Let's say I wanted to go from a Ilford 8X10 RC final print to a larger fiber Print (still Ilford) and I made the RC print using split grade filtering. What is/would be your preferred workflow?
Doesn't mean you'll necessarily get the same "look" aesthetically, however. And it makes more sense to do a simple strip test than sacrifice a whole sheet of paper to find out.
And anytime you significantly increase the size, you're also inherently decreasing the contrast. So there's that factor.
I think you may be attributing different things to a split grade approach than I do.
Split grade does two things for me:
1) it allows me to choose any "grade" of contrast within the wide range of contrasts available from the paper and your light source, including what might be described as "fractional" grades; and
2) most importantly, it permits printing different parts of the negative with differing amounts of contrast.
Neither of those is particularly applicable to the issue you raise in this thread, although I guess the ability to make fractional grade adjustments is probably of some use when trying to respond to the different responses of the two types of paper.
Agreed. The mathematic formula just helps to figure out your starting point, time-wise.
And this is also where an f-stop timer becomes practical, since burning or dodging 2/3 stops remains burning or dodging 2/3 stops no matter what size your printing.
Again, all this only works if you're using the same paper on all sizes.
those timers seem like they make life easier
Sure the math is simple. Or you could just use a simple lux meter before and after adjusting enlarger height.
Doesn't mean you'll necessarily get the same "look" aesthetically, however. And it makes more sense to do a simple strip test than sacrifice a whole sheet of paper to find out.
And anytime you significantly increase the size, you're also inherently decreasing the contrast. So there's that factor to take into account too. That video doesn't say a word about that fact.
One more reason I don't like to be straightjacketed by a set development time. Give the bigger version a little longer development, and it might allow you to keep the same filter settings.
this exactly explains why I’m interested in getting an Fstop timer. Once you have a base exposure you can always calculate on your own but those timers seem like they make life easier.
Ah, but spending $300 on an f-stop timer can result in less of the paper going straight into the trash.
DIY projects to make an f-stop timer are all over the web and youtube. One of them uses your smartphone and a blue-tooth enabled plug-in light switch; can't get much cheaper than that. Might want to put a sheet of red filter over the phone's screen - see Rosco lighting filters at B&H.
There is no one solution that works for everyone. Pays your money, takes your choice.
Not really. The saying goes "Don't waste your time selling lipstick to a pig." Either it is a waste of lipstick or pigs look best au naturel, or both. In either case, it is a waste of time.
Well, You might want to be careful how you guys phrase things. If certain of Nicholas' innovations had been around back when I personally needed that kind of instrumentation, I probably would have bought in. I've got some pretty sophisticated feedback circuitry in some of my enlargers, along with specialized meters, which required jumping through some hoops at the time to come up with. I'm not an electrical engineer; but I did rely on them for certain critical components.
I could easily adapt that to ordinary black and white printing if I wanted to. So I take it as not only a misappropriation of my comments, but as a personal insult, that I'm somehow against a degree of automation in the darkroom. If the shoe fits, wear it; if it doesn't, don't. "Lipstick on a pig" would be a half-baked print due to flying auto-pilot. There is simply no substitute for your own pair of eyes in reference to assessing a dry print. And instrumentation or not, it makes sense to make a test strip.
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?