12 stop film

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose/12stops.jpg

The difference between 11 and 12 is hard to see, but my scanner has less
ability to capture contrast than my paper does. Rest assured, the
difference exists.

The subject was a piece of white 24lb paper with a 1 pixel black line
printed horozontally and vertically, meeting exactly in the middle.

The film was ilford hp5+, developed in 1:9 ddx for 9 minutes. Printed on
ilford multigrade pearl paper.

The subject was shot with one stop incriments. It filled the field of view.
Starting from complete white, going all the way to complete black, I have
twelve inclusive stops.

Just like I said before.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote in news:1102627072.109704.222930
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> ?????
>
> And then what?
>
> HP5 is not significantly different from most other films. What is it
> you're trying to accomplish?

It's a demonstration that I got 12 stops out of my film. That's all.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BAE9BF293BFklotjohan@130.133.1.4:

> Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in
> news:Xns95BA7D85E1049LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159:
>
>> http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose/12stops.jpg
>
> Looks like you get any contrast to record any detail for 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8,
> i.e for 7 stops.

You can tell that 9,10,and at least 11 exist because 9 and 10 are still
different from the film base. Even if you couldn't see a difference between
11 & 12, 11 would exist as film base.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: Jon Pike Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com

>
>http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose/12stops.jpg

>The subject was shot with one stop incriments. It filled the field of view.
>Starting from complete white, going all the way to complete black, I have
>twelve inclusive stops.

Looks like you've got about 4 usable stops there. What were the exposure
settings?

I can get over 18 stops with my digital, starting at 1/8000, 1/4000, 1/2000,
etc.
The question is, "How many of them are usable?"

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JME" <Jason.ElliottNSNOVIRUS@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:215ud.50263$l%
5.1644772@news20.bellglobal.com:

> Looks more like 12 half stops, Maybe you could tell us the exact exposure
> changes used for your sequence.
> i.e. frame one 1/125 f 2.8

ugh. I'm not stupid enough to do a test like this with only half-stops.


1/ f/
11: 125 8
12: 250 8
13: 250 11
14: 250 16
etc



--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote in news:1102648361.046151.72910
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Ordinarily, one does not use anywhere near 12 stops. The print would
> look way too flat.

That depends entirely on the scene. If your scene has 12 stops difference,
then shooting, developing, and printing for 12 stops would look just right.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in
newsYbud.34996$Mu3.2376892@twister.southeast.rr.com:

> You don't have twelve stops. You've got twelve shades that would
> probably
> measure out to be in the neighbouthood of one third to one half stop
> apart.
>

Upon what do you base this rediculous claim?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

" Darrell Larose" <no@spam.here> wrote in
news:tdudnWRPrO5gMSTcRVn-1w@rogers.com:

> If you exposed a stepwedge with a densitometer you would have a more
> verifiable claim. This test is flawed as each film section only shows
> black lines on white paper
>]
> "Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95BADC4A67D88LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
>> >>From: Jon Pike Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com
>> >
>> >>http://members.shaw.ca/anonomoose/12stops.jpg
>> >>
>> >>The difference between 11 and 12 is hard to see, but my scanner has
>> >>less ability to capture contrast than my paper does. Rest assured,
>> >>the difference exists.

I'm testing the -film-, not the -paper-.

Kapeesh?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BAA22FABDD0LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159:

> You can tell that 9,10,and at least 11 exist because 9 and 10 are
> still different from the film base. Even if you couldn't see a
> difference between 11 & 12, 11 would exist as film base.
>

That you can tell the difference does not mean
that there is useful information in the picture.
Here is the data sheet for HP5+.

http://www.volny.cz/igorpodly/docki9/HP5_Plus.pdf

The density curve that Ilford shows is 10 stops.
Ater that, no curve is drawn. The density at 10
stops is 2.0. It is very possible that you can
get 12 stops. But - at a very high density and
probably at a very low quality in the lighter
parts.



/Roland

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

He also recommends you do some thinking. You failed the most important
part.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BBB127933C9LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:GOkud.35033$Mu3.2413933@twister.southeast.rr.com:
>
> > Upon 38 years worth of photography including the study of a few
> > books
> > like "The Negative". Do some reading, Ace. You wear your ignorance
> > like one of those cardboard crowns at Burger King.
> >
>
> And if you'd read that book, you'd know this is exactly the kind of test
> the author recommends.
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote in news:1102732855.562284.90420
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Place a roll of film in your camera. Take the lens off and place it on
> a tripod. Face the lensless camera toward a fairly bright light source
> (a window or something like that). Run the shutter from 1 sec to its
> highest speed in 1-stop increments. 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/15, 1/30, etc.,
> up to 1/1000 or 1/2000s.

Ever hear of "reciprocity failure"? No? Didn't think so.

This test wouldn't show anything more than the test I did. In fact, it
would show less, since it would be harder to print.


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 10 Dec 2004 20:18:04 -0800, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>1. Reciprocity failure will not be a factor in the range from 1 s to
>1/2000s

Sorry, but reciprocity failure kicks in at around a half-second or so.
Take a look at the exposure compensation charts for HP5 (the film
used), and it becomes clear that a second isn't always a second.


--
Central Maryland Photographers' Guild:
http://www.cmpg.org

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>
> What, exactly, was wrong with my tests?

Well, for starters, the characteristics curve that Ilford themselves
publish shows only 10 stops, so Ilford will be very happy to hear your
results<g>.

(I suspect that you are looking further down the toe and up the shoulder
than is considered useful for photographic imaging.)

By the way, in looking at the characteristics curves for various films in
that little spat I had with bobm, I was interested to note that ISO 400 B&W
films have by far the widest range of any of the films I looked at. In
particular, (as expected) color slide films are 5 to 6 stops, ISO 400 B&W
films are 9 to 10 stops (with longer toes and shoulders than other films),
and ISO 100 negative films (both color and B&W) tended to be 8 to 9 stops.
(These numbers acquired by putting a straightedge against the curve to
identify the linear section.)

Also by the way, a wider latitude isn't necessarily a good thing. It means
that the difference in density on the film between different zones in the
scene is a lot less, and subject tones are resolved less well. Combined with
the larger grain size of the ISO 400 films (higher noise means even worse
ability to represent tones), and it's pretty problematic stuff for quality
imaging.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote in news:1102737593.517986.43830
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> 1. Reciprocity failure will not be a factor in the range from 1 s to
> 1/2000s

Reciprocity failure IS a factor in exposures as long as 1 second.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote in news:1102742585.433917.80450
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Ok, but so what? It's the film's capability to record a certain range
> that's in question, not whether it does so without reciprocity failure.
> We could vary the light source intensity instead, if that would please
> you!

But so what?! So your "suggestion" is stupid and invalid!


--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in
news:cpe15p$isa$1@nnrp.gol.com:

>
> "Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What, exactly, was wrong with my tests?
>
> Well, for starters, the characteristics curve that Ilford themselves
> publish shows only 10 stops, so Ilford will be very happy to hear your
> results<g>.

That's not talking about my -test- at all.
Ilford doesn't show the entire curve. AND if you knew anything about b&w
film, you'd know that you can change the shape of your curve dramatically.

So, really, the question still stands, what, EXACTLY, was wrong with my -
tests-?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Annika1980 wrote:

>>From: Jon Pike Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com
>
>
>>This test wouldn't show anything more than the test I did. In fact, it
>>would show less
>
>
> I don't think that is possible.
>

Hah! Bret earns the most pithy reply of the week award.

--
John McWilliams

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Odd how everyone else uses densitometers, not a scanner and eyeballs... Mind
you the local College photo course has given up on wet darkrooms, so the
current students won't understand this either...

"Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NCuud.43$xR1.54546@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> You are not getting a full one stop difference between your shades of
grey.
> There are an infinit number of shades of grey you are getting twelve of
them
> but they are not twelve stops simply twelve shades. Film is not capable of
> showing twelve stops, paper is not capable of printing twelve stops and
> scanners are not capable of scanning twelve stops - to say nothing of
> monitors being incapable of showing twelve stops.
>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95BBB4AA7ECB1LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> > "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:Lgrud.61$hc7.23794
> > @twister.southeast.rr.com:
> >
> > > He also recommends you do some thinking. You failed the most
> important
> > > part.
> > >
> >
> > What, exactly, was wrong with my tests?
> >
> > --
> > http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.photography,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You aren't listening. You aren't hearing. Re-read your book - or better
yet get a Kodak publication on the subject and read it.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Jon Pike" <Anonomoose@spamlesshotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95BBEAA68DF46LessThanPerfectInc@24.71.223.159...
> "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote in
> news:NCuud.43$xR1.54546@twister.southeast.rr.com:
>
> > You are not getting a full one stop difference between your shades of
> > grey. There are an infinit number of shades of grey you are getting
> > twelve of them but they are not twelve stops simply twelve shades.
> > Film is not capable of showing twelve stops,
>
> Where's your proof of this?
> This film was exposed to twelve different stops, and it shows them all.
>
> --
> http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet