better is no less an act of self-help than also laboring on the intricacies of the "why". So, any time a person wants to talk about film speed testing for "their" needs, it would be just grand if you would just once, provide some simple words of advice, rather than use it as a step ladder to a soap box. Not everybody needs to get neck deep with "battery" testing to make themselves and their photography better.

    No malice in these words man, just an opinion. Perhaps take advantage of APUG and write a series of articles on, not only the "how" of things, but also on the nuance, the minutiae or all the little "whys" that can, so often, muddy the stream of consciousness thinking that goes into simply making an expressive image. Confine the spirit of the articles to what you do for yourself, not what you think we all need to be doing. I will read them and take interest in what you do.

    Chuck

  9. #89
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,956
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Yes Steven you are right. But...
    Not everybody has the will or discipline to find the "why". Starting out one doesn't have a clue where to start so one has to rely on information coming from others. Some find it damn boring trying to find the why.
    It takes time and money to find all this. I have little of both.
    I do believe we may get blinded from all the information out there, while looking for that magic potion.
    How often have I told people to read the Technical Pages published by manufacturers. Either they don't have the nerve or don't know they excist.
    Yes to Bill with the filters, thank goodness I don't use filters that mush, lazy me. But when one has a sound idea how the film react I think not that much can go wrong. Besides when in doubt I just take two photos the second one with a half or full stop more and according to the first film change the processing of the second one as needed.
    We still have multigrade to save us.
    This is the perfect argument for following the manufacture's instructions and using an incident meter.

    That is not a critisism. It is an acknowledgement of just how good Film and Incident meter makers are at their jobs.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  10. #90
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,289
    Chuck, as usual you've completely missed my point. I won't try to explain how because it wouldn't do any good.

    My posts tend to be about what I think is missed in the discussions. If you are not interested in the topic you don't have to read them. I really don't need your opinion on what and how I should contribute.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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