Advices for less waste and better results

[hiroh]

I only have only an analog timer in my darkroom, and it’s easy to make test strips when the increments are round fixed numbers (e.g. 4 seconds). However, I’m wondering how to precisely make test strips with decimals (e.g. 3.2 seconds) that also increase for each strip. Do you all use digital timers, or do you have the ability to count this precisely in your head? Do you adjust your analog timers for each strip with one hand, while covering the paper with other?

 

[Don_ih]

I’m wondering how to precisely make test strips with decimals (e.g. 3.2 seconds)

If 3.2 seconds is significantly different from 3 seconds, the enlarger is too bright (too open or the negative too thin). Don't bother with decimals.

When you think in terms of stops, just think in terms of the next stop, up or down, which is twice or half the time. That's a close enough way to think of it.

 

[Milpool]

I only have only an analog timer in my darkroom, and it’s easy to make test strips when the increments are round fixed numbers (e.g. 4 seconds). However, I’m wondering how to precisely make test strips with decimals (e.g. 3.2 seconds) that also increase for each strip. Do you all use digital timers, or do you have the ability to count this precisely in your head? Do you adjust your analog timers for each strip with one hand, while covering the paper with other?

I have a timer but to be honest it is rarely used to time exposures, and in general my exposure/manipulation times are too long for fractions of seconds to have any relevance. I have a metronome going and control everything including test strips with my burn/(dodge) cards.

I’ve always worked that way and over time I discovered the people I considered to be the best printers did things that way too, so I never bothered to change. It’s a personal preference though, not a better/worse or right/wrong kind of thing. Printing is like that. There are different methods, timers etc. and I think the only “rule” is work. Great prints take time and effort, sometimes a lot of time and effort, not to mention paper.

 

[eli griggs]

I use both, a digital and several Gralabs, Time-O-Lights, and a Kodak Elapsed time, timer.

All (most?) but the Kodak, have countdown alarms and repeatability.

I didn't need digital timing until I started doing Cibachrome, years back, or so I thought.

Digital is best for enlarging, on my prime enlarger, IMO, and two resetting Gralabs over the darkroom sink, one on each end of my little four foot long, deep well sink, because nothing finer than a second is needed by any wet process at the sink, with the processes I do.

 

[hiroh]

I found a simple digital timer and tested it today. I prefer it over the analog one because it’s easier for me to press buttons and see numbers on a display, than to dial in the dark. It doesn’t make a huge difference, but I found it more practical.

 

[bernard_L]

When you think in terms of stops, just think in terms of the next stop, up or down, which is twice or half the time. That's a close enough way to think of it.

It's almost as easy to do half-stops. Any photographer has seen and hopefully memorized the sequence of aperture numbers; they are full stops when taken as aperture diameter, but are half stops when used as times: 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 etc (maybe 2 and 2.8 are too short as times)

And 1/3 stops is also easy if you are familiar with the sequence of ASA speeds: 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, etc... (you may divide by 10). 1/3 stops are a necessity (IMO) when fine-tuning exposure on hard grades (3 and up).

 

[brian steinberger]

I highly recommend the F stop timer from Darkroom Automation.

 

[xkaes]

It's almost as easy to do half-stops. Any photographer has seen and hopefully memorized the sequence of aperture numbers; they are full stops when taken as aperture diameter, but are half stops when used as times: 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8 etc (maybe 2 and 2.8 are too short as times)

And 1/3 stops is also easy if you are familiar with the sequence of ASA speeds: 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, etc... (you may divide by 10). 1/3 stops are a necessity (IMO) when fine-tuning exposure on hard grades (3 and up).

I've only run across a few enlarging lenses with 1/2 stop increments, and none with 1/3 stop increments.

 

[hiroh]

When doing split-grading, do you use a middle contrast filter to establish the base exposure time, or do you start with low and high-contrast filters? From what I’ve read and watched, there is no definitive answer. Some people start with a mid-contrast filter, some use a low-contrast filter to determine highlights exposure and a high-contrast filter to add contrast.

I understand that if you start with a mid-contrast filter and determine an exposure time of 8 seconds, you would use 4 seconds each filter for split-grading (and tweak it if that doesn't seem right). Is that correct?

 

[pentaxuser]

I understand that if you start with a mid-contrast filter and determine an exposure time of 8 seconds, you would use 4 seconds each filter for split-grading (and tweak it if that doesn't seem right). Is that correct?

Well it may not be as simple as that to get the best print. It may be that you have seen this video by Dave Butcher an Ilford Master Printer but he goes on to show that an exact split down the middle of the exposure time may not achieve the best print l


Under the name of Darkroom Dave he has actually made a couple of split grade printing videos but each one seem to be only slight variations on this one

pentaxuser

 

[bernard_L]

I've only run across a few enlarging lenses with 1/2 stop increments, and none with 1/3 stop increments

I meant the times. Did you read:

but are half stops when used as times:

To elaborate. I was proposing a mnemonic for a progression of test strip exposure times in a progression of 1/2 or 1/3 stops. I thought that it was generally understood that in "f-stop test strip" one varies time, not f-stop.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I only have only an analog timer in my darkroom, and it’s easy to make test strips when the increments are round fixed numbers (e.g. 4 seconds). However, I’m wondering how to precisely make test strips with decimals (e.g. 3.2 seconds) that also increase for each strip. Do you all use digital timers, or do you have the ability to count this precisely in your head? Do you adjust your analog timers for each strip with one hand, while covering the paper with other?

I use a metronome as a time and count seconds. That's really analog.

My tests strips are made by successively covering stripes on the test strip with a card after an initial longer exposure. As you know, I like percentages, but I also like whole seconds. So, I round off my times and make sure the exposures are long enough that the error is very small.

Here's my 30% test strip. The total time is on top, my counting sequence is below; numbers are seconds, of course :

10 -- 13 -- 17 -- 22 -- 29 -- 37 -- 48
10 --- 3 --- 4 ---- 5 --- 7 --- 8 --- 11

You can start with 8 seconds if you like, but I like longer exposures. My target time is 20-30 seconds.

Anyway, you get the idea. I have used smaller increments than 30% before, but this seems to be the sweet spot between getting a wide range of exposure times and having usefully small increments. I often extrapolate an intermediate time if one stripe on the strip is too light, but the adjacent one too dark. There are always small adjustments during the refining process anyway.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

When doing split-grading, do you use a middle contrast filter to establish the base exposure time, or do you start with low and high-contrast filters? From what I’ve read and watched, there is no definitive answer. Some people start with a mid-contrast filter, some use a low-contrast filter to determine highlights exposure and a high-contrast filter to add contrast.

I understand that if you start with a mid-contrast filter and determine an exposure time of 8 seconds, you would use 4 seconds each filter for split-grading (and tweak it if that doesn't seem right). Is that correct?

I'm answering this separately because you initially were interested in saving time and paper.

First, realize that the advantage of split-grade printing only comes when you are dodging and burning, i.e., exposing different parts of the print to different contrasts. The base exposure can be achieved by either split-grade or just regular filtration.

I prefer the latter.

Yes, you can do a split-grade ring-around set of test strips at different exposures and different contrasts, but that really isn't time-saving or paper-saving in my experience.

If you want to streamline your choice of initial contrast setting, make proper proofs of your negatives and use those to help choose an initial setting.

If you make proper proofs of your negatives on an intermediate contrast grade (I like about 2.5), then you will already have a good idea of which contrast setting you need to start with when making your first test strip. Proof too flat? start with a higher contrast setting. How much depends an how flat that proof is, but with experience you'll be able to get in the ballpark rather quickly. Same procedure for too-contrasty proofs, just in the other direction.

My advice is to learn how to make proper proofs and proof all negatives that show printing potential. For me, that takes a few hours for 40-50 negatives and then I've got all that information at hand to help not only with printing but with refining my metering and development procedures.

FWIW, I'll arrive at a base exposure with a regular contrast filtration. Example: Say my proof is a bit flat with the 2.5 filter. I'll start with #3.5 or equivalent filtration on my color head (let's say 60M). Then I'll make my test strip. I'll adjust contrast and make another test strip if needed, but often I'm close enough to make an initial print.

Then, during the refining process, I may want to use split-grade techniques. For example, I might want to hold back part of the sky during the base exposure and then burn it back with maximum contrast (#5 or 170M). Or I may burn in areas with a #00 or 170Y filtration to deal with overexposed highlights, etc. You get the idea: base exposure is a standard intermediate filtration, then split-grade dodging and burning is used to expose different areas of the print to different contrasts if needed. Often, it isn't, which saves time and paper too!

Best,

Doremus

 

[xkaes]

I use a metronome as a time and count seconds. That's really analog.

I use one -- of sorts. I've counted seconds for so long, I can count to ten minutes in my head -- +/- 1 percent.

 

[Maris]

What speeds things up for me and improves efficiency is accurate placement of the test strip so that it samples shadow detail, mid tones, and highlights all on the one piece of paper.

I've been printing so long with the same equipment in the same darkroom I can look at the projected image on the easel and guess the correct mid-tone exposure give or take a second or two.
I place one end of a long test strip in that part of the image that corresponding to a Zone III exposure when I metered the original scene. The rest of the test strip goes across a run of mid-tones and ends in that part of the image
corresponding a Zone VIII highlight (say).

For example, if I estimate that mid-tones will print in 8 seconds I give test exposure sequence of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 seconds across the test strip. The test strip is right if (and only if) one side of it is too light and the other side
is too dark. The correct exposures for shadows, mid-tones, and highlights must then lie somewhere on that good test strip and it's just a question of setting the enlarger timer for the desired result. The test strip is also a guide to
local density control by dodging and burning-in if that's needed.

 

[eli griggs]

I've only run across a few enlarging lenses with 1/2 stop increments, and none with 1/3 stop increments.

Yet so many of our old cameras do have lenses that give a ⅓ stop index.

I suggest using glow in the dark pens, paints to make full, ½, and ⅓ posters for your safe darkroom references, especially when you're tired.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

When enlarging, it's usually easier to deal with fractional-stop increments by varying exposure time, not trying to find some intermediate setting on the lens in the dark

Best,

Doremus

 

[Philippe-Georges]

This is the chart I use, but, I know, in the 6th column I wrote a mistake: 27,7 must be 24,7 (erreur de frappe), and I couldn't find a way to correct that pdf file yet, sorry...
But it works very well as I am in the luxury having an enlarging timer allowing settings in tenths of a second (I am rather picky on that).

And if "...less waste..." means less water, then the Ilford washing method might be interesting.

 

[eli griggs]

When enlarging, it's usually easier to deal with fractional-stop increments by varying exposure time, not trying to find some intermediate setting on the lens in the dark

Best,

Doremus

So use the F-Stop method to get as close as possible to your abilities and fractional seconds to zero in on your ideal result.

Cheers

 

[eli griggs]

This is the chart I use, but, I know, in the 6th column I wrote a mistake: 27,7 must be 24,7 (erreur de frappe), and I couldn't find a way to correct that pdf file yet, sorry...
But it works very well as I am in the luxury having an enlarging timer allowing settings in tenths of a second (I am rather picky on that).

And if "...less waste..." means less water, then the Ilford washing method might be interesting.

I use the Ilford method for both film and prints.

I'm lucky that distilled water is so cheap here, I can use it for all film processing, which with only a few rolls using less than two gallons.

 

[eli griggs]

Ah, if only I were capable of such imperfection.

If he had just ditched his spot meter & Zone System and that one time aimed his Weston V in the general direction of the church. On the other hand, for me, knowing that the negative is so hard to print only adds to the image's gravitas.

A great negative doesn't depend much on qualities of exposure & development but on all the ephemeral je ne sais quoi. Heck, if perfect exposure and development were all that mattered then I, too, could aspire to the pinnacle of perfection - just following Kodak's instructions gets me 99% of the way there (don't want to think of the years it took to come to that conclusion).

I've heard so many published tales about the making of this one negative, it's impossible to give credence to any of them.

The one I've known the longest is that, the negative is from a Polaroid negative/print film, like the old Type 55.

What have you read one the film used?

 

[Milpool]

I've heard so many published tales about the making of this one negative, it's impossible to give credence to any of them.

The one I've known the longest is that, the negative is from a Polaroid negative/print film, like the old Type 55.

What have you read one the film used?

There are several versions of the story by Adams so it’s difficult to know for sure. I forget the film type although I think the usual story indicates ASA 64. He seemed to like saying development was water bath D-23. He did later intensify the negative which helped a little with the foreground contrast.

It’s unclear whether or not the most famous part of the story with the luminance of the moon/couldn’t find the meter etc. is true as in earlier accounts he did meter the scene.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Adams' account of taking Moonrise is given in his book "Examples, The Making of 40 Photographs" - not sure how much more definitive one can get:

He couldn't find his Weston meter;
He based the exposure on the luminance of the moon;
Film isn't specified beyond "ASA 64";
The negative was developed in alternating baths of D-23 and water;
He later intensified the lower part of the negative;
Printing involves a whole of of burning in.

 

[cliveh]

Adams' account of taking Moonrise is given in his book "Examples, The Making of 40 Photographs" - not sure how much more definitive one can get:

He couldn't find his Weston meter;
He based the exposure on the luminance of the moon;
Film isn't specified beyond "ASA 64";
The negative was developed in alternating baths of D-23 and water;
He later intensified the lower part of the negative;
Printing involves a whole of of burning in.

What a load of tosh. Adams was an experienced photographer and printer and should not have needed to intensify or burn in anything.

 

[MattKing]

What a load of tosh. Adams was an experienced photographer and printer and should not have needed to intensify or burn in anything.

If you read his writings, or see pictures of the negative itself, plus various versions of the prints he made over the years, you will see that he did all of those things.