Advices for less waste and better results

[Keith Tapscott.]

I’m new to silver gelatin printing. I did a workshop recently, and today I had my first solo printing session. I picked a negative I wanted to work on, and 5 hours later, I was happy with the results. However, it took me 15 images to get there. I’m coming from platinum palladium printing with digital negatives, where, once my workflow is calibrated, I get the desired results every time in one shot. This is not the case with real negatives.

Today, I started with a test strip, followed by a test print, and then a few more with dodging and burning. I decided to try multigrade filters and split-grade to get details in both the shadows and highlights of the very contrasty negative. I experimented with several combinations until I achieved a print I liked. I finished the final print using split-grading, plus some dodging and burning.

I got an image I like, but it took a while. I’d appreciate advice on how to get quicker results without wasting so much paper and time, yet without sacrificing the quality. Today’s session alone used up 6 sheets of 11x14 Ilford MG FB WT paper, and I have at least 150-200 negatives I want to print. I'd be happy to reduce waste by at least 50%.

So, just to clarify, my question is about practical advices and techniques on how to achieve the desired results quicker, not necessarily how to save money by buying cheaper paper and chemistry.

How many images do you print? How many iterations does it take for you to get to the final print? Is my workflow right, and how can it be improved?

Thank you.

As Ralph mentioned, you might want to consider an enlarging meter considering the amount of paper you are using to get to the final print.

Enlarging meters, are they worth it?

Something I have considered for many years, but never got around to buying a state of the art enlarging meter. Do you find that you save on photo papers by using one? They are expensive, so I don't want to waste money if they are too much rigmarole to calibrate. It would be nice not to have to...

www.photrio.com

 

[Doremus Scudder]

While I certainly sympathize, my indispensable darkroom tool -- for making great prints -- is my stereo. Without that, I could never spend enough time in there to fill my trash can.

Funny, as a trained, professional musician, I just can't listen to music in the darkroom; I'm distracted by it. I do listen to public radio news and talk shows though, which don't seem to keep me from concentrating on image-making

Doremus

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Funny, as a trained, professional musician, I just can't listen to music in the darkroom; I'm distracted by it.

Also trained musician here. I have on my phone app the complete works of Bach on the piano — mostly Andras Schiff — for darkroom work, but I only listen to it when doing contact proof sheets. Helps with the concentration, and the patience needed for this kind of work.

When working on a print, though, I need complete silence.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Late to the party here, but I'll offer a few things that help me arrive at a fine print more quickly. However, it seems like you have a good grasp of what needs to be done and the techniques involved. It's really just a matter of experience and streamlining (and accepting that fine prints take time, effort and lots of waste; my trash can is my best darkroom tool). Here goes:

Proper proofs of my negatives. These give me a real idea of the contrast setting I'll want to use to start with.

Formulating a real concept of what I want the final print to look like before I begin (with the caveat that I stay open to serendipitous alternatives!)

I make a test strip at my chosen contrast setting. If the contrast is close, I'll choose a base exposure and make a straight print, or a print with a bit of dodging/burning if those things are obviously needed somewhere. If the contrast needs to be changed a lot from the initial print, I start over and make a new test strip. However, if the contrast just needs tweaking, I'll guesstimate the necessary exposure adjustment and move on to making the initial print. I'm pretty good at getting close now.

After making the initial print, I evaluate; I hang the print on my viewing board and look at it for a while, with notepad in hand. I plan contrast and exposure changes and dodging and burning and split-grade schemes. My mantra: waste time, not paper.

Make big changes instead of incremental ones. It's easier and faster to go too far and then come back to an intermediate position or continue in the same direction without having taken all the intermediate steps. E.g., if my initial test strip isn't the right contrast, I'll change it by 30-40 CC on the color head. I think that's a lot, but often, it isn't and I've just saved all those attempts in-between. If it's too far, then I have a good idea of where to go back to. So, the third print is getting really close.

After this, unless the dodging and burning of the split-grade exposures are especially complicated, it's a matter of contemplation and refining.

When I do arrive at a final print that has been difficult to achieve, I'll make several so I don't have to go back and go through the whole process again when I want another print.

I keep detailed print exposure notes so I can get a good start on making the print again if I want to in the future. Some images I've reprinted more than five times, making batches each time.

Hope this helps a little,

Doremus

OP, this is really good advice. I think what you should keep from the many pertinent comments here is that you will waste less time and paper once you've developed your method and stick to it. That can be by following a strict procedure, as Doremus and I, or with the help of a device, as others have suggested. The important thing is to be methodical. In the darkroom, experimentation is a good thing, but improvisation is your ennemy.

That said, as mentioned, there are difficult negatives and will take a lot of time, and work, and paper. If the image is worth it in the end, you won't think of all that paper in your trash can as waste. Better that than printing a boring photo with just two sheets of paper, right ?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

....you won't think of all that paper in your trash can as waste. Better that than printing a boring photo with just two sheets of paper, right ?

I find it is the good images that print to perfection in two sheets of paper.

It is the boring & irrelevant that cause me to empty a box of paper into the trash basket in the hopeless pursuit of something that doesn't exist.

In furtherance of Adams' adage "The negative is the score, the print is the performance," no matter how good the performance if the score is rubbish then the concert is rubbish. You can not make a great print starting with a rotten negative. Recognizing the rotten negative is a big part of darkroom productivity. I follow my gut when evaluating negatives, or at least I should; I don't always succeed as some misguided cerebral aesthetic sense is always trying to get in the way.

The converse does not, of course, hold - a rotten print from a great negative is always possible.

 

[xkaes]

I find it is the good images that print to perfection in two sheets of paper.

That has happened to me a few times.

In furtherance of Adams' adage "The negative is the score, the print is the performance," no matter how good the performance if the score is rubbish then the concert is rubbish.

More often than not, with attention to detail, I can make a better print out of an even "perfect" negative with modification. Not all conductors will play a great score the same way.

And in case anyone missed it, AA's Hernandez negative was far from what he considered "perfect".

 

[Daniela]

Make big changes instead of incremental ones. It's easier and faster to go too far and then come back to an intermediate position or continue in the same direction without having taken all the intermediate steps.

I have found this to be so true!

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... Recognizing the rotten negative is a big part of darkroom productivity. ...

Indeed!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

...AA's Hernandez negative was far from what he considered "perfect".

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).

 

[Milpool]

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).

Absolutely right.

People generally focus way too much on negatives and not anywhere near enough on printing (or editing if the approach is scanning negatives).

 

[BobUK]

Do you really think that Picasso ever said "PERFECT" when he stopped painting any of his works?

I doubt that anyone said PERFECT when viewing his pictures.
Who do you know that has a nose on the side of their head and an eye in the middle of their forehead ?

There again, We must ask ourselves.......Is modern art really as bad as it's painted ?

 

[Bill Burk]

Funny, as a trained, professional musician, I just can't listen to music in the darkroom; I'm distracted by it. I do listen to public radio news and talk shows though, which don't seem to keep me from concentrating on image-making

Doremus

I can’t hear the timer go off if I listen to the stereo. Actually if I play over the AR93Q speakers and the Kenwood KA-81 amp the place shakes and it blurs my prints.

 

[Bill Burk]

A way to reduce frustration in the darkroom is not to get too bogged down by any one negative. Ditch it if you already did a test strip, pilot print and a candidate print with sensible dodge and burns, and still don’t feel close. If you feel like it might work do one more.

Another strategy is to always print full size. Then if you get it, you have a print.

In an earlier thread on this topic Bob Carnie also does sets of three and then moves on.

 

[Bill Burk]

I’m not against making 8x10’s or smaller for working on technique, but a full size print gives you longer print time and the room to move your hands for dodge and burns.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I can’t hear the timer go off if I listen to the stereo. Actually if I play over the AR93Q speakers and the Kenwood KA-81 amp the place shakes and it blurs my prints.

Variable soft-focus enlarger depending on the volume setting. Just a hint of blur - volume on 3. Really blurred - crank it up to 10!

Doremus

 

[hiroh]

LOTS and LOTS of useful advice and points here for a beginner like me! I can’t respond to each of you individually, but I want to THANK YOU all for your helpful comments.

I spent the last few days in the darkroom, learning, experimenting, and applying your advice. Some later prints turned out well much sooner than the first ones.

@Alex Benjamin mentioned f-stop printing, and I found many people suggesting using stops instead of seconds, and I understand why. It’s the only way to increase the amount of light consistently, but I’m still not sure what I’ll gain from that when my 3-second increments have worked so far, and I’ve found the correct exposure somewhere in the middle of the test strip. If 3 seconds turn out to be too much of an increment, I can do another test strip with 1 or 2 second increments. Also, by switching to f-stop printing, it would be much nicer to use one of these RH Designs meters that @RalphLambrecht suggested. Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?

Two more questions I came across:
- Ilford suggests mixing new MG developer for every session, but I decided to try using the mix from the previous day and see the results. It was 1+9 dilution. I didn’t notice any difference, no degradation whatsoever. I printed only 6 full sheets of 11x14 on the first day and another 4-5 the next day, so maybe that’s the reason. Do you mix new developer each time?
- Since I’m in a rental community darkroom that I have to tidy up before I leave, I cannot (or don’t want to) leave my prints to dry there overnight. What’s the preferred quick-drying method, and does it affect the print? For example, in platinum palladium, I’ve noticed that blacks slightly fade if I blow dry versus natural drying. There’s a dehumidifier with a fan in a darkroom, so I thought that could be the solution, but I’m curious if that changes the print like platinum palladium does.

 

[xkaes]

Since I’m in a rental community darkroom that I have to tidy up before I leave, I cannot (or don’t want to) leave my prints to dry there overnight. What’s the preferred quick-drying method, and does it affect the print? For example, in platinum palladium, I’ve noticed that blacks slightly fade if I blow dry versus natural drying. There’s a dehumidifier with a fan in a darkroom, so I thought that could be the solution, but I’m curious if that changes the print like platinum palladium does.

Sounds like a whole other thread.

 

[MattKing]

@Alex Benjamin mentioned f-stop printing, and I found many people suggesting using stops instead of seconds, and I understand why. It’s the only way to increase the amount of light consistently, but I’m still not sure what I’ll gain from that when my 3-second increments have worked so far, and I’ve found the correct exposure somewhere in the middle of the test strip. If 3 seconds turn out to be too much of an increment, I can do another test strip with 1 or 2 second increments. Also, by switching to f-stop printing, it would be much nicer to use one of these RH Designs meters that @RalphLambrecht suggested. Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?

The biggest reason to standardize on f-stop or other essentially logarithmic based approaches is that they make it easier to visualize the effects of particular changes in exposure - they aid in building a correlation between what we see on a print and what changes we understand need to be made to achieve what we want to see on a print.

An f/stop progression based test strip gives you very even visual increments that are really easy to evaluate. Not so with linear progression based test strips.

Once you start to see in stops (or portions thereof) it becomes much easier to change sizes or apply what is learned from printing one negative to the printing of the next.

With a bit of practice, I can look at a work print and think to myself something like: "this corner needs an extra 1/2 stop, that area needs to be dodged by a 1/3 of a stop, that sky heeds an extra 2/3 of a stop and this area is the way I like it. Those calculations will work whatever the base exposure happens to be, so if I decide to change magnification or aperture, I can relatively easily duplicate what I need to.

There is no way to build in one's mind a correlation between how a print appears and how it is likely to appear with 5 seconds extra exposure, because that change in appearance will be different with each initial exposure.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

...

@Alex Benjamin mentioned f-stop printing, and I found many people suggesting using stops instead of seconds, and I understand why. It’s the only way to increase the amount of light consistently, but I’m still not sure what I’ll gain from that when my 3-second increments have worked so far, and I’ve found the correct exposure somewhere in the middle of the test strip. If 3 seconds turn out to be too much of an increment, I can do another test strip with 1 or 2 second increments. Also, by switching to f-stop printing, it would be much nicer to use one of these RH Designs meters that @RalphLambrecht suggested. Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?
...

A lot of people like f-stop timing. I found it unnecessarily complicated. I get the exact same results working with percentages. I make test strips in 25% or 30% increments, notate my dodging and burning in percentages of the base exposure and have learned to make exposure changes in percentages as well (e.g., an exposure increase of 20%, etc.).

Works just like f-stop timing, but without that pesky square root of 2

Doremus

 

[xkaes]

What works for you is best. Some people are more "right brain", some "left".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Can you help me understand what I’m missing here?

You're missing speed and precision, which is exactly what you are looking for. Going 1 second at a time is fine, but what if the correct time for you, for what you're looking for, is 10.1 or 14,3 seconds? With f-stop printing, you get closer faster.

And you don't need a special printer, or learn any maths. I a a sheet of paper taped on the wall of the community darkroom I use with f-stop mesures borrowed from Ralph Lambrecht's book. It goes from 4 to 32 seconds, with 1/3 stops on one side, 1/6th stops on the other, and the amount of seconds I need to add going from one to the other. Goes like this (just putting the 1/3rd stops here):

4
+1
5
+1.3
6.3
+ 1.7
8
+2.1

10.1

You get the point. I usually hit the right time on the first strip, but if I'm not too sure, I go to 1/6th stops around the time I feel is close. For example, If 10.1 is a little light and 12.7 a little too much, I do a second strip with 10.1, 10.7, 11.3, 12, 12.7.

So in two strips, I've found my basic time. Moreover, my first strip will have given me precious indications regarding the exact amount of dodge or burn I might need in different parts.

I will add that visually, having the exact same amount of light added from one increment to the other on your test strip is very different than what you see when going 3, 6, 9, 12, etc.

I suggest you read this on the subject. Has all the times. You don't need a special timer for this. I do it so much, I know by heart how much time to add in 1/3rd steps from 4 to 16 seconds.

https://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/fstoptiming.pdf

 

[MARTIE]

And just the table to print, if you wish.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Here's a similar method to the chart above in percentages. Note I have five increments per stop, not six, but that just makes the calculation easier!

Note also that a 100% increase in exposure = one full stop more. Half the exposure = one stop less. Here goes:

Example:

-50%​	-40%​	-30%​	-20%​	-10%​	Base Exposure​	+20%​	+40%​	+60%​	+80%​	+100%​
5​	6​	7​	8​	9​	10​	12​	14​	16​	18​	20​
7.5​	9​	10.5​	12​	13.5​	15​	18​	21​	24​	27​	30​

To calculate different values, use simple factors to figure the percentages (if you can’t do them in your head):

To get:

-50%​

-40%​

-30%​

-20%​

-10%​

Base Exposure​

+20%​

+40%​

+60%​

+80%​

+100%​

Multiply the base exposure by:

0.5​

0.6​

0.7​

0.8​

0.9​

0​

1.2​

1.4​

1.6​

1.8​

2​

Or add/subtract the appropriate amount consecutively. Example:

-50%​	-40%​	-30%​	-20%​	-10%​	Base Exposure​	+20%​	+40%​	+60%​	+80%​	+100%​
-2.5​	-2.5​	-2.5​	-2.5​	-2.5​	25 ​	+5​	+5​	+5​	+5​	+5​

<--------- subtract consecutively *********** add consecutively ----------->

12.5 ​

15​

17.5​

20​

22.5​

​

30​

35​

40​

45​

50 ​

​

I figured all these in my head in a minute or so. I find this much nicer that f-stop-timing calculations. If you need finer increments, you can easily use 5% increments. I do sometimes, especially at higher contrast settings.

Sorry the tables don't reproduce well here, but just count the number of cells to get the factors

I've attached a pdf of the tables for easier viewing too.

Best,

Doremus

​

 

[xkaes]

I've only run across -- a few -- enlarging lenses that have 1/2-stop increments -- and I always "shoot" for f8-11 anyway. Time and ND filters are my only variables. But then I've gotten used to shooting with a Minox -- same things!!!

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

There is no difference between using percentages or using stops for 'f-stop timing' (a ghastly term I do not like and yet find myself promulgating). They are both logarithmic methods based on multiplying times / adding logarithms.

However - do not make the simplistic assumption that a two 50% increases are equivalent to one 100% increase. A 50% increase over a 50% increase is equivalent to a 125% increase (as 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25). 1/4 stop in print exposure land is 1/2 zone in negative exposure land and is noticeable.

It is why camera shutter speed dials and lens apertures have clicks at one stop intervals - you aren't given the option of getting it wrong in a period of intention. For the same level of safety in darkroom timing a real f-stop timer is the way to go - and it doesn't give you a headache doing the math any more than a camera does.