I wasn't really planning on doing any hard core film comparisons with the
test- just basically wanted to see if my shutter and lens and lightmeter
are giving me close to the density that I am hoping to achieve when I make
an exposure. Also, I was hoping to plot the curves using a few different
development times to visualize the effects of plus and minus times.
Since my negs are destined to be scanned, and corrected, and ultimately
digitallly printed on film for contact printing, if my results are a 1/10
stop off here or there, I could probably still sleep!
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:36:39PM -0500, Sandy King wrote:
> Etienne wrote:
>
> >
> >As an abstract exercise (especially for someone who, like me, occasionally
> >whips up his or her own negative emulsion for fun), it's interesting to
> >know what the film does, on its own. But when I load my holders, I'm after
> >the most direct understanding of what my negatives are going to look like
> >when they come out of the Jobo, and rolling all of the relevant practical
> >factors into the material characterization gives me this.
> >
>
>
> But my point is not that practical testing in the camera is not
> relevant, but simply that it is invalid as a means of comparing EFS
> of different films. For that you need a system with a common light
> source and some control that permits repeatable exposures to an
> accuracy of about 1/10 of a stop.
>
> Sandy
>
Received on Thu Nov 11 20:48:18 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:33 AM Z CST