


Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
Damn math! Sorry, I got a little carried away trying to make the connection. How about almost identical to the fractional gradient method.
Or...
Does the 0.3 Gradient fall a bit outside to the left of the endpoints 1.50 apart that were chosen to calculate Average Gradient from?

Originally Posted by Bill Burk
Or...
Does the 0.3 Gradient fall a bit outside to the left of the endpoints 1.50 apart that were chosen to calculate Average Gradient from?
Bill, you need to be a little more specific. As we stand, my answer is yes and no depending on the approach.

When development according to ISO conditions, then you measure the Average Gradient.
0.3G is 0.29 left of the .1 density because it is expected to be there... do you start there then look 1.50 to the right for the other end of Average Gradient.
Or when you do average gradient, do you pick two points 1.50 apart according to other instructions (again this will happen to be on a curve that meets ISO conditions). Then the 0.3 Gradient is not required to be one of the endpoints.

Originally Posted by Bill Burk
When development according to ISO conditions, then you measure the Average Gradient.
0.3G is 0.29 left of the .1 density because it is expected to be there... do you start there then look 1.50 to the right for the other end of Average Gradient.
Or when you do average gradient, do you pick two points 1.50 apart according to other instructions (again this will happen to be on a curve that meets ISO conditions). Then the 0.3 Gradient is not required to be one of the endpoints.
With fractional gradient you need to guess a point in the toe, then calculate the average gradient, then check the toe gradient. Repeat as needed.
Under the ISO contrast parameters, the fractional gradient point is there 0.29 logH to the left of 0.10 density. You only need to do the 1.30 / 0.80 measurement from the 0.10 fixed density point.

Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
With fractional gradient you need to guess a point in the toe, then calculate the average gradient, then check the toe gradient. Repeat as needed.
Under the ISO contrast parameters, the fractional gradient point is there 0.29 logH to the left of 0.10 density. You only need to do the 1.30 / 0.80 measurement from the 0.10 fixed density point.
Working backwards then, find the point 0.29 logH left of 0.1 of the filmdevelopedtoISOconditions curve. Find slope of the tangent to that point and multiply by 3, do 1.50 times that, to find the density delta. Make a triangle with that density and 1.50 logH and find where that triangle meets the curve.
What will I find? Will some of the measurement points coincide or be in a predictable place?
Or is it "Not locked down" and the Average Gradient triangle could wiggle anywhere depending on the shape of the toe?

Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)

Originally Posted by Bill Burk
Working backwards then, find the point 0.29 logH left of 0.1 of the filmdevelopedtoISOconditions curve. Find slope of the tangent to that point and multiply by 3, do 1.50 times that, to find the density delta. Make a triangle with that density and 1.50 logH and find where that triangle meets the curve.
What will I find? Will some of the measurement points coincide or be in a predictable place?
Or is it "Not locked down" and the Average Gradient triangle could wiggle anywhere depending on the shape of the toe?
I've never tried it. I have found that long toed cuves have a slightly higher CI index when matching the ISO parameters than straighter curves. This make me assume there won't be a perfect match with the 1.50 fractional gradient approach all case. Remember the graph of the spread function? But neither does the fractional gradient method always perfectly conform to the print judgment speeds.
Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 03152013 at 05:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

I'm a little reticent to post since I've muddled my words pretty bad recently, but I don't understand Bill's question. Are you essentially trying to figure out if DeltaX reconciles the triangles on the speed point side such that certain characteristics to the right "line up", when the ISO criteria are met?

Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
I'm a little reticent to post since I've muddled my words pretty bad recently, but I don't understand Bill's question. Are you essentially trying to figure out if DeltaX reconciles the triangles on the speed point side such that certain characteristics to the right "line up", when the ISO criteria are met?
I just figure I'm holding a rattlesnake near its head and tail. The head can't wiggle that much. It's hard for me to predict where its teeth are, but I sure want to know.

Originally Posted by Bill Burk
I just figure I'm holding a rattlesnake near its head and tail. The head can't wiggle that much. It's hard for me to predict where its teeth are, but I sure want to know.
Yeah Bill, that certainly cleared it up.
Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 03152013 at 10:11 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
Yah Bill, that certainly cleared it up.
Sorry I've been dying to use the rattlesnake analogy for a while.
I doublechecked the paper... DeltaX isn't exactly at the 0.3 Gradient, you don't claim that.
It's approximately, or close to that.
I was going down the wrong road because I thought you were saying it's exactly that. And I was having trouble reconciling that exactness with something that I knew had to be moving around a little bit.

