correct light for viewing wet prints

Hi Everyone,

Well, I see by my last question dated 10/12/07 it's been awhile, but I finally finished building my darkroom!!!! Yippee!! I want to thank everyone of you who answered my questions, (and there were plenty) I love it in here. One of these days I'll figure out how to download pictures of my darkroom for you all to see. It's light tight during the day, quiet, cool, fits my needs, and is 98% finished. Did I mention I love it in here. Yes, on the other side of the wall is my storage/office.

My question: My inspection light is 57" from viewing wet prints. What kind of light bulb is best given the distance? Currently I have a halogen light bulb.

I really appreciate the knowledge of Apug members and their willingness to assist. You guys are great.

Trudee

John Sexton explained that very well in a video for Lenswork but I don't remember what issue it was.

The drydown effect has very much to do with it, as well as your eyes adjusting to the light. The first method is to use a weak lamp (10-15 watts at some distance.), so that the print will look similar to what it does when it has dried. But this is still quite tricky.
The second, much better method is to use a stronger light and have your eyes getting used to it for a while. If the print looks exactly as you want it, make a few test prints at -8 to -15% of the exposure time to compensate for the darkening of the print while drying. Once you've got this factor nailed down printing will be much easier. (Eh, to make matters worse again. Each paper type is different, so you have to test all the types of paper and note how much to compensate for drydown.)
RH Designs have info on this on their website. As their Stopclock et al timers have drydown compensation built-in, it's described in the manuals, which are online.

//Björn

For critical work, I've long since given up trying to draw any firm conclusion from the inspection of a wet print. For me, the ultimate test is only to wash and dry (the print!), go and make a cup of tea and then come back and look at it with a fresh and unbiased eye.

Steve

trudee yama said:

My inspection light is 57" from viewing wet prints. What kind of light bulb is best given the distance?

Click to expand...

The one that works best for you ... there is no one right answer.

To get some idea of a good compromise:

• Make a pair of identical prints that look good in the area where you normally hang or view your prints.
• Take one print and put it in a tray of water where you inspect your prints, hang the other in the viewing area.
• Change the light bulb above the inspection tray so the inspected print looks most like the copy hanging in the viewing area

Don't expect an exact match, but do make note of the differences so you don't get misled by them.

If you use an enlarging meter or analyzer then illumination and dry-down effects are already compensated for. In this case, you may find that inspecting prints in the wet and then adjusting the final exposure will produce worse prints, not better.

According to Sexton's notes:
Wet print viewing:
45 watt (GTE Jordan Flan) GT8
Directed vertically downward to slanted white acrylic surfce
Illumination intensity on on grey card -EV 6.5-7 (set light meter to ASA 100)
Viewing distance should be 8 feet
Be sure to also view upside down
Studio viewing light should then be two stops brighter (EV 8.5-9)

Note: If print appears to improve when intensity of viewing light is increased significantly above normal, print lighter and increase contrast.

trudee yama said:

My question: My inspection light is 57" from viewing wet prints. What kind of light bulb is best given the distance? Currently I have a halogen light bulb.
Trudee

Click to expand...

There are theories, of course, but I've always used what works for me. The problem with theories is that they may work well if you only do one thing, use one paper, just print bw, just print color, etc. Some papers dry down a lot, some don't. I proof on RC and print on high silver content fiber in several different flavors. You could follow someone's very specific advice but I don't think it's either necessary or particularly useful, because regardless of whose advice you follow, it is still going to be you who must make the calls.

So for the past 30 years, I have used the very same light, and over that long time, I know precisely what it's going to do for me. I don't need to think about it. Seems to me that is the most important thing, really. I've used it for bw and color, and it's worked just great. Of course, I will take my prints into other lights from time to time to verify, and I do re-evaluate when any discrepancy turns up later. But, I don't change the light. I change myself through what I learn.

The light is a 40w tungsten bulb 3 feet overhead in a Kodak 8x10 safelight unit with no filter. It is not overly strong, so my eyes can adapt back and forth to the light and the darkness with relative ease.

Another important thing that helps is to always print with black and white reference patches. Since our eyes adapt, there can be no really useful absolute standards anyway. Our evaluation is always relative to a variety of factors. The black and white that are possible to achieve with the particular paper you are using is the only meaningful standard. Be sure that if you are evaluating wet prints, the patches are wet, also. Note that the white patch is never going to be exactly matched in a highlight, unless it is specular, since if a white contains detail, it must have some gray in it. The black will match, but it may be difficult to determine exactly where. Experience is necessary to really understand how to use these patches; it is a matter of confidence that there is, in there, a white and a black that meet the standards, even if it can't quite be pinpointed. Having more than once lost a whole day trying to save five minutes by not making patches, I learned never to print without them. There may be times when a print isn't going to have either a real black or a real white, but that's rare, and when it happens, we learn to deal with it.

If you are using a paper that dries down, a microwave is handy. Tear a print in half, nuke one half dry, and compare the two. Compensate as necessary.

It's important to pare the number of variables to the least possible. I think there is a very real advantage in keeping the viewing setup as simple as possible and never changing it.

I go for the low light in the darkroom method, an unspecific version of the Sexton method.
Basically, my light is 25w or 40w (I can't remember, hardly ever replace it, and when I do, I get another of what is in there). It is mounted in a recessed fixture with a textured glass cover, in the low ceiling, about 4ft from a slanted piece of white quarter inch thick plexiglass. I view from different distances, but always from about 6-7ft (2 meters) before the final decision.

This has worked well for me for over 20 some years. My papers have been Seagull Graded, Forte V Fiber, and Ilford MG IV. In final exhibition light I'm good. What it doesn't predict is the slight drop in apparent contrast (loss of that crisp clean look a wet print has that can't be preserved). When I hang them up to dry (fiber prints), back to back with all 4 corners pinned with clothespins, I make another last judgment, even though I've cleaned up by then.