Very interesting, I might even give this dev a try when my d23 runs out! I was wondering if you've heard Bruce Barnbaum talking about placing shadows on zone IV instead of the usual zone iii placement. He explained that the zone iv placement actually gives better contrast due to a higher quantity of the total density occurring on the straight line portion of the film. He says the print quality with this method is optimal. I'd like to test this for myself some time.
@@PictorialPlanet yes I thought you would find it interesting, I have no idea if there is merit to it, I'm guessing you're probably well versed in plotting h&d etc so maybe you can make heads or taps of it 🙂 Either way thanks, as always!
John put me onto this developer more than a year ago as I was looking for one that a/wasn't reliant on supply from Kodak/Ilford, b/was economical, c/similar to X-tol and d/was close to box speed. It ticks all the boxes. A splendid developer! Thank you, John!!
I almost managed to achieve this process today with hp5+ my Canon eos30 and d-76 1:1. My camera uses 1/3 stops for ISO but is limited to half stop increments for shutter and aperture (whether in manual mode or even if the camera is in aperture priority) I prefer this newer method of yours verses the one you posted a year ago. If i understand correctly by opening up in half stops using the shutter and/or aperture I'd be effectively locating my best ISO in half stops increments so choosing from 200 280 400 560 etc and then making an educated guess to choose my third stop ISO setting. My patience for today is done but I feel confident I'l get this sorted next time!
Good job giving it a shot! You are quite right about the half stops and the educated guess to convert to thirds. I usually go down in iso to the nearest third to add a tad more to the shadows.
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks again and glad my questions didn't seem pedantic. I now have a firm grasp and will succeed next time. The manual confirms the eos30 can't be switched to 1/3 stops and I won't be upgrading to a pro body just for this feature! I'll work the process then take an educated guess and err on the lower side like you suggest...
Good explanations as always, John. I was intrigued to see your four grain magnifiers around your enlarger: the normal three -- and a pair of binoculars. Best wishes.
Very informative video, as usual. FWIW, when exposing the film for Zone I, I was taught to use a very dark gray or black card because light meters aren't necessarily linear. The dark/black card more closely mimics deep shadow values where the lower tonal range lies. Also, I do the test with the card in open shade on a cloudless day at noon to ensure that the intensity of the light doesn't change over the course of the exposure series.
Important point about the light not changing as you take the set of test shots, good call. The black card I'm not too sure if. I would think the meter is most accurate in the middle of its range to using it at the ends of its range (black or very dark card) would not be as 'spot on'. However, these modern spot meters are probably far more accurate than those of old which work well within the tolerance of film/developer/paper anyways. An interesting idea, Alan.
@@PictorialPlanet Though it was never explained to me why use a dark/black card, I think your point of 'spot on' might exactly the point: meter 'error' is probably more relevant at the ends of the range, as you said. Therefore, the use of a dark card more closely matches the deep shadow values one would be metering in the field.
17:42 if this was black on both sides but the next negative along that strip gave you a difference in tones at half a stop slower (140 IS0 i think) Would you be setting your camera meter to 125 o 160 seeing as its locked into THIRD stops?
Great question. I would set my camera at 125. It's always better to give a little more light than not enough. With the next test, that of working out development time, we automatically compensate for this slight bit more light.
Thank you, John. I live far north where daylight is short and dim for much of the year, so a speed-enhancing developer that I can mix from scratch appeals greatly to me. XTOL is nice but comes in too large of a batch size for me, as I just ca't use it up while it is fresh. Also, I wonder if there might be any benefit instead of 1+9 of doubling or tripling the amount of water in the final mixture of FX55, to see if it becomes a more compensating developer such as XTOL 1+1 or DDX 1+9 or D76 1+3.
Hi David. This is a great developer. Crawley never talked about diluting the developer any more than the said 1+9 + dry ingredients so I want to explore this option in later episodes. Although I've used this developer for a long time I have not tried further dilution up till now.
@@PictorialPlanet I did two test rolls with 1+19 and 4 inversions/3 min, and got lovely results both time. I also tested ISO with your technique and got 200 ISO for Fomapan 100/FX55 and ISO 800 for Hp5+/FX55 (using a recently calibrated spot meter). I also did one test with 1+29, and my results were not good.
what was the the settings for developing the test strip negative you used, I realize you posted another video about how to adjust the developing time based on this test, but what was the developing time of your bench mark?
Before we can find our developing time for zone 9, we have to know the film speed in the particular developer we are using. To ascertain the film speed with your particular developer start by using the standard development time with that film, that is the time published by the manufacturer for that film. If there is no time published for your film, then try using the massive dev chart. This development time for finding your film speed will eventually change when we find our zone nine setting but for finding our true film speed this is ok.
Good question. Our film speed test was done using zone 1. This zone is so close to zone zero that it's locked in place. It doesn't really change with development time. If we'd used zone 3 for our speed test the development time adjustments would change the zone and we'd have to re-test but zone 1 is so low that it doesn't matter. Very good question.
Always enjoy your work - quite a surprise with the ISO. I do have a couple of questions! Why not expose for the entire 24 seconds in one go rather than 8X3sec? Why not go one additional stop and expose for zone zero. Then compare each image directly with the base+fog baseline shot? This way you would not need an enlarger. What am I missing? Many Thanks again
24 seconds in one go is not the same as 8x3. Each time we switch on the enlarger bulb there's warm up and cool down time, both different lengths of time, and if we used 24 seconds there'd only be one warm up and cool down time. Using zone zero is interesting. I've never done it that way. Let me know how you get on with that. I suppose you'd work down the tests until you started to see a difference and then know the last one was the EI you were obtaining? I guess you'd do one more test than necessary using this shown technique?
G'day John - a quickie! Is the Part B of FX-55 weight held at a constant per the formula or is it a variable proportion of the Part A volume - when the volume is either more or less than 1000ml mixed 1:9? Thanks, Fred
Variable proportion. For instance, for 1 Litre of Part A diluted (100+900) we add 1.3g Sodium ascorbate and 0.1g Phenidone. For 500ml Part A diluted (50+450) we add 0.65g sodium ascorbate and 0.05g phenidone - half the amount for half the amount of working developer.
Hello John, after my first trials with FX-55 and HP5+ I did some test negatives on HP5+ with the aim to determine the effective ASA sensitivity. The results suggest that I got around ASA 200 - which seems rather too low to me. I was hoping for around 500-640 (similar to other ascobat based developers). Out of curiosity: Did you happen to use FX-55 on HP5+ in the past with similar results? BTW, I really do enjoy your channel. I am pretty sure that your knowledge is helping many new darkroom users to get good results from the start. Thumps up!
Thank you for your kind comment. I am surprised by your test result with HP5+ too. I have not tested HP5 but would expect at least box and quite likely +1/3 to +2/3 of a stop increase but I underline that I haven't personally tested it. Your speed is more akin to D23. Crawley himself said to expect an increase in EI of 0.5 to 1 EV depending on film. Is it possible that some chemical/s might have been tired?
Neither of my 35mm SLRs have half or third stops on shutter or aperture (I could declick aperture on a spare lens maybe). One does aperture priority with off the film metering (OM4ti), so I'm thinking I could literally just adjust ISO instead dial (which has 1/3rd stops), to scew the netering?
Use half stops. Even though your lens only clicks on full stops you can position it half way between the clicks for half stops. You can't use aperture priority, or any automatic function, and should switch to fully manual mode for these tests.
Also please @ 11.48 what does : (stopping down enlarger lens 3 stops+grade 2 filter + density 10 + 3 second exposure time) translates to analog/digital scanning to find zone 0, If I use my (scanning Olympus camera/macro zuiko lens/copystand at a fixed hight/light box at a constant daylight LED) how do I set my scanning to proper exposure to mark my zone 0 that will match or close to your enlarger analog setting? In a sense , how to find my RGB 0,0,0 in Lightroom of the scanned zone 0 frame?
I think it could be this and please correct me and guide me if I was wrong: I get my film and frame of zone 0 on the Lightbox , lock my scanning camera hight , my scanning camera ISO to native 200 ISO (best results for Oly), lens f stop to give the best scanning resolution ( f8, light is ample from light box) , exposure to zero reflective in camera ( I will be using the same camera for scanning all the time), turn the lens of scanning camera to infinity, frame fully zone 0 frame, should give me 18% grey in LightRoom, then close down exposure by increasing speed in 1 stop increments, until I reach 0,0,0 in LR , then back off one stop and increase in 1/3 increments to fine tune until reaching 0,0,0 and lock the scanning settings for FB+fog?
@@PictorialPlanet I read the article, I have a reservation on entering another variable to discern the difference which is THE PRINTER, even if he zeroed all the settings it is nonetheless a variable he relied on for reading, I would think if the printer picked up a difference, it should be detected easier in LR by simply putting the cursor on the image and read what RGB is, that is more accurate cancelling that extra variable ( printer, inks, paper , paper profile, …etc) and will fine tune much better zone 1 from 0, I will attempt at doing it , will post it when done and all the credit goes to the giants you told the writer about if I succeed.
John - love your videos. I was wondering if you had used FX-55 with HP5+ and if so what ISO you achieved. My result was disconcertingly slow at around 125…..certainly below 200, using 15mins @20C as a starting point. I cannot see anything I did wrong, but i know that different films can behave very differently in terms of actual vs. box speed….maybe I should just switch to FP4+ based on your findings! I was using the bond method with a Stouffer wedge and a 4x5 camera/film, but I don’t see that this should influence the result. Any insights or thoughts would be much appreciated!
You do not discuss shutter calibration. My MX shutter runs slow, A slow shutter would allow more light onto the negative hence give an apparent increase in ISO?
Neville, I suggest you get your MX serviced. Such a good camera! I once sold an MX I had and missed it so much I bought a replacement within 6 months. It's worth spending the money on. Classic camera!!
Hi John. I think I learned something tonight that has been frustrating me with this “working ISO “ concept. Sometimes I’d change the ISO a third of a step on my camera meter but the f stop would still display the same reading. It was confusing. Then tonight I used the handheld spot meter and found that one was 5.63 and the other was 5.67 but the camera was displaying just 5.6. So then I played with the bracketing and even though the camera is able to do 0.3EV brackets (which I think it can) the numbers in the display were not accurate to 0.3EV and just rounded up or down. If this is true then it would be difficult to transfer these numbers from a hand held to manual camera for accurate settings In addition I think I’m having the opposite result as your FX55 HP4 combo and I think my 400 speed film is performing less than 200 in HC 110 dilution 1/2B. And I think it’s true because my first “let’s just see what happens rolls” had no shadow detail blown highlights, and were grainy. Even though I was shooting at box speed it was behaving like it was pushed. Thank you for all you do I’m learning lots
I've been wondering if there's a digital scanning version of this process (and the subsequent development time workflow), based on a consistant setting to scan and then analysis of the histogram (I don't think my own monitor would be reliable for determining max black vs zone 1). Anyone seen such a thing written up?
This is very good and might help you: photieplace.wordpress.com/2023/04/02/hacking-the-personal-iso-pt-1/ And photieplace.wordpress.com/2023/04/08/hacking-the-personal-iso-pt-2/
I c an imagine what the Editor would have said if the Lads in the 'Brentwood Gazette' darkroom did this before going out to shoot St Martins School Summer fete or a Charity Cheque Presentation by The Mayor if Brentwood --- Ha ha !
Impressive indeed. But we need to keep in mind that speed isn't the whole story in a film-developer combination. I would even dare to say that, for films that are inherently slow(ish), speed isn't all that important. It's the shape of the H-D curve, sharpness, acutance, grain character etc, and above all, how the results look. If they look great, then a boost in speed is just a nice bonus. So, I'm looking forward to the next installments of this series.
It will be interesting to see if highlights have a full range of zones perceivable, of cause there's a limit to how much testing can be done without becoming bogged down chasing the ultimate and as far as I know FP4 is the only film advised by Ilford in their range, that can actually record nine stops, so that sort of indicates that detail will be retrievable throughout an individual negative, depending upon fine tuning development time. All fascinating stuff and so well explained, thanks John.
@@TrashTheLens I agree for most use cases film speed will indeed be a secondary consideration. If you happened to miss the last episode, John showed a some very compelling results from this film/developer combo. At this stage it would appear fp4 plus developed in fx55 is quite impressive across the board. Likewise I'm very much looking forward to the next videos!
The point of this video is not to get more film speed but rather to get accurate film speed. A big difference. Every film / developer combination gives its own film speed. Without knowing that you don't know your exposure.
How would you define the difference between gaining film speed with a developer and pushing a film? To me they just sound the same. In other words: how do you know that you did not push it to 200?
Because film speed is measured by the shadows while pushing loses shadows. Every developer affects the film speed of the film differently. Some increase the sensitivity of the film, some decrease the sensitivity. Film speed is a real measurement of how the film can react to darker zones, pushing is nothing to do with film speed being just artificially upping iso to the detriment of shadows, highlights, and tonality. They are completely different.
@peinmilan so FX55 makes FP4 2/3 of a stop more sensitive to light. As an example, let's say I used D76 developer which gives FP4 around box speed of iso125. So if I shoot the film with the objective of developing with D76 I should set 125 on my meter. What this means is if I measure a shadow and place it in zone 3 then the film will expose it as zone 3. My meter is reading accurately for the film/developer combination at iso125. Now let's push the film one stop. I set 250 on my meter and measure that shadow and place it in zone 3 BUT it's not in zone 3, it's being underexposed by a stop because of the iso set on the meter. Remember, D76 gives box speed of iso125, not 250 that's on the meter. Pushing by a stop has under exposed the film by a stop. The shadows are under exposed, the highlights are under exposed. To compensate for the underexposed highlights I need to develop for longer in my D76, raising the shadows back up a stop. The shadows don't go up, they can't, they are still under exposed a stop. What I end up with is a pushed film with black shadows and a stretched tonality up to the highlights. Now take FX55. This developer is naturally increasing the sensitivity of the film to 200 so when I set my meter to 200 and measure my shadows and place them in zone three they are in zone 3. They are not being underexposed at all. And I give normal development, not extended, which gives normal contrast and normal tonality.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you. Very well explained. So you are arguing that it's not possible to push a film without losing its tonal range. And the box speed is giving the maximum tonal range according to the manufacturer. I can accept this approach. When you tested Zone 9, you mentioned that it might even go up to 250 (or may I add who knows even 320?) Is there a scientific way to say exactly what is the maximum you can achieve with a certain developer / film (/temperature / dilution / ...) combination?
@peinmilan It's the zone 1 test that shows what film speed you are getting with a film/developer combination. That's the test that shows the sensitivity of the film to light and if the particular developer increases that sensitivity or lowers it. D23 gives me an iso of 80 with FP4, thus it lowers the real world ISO of the film. FX15, another Crawley developer, gives me iso 160. This means, in real world use, to give me the same zone 1 on my paper, i need to set iso80 on my meter if I'm going to develop in D23 or 160 if I'm going to develop in FX15. It's important to understand that it's zone 1, the almost black zone. This zone is where the film is *just* starting to react to the light so it's the zone that shows us how sensitive the film is in that developer. The box speed is describing the film speed that the manufacturer got in their own test developer, which they do not reveal but I think is similar to D76. There's no scientific way of telling what the *maximum* film speed you might get. I demonstrate as good a scientific way without using a densitometer. Some people use a densitometer but don't improve on the method I show - which btw is more real-world than the densitometer. Finally, just want to mention the zone 9 test. This test shows how long to develop the film to get an accurate zone 9 (Just off white) highlight value. This test must be done after finding your zone 1 film speed, you have to expose the film correctly first! By knowing how long to develop the film for we can then correctly expose and process our film to maximise the full tonal range. There's no doubt that photographs jump up in quality once these test results are applied.
Very interesting, I might even give this dev a try when my d23 runs out!
I was wondering if you've heard Bruce Barnbaum talking about placing shadows on zone IV instead of the usual zone iii placement.
He explained that the zone iv placement actually gives better contrast due to a higher quantity of the total density occurring on the straight line portion of the film. He says the print quality with this method is optimal. I'd like to test this for myself some time.
Interesting. I've written this down as a possible future test for the channel.
@@PictorialPlanet yes I thought you would find it interesting, I have no idea if there is merit to it, I'm guessing you're probably well versed in plotting h&d etc so maybe you can make heads or taps of it 🙂
Either way thanks, as always!
John put me onto this developer more than a year ago as I was looking for one that a/wasn't reliant on supply from Kodak/Ilford, b/was economical, c/similar to X-tol and d/was close to box speed. It ticks all the boxes. A splendid developer! Thank you, John!!
Very pleased you like it, Robert.
Really enjoying this FX-55 series John. I wish you well.
Thank you, Dave!
I almost managed to achieve this process today with hp5+ my Canon eos30 and d-76 1:1. My camera uses 1/3 stops for ISO but is limited to half stop increments for shutter and aperture (whether in manual mode or even if the camera is in aperture priority) I prefer this newer method of yours verses the one you posted a year ago. If i understand correctly by opening up in half stops using the shutter and/or aperture I'd be effectively locating my best ISO in half stops increments so choosing from 200 280 400 560 etc and then making an educated guess to choose my third stop ISO setting. My patience for today is done but I feel confident I'l get this sorted next time!
Good job giving it a shot! You are quite right about the half stops and the educated guess to convert to thirds. I usually go down in iso to the nearest third to add a tad more to the shadows.
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks again and glad my questions didn't seem pedantic. I now have a firm grasp and will succeed next time. The manual confirms the eos30 can't be switched to 1/3 stops and I won't be upgrading to a pro body just for this feature! I'll work the process then take an educated guess and err on the lower side like you suggest...
Good explanations as always, John. I was intrigued to see your four grain magnifiers around your enlarger: the normal three -- and a pair of binoculars. Best wishes.
Lol 😂 when I focus I really focus 🙈
Very informative video, as usual. FWIW, when exposing the film for Zone I, I was taught to use a very dark gray or black card because light meters aren't necessarily linear. The dark/black card more closely mimics deep shadow values where the lower tonal range lies. Also, I do the test with the card in open shade on a cloudless day at noon to ensure that the intensity of the light doesn't change over the course of the exposure series.
Important point about the light not changing as you take the set of test shots, good call. The black card I'm not too sure if. I would think the meter is most accurate in the middle of its range to using it at the ends of its range (black or very dark card) would not be as 'spot on'. However, these modern spot meters are probably far more accurate than those of old which work well within the tolerance of film/developer/paper anyways. An interesting idea, Alan.
@@PictorialPlanet Though it was never explained to me why use a dark/black card, I think your point of 'spot on' might exactly the point: meter 'error' is probably more relevant at the ends of the range, as you said. Therefore, the use of a dark card more closely matches the deep shadow values one would be metering in the field.
Fascinating! You got me thinking.
Great stuff.
17:42 if this was black on both sides but the next negative along that strip gave you a difference in tones at half a stop slower (140 IS0 i think) Would you be setting your camera meter to 125 o 160 seeing as its locked into THIRD stops?
Great question. I would set my camera at 125. It's always better to give a little more light than not enough. With the next test, that of working out development time, we automatically compensate for this slight bit more light.
Thank you, John. I live far north where daylight is short and dim for much of the year, so a speed-enhancing developer that I can mix from scratch appeals greatly to me. XTOL is nice but comes in too large of a batch size for me, as I just ca't use it up while it is fresh.
Also, I wonder if there might be any benefit instead of 1+9 of doubling or tripling the amount of water in the final mixture of FX55, to see if it becomes a more compensating developer such as XTOL 1+1 or DDX 1+9 or D76 1+3.
Hi David. This is a great developer. Crawley never talked about diluting the developer any more than the said 1+9 + dry ingredients so I want to explore this option in later episodes. Although I've used this developer for a long time I have not tried further dilution up till now.
@@PictorialPlanet I did two test rolls with 1+19 and 4 inversions/3 min, and got lovely results both time. I also tested ISO with your technique and got 200 ISO for Fomapan 100/FX55 and ISO 800 for Hp5+/FX55 (using a recently calibrated spot meter). I also did one test with 1+29, and my results were not good.
Very interesting, David! Thanks for sharing this data.
Hi David. Any further thoughts on using this developer at 1+19? Did you continue to use it so?
Great work yet again. Could you speculate on the possible speed boost for HP5+?
No, I really couldn't. Every film developer combination is different.
what was the the settings for developing the test strip negative you used, I realize you posted another video about how to adjust the developing time based on this test, but what was the developing time of your bench mark?
Before we can find our developing time for zone 9, we have to know the film speed in the particular developer we are using. To ascertain the film speed with your particular developer start by using the standard development time with that film, that is the time published by the manufacturer for that film. If there is no time published for your film, then try using the massive dev chart. This development time for finding your film speed will eventually change when we find our zone nine setting but for finding our true film speed this is ok.
@@PictorialPlanet thank you very much, I took note.
@@PictorialPlanetHi，John。If we use the developing time which we found in Zone 9 test to redo the iso test, are we going to get the true iso 200 again?
Good question. Our film speed test was done using zone 1. This zone is so close to zone zero that it's locked in place. It doesn't really change with development time. If we'd used zone 3 for our speed test the development time adjustments would change the zone and we'd have to re-test but zone 1 is so low that it doesn't matter. Very good question.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you very much, I really learn a lot from your channel , that is great help for me.
Always enjoy your work - quite a surprise with the ISO. I do have a couple of questions! Why not expose for the entire 24 seconds in one go rather than 8X3sec? Why not go one additional stop and expose for zone zero. Then compare each image directly with the base+fog baseline shot? This way you would not need an enlarger. What am I missing?
Many Thanks again
24 seconds in one go is not the same as 8x3. Each time we switch on the enlarger bulb there's warm up and cool down time, both different lengths of time, and if we used 24 seconds there'd only be one warm up and cool down time. Using zone zero is interesting. I've never done it that way. Let me know how you get on with that. I suppose you'd work down the tests until you started to see a difference and then know the last one was the EI you were obtaining? I guess you'd do one more test than necessary using this shown technique?
@@PictorialPlanet Many thanks - Yes forgot about the enlarger warmup time! I'll give the zone zero a go and let you know.
G'day John - a quickie! Is the Part B of FX-55 weight held at a constant per the formula or is it a variable proportion of the Part A volume - when the volume is either more or less than 1000ml mixed 1:9? Thanks, Fred
Variable proportion. For instance, for 1 Litre of Part A diluted (100+900) we add 1.3g Sodium ascorbate and 0.1g Phenidone. For 500ml Part A diluted (50+450) we add 0.65g sodium ascorbate and 0.05g phenidone - half the amount for half the amount of working developer.
Hello John, after my first trials with FX-55 and HP5+ I did some test negatives on HP5+ with the aim to determine the effective ASA sensitivity. The results suggest that I got around ASA 200 - which seems rather too low to me. I was hoping for around 500-640 (similar to other ascobat based developers). Out of curiosity: Did you happen to use FX-55 on HP5+ in the past with similar results? BTW, I really do enjoy your channel. I am pretty sure that your knowledge is helping many new darkroom users to get good results from the start. Thumps up!
Thank you for your kind comment. I am surprised by your test result with HP5+ too. I have not tested HP5 but would expect at least box and quite likely +1/3 to +2/3 of a stop increase but I underline that I haven't personally tested it. Your speed is more akin to D23. Crawley himself said to expect an increase in EI of 0.5 to 1 EV depending on film. Is it possible that some chemical/s might have been tired?
It is feasible to use a in camera centre weight meter by filling the frame to do this test?
Yes, perfectly ok to do that. Before I had a spot meter I filled the frame and used center weighted.
Neither of my 35mm SLRs have half or third stops on shutter or aperture (I could declick aperture on a spare lens maybe). One does aperture priority with off the film metering (OM4ti), so I'm thinking I could literally just adjust ISO instead dial (which has 1/3rd stops), to scew the netering?
Use half stops. Even though your lens only clicks on full stops you can position it half way between the clicks for half stops. You can't use aperture priority, or any automatic function, and should switch to fully manual mode for these tests.
Also please @ 11.48 what does : (stopping down enlarger lens 3 stops+grade 2 filter + density 10 + 3 second exposure time) translates to analog/digital scanning to find zone 0, If I use my (scanning Olympus camera/macro zuiko lens/copystand at a fixed hight/light box at a constant daylight LED) how do I set my scanning to proper exposure to mark my zone 0 that will match or close to your enlarger analog setting? In a sense , how to find my RGB 0,0,0 in Lightroom of the scanned zone 0 frame?
I think it could be this and please correct me and guide me if I was wrong:
I get my film and frame of zone 0 on the Lightbox , lock my scanning camera hight , my scanning camera ISO to native 200 ISO (best results for Oly), lens f stop to give the best scanning resolution ( f8, light is ample from light box) , exposure to zero reflective in camera ( I will be using the same camera for scanning all the time), turn the lens of scanning camera to infinity, frame fully zone 0 frame, should give me 18% grey in LightRoom, then close down exposure by increasing speed in 1 stop increments, until I reach 0,0,0 in LR , then back off one stop and increase in 1/3 increments to fine tune until reaching 0,0,0 and lock the scanning settings for FB+fog?
This will help I hope:
photieplace.wordpress.com/2023/04/02/hacking-the-personal-iso-pt-1/
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you very much for the link.
@@PictorialPlanet I read the article, I have a reservation on entering another variable to discern the difference which is THE PRINTER, even if he zeroed all the settings it is nonetheless a variable he relied on for reading, I would think if the printer picked up a difference, it should be detected easier in LR by simply putting the cursor on the image and read what RGB is, that is more accurate cancelling that extra variable ( printer, inks, paper , paper profile, …etc) and will fine tune much better zone 1 from 0, I will attempt at doing it , will post it when done and all the credit goes to the giants you told the writer about if I succeed.
John - love your videos. I was wondering if you had used FX-55 with HP5+ and if so what ISO you achieved. My result was disconcertingly slow at around 125…..certainly below 200, using 15mins @20C as a starting point. I cannot see anything I did wrong, but i know that different films can behave very differently in terms of actual vs. box speed….maybe I should just switch to FP4+ based on your findings! I was using the bond method with a Stouffer wedge and a 4x5 camera/film, but I don’t see that this should influence the result. Any insights or thoughts would be much appreciated!
Hi, interesting series with FX looking like a fairly easy developer to make at home. Have you speed tested this developer with other popular films?
No, I'm hoping some of my viewers will. It would not surprise me though if most films showed a speed gain.
You do not discuss shutter calibration. My MX shutter runs slow, A slow shutter would allow more light onto the negative hence give an apparent increase in ISO?
Neville, I suggest you get your MX serviced. Such a good camera! I once sold an MX I had and missed it so much I bought a replacement within 6 months. It's worth spending the money on. Classic camera!!
Hi John. I think I learned something tonight that has been frustrating me with this “working ISO “ concept.
Sometimes I’d change the ISO a third of a step on my camera meter but the f stop would still display the same reading. It was confusing. Then tonight I used the handheld spot meter and found that one was 5.63 and the other was 5.67 but the camera was displaying just 5.6. So then I played with the bracketing and even though the camera is able to do 0.3EV brackets (which I think it can) the numbers in the display were not accurate to 0.3EV and just rounded up or down. If this is true then it would be difficult to transfer these numbers from a hand held to manual camera for accurate settings
In addition I think I’m having the opposite result as your FX55 HP4 combo and I think my 400 speed film is performing less than 200 in HC 110 dilution 1/2B. And I think it’s true because my first “let’s just see what happens rolls” had no shadow detail blown highlights, and were grainy. Even though I was shooting at box speed it was behaving like it was pushed.
Thank you for all you do I’m learning lots
I've been wondering if there's a digital scanning version of this process (and the subsequent development time workflow), based on a consistant setting to scan and then analysis of the histogram (I don't think my own monitor would be reliable for determining max black vs zone 1). Anyone seen such a thing written up?
This is very good and might help you:
photieplace.wordpress.com/2023/04/02/hacking-the-personal-iso-pt-1/
And
photieplace.wordpress.com/2023/04/08/hacking-the-personal-iso-pt-2/
@@PictorialPlanet fantastic! Thank you.
I c an imagine what the Editor would have said if the Lads in the 'Brentwood Gazette' darkroom did this before going out to shoot St Martins School Summer fete or a Charity Cheque Presentation by The Mayor if Brentwood --- Ha ha !
Too funny! But their photographs would have better exposure :) Anyway, you only have to do it once .
Certainly looks like an Ei of 250 is in the developer, it may even get to 320. Either sounds like a wonderful speed from FP4.
Agreed, very impressed indeed.
Impressive indeed. But we need to keep in mind that speed isn't the whole story in a film-developer combination. I would even dare to say that, for films that are inherently slow(ish), speed isn't all that important. It's the shape of the H-D curve, sharpness, acutance, grain character etc, and above all, how the results look. If they look great, then a boost in speed is just a nice bonus.
So, I'm looking forward to the next installments of this series.
It will be interesting to see if highlights have a full range of zones perceivable, of cause there's a limit to how much testing can be done without becoming bogged down chasing the ultimate and as far as I know FP4 is the only film advised by Ilford in their range, that can actually record nine stops, so that sort of indicates that detail will be retrievable throughout an individual negative, depending upon fine tuning development time. All fascinating stuff and so well explained, thanks John.
@@TrashTheLens I agree for most use cases film speed will indeed be a secondary consideration. If you happened to miss the last episode, John showed a some very compelling results from this film/developer combo. At this stage it would appear fp4 plus developed in fx55 is quite impressive across the board. Likewise I'm very much looking forward to the next videos!
The point of this video is not to get more film speed but rather to get accurate film speed. A big difference. Every film / developer combination gives its own film speed. Without knowing that you don't know your exposure.
How would you define the difference between gaining film speed with a developer and pushing a film? To me they just sound the same. In other words: how do you know that you did not push it to 200?
Because film speed is measured by the shadows while pushing loses shadows.
Every developer affects the film speed of the film differently. Some increase the sensitivity of the film, some decrease the sensitivity.
Film speed is a real measurement of how the film can react to darker zones, pushing is nothing to do with film speed being just artificially upping iso to the detriment of shadows, highlights, and tonality. They are completely different.
@@PictorialPlanet What would you do differently if you were to push it to 200?
@peinmilan so FX55 makes FP4 2/3 of a stop more sensitive to light.
As an example, let's say I used D76 developer which gives FP4 around box speed of iso125. So if I shoot the film with the objective of developing with D76 I should set 125 on my meter. What this means is if I measure a shadow and place it in zone 3 then the film will expose it as zone 3. My meter is reading accurately for the film/developer combination at iso125. Now let's push the film one stop. I set 250 on my meter and measure that shadow and place it in zone 3 BUT it's not in zone 3, it's being underexposed by a stop because of the iso set on the meter. Remember, D76 gives box speed of iso125, not 250 that's on the meter. Pushing by a stop has under exposed the film by a stop. The shadows are under exposed, the highlights are under exposed. To compensate for the underexposed highlights I need to develop for longer in my D76, raising the shadows back up a stop. The shadows don't go up, they can't, they are still under exposed a stop. What I end up with is a pushed film with black shadows and a stretched tonality up to the highlights.
Now take FX55. This developer is naturally increasing the sensitivity of the film to 200 so when I set my meter to 200 and measure my shadows and place them in zone three they are in zone 3. They are not being underexposed at all. And I give normal development, not extended, which gives normal contrast and normal tonality.
@@PictorialPlanet Thank you. Very well explained. So you are arguing that it's not possible to push a film without losing its tonal range. And the box speed is giving the maximum tonal range according to the manufacturer. I can accept this approach. When you tested Zone 9, you mentioned that it might even go up to 250 (or may I add who knows even 320?) Is there a scientific way to say exactly what is the maximum you can achieve with a certain developer / film (/temperature / dilution / ...) combination?
@peinmilan It's the zone 1 test that shows what film speed you are getting with a film/developer combination. That's the test that shows the sensitivity of the film to light and if the particular developer increases that sensitivity or lowers it. D23 gives me an iso of 80 with FP4, thus it lowers the real world ISO of the film. FX15, another Crawley developer, gives me iso 160. This means, in real world use, to give me the same zone 1 on my paper, i need to set iso80 on my meter if I'm going to develop in D23 or 160 if I'm going to develop in FX15. It's important to understand that it's zone 1, the almost black zone. This zone is where the film is *just* starting to react to the light so it's the zone that shows us how sensitive the film is in that developer.
The box speed is describing the film speed that the manufacturer got in their own test developer, which they do not reveal but I think is similar to D76.
There's no scientific way of telling what the *maximum* film speed you might get. I demonstrate as good a scientific way without using a densitometer. Some people use a densitometer but don't improve on the method I show - which btw is more real-world than the densitometer.
Finally, just want to mention the zone 9 test. This test shows how long to develop the film to get an accurate zone 9 (Just off white) highlight value. This test must be done after finding your zone 1 film speed, you have to expose the film correctly first! By knowing how long to develop the film for we can then correctly expose and process our film to maximise the full tonal range. There's no doubt that photographs jump up in quality once these test results are applied.