Thanks for posting that.
Anything else in the ISO specs to be aware of. I suspect the spectrum of the EG&G is compatible. How about exposure duration, are you using 1/1000? How do they specify the developer, brand name or composition? Is there an allowable deviation or +/- range in the standard?
Many of the changes to ISO 6 was to bring it more in line more with real world usage. It eliminated the ISO developer. Some might remember that TMX and TMY didn't have ISOs when they were first released. T-grain films didn't do well under the ISO developer. Kodak tested the Tmax films using D-76. Kodak couldn't release the Tmax films with ISO speeds because the speeds resulting from the ISO developer wouldn't represent the results obtained from most general purpose developers. I believe this motivated the change in the standard. According to ISO 6, manufacturers can use any developer and any method of development they want. They are supposed to note it in accompanying literature (which most don't).
The EG&G has is balanced to daylight. Interestingly, the 1960 standard changed from sunlight to daylight which changed the film speed constant. Under sunlight, it would have been 1 as in 1/Hm, but the increased level of blue with daylight caused the constant to be adjusted to 0.8 (0.8/Hm). This is a perfect example of how controlled scientific testing conditions can produce the same results as from real world usage.
I just double checked ISO 6 and it now says that speeds "may be determined using ISO sensitometric daylight, studio tungsten, or photoflood illuminants. Since the speed of film/process combinations will depend on the type of illuminant used for determining ISO speed, the illuminant should be specified in use instructions." Good luck finding those.
I always use the 10^-4 setting because 1/1000 sec is within a regular range of use and the illumination was low enough. For some reason EG&G had 3440 mcs at 1/100 sec and 59.4 mcs at 1/1000 sec. I would then use filters to bring the illuminance down to a more usable range. The ISO standard has it as between 5 sec and 1/1000 sec.
Temperature is something many don't consider. Latent image regression increases with higher temperatures. That's why you are supposed to store control strips in the freezer or fridge. The standard has the test to be held at 23 degrees C +- 2 degrees at a relative humidity of 50% +- 5%.
How much do you think this affects gamma? For a routine development time control strip, OK to fire off the test strip and process right away?
The film gradient is supposed to also drop some. With the lab work, I would take the Kodak control strip out of the freezer and hold it for one hour before processing. With the sensitometric tests, I would hold them for two hours after exposing them.
To answer Ralph's question about keeping the test data from the latent image test, I wish I did. That was before my programs and I did all paper plots. It was easy to misplace them or simply throw them out because they were talking up too much room. The beauty of the developing part of that test is that I was using a Refrema dip-and-dunk which held 10 sheets. I loaded nine sheets and just before it took the rack, I exposure the 30 second sheet and literally loaded it while the rack was being picked up. It's not something one can do with a Jobo.
What is important to take away from this test is to have a reasonable hold time and be consistent with in in your testing if you want consistent results. Being aware of the need for a hold time probably comes first though (something Adams never mentioned).
Last and OFF TOPIC: You are one of the few here that has sent their EG&G to be measured/calibrated. When you do an ISO test and the results differ from the box speed what is your response? Calibration off? Error in testing conditions? Bad film? or "I wouldn't even try to exactly duplicate ISO conditions"
When I did it for the labs, we were processing in seasoned chemistry. I never expected the speeds to be optimum. But if I had a question, I would retest. It wasn't my money so I could be as anal as I wanted. Everyday, I'd run a morning Kodak control strip and a sensitometric test on 4x5 TMX. Control strips were made on TMY. Different films will react differently to changes. I'd see the control strip's speed drop while the TMX remained consistent. The TMX "wedge" could also be used to gauge consistency of the sensitometer's exposure. At one point when we were running tons of film, the wedges were dead on the same day to day.
One interesting example came from HP5-Plus in T-Max RS. The RS was rather active and would achieve normal (CI 0.58) at around 3 minutes. The very short development time would produce effective film speeds of around 100. For unexpected results like those, I can tell you there was more than a single retest involved. This finding eventually lead to modifying the RS and then ditching it the moment Xtol came on the scene.
ISO conditions aren't that far off from normal conditions except for the precision in exposure in order to get knowable and repeatable exposures. Believe it or not, the EG&G sensitometer doesn't conform to the ISO standards. It has an intermittent system for the exposure (flash). ISO states a non-intermittent system. I once had a yelling match with some jerk at Kodak over the precision of an intermittent system.
From Ralph
Very interesting! First, I was surprised to see this rapid of a loss, but thinking about it (and apart from 30 s), it's not that big of a deal.
I like to take these results and apply them conceptually to reciprocity failure. With long, low energy exposures, you can imagine the loss of speed as the latent image in the shadows keeps regressing before receiving sufficient exposure to stabilize it.
And then some. A drop from EI 71 to 65 is a bit more than 1/10 stop. My margin of error (considering measurement, shutter and aperture inaccuracies, and all processing errors) is far higher! I'm glad to be within 1/3 stop.
As Ralph can tell you, that is why film is rounded to the nearest 1/3 stop and ISO film speeds aren't determined from a single test, but from multiple tests over a period of months using film from a number of batches. The biggest problem when using a calibrated sensitometer and a small sample population is when the speeds fall close to the rounding point - an 89 would round to 80 and 91 would round to 100. With a densitometer only as accurate as +- 0.01, it can become anyone's guess in any one test.
