In the early 80s when I tested every film that I used, I used to have a system of using my Minolta Auto Meter III Flash in EV mode with a flat diffuser fitted. I would measure the densities in EV and this way I could determine the true film speed. If my memory serves me right every 0.3 ev was the equivalent of one zone of exposure on the logarithmic scale. This way I determined that FP4 was indeed iso 80 in HC110, PanF was iso 32, Tri X Pan Pro was about iso 250 and so on. Surprisingly a lot of my finding were exact match to those of Ansel Adams in his book The Negative. The crucila point is to maintain the development of film consistent and not swap and change, otherwise one would spend his photographic life just testing films.
would you please elaborate on this process: "I used to have a system of using my Minolta Auto Meter III Flash in EV mode with a flat diffuser fitted. I would measure the densities in EV and this way I could determine the true film speed."
I'm not sure how to express my gratitude to you for sharing your knowledge and experience in photography. You are a very generous person. Thank you for your effort and dedication. Greetings from Spain
It's just an old garden table. Any neutral coloured object should work fine, even a wall. Just make sure you set focus to infinity so it's completely blurred.
John, thank you for this video and the many others that you produce! This matching pair were particularly enlightening for me. ....but, as someone who no longer has a darkroom available and has not been in one for decades (my loss) I wonder if you might consider updating this pair to one using scans of negatives instead of test strips..? The front end of the process would presumably be much same and then during scanning or post scan processing one would perhaps pick suitable black points and white points but your skill for presenting so well in a video might be of great interest to many. I am just returning to shooting B&W film after a number of years away and have just acquired a new scanner and am also looking at scanning several decades of film (after some brutal curation. 🙂 ). Cheers.
Hi John, thank you so much for this video (and the one to follow)! I wanted to ask you to explain this part of your book in detail and without me asking you provided. Thanks! Great work.
Hi John, is it correct to say that you’re using the enlarger when making the final determination in lieu of a densitometer? If I have one, I could measure the transmission density of the negative directly correct?
I use my enlarger. The only 'densitometer' I have is an enlarger exposure meter but honestly I like the enlarger method because it's closer to my workflow. What I see I get - there's no theory in what I'm doing.
Dear John many thanks for sharing your vast knowledge with us, I enjoy watching all your videos. This is a very practical method not requiring a densitometer as suggested by Ansel (although I want to see what my scanning software silverfast can do for that). Wonderful! Ideally you match this to your main camera but my Leica M3 does not allow 1/3 stops (that is it does not click in) so I decided to use my Nikon F70 that does allow this. If both camera's have relative accurate shutters this should in principle bring me close to the iso of my film-developer combination. Or would you suggest otherwise?
Thanks for the comment, JPH. You are on the right path. The chances are that the shutters will be the same so yes, use the F70. Good luck and enjoy the improvements in metering and development.
Great videos John, love the details. I'd of thought these settings would also be relative to the camera? Different camera electronics and shutter variations over time would affect the ISO adjustments?
I'm doing this test at the moment. I am wondering, what if the exposure time of 18s more than required. What if, say, 17 or 16.5s was adequate. That would alter the required exposure for the zone 9 strip. Which means the development time would change again. Right? Am I way off here? Would it just be nit picking at that point?
Hi again John. I find the answer to my question in one of the fx55 videos. 👍🏻 I've shoot my test photos on a white piece of paper. But I guess that doesn't matter? Lighting was even and constant.
I don't darkroom print. Can the changes in clear density be seen directly in the negatives? If I scan the negatives then I suspect that the scanning process will compensate or otherwise corrupt the density.
You ask a very good question, Neville. As you say it's always been a problem assessing negatives with a scanner because of all the variables involved including scanner compensation (auto exposure), DMax and so on. Yes, you can see the changes in the density of the clear negatives by eye. The problem is your eyes are much more sensitive than the paper and so one cannot know which of the steps would print just off black on your paper. There is a way that I've used before to "ball park" adjust my ISO and development time digitally and that's with the histogram. My personal ISO should effect the left side of the histogram. Too high an iso will clip the shadows, too low and they'll be no blacks. Development time effects the right side of the histogram. Too long a development time and the highlights are clipped too short and there's no pure white. Alternatively, a densitometer would give the readings required but even that is only theoretical as opposed to actual paper response. Sorry I can't be any more help. Even the histogram method might not work with all scanners.
Sorry, I put the same question so I have removed it. It would be a great opportunity for us, people who only scan their negatives and digitally convert those into positive images, if you would demonstrate the process you have described in a video.
Is it the same as taking test shots of gray card and developing your film (as you describe) and asking a local lab to measure which frame reads 0.75 over base+fog to determine Zone V? I can develop but can’t print to compare myself. Is this also dependent on camera / manual shutter used as the old ones maybe miss calibrated?
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you so much! I’m so glad I found your channel, so much good/trusted information. I have asked several other questions in comments of your other videos 😄, hopefully you can get to them for my an others sake. I’ll keep reposting links to your videos in various Reddit film groups so that others can benefit from your vast knowledge! Thanks again.
Should we always expect the target ISO sensitivity to always be equal to or less than nominal? Otherwise we should start the exposures with more than 4 steps less than the nominal 5 zone. Is this method valid in the case of film pushing? Logically, considering in this case as nominal ISO the one to which we want to push the film and applying the corresponding development.
The film sensitivity will be different with every developer although there will be similarities across developer families. For instance, phenidone developers can often give full film speed or more(see FX55 videos). Metol/hydroquinone developers might give target or under for sensitivity and metol only less than nominal. Pyro developers tend towards full film speed or slightly under. But all these are generalisations and one should test for film speed for their developer of choice and film of choice as personal differences in the way we develop can also effect film speed i.e. two people might very well achieve different film speeds with the same film developer combination. For finding your development time for pushing, say one stop, expose for zone 8 and develop until you can just see a difference between white and that printed zone. You’ve then pushed zone 8 to zone 9 - one stop push. Do the same for zone 7 to 9 and you’ve found your development time for a two stop push. Don’t use stand or semi stand development for this, it won’t work as well as regular development where you have more control and there’s no compensation to speak of.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you very much for taking the trouble to answer my previous question. I don't know if I understood you correctly because I don't speak English well (I use Google Translator). What does stand development mean? What I was asking was simply if for example I want to push Ilford HP5+ to 3200 ISO and see in Massive Dev Chart: Ilford HP5+, Rodinal, 1+25, 3200 (ISO), 18 min, 21ºC Could I follow this method (the one explained in the video) to set the real sensitivity for me of the Ilford HP5+ film for that type of development (Rodinal 1+25, 13 min at 21ºC)?
Hey John! I am considering purchasing your book. Do you go over this topic of film/developer matching in your book in detail? Or any type of personal iso testing? I’m really wanting to get this down this year to better my negatives! Thank you!
Thanks for your comment. My book does cover the topic of matching your development to your film, personal iso testing. I think this is crucial to moving to the next level of negative quality.
@@PictorialPlanet Hey John, one last question if you don’t mind 🙏🏽 After you take a picture of your hand, your meter reading is 320 of a second at F5.6. You then say your “closing down” 4 stops and you’re gonna use the speed of your camera. Did you mean your increasing the shutter speed faster so your now at 5000th of a second? And then you decrease 1/3 stop back down slower? Thank you
Hello from Norway John! I was going to ask you if there is a way to do this without having to use a darkroom and develop photo paper? Is it possible to test this using a scanner?
Hello, Norway! A beautiful country. Sorry but the answer is no. It's not possible with a scanner because the software adjusts the exposure in ways that can't be measured like this.
Thank you for your excellent videos. Your background in training is evident, with clear, and concise content. I reviewed the comments about whether this is possible with a film scanner and understand the compensation issue. If the whole set of negatives were scanned on a flatbed scanner at the same time, do you think it would be possible to differentiate the densities and determine iso? I scan my negatives on a film scanner. But, I also have a flatbed scanner. (No enlarger though 😞)
Because the scanner compensates for exposure I think it would be impossible to get an accurate iso and development time. But there is something you can do. Check your shadow detail in your scans. If you want more lower the iso you shoot at until you are happy with your shadows. Now check your highlight detail. If you are burning out the highlights then reduce development time. Keep doing that until you have the highlight detail (and contrast) you want.
Oh and I used the same roll to already shoot some zone IX at the same shutterspeeds/aperture combinations as the zone 1 tests. I would say that this would allow testing the highlights at the identified speed of the film using your method in the next video. Saving 1 iteration of testing development time (namely the standard as given by the developer for the film rodinal 1+25-tmax100)
It's rare to have a developer/film combination give the identified (box) speed claimed by the manufacturer. Therefore your zone IX exposure would be wrong and if no use. Better to ascertain the true film speed first and then, with this film speed on your meter, take your zone IX shot.
Look forward to this series of videos John. This was very useful and something I have tried to do but with 120. Your method seems little easier than some of the ones in books which require several rolls of film and density readings etc.
Thanks for watching, Steve and for your comment. I've used densitometry in the past but I've always believed photography is a visual art and I much prefer that real connection. "Seeing" your personal iso makes it real and helps me understand it better. We'll need more than one film to perfect our personal development time (next week) but it's so worth it.
@@PictorialPlanet Look forward to seeing this moving forward John. I had your book in my basket but seem to recollect something about it being updated? do you have a new addition planned?
The new 5th edition is almost ready for release. It's undergoing the last edit and it'll be available very soon. I'm very excited about this new edition. It's 30% more pages and a high quality ring bound print.
Hi John, Probably this point has already been raised but following your method to find the minimum time to print max black - I experienced that this time also (beside to define the true ISO) can be used a standard print time with grade 2 for all negatives from the same film type and developed in the same way. When starting a new print session for a particular negative (same type film and development) I use this SPT as a start in my printing process - meaning I do not have to find out each time again and again the required printing time for a particular negative. I find a great time saver. But I am in doubt whether this is a correct way of using the max black print time of if this is this pure coincidence? many thanks John!!
Good work, Dirk! Yes, it will get you in the ballpark. It sounds to me that your development is pretty spot on. Which developer are you using at the moment?
@@PictorialPlanet John thanks for the reply - for the fine art work my main developer is prescysol - i still need to learn a lot using this developer - the other developer i use when testing is fx-39 II from ADOX - it gives similar results as prescysol - but the latter is better in managing control highlights and shadows in high contrast situations
Hi John, trust you are keeping well, I tried this procedure with Delta 400 and D-23 (replenished) and found that the minus 4 stops frame gave a small but discernible difference to the Zone 0 frame, so you would think OK that's it, Delta 400 in my hands has an ISO of 400. However I'm wondering if maybe it might be over 400 ISO, like say ISO 500 or 640. So my question is, have you seen this before where the ISO ends up faster than the stated film speed, and do you think its worth while repeating the experiment at around 4 to 6 stops ? Many thanks, always enjoying your output John 👍👍
Hi Stig! I've seen an increase in film speed before but never with D23 Replenished but that's not to say you're not getting it. I've never tested D400. If you watch my FX55 test videos I show quite an increase in film speed. If you think you're getting more film speed then test for more until you have your personal EI. It nails down your meter/camera/Film speed for accuracy.
@@PictorialPlanet thank you John that's great information as ever, just waiting now for a brighter day and I'll get on with part two to see if I'm achieving a faster speed than Ilford specify 🤞
Yes, there are a couple I talk about in my new book. Crawley's FX-4 stands out. It uses Metol, Hydroquinone, and Phenidone in it's formula. Crawley believed that this formula gave the highest boost in ISO possible using developer alone - about a one stop increase in film speed.
This is incredibly informative! May I just confirm, for added clarification: after making the zone 0 test strip, with negative 1 (cap on) and establishing that 18 sec is the needed paper exposure to achieve black, you used other negatives on the film and exposed paper pieces each at 18 sec? I am refering to the rectangles which you then compared to the 18 sec rectangle on the test strip 1. Thanks for the reply in advance :)
Hi Alexander! Yes, after establishing that 6x3s exposure gave me black (zone 0) You then expose the other negatives for the exact same amount 6x3, starting at the -4 stop negative. Working up from that negative you'll soon find one that shows as slightly off black. That's the one that shows your film speed for that developer/camera/light meter combination. If your camera doesn't have 1/3 stop adjustments then no problem at all, use half stops.
I recommend using the paper you will use for your prints. If you use mostly FB then do the tests with it. These tests are designed to use your equipment, your developer , your film, your paper.
So you have to repeat this process for each developer/film combination you have... my question is can you use densitometer readings and statistics to automate this and eliminate the printing of test strips aspect?
You can use a densitometer if you like but by doing the test this way you get a more accurate result. This is because you can actually see the effect using your actual paper.
@@PictorialPlanet This is true. Perhaps because I haven't had my enlarger set up for several years (blasphemy, I know, but I'm going to rescue it this week) and thus have been scanning everything.
Hi, I am really enjoying your channel quite a bit with a lot of practical information. Maximum black in printing: I am a bit confused. Some say let film base go maximum paper black and others say go so black that you barely can distinguish the film base from paper black. The other thing is using like 3 second steps. Between 3 and 6 - there is a stop difference. Easy to see if any differences, Between 15 and 18 there is like 0.2 stop - and it now gets harder and harder to visually se any differences that could actually be present. But if you on the side of each step has a strip with full paper black to compare each step against - wouldn't that be easier? - and is it necessary to get perfect?
Yes, have a side that's completely exposed to black to help discern when black is reached. Good idea. As for the three second exposures, your point is correct about the change getting less and less but this does work well and easily in practice. Not sure I understand the first part of your message about "let film base go maximum black". Are you meaning with contact sheets of negatives? If so T hat's a quite different thing.
A really good tutorial, thank you so much for sharing. i currently am abouto to embark on film photography. one camera body is a nikon f60 dx coded only adjustable in half stops of shutter speed. iI assume i can follow the same procedure in half stops. I have just loaded a roll of fuji acros 2 into this about an hour ago , no shots taken as yet . the other body is a pentax me super only adjustable in shutter speed of full stops i belive. However you can adjust the iso on this body in 3rd stops. would that be my chosen route for this body? the film is hp5
Hi John. Check out my FX55 series where I use half stops. The Nikon F60 should be straightforward to test but the Pentax will be tricky. Is there no manual mode at all? Manual shutter speed and a lens with click f stops works fine.
@@PictorialPlanet yes John there is manual mode on the pentax. Shutter speed in only full stop increments. F stop on the lens I half stop increments. Iso via dial in 3rd stop increments.
Hi John. That's the mode to use on the Pentax, manual mode, using the lens in half stop increments like I do in the FX55 series videos. You'll be leaving the iso dial set and not adjust it for testing. Check out the FX55 here: th-cam.com/video/fIdQ5CZsFVA/w-d-xo.html
@@PictorialPlanet thanks for that John. I should be able to apply that same method to both cameras. I do have a sekonic 608 light meter. However the developer will be 510 pyro. Box fil speeds are 400 hp5 and 100 acros. So would you suggest box speed on the light meter or different?. Love your videos by the way
Hi, John, I follow you for the last few months and I really love your meticulous procedures and tests. I am setting my darkroom soon after many years and you provide us with very valuable information. Only one question, I saw your test about pre-fogging paper. Is it better to go with the paper fogging before the film matching or the other way round, or is it irrelevant? Thanks again for your videos.
Hi Gianni. Thanks for your kind words. In my experience it doesn't matter if you fog before or after. Either way it adds exposure to the toe of the paper's response. As a habit I fog before though.
If I were to test this the film speed on FP4 using 35mm film would the results still hold true for 4x5 sheets? I believe but could be wrong that the film base is different between the two formats. Thanks
hi gavin. I believe the film base might be different but the emulsion (that faces the light/lens) is either exactly the same or very similar so it should hold true.
Hi Mr. Finch, I'm fascinated, how you explain photography related matter, I'm new to this world of film photography, and I would like to ask if is ok to ask you, few clarifications about my doubt? starting with an apology in case my questions will sound silly. I have a Mamiya r.b 6x7 as well a Bessa 1 6x9 cameras, not having the option of indicate what ISO the film is, matter? I really like double exposure photography, and I would like to apply this particular teaching of yours, to determine, the real ISO using mainly, Ilford H.P 5 + as well Pan f with Xtol developer. But my cameras having only 1/2 stops not 1/3 stops options, I assume, will have to divide 6/2 and not 6/3 as reference for the printing test, correct? I take this opportunity to thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge. regards Cesare Cantarella
Hello FP! Good to get your comment. I love your cameras having always preferring good medium format. The Bessa 1 sounds lovely! I remember having a Mamiya RB 67 many years ago in Florida. Built like a tank but dependable and lovely standard Len's. For the iso stick a piece of painters tape on the side and write the iso on it. When using half stops to assess iso always go more light than less. So if I asses that my film's iso is half a stop less than box then use 2/3 less on your meter, not 1/3. There's no such thing as a silly question my friend.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you let me recap to see if I get you correctly I use 1/2 stop, and to determine the real Iso with my developer choice I divided my box speed in this case 400 In 400 - 334 - 268 - 202 - 136 and compare the strips to see where deference first appears. Correct Regards Cesare
Hi John Thanks for the awesome video!!! After reading through the comments I have determined that the camera used and the film stock used to find my personal iso for my camera and developer combination will remain constant.......but for every batch and type of paper used after this I will have to find my maximum black using my Zone 0 (fb+f) negative. Is this correct? The d-23 developer you used, what was the dilution and how did you determine the 8:30 min development time?
I obtain my personal iso for film , camera, and meter with my favourite paper and just retest every so often. It's more important to obtain it for film, meter, and developer than anything else assuming your camera shutter speeds are accurate. I use a hand meter to check my camera meters are true, the hand meter being my 'reference meter' so to speak. I don't test with every batch of paper. Once you know the film speed a developer gives you it's constant for all intents. At the point of doing the personal iso test use the development time from the developer instructions or from a reliable source. The time, at that point, doesn't matter to be dead accurate because the personal iso test is a measurement of shadows which are developed in the first half of development time. The accurate personal development time is calculated in the next video.
Yes, you could, but before you have your film speed right you're going to mess up the high values either under-exposing or over exposing. This, of course, will effect your development time. Best to nail down the EI first and then do development time testing with the observed EI set on the meter.
John, if I were to use a Pentax 6x7 which doesn't have exposure compensation or in-between stops, would this not be possible? I'm thinking no? As it wouldn't be able to get in between stops?
I’m pretty sure you can set the lens half way between stops. It might not click but if you feel the difference between each click you can get pretty close to exactly half a stop. Then use half stops instead of my third stops. It’ll get you a really good personal ISO.
Hey it's me again. I asked myself: do i really need that enlarging process? i just did that reference negative series on a roll of Agfa APX100 and developed in 510pyro. I can easyly tell a difference between the "filmbase + fog" negative and the "minus 4 stops" one. I also took a exposure of 1second without any lens on my camera body, to achieve maximum density on my negative in order to tell a difference between that one and a zone 9 negative. there was no difference, so that means my developing time of 25minutes semi stand was a bit too long. gonna reduce developing time on APX100 for about 10% according to your recommendations in your second video. do you think it could work to match film and developer (plus developing time) this way? EDIT: okay maybe it's a bit too hard to tell any difference between a maximum density negative and a zone 9 negative. it's much easier to tell a difference between a white and not-so-white paper. i hope my english was correct so far ;) many thanks and greetings from the black forest /germany
Hi Dennis. This is a good question. The reason is that I don't recommend using densitometer for this work. Densitometers are fine for scientific appraisals of film curves but don't take into account your paper, your paper developer, your enlarger etc etc. Therefore I recommend doing the test just as described so you can SEE the zones and measure from the observable not the theoretical. After all, it's what you see on your print that really matters.
I don't have a camera with manual controls for 1/3 stop increments, but I do have exp comp in 1/3 stops. I tried testing panf 50 in d23 so I set the iso to 200 and exp comp to -2 stops to give zone 1 @50iso. I used aperture priority and proceeded to open up the compensation by 1/3 stops for about three stops. In theory this should achieve the same result, or am I missing something? Somehow my results showed that I'm achieving film speed greater than iso 50 which I seriously doubt 🤣
I always set my camera to manual to remove any chance of the camera automatic modes changing my exposure without me telling it to. Can you use half stops maybe, by using the lens aperture settings manually?
@@PictorialPlanet I think it was probably just user error haha. I do have a lens with half stops, I'll give that a go, i guess if the zone one looks a touch too light or dark I can adjust by a third stop after the fact. Thanks again for your super informative videos John!!!
Yes, give it a try with that lens, it'll be worth it! PANF with D23 will be an excellent combination once you dial in your personal ISO and personal development time.
@@PictorialPlanet yes it seems a lovely combo thus far, first negs look gorgeous and it can only get better when I've dialed it in for my process! All that huge contrast is nicely tamed with d23. I'm actually very interested in trying foma 100 with this developer, the results I've seen look stunning. I've used it in 4x5 with rodinal and that is another delightful pairing. A lot of bang for your buck either way. Cheers John
Thnks for a great video, I'm using this procedure for Fomapan 400 and Ilfosol 3. The only variation I have is in the test strips in that a long time age (Eccles) I built an enlarger timer with an 8 led countdown stage, I set the maximum time /8 for each strip, in this case 24 seconds and use the 7th. stage, it saves worrying about the enlarger lights warmup time. ps if anyone wants a copy of the circuit I can email a pdf.
Great video. I need to do this to get better results with my development. In my case I'm using only 4x5. Is it an issue if I can only use 1/2 stops and not 1/3? Will need to use in between f stops on my lens. I guess the process is the same I just need to take individual shots as you have done in the video, and develop these sheets individually with same times? I am planning on using Fomapan (both 100 and 400) with Pyrocat MC. I just came around your channel and your knowledge and ability to teach is amazing. You deserve way more views and subscribers!
@@PictorialPlanet But then you need to explain how to calculate the equivalent ISO for half-stops. A half-stop means exposure is increased by the square root of 2 (i.e., x1.4), whereas with a one-third stop exposure is increased by the cube root of 2 (x1.26). So from 100 ISO, a full stop increase takes you to 200 ISO (x2), a third of a stop to 126 ISO (usually rounded to 125 ISO), but half a stop to 140 ISO. Working downwards, you'd divide by the equivalent figure (so one-third of a stop down from 200 ISO is 200/1.4 = 159, usually rounded to 160 ISO. Annoyingly some cameras (e.g. Leica) have lenses adjustable in half-stops, and film speed settings in third-stops, so you have to interpolate anyway! I hope this helps someone.
@@jonathanreynolds2227 Surely there's no need for such maths, Jonathan. My whole TH-cam channel is about simplifying the complexities of film photography and distilling it down to effective things one can do to raise the bar. In fact 1/2 a stop is so near 2/3 of a stop that you wouldn't see the difference! If one finds that their developer is giving them 1/2 stop loss of film-speed then set 2/3 stop lower on the film-speed dial and you're just where you want to be. Better slightly more shadow detail than slightly less (1/3) :)
Thanks very much, but I don’t see the point. With your method and clockwork development, you can determine the sensitivity of the film for one camera. Use a different camera and you can start all over again. Unless you calibrated lenses, shutter speeds, light meter. You have to repeat every thing again for pulling or pushing. Furthermore, a lot can be corrected in modern film after development.
The art of developing for the best negatives isn’t for everyone and you are welcome to your opinion and methodology in photography. I personally determine personal EI and development time using a hand held meter, film, and developer. This, I have found, gives me quality negatives that allow me to pursue my work reliably with my cameras and obtain wonderfully exposed results. Of course, I’m not the only one who does this. Many professional and great photographic artists have used this method to get the best negatives possible for printing. Good luck to you.
you searched for the max black in your test strip with 3sec increments, what if the max black was already reached with maybe 16sec? Could it be possible, that with this hypothetical 16 second test strip development time your film could have reached 100 iso?
The film ISO is not about the time that max black is reached. That is carefully calculated so that I know how long to expose the paper for when checking the negatives I took earlier - the negatives where I set the camera to record 4 stops down. Remember, max black is found on the clear negative, the one that has not been exposed at all (I had the lens cap on). Depending on your enlarger, your paper, your enlarger lens, etc, max black will be found at another time than I got.
Hi John, Many thanks for this very usefull video - as Steve Weston said in his remark : your approach very much easier and more understandable then some explained on the internet and books. I have the following question - at 7:49 you mentioned that the max black is made by 6 times 3 sec and that this needs to be remembered for the test strip - Can you explain more on this why this so important? Many thanks and very much looking forward to your new book.
Thanks for you comment Dirk. That's a good question because it's an important point. To accurately find the exposure to get maximum black from the totally blank negative we need to use multiple small exposures. In my case 6x3 seconds. However, if we just used an 18 second exposure for our subsequent test strips we would not be taking into account the enlarger bulb warm up and cool down times for the six small exposures which actually adds up to quite a bit of difference. I hope this explains that part a little better.
@@PictorialPlanet Many thanks John for your explanation - so if i understand you well an exposure of 18sec would a darker print then 6x3sec. Is this what they refer to as the intermittency issue? many thanks for all your videos - i am looking forward to learn more from you!
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches Hi John and Bob, I just wanted to let you know that I tested the intermittency issue - that multiple exposure give a different result then just one exposure - I tested this with an M805 enlarger - single exposure : 8 sec and multiple exposures 8 times 1 sec at a 5 sec interval. There was no difference between the two - the enlarger I used has an opal lamp of 75W but perhaps other enlargers with different lamps, which need more time to come to full brightness, could give a different result.
First: thank you very much for the video Second: why isn't enough to take a look a the negatives? If the film isn't actually as sensitive as it should, wouldn't the first negative (the one after the hand shot) be as transparent as the lenscupon+fog one? In fact, its noticeable in your negatives, that the "supposedtobezone1" frame, is already distinguishable from the lenscupon one! Which means, i thought that the zone one was actually achieved successfully, therefor the film iso is the one actually claimed. ...heeeelp!!!
You miss the point that we are matching film, meter, and paper. It's not about just the film but at what EI does the paper show zone 1. This ties everything in together.
@@PictorialPlanet ...because the widest dynamic range we want to achieve in the end is on the paper, while printing! We arent interested in a theoretical ISO, but a practical one. I understand now, thanks John for your answer, you legend
That's perfect! Yes!! This is the key that changes everything about exposure and development. Thank you for understanding my, less than perfect, explanation.
Most film cameras can not set 1/3 stops. Indeed, some can't set half stops. So, talking about decreasing by 1/3 stops is great for newer electronic cameras but not much good for mechanical ones. Good explanation of the technique
Good point, Erich. I have a few as you describe. I can do half stops by moving the lens between F stops and that works but I agree. I'll write something in the video description.
@@PictorialPlanet This is a good workaround but , i use an Olympus OM-1n and have to use this method to gain half stops. How do these half stops equate to ISO? Your table equates the additional 1/3 stop over the -4 stops from correct exposure as ISO 100, the 2/3 stop over the -4 stop from correct exposure as ISO 80 etc. Half stops as i and others with older cameras and lenses can only achieve do not offer coincidence with the ISO settings on your chart , nor more importantly those available settings on camera. Does it become a matter of rounding up or down ?
Yes, you round up or down. My preference is to round down to give slightly more exposure. So if my resulting personal ISO was 1/2 stop lower than box speed I'd use 2/3 lower on my meter/camera.
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
In the early 80s when I tested every film that I used, I used to have a system of using my Minolta Auto Meter III Flash in EV mode with a flat diffuser fitted. I would measure the densities in EV and this way I could determine the true film speed. If my memory serves me right every 0.3 ev was the equivalent of one zone of exposure on the logarithmic scale. This way I determined that FP4 was indeed iso 80 in HC110, PanF was iso 32, Tri X Pan Pro was about iso 250 and so on. Surprisingly a lot of my finding were exact match to those of Ansel Adams in his book The Negative. The crucila point is to maintain the development of film consistent and not swap and change, otherwise one would spend his photographic life just testing films.
Great comment!
would you please elaborate on this process:
"I used to have a system of using my Minolta Auto Meter III Flash in EV mode with a flat diffuser fitted. I would measure the densities in EV and this way I could determine the true film speed."
For more elaboration see my video Getting the best from: FX55 Pt 2 - Film Speed Test
I'm not sure how to express my gratitude to you for sharing your knowledge and experience in photography. You are a very generous person. Thank you for your effort and dedication. Greetings from Spain
Thank you, Justo! That made my day ❤️
Justo, I agree!!!
John, thanks for a great video! Do you mind to share what 18% grey board did you use for tests.
It's just an old garden table. Any neutral coloured object should work fine, even a wall. Just make sure you set focus to infinity so it's completely blurred.
Very helpful, thank you for posting.
John, thank you for this video and the many others that you produce! This matching pair were particularly enlightening for me. ....but, as someone who no longer has a darkroom available and has not been in one for decades (my loss) I wonder if you might consider updating this pair to one using scans of negatives instead of test strips..? The front end of the process would presumably be much same and then during scanning or post scan processing one would perhaps pick suitable black points and white points but your skill for presenting so well in a video might be of great interest to many. I am just returning to shooting B&W film after a number of years away and have just acquired a new scanner and am also looking at scanning several decades of film (after some brutal curation. 🙂 ). Cheers.
photieplace.wordpress.com/2023/04/02/hacking-the-personal-iso-pt-1/
Brilliant, John. Great video.
Hi John, thank you so much for this video (and the one to follow)! I wanted to ask you to explain this part of your book in detail and without me asking you provided. Thanks! Great work.
Cheers Daniel! And thanks for buying my book, very much appreciated!!
Hi John, is it correct to say that you’re using the enlarger when making the final determination in lieu of a densitometer? If I have one, I could measure the transmission density of the negative directly correct?
I use my enlarger. The only 'densitometer' I have is an enlarger exposure meter but honestly I like the enlarger method because it's closer to my workflow. What I see I get - there's no theory in what I'm doing.
Great video. Unfortunately I do not have yet an enlarger. Maybe one day.
I hope you can get an enlarger soon. It's so good to be able to make images on photographic paper. They really do look better. Good luck my friend!
Thanks mate
Dear John many thanks for sharing your vast knowledge with us, I enjoy watching all your videos. This is a very practical method not requiring a densitometer as suggested by Ansel (although I want to see what my scanning software silverfast can do for that). Wonderful! Ideally you match this to your main camera but my Leica M3 does not allow 1/3 stops (that is it does not click in) so I decided to use my Nikon F70 that does allow this. If both camera's have relative accurate shutters this should in principle bring me close to the iso of my film-developer combination. Or would you suggest otherwise?
Thanks for the comment, JPH. You are on the right path. The chances are that the shutters will be the same so yes, use the F70. Good luck and enjoy the improvements in metering and development.
Great videos John, love the details. I'd of thought these settings would also be relative to the camera? Different camera electronics and shutter variations over time would affect the ISO adjustments?
So true. When you find your own personal al EI it's got that film, that camera, that meter and that developer.
I'm doing this test at the moment. I am wondering, what if the exposure time of 18s more than required. What if, say, 17 or 16.5s was adequate. That would alter the required exposure for the zone 9 strip. Which means the development time would change again. Right?
Am I way off here? Would it just be nit picking at that point?
Hi again John.
I find the answer to my question in one of the fx55 videos. 👍🏻
I've shoot my test photos on a white piece of paper. But I guess that doesn't matter? Lighting was even and constant.
Excellent. Thank you!!!
I don't darkroom print. Can the changes in clear density be seen directly in the negatives? If I scan the negatives then I suspect that the scanning process will compensate or otherwise corrupt the density.
You ask a very good question, Neville. As you say it's always been a problem assessing negatives with a scanner because of all the variables involved including scanner compensation (auto exposure), DMax and so on. Yes, you can see the changes in the density of the clear negatives by eye. The problem is your eyes are much more sensitive than the paper and so one cannot know which of the steps would print just off black on your paper. There is a way that I've used before to "ball park" adjust my ISO and development time digitally and that's with the histogram. My personal ISO should effect the left side of the histogram. Too high an iso will clip the shadows, too low and they'll be no blacks. Development time effects the right side of the histogram. Too long a development time and the highlights are clipped too short and there's no pure white. Alternatively, a densitometer would give the readings required but even that is only theoretical as opposed to actual paper response. Sorry I can't be any more help. Even the histogram method might not work with all scanners.
Sorry, I put the same question so I have removed it. It would be a great opportunity for us, people who only scan their negatives and digitally convert those into positive images, if you would demonstrate the process you have described in a video.
Is this what so call "Sensitometry"? Thank you for the great vid!
This is eyeball-ometry! Sensitometry uses machines to give values, this uses eyes to make art.
@@PictorialPlanet Got it.. Many thanks!
Is it the same as taking test shots of gray card and developing your film (as you describe) and asking a local lab to measure which frame reads 0.75 over base+fog to determine Zone V? I can develop but can’t print to compare myself. Is this also dependent on camera / manual shutter used as the old ones maybe miss calibrated?
Yes to both, Sebastian.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you so much! I’m so glad I found your channel, so much good/trusted information. I have asked several other questions in comments of your other videos 😄, hopefully you can get to them for my an others sake. I’ll keep reposting links to your videos in various Reddit film groups so that others can benefit from your vast knowledge! Thanks again.
Should we always expect the target ISO sensitivity to always be equal to or less than nominal?
Otherwise we should start the exposures with more than 4 steps less than the nominal 5 zone.
Is this method valid in the case of film pushing? Logically, considering in this case as nominal ISO the one to which we want to push the film and applying the corresponding development.
The film sensitivity will be different with every developer although there will be similarities across developer families. For instance, phenidone developers can often give full film speed or more(see FX55 videos). Metol/hydroquinone developers might give target or under for sensitivity and metol only less than nominal. Pyro developers tend towards full film speed or slightly under. But all these are generalisations and one should test for film speed for their developer of choice and film of choice as personal differences in the way we develop can also effect film speed i.e. two people might very well achieve different film speeds with the same film developer combination. For finding your development time for pushing, say one stop, expose for zone 8 and develop until you can just see a difference between white and that printed zone. You’ve then pushed zone 8 to zone 9 - one stop push. Do the same for zone 7 to 9 and you’ve found your development time for a two stop push. Don’t use stand or semi stand development for this, it won’t work as well as regular development where you have more control and there’s no compensation to speak of.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you very much for taking the trouble to answer my previous question. I don't know if I understood you correctly because I don't speak English well (I use Google Translator). What does stand development mean?
What I was asking was simply if for example I want to push Ilford HP5+ to 3200 ISO and see in Massive Dev Chart:
Ilford HP5+, Rodinal, 1+25, 3200 (ISO), 18 min, 21ºC
Could I follow this method (the one explained in the video) to set the real sensitivity for me of the Ilford HP5+ film for that type of development (Rodinal 1+25, 13 min at 21ºC)?
Hey John! I am considering purchasing your book. Do you go over this topic of film/developer matching in your book in detail? Or any type of personal iso testing? I’m really wanting to get this down this year to better my negatives! Thank you!
Thanks for your comment. My book does cover the topic of matching your development to your film, personal iso testing. I think this is crucial to moving to the next level of negative quality.
@@PictorialPlanet Fantastic! I will be making a purchase. I look forward to when it arrives in California!
That's awesome, thank you 🙏 Say hello to California for me. Always want to go there and see Ansel Adams stuff. He's a hero of mine.
@@PictorialPlanet His work is indeed extraordinary. Please do visit someday!
@@PictorialPlanet Hey John, one last question if you don’t mind 🙏🏽 After you take a picture of your hand, your meter reading is 320 of a second at F5.6. You then say your “closing down” 4 stops and you’re gonna use the speed of your camera. Did you mean your increasing the shutter speed faster so your now at 5000th of a second? And then you decrease 1/3 stop back down slower? Thank you
Hello from Norway John!
I was going to ask you if there is a way to do this without having to use a darkroom and develop photo paper? Is it possible to test this using a scanner?
Hello, Norway! A beautiful country. Sorry but the answer is no. It's not possible with a scanner because the software adjusts the exposure in ways that can't be measured like this.
Thank you for your excellent videos. Your background in training is evident, with clear, and concise content.
I reviewed the comments about whether this is possible with a film scanner and understand the compensation issue. If the whole set of negatives were scanned on a flatbed scanner at the same time, do you think it would be possible to differentiate the densities and determine iso? I scan my negatives on a film scanner. But, I also have a flatbed scanner. (No enlarger though 😞)
Because the scanner compensates for exposure I think it would be impossible to get an accurate iso and development time. But there is something you can do. Check your shadow detail in your scans. If you want more lower the iso you shoot at until you are happy with your shadows. Now check your highlight detail. If you are burning out the highlights then reduce development time. Keep doing that until you have the highlight detail (and contrast) you want.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you very much!
Oh and I used the same roll to already shoot some zone IX at the same shutterspeeds/aperture combinations as the zone 1 tests. I would say that this would allow testing the highlights at the identified speed of the film using your method in the next video. Saving 1 iteration of testing development time (namely the standard as given by the developer for the film rodinal 1+25-tmax100)
It's rare to have a developer/film combination give the identified (box) speed claimed by the manufacturer. Therefore your zone IX exposure would be wrong and if no use. Better to ascertain the true film speed first and then, with this film speed on your meter, take your zone IX shot.
Look forward to this series of videos John. This was very useful and something I have tried to do but with 120. Your method seems little easier than some of the ones in books which require several rolls of film and density readings etc.
Thanks for watching, Steve and for your comment. I've used densitometry in the past but I've always believed photography is a visual art and I much prefer that real connection. "Seeing" your personal iso makes it real and helps me understand it better. We'll need more than one film to perfect our personal development time (next week) but it's so worth it.
@@PictorialPlanet Look forward to seeing this moving forward John. I had your book in my basket but seem to recollect something about it being updated? do you have a new addition planned?
The new 5th edition is almost ready for release. It's undergoing the last edit and it'll be available very soon. I'm very excited about this new edition. It's 30% more pages and a high quality ring bound print.
Hi John,
Probably this point has already been raised but following your method to find the minimum time to print max black - I experienced that this time also (beside to define the true ISO) can be used a standard print time with grade 2 for all negatives from the same film type and developed in the same way. When starting a new print session for a particular negative (same type film and development) I use this SPT as a start in my printing process - meaning I do not have to find out each time again and again the required printing time for a particular negative. I find a great time saver. But I am in doubt whether this is a correct way of using the max black print time of if this is this pure coincidence? many thanks John!!
Good work, Dirk! Yes, it will get you in the ballpark. It sounds to me that your development is pretty spot on. Which developer are you using at the moment?
@@PictorialPlanet John thanks for the reply - for the fine art work my main developer is prescysol - i still need to learn a lot using this developer - the other developer i use when testing is fx-39 II from ADOX - it gives similar results as prescysol - but the latter is better in managing control highlights and shadows in high contrast situations
Hi John, trust you are keeping well, I tried this procedure with Delta 400 and D-23 (replenished) and found that the minus 4 stops frame gave a small but discernible difference to the Zone 0 frame, so you would think OK that's it, Delta 400 in my hands has an ISO of 400. However I'm wondering if maybe it might be over 400 ISO, like say ISO 500 or 640. So my question is, have you seen this before where the ISO ends up faster than the stated film speed, and do you think its worth while repeating the experiment at around 4 to 6 stops ? Many thanks, always enjoying your output John 👍👍
Hi Stig! I've seen an increase in film speed before but never with D23 Replenished but that's not to say you're not getting it. I've never tested D400. If you watch my FX55 test videos I show quite an increase in film speed. If you think you're getting more film speed then test for more until you have your personal EI. It nails down your meter/camera/Film speed for accuracy.
@@PictorialPlanet thank you John that's great information as ever, just waiting now for a brighter day and I'll get on with part two to see if I'm achieving a faster speed than Ilford specify 🤞
Hi John, Have you ever encountered a film-developer combination that gives a higher ISO then the one given by the manufacturer?
Yes, there are a couple I talk about in my new book. Crawley's FX-4 stands out. It uses Metol, Hydroquinone, and Phenidone in it's formula. Crawley believed that this formula gave the highest boost in ISO possible using developer alone - about a one stop increase in film speed.
This is incredibly informative! May I just confirm, for added clarification: after making the zone 0 test strip, with negative 1 (cap on) and establishing that 18 sec is the needed paper exposure to achieve black, you used other negatives on the film and exposed paper pieces each at 18 sec? I am refering to the rectangles which you then compared to the 18 sec rectangle on the test strip 1. Thanks for the reply in advance :)
Hi Alexander! Yes, after establishing that 6x3s exposure gave me black (zone 0) You then expose the other negatives for the exact same amount 6x3, starting at the -4 stop negative. Working up from that negative you'll soon find one that shows as slightly off black. That's the one that shows your film speed for that developer/camera/light meter combination. If your camera doesn't have 1/3 stop adjustments then no problem at all, use half stops.
Would you recommend using FB paper throughout these tests?
I recommend using the paper you will use for your prints. If you use mostly FB then do the tests with it. These tests are designed to use your equipment, your developer , your film, your paper.
@@PictorialPlanet Okay. Thanks. I was thinking the same thing.
So you have to repeat this process for each developer/film combination you have... my question is can you use densitometer readings and statistics to automate this and eliminate the printing of test strips aspect?
You can use a densitometer if you like but by doing the test this way you get a more accurate result. This is because you can actually see the effect using your actual paper.
@@PictorialPlanet This is true. Perhaps because I haven't had my enlarger set up for several years (blasphemy, I know, but I'm going to rescue it this week) and thus have been scanning everything.
Hi, I am really enjoying your channel quite a bit with a lot of practical information.
Maximum black in printing: I am a bit confused. Some say let film base go maximum paper black and others say go so black that you barely can distinguish the film base from paper black.
The other thing is using like 3 second steps. Between 3 and 6 - there is a stop difference. Easy to see if any differences, Between 15 and 18 there is like 0.2 stop - and it now gets harder and harder to visually se any differences that could actually be present. But if you on the side of each step has a strip with full paper black to compare each step against - wouldn't that be easier? - and is it necessary to get perfect?
Yes, have a side that's completely exposed to black to help discern when black is reached. Good idea. As for the three second exposures, your point is correct about the change getting less and less but this does work well and easily in practice.
Not sure I understand the first part of your message about "let film base go maximum black". Are you meaning with contact sheets of negatives? If so T hat's a quite different thing.
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks for responding. Yes, the first part of message was in relation to contact prints :)
A really good tutorial, thank you so much for sharing. i currently am abouto to embark on film photography. one camera body is a nikon f60 dx coded only adjustable in half stops of shutter speed. iI assume i can follow the same procedure in half stops. I have just loaded a roll of fuji acros 2 into this about an hour ago , no shots taken as yet . the other body is a pentax me super only adjustable in shutter speed of full stops i belive. However you can adjust the iso on this body in 3rd stops. would that be my chosen route for this body? the film is hp5
Hi John. Check out my FX55 series where I use half stops. The Nikon F60 should be straightforward to test but the Pentax will be tricky. Is there no manual mode at all? Manual shutter speed and a lens with click f stops works fine.
@@PictorialPlanet yes John there is manual mode on the pentax. Shutter speed in only full stop increments. F stop on the lens I half stop increments. Iso via dial in 3rd stop increments.
Hi John. That's the mode to use on the Pentax, manual mode, using the lens in half stop increments like I do in the FX55 series videos. You'll be leaving the iso dial set and not adjust it for testing. Check out the FX55 here: th-cam.com/video/fIdQ5CZsFVA/w-d-xo.html
@@PictorialPlanet thanks for that John. I should be able to apply that same method to both cameras. I do have a sekonic 608 light meter. However the developer will be 510 pyro. Box fil speeds are 400 hp5 and 100 acros. So would you suggest box speed on the light meter or different?. Love your videos by the way
Hi, John, I follow you for the last few months and I really love your meticulous procedures and tests. I am setting my darkroom soon after many years and you provide us with very valuable information. Only one question, I saw your test about pre-fogging paper. Is it better to go with the paper fogging before the film matching or the other way round, or is it irrelevant? Thanks again for your videos.
Hi Gianni. Thanks for your kind words. In my experience it doesn't matter if you fog before or after. Either way it adds exposure to the toe of the paper's response. As a habit I fog before though.
@Pictorial Planet thanks a lot John. I am looking forward to order your book soon.
If I were to test this the film speed on FP4 using 35mm film would the results still hold true for 4x5 sheets? I believe but could be wrong that the film base is different between the two formats. Thanks
hi gavin. I believe the film base might be different but the emulsion (that faces the light/lens) is either exactly the same or very similar so it should hold true.
That’s great! Thanks for your help
YW!
Hi Mr. Finch,
I'm fascinated, how you explain photography related matter, I'm new to this world of film photography, and I would like to ask if is ok to ask you, few clarifications about my doubt? starting with an apology in case my questions will sound silly.
I have a Mamiya r.b 6x7 as well a Bessa 1 6x9 cameras, not having the option of indicate what ISO the film is, matter?
I really like double exposure photography, and I would like to apply this particular teaching of yours, to determine, the real ISO using mainly, Ilford H.P 5 + as well Pan f with Xtol developer.
But my cameras having only 1/2 stops not 1/3 stops options, I assume, will have to divide 6/2 and not 6/3 as reference for the printing test, correct?
I take this opportunity to thank you in advance for sharing your knowledge.
regards Cesare Cantarella
Hello FP! Good to get your comment. I love your cameras having always preferring good medium format. The Bessa 1 sounds lovely! I remember having a Mamiya RB 67 many years ago in Florida. Built like a tank but dependable and lovely standard Len's. For the iso stick a piece of painters tape on the side and write the iso on it. When using half stops to assess iso always go more light than less. So if I asses that my film's iso is half a stop less than box then use 2/3 less on your meter, not 1/3.
There's no such thing as a silly question my friend.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you
let me recap to see if I get you correctly
I use 1/2 stop, and to determine the real Iso with my developer choice I divided my box speed in this case 400
In 400 - 334 - 268 - 202 - 136
and compare the strips to see where deference first appears.
Correct
Regards
Cesare
Hi John
Thanks for the awesome video!!!
After reading through the comments I have determined that the camera used and the film stock used to find my personal iso for my camera and developer combination will remain constant.......but for every batch and type of paper used after this I will have to find my maximum black using my Zone 0 (fb+f) negative. Is this correct?
The d-23 developer you used, what was the dilution and how did you determine the 8:30 min development time?
You also mention that the test prints were at Grade 2
Is that the paper grade or a grade 2 filter?
Thank you
I obtain my personal iso for film , camera, and meter with my favourite paper and just retest every so often. It's more important to obtain it for film, meter, and developer than anything else assuming your camera shutter speeds are accurate. I use a hand meter to check my camera meters are true, the hand meter being my 'reference meter' so to speak. I don't test with every batch of paper. Once you know the film speed a developer gives you it's constant for all intents. At the point of doing the personal iso test use the development time from the developer instructions or from a reliable source. The time, at that point, doesn't matter to be dead accurate because the personal iso test is a measurement of shadows which are developed in the first half of development time. The accurate personal development time is calculated in the next video.
Grade 2 filter or paper (if you have graded paper). It's the middle grade and best for testing.
The dilution is stock
Could you also test the top end to check that your development time is getting the right range of tones?
Yes, you could, but before you have your film speed right you're going to mess up the high values either under-exposing or over exposing. This, of course, will effect your development time. Best to nail down the EI first and then do development time testing with the observed EI set on the meter.
John, if I were to use a Pentax 6x7 which doesn't have exposure compensation or in-between stops, would this not be possible? I'm thinking no? As it wouldn't be able to get in between stops?
I’m pretty sure you can set the lens half way between stops. It might not click but if you feel the difference between each click you can get pretty close to exactly half a stop. Then use half stops instead of my third stops. It’ll get you a really good personal ISO.
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks for your quick reply!
Hey it's me again. I asked myself: do i really need that enlarging process? i just did that reference negative series on a roll of Agfa APX100 and developed in 510pyro. I can easyly tell a difference between the "filmbase + fog" negative and the "minus 4 stops" one. I also took a exposure of 1second without any lens on my camera body, to achieve maximum density on my negative in order to tell a difference between that one and a zone 9 negative. there was no difference, so that means my developing time of 25minutes semi stand was a bit too long. gonna reduce developing time on APX100 for about 10% according to your recommendations in your second video. do you think it could work to match film and developer (plus developing time) this way?
EDIT: okay maybe it's a bit too hard to tell any difference between a maximum density negative and a zone 9 negative. it's much easier to tell a difference between a white and not-so-white paper.
i hope my english was correct so far ;) many thanks and greetings from the black forest /germany
I think you're on the right road with your 510-pyro. It's worth the effort.
What do you do when none of your cameras have 1/3 stop shutter speeds? ISO seems to only be in 1/3.
Use half stops. See my getting the best from FX55 series.
Hello John. I have a darkroom analyser with a densitometer facility. What would the density reading for the correct exposed negative?
Hi Dennis. This is a good question. The reason is that I don't recommend using densitometer for this work. Densitometers are fine for scientific appraisals of film curves but don't take into account your paper, your paper developer, your enlarger etc etc. Therefore I recommend doing the test just as described so you can SEE the zones and measure from the observable not the theoretical. After all, it's what you see on your print that really matters.
@@PictorialPlanet Ah yes I see. Obvious when it is pointed out!
I don't have a camera with manual controls for 1/3 stop increments, but I do have exp comp in 1/3 stops. I tried testing panf 50 in d23 so I set the iso to 200 and exp comp to -2 stops to give zone 1 @50iso. I used aperture priority and proceeded to open up the compensation by 1/3 stops for about three stops. In theory this should achieve the same result, or am I missing something? Somehow my results showed that I'm achieving film speed greater than iso 50 which I seriously doubt 🤣
I always set my camera to manual to remove any chance of the camera automatic modes changing my exposure without me telling it to. Can you use half stops maybe, by using the lens aperture settings manually?
@@PictorialPlanet I think it was probably just user error haha. I do have a lens with half stops, I'll give that a go, i guess if the zone one looks a touch too light or dark I can adjust by a third stop after the fact. Thanks again for your super informative videos John!!!
Yes, give it a try with that lens, it'll be worth it! PANF with D23 will be an excellent combination once you dial in your personal ISO and personal development time.
@@PictorialPlanet yes it seems a lovely combo thus far, first negs look gorgeous and it can only get better when I've dialed it in for my process! All that huge contrast is nicely tamed with d23. I'm actually very interested in trying foma 100 with this developer, the results I've seen look stunning. I've used it in 4x5 with rodinal and that is another delightful pairing. A lot of bang for your buck either way. Cheers John
Thnks for a great video, I'm using this procedure for Fomapan 400 and Ilfosol 3. The only variation I have is in the test strips in that a long time age (Eccles) I built an enlarger timer with an 8 led countdown stage, I set the maximum time /8 for each strip, in this case 24 seconds and use the 7th. stage, it saves worrying about the enlarger lights warmup time.
ps if anyone wants a copy of the circuit I can email a pdf.
That's interesting Mike.
Great video. I need to do this to get better results with my development. In my case I'm using only 4x5. Is it an issue if I can only use 1/2 stops and not 1/3? Will need to use in between f stops on my lens.
I guess the process is the same I just need to take individual shots as you have done in the video, and develop these sheets individually with same times? I am planning on using Fomapan (both 100 and 400) with Pyrocat MC. I just came around your channel and your knowledge and ability to teach is amazing. You deserve way more views and subscribers!
1/2 stops is fine, just follow the process I describe and use your half stops instead of the 1/3 stops. Thank you for your comment!
@@PictorialPlanet But then you need to explain how to calculate the equivalent ISO for half-stops. A half-stop means exposure is increased by the square root of 2 (i.e., x1.4), whereas with a one-third stop exposure is increased by the cube root of 2 (x1.26). So from 100 ISO, a full stop increase takes you to 200 ISO (x2), a third of a stop to 126 ISO (usually rounded to 125 ISO), but half a stop to 140 ISO. Working downwards, you'd divide by the equivalent figure (so one-third of a stop down from 200 ISO is 200/1.4 = 159, usually rounded to 160 ISO. Annoyingly some cameras (e.g. Leica) have lenses adjustable in half-stops, and film speed settings in third-stops, so you have to interpolate anyway! I hope this helps someone.
@@jonathanreynolds2227 Surely there's no need for such maths, Jonathan. My whole TH-cam channel is about simplifying the complexities of film photography and distilling it down to effective things one can do to raise the bar. In fact 1/2 a stop is so near 2/3 of a stop that you wouldn't see the difference! If one finds that their developer is giving them 1/2 stop loss of film-speed then set 2/3 stop lower on the film-speed dial and you're just where you want to be. Better slightly more shadow detail than slightly less (1/3) :)
Anyway you think this can be done in a digital scanning type workflow?
No, sorry, this is purely analog methodology
Thanks very much, but I don’t see the point. With your method and clockwork development, you can determine the sensitivity of the film for one camera. Use a different camera and you can start all over again. Unless you calibrated lenses, shutter speeds, light meter. You have to repeat every thing again for pulling or pushing. Furthermore, a lot can be corrected in modern film after development.
The art of developing for the best negatives isn’t for everyone and you are welcome to your opinion and methodology in photography. I personally determine personal EI and development time using a hand held meter, film, and developer. This, I have found, gives me quality negatives that allow me to pursue my work reliably with my cameras and obtain wonderfully exposed results. Of course, I’m not the only one who does this. Many professional and great photographic artists have used this method to get the best negatives possible for printing. Good luck to you.
you searched for the max black in your test strip with 3sec increments, what if the max black was already reached with maybe 16sec? Could it be possible, that with this hypothetical 16 second test strip development time your film could have reached 100 iso?
The film ISO is not about the time that max black is reached. That is carefully calculated so that I know how long to expose the paper for when checking the negatives I took earlier - the negatives where I set the camera to record 4 stops down. Remember, max black is found on the clear negative, the one that has not been exposed at all (I had the lens cap on). Depending on your enlarger, your paper, your enlarger lens, etc, max black will be found at another time than I got.
Hi John, Many thanks for this very usefull video - as Steve Weston said in his remark : your approach very much easier and more understandable then some explained on the internet and books. I have the following question - at 7:49 you mentioned that the max black is made by 6 times 3 sec and that this needs to be remembered for the test strip - Can you explain more on this why this so important? Many thanks and very much looking forward to your new book.
Thanks for you comment Dirk. That's a good question because it's an important point. To accurately find the exposure to get maximum black from the totally blank negative we need to use multiple small exposures. In my case 6x3 seconds. However, if we just used an 18 second exposure for our subsequent test strips we would not be taking into account the enlarger bulb warm up and cool down times for the six small exposures which actually adds up to quite a bit of difference. I hope this explains that part a little better.
@@PictorialPlanet Many thanks John for your explanation - so if i understand you well an exposure of 18sec would a darker print then 6x3sec. Is this what they refer to as the intermittency issue? many thanks for all your videos - i am looking forward to learn more from you!
Yes, I believe that might be the phrase for it. I should do a video on it!
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches Hi John and Bob, I just wanted to let you know that I tested the intermittency issue - that multiple exposure give a different result then just one exposure - I tested this with an M805 enlarger - single exposure : 8 sec and multiple exposures 8 times 1 sec at a 5 sec interval. There was no difference between the two - the enlarger I used has an opal lamp of 75W but perhaps other enlargers with different lamps, which need more time to come to full brightness, could give a different result.
Good test
First: thank you very much for the video
Second: why isn't enough to take a look a the negatives? If the film isn't actually as sensitive as it should, wouldn't the first negative (the one after the hand shot) be as transparent as the lenscupon+fog one? In fact, its noticeable in your negatives, that the "supposedtobezone1" frame, is already distinguishable from the lenscupon one! Which means, i thought that the zone one was actually achieved successfully, therefor the film iso is the one actually claimed.
...heeeelp!!!
You miss the point that we are matching film, meter, and paper. It's not about just the film but at what EI does the paper show zone 1. This ties everything in together.
@@PictorialPlanet ...because the widest dynamic range we want to achieve in the end is on the paper, while printing! We arent interested in a theoretical ISO, but a practical one. I understand now, thanks John for your answer, you legend
That's perfect! Yes!! This is the key that changes everything about exposure and development. Thank you for understanding my, less than perfect, explanation.
Excellent presentation. What's the music, please?
Hi Jonathan! The music is called Shetland. It's part of Apple's Final Cut jingles and has no musicians attributed to it, sorry.
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks. Rather too good for library music!
@@jonathanreynolds2227 Thanks.
@@jonathanreynolds2227 I've always liked Apple for these things. They always provide that "added value".
Gracias.
Cheers!
Most film cameras can not set 1/3 stops. Indeed, some can't set half stops. So, talking about decreasing by 1/3 stops is great for newer electronic cameras but not much good for mechanical ones. Good explanation of the technique
Good point, Erich. I have a few as you describe. I can do half stops by moving the lens between F stops and that works but I agree. I'll write something in the video description.
@@PictorialPlanet This is a good workaround but , i use an Olympus OM-1n and have to use this method to gain half stops. How do these half stops equate to ISO? Your table equates the additional 1/3 stop over the -4 stops from correct exposure as ISO 100, the 2/3 stop over the -4 stop from correct exposure as ISO 80 etc. Half stops as i and others with older cameras and lenses can only achieve do not offer coincidence with the ISO settings on your chart , nor more importantly those available settings on camera. Does it become a matter of rounding up or down ?
Yes, you round up or down. My preference is to round down to give slightly more exposure. So if my resulting personal ISO was 1/2 stop lower than box speed I'd use 2/3 lower on my meter/camera.
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks John ,for the speedy response.
New favourite channel (except for the god-awful music!) Thanks John!
Thanks St G!