For reference, and if anybody wants to discuss.
I've made these exposures as carefully as I could and eliminated as many variables as I realistically could. While it is not scientific, and certainly not up to ISO or probably manufacturer standards, it is as accurate as I can make it with what I have available to me, and certainly accurate enough that I thought it would be share-worthy.
Each of the curve points is a correctly exposed 18 percent grey card in full stop increments using a...
Good job and thank you for sharing!!!! As I can see, you covered almost film in market, maybe you except tmx 100....
Both TX400 and Fomapan 200 (in replenished Xtol) have this steeper slope between, say, Zones II and V, after that settling into a lower slope but not shouldering. Intriguing. Would you care to comment?
Another question, do you not consider pre wash right?Simply putting developer into tankLOL... I'm working on 100TMX. The times Kodak has listed in J-109 are waaay off.
Both TX400 and Fomapan 200 (in replenished Xtol) have this steeper slope between, say, Zones II and V, after that settling into a lower slope but not shouldering. Intriguing. Would you care to comment?
Another question, do you not consider pre wash right?Simply putting developer into tank
Another question, do you not consider pre wash right?Simply putting developer into tank
Thank you for replies , i used to pre wash (shortly) only for set same temperatures between tank/film and developer
Very confusing way of presenting the data. For example, with respect to the orange line; the 0.1 log D (which is confusingly converted to stops) is shown at the number "2" So that is a contradiction, because the exposure index is defined as zone 1 being 0.1 log D.
Adrian, thanks for sharing these.
Stupid questions probably:
- where the zone reference curve is originating? do you have the data to give?
- where the ISO 400 reference is from? or is it calculated for this graph?
And even more stupid question: why X-axis is in lux-seconds in these kind of graphs? I would guess stops is more understandable unit?
I plotted all in same and converted densities to stops and lux seconds to zones for example:
View attachment 268932
Adrian I think you have typo in EI 250 row "0.400" - I think it should be 0.04 ?
Why is it confusing? It is just different scale which is more commonly used (stops and zones). Showing zones is easier to understand how the zone is represented on film. You can also see how long the film density can be in stops.
Adrians data shows "0.070 Zone 1" so that is where I picked the value.
The Y-axis in stops is of course not so useful, but I would still prefer density as stops because that is also known unit
I know this is controversial to the traditons and my post won't change anything, but I don't understand why you just claim that it is not useful just because I use other practical units..
Adrian: btw why the other measurements (orange + gray) are so much different to the blue one? And why did you measure just the toe?
If you feel that many members will find the way you charted it as useful, then feel free to post dedicated resource pages for them.
different times and/or exposure indexes.
As I said before, doing this costs time and money, and I can’t please everybody.
Of course but why such radical difference, that is quite interesting. And developing longer seems to lower the density? That cannot be correct? I have probably understood something incorrectly.
Where are you seeing less density with longer development? The 8:45 time has more density than the 7:30 time. A lot more. You’re probably not converting to stops correctly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?