comments from the previous article system:
By BarrieB - 09:03 PM, 03-29-2005 Rating: None
Elvis- too many words. ( Content is sound )
By esanford - 07:45 PM, 04-06-2005 Rating: None
There are so many variations on this theme... Yours is certainly reasonable. Having said that, a very important aspect of testing is developing time. My experience is similar to yours regarding ASA rating. However, my experience is that manufacturer's developing time is generally 20-30 percent too long... For instance, the old TRI-X in HC110 had a kodak developing time of 7'30''. I found that in order to get a proper proof and proper high values, I had to reduce the development time to 5'50''. What is your position on development time testing?
By Canuck - 05:25 AM, 04-26-2005 Rating: None
I do development time testing also once I am happy I am getting enough exposure to make sure my shadows are what I want. The development I will vary depending on how much contrast I need (or want). I agree that alot of the manufacturers state a development time too high, giving too high a contrast for me but afterall, they are just the times they figured everyone can use to get a neg that can be printed. Not the best at times but safe. Development is the other half of the duality of this process. My approach to finding my ideal time for the particular film and developer maybe similar to others and way too much fiddling for some. For some, I appear to have no basis in science in my approach, but then thats just me
For getting a development time I can live with, I standardize what I can, that usually means a personal EI. I then begin to play, starting with a development time starting around the 5 minute mark. Please note this is just my preference. I then develop, and then contact print at a standard time to get max black with min time. I look at the overal pix, make an evaluation. If more contrast is needed, I increase development time, usually in 1 minute intervals. Repeat the process over again until I get something I like. At this time, I usually go over also my new development time, just to see what will happen to the high lights and see if they will block up. Once I get the beginnings of blocked up high lights, I then look at the mid tones. If they are too high, then I rate my EI a bit higher and then develop at the same time. A lot of fiddling, but I find it strangely satisfying to get a final EI and development time so that I can concentrate on the picture and not the nut and bolts of development.
As with most things in this hobby, the results I seek and get aren't the same for everyone. I don't necessarily shoot with the idea of getting ALL the possible tones in a pictures (though I would like to at times , but look at what I 'SEE in MY HEAD' and then adjust exposure accorddingly.
For many, they may argue that VC paper can do alot of the work for me, instead of the development testing. I agree to a point, but for me, unless you like to do alot of split contrast printing, then to try adjust the local contrast at the same time, I'd rather try to get the best neg I can before applying all the other tricks of the trade to get a good print. If I can get a reasonably close print by just adjusting my development time by a few seconds, I prefer to do it that way. The better or closer I can get the neg to what I see, the easier the path to the perfect print
I don't know if my ramblings (I know too many words again on answered any questions for you, but if nothing else, hopefully it will provide some material for thought. Cheers!!