|
|
 | | Author | |
|
| | Date | |
|
|
|
|
John Hannon |
13:16 8 Nov 07 |
|
|
Jorge Gasteazoro. |
19:05 8 Nov 07 |
|
  |
Re: Using a flash for testing. |
|
Ben Wilbur |
15:13 8 Nov 07 |
 |
Jorge: And all who responded to Jorge's idea/suggestion.
Guy's, I'm from Missouri,but really aren't we just looking at a novel way of testing. The real issue is to get the test curves to fall properly and I fail to see how using a different light source eliminates the problem of getting the right amount of light on the film. What's really happening, at least in my mind, is that we're trying to find the proper balance of time of exposure and EV# to meet the goal. Aren't we really saying that we need to find the "energy" (ie- time X EV)to expose the film. In the case of one Phil's published examples, say for Tmax 100, exposed at EV 4 for .4 sec, can anyone really duplicate his result. Meters are good to 1/3 stop. Even if you use a Z-6 meter, reported to be accurate to 1/6 stop, is your light source just as intense as Phil's or even your timer as accurate? Although Jorge's idea is rather novel, I fail to see how one would eliminate the need to first "experiment" with any light source set-up to determine what exposure is needed. Once "calibrated" for any film/developer combo, it should be repeatable regardless of the light source. Comments? Ben
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don Bryant |
19:22 25 Dec 07 |
|
|
Jorge Gasteazoro. |
20:19 25 Dec 07 |
|
|
Don Bryant |
16:15 27 Dec 07 |
|
|
Barry Wilkinson |
3:03 28 Dec 07 |
|
|
Steve Nicholls |
15:59 28 Dec 07 |
|
|
Barry Wilkinson |
2:11 29 Dec 07 |
|
|
Steve Nicholls |
2:49 29 Dec 07 |
|
