I’m wondering how to precisely make test strips with decimals (e.g. 3.2 seconds)
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?
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)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).
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 lI 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 meant the times. Did you read:I've only run across a few enlarging lenses with 1/2 stop increments, and none with 1/3 stop increments
but are half stops when used as times:
I use a metronome as a time and count seconds. That's really analog.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'm answering this separately because you initially were interested in saving time and paper.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 use a metronome as a time and count seconds. That's really analog.
I've only run across a few enlarging lenses with 1/2 stop increments, and none with 1/3 stop increments.
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
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.
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?