Creating a larger fiber print on different paper from a smaller RC print timings. Workflow options with split grade printing?

[ChrisArslain]

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? Would you use an F-stop timer with an attached light meter like the one from Darkroom Automation? Paper is expensive, and I am considering this workflow for my home darkroom so I only use fiber for final prints (or at least use a lot less). Is it possible with split grade printing? Is it all just a waste of time and make some new test prints?
If anyone has good book recommendations for this or practice with these programmable timers, i would appreciate the input. This is the kind of stuff you worry about when your darkroom isn't finished. Thanks all!

 

[Lachlan Young]

A densitometer will tell you more than time wasted on split grade. An understanding of exposure relationships between different enlargement sizes (or something like an Ilford EM-10) will help too, as will learning where reciprocity kicks in. Don't trust RC & FB real-world optimal exposures to be exactly the same.

If you have a pretty good idea of the characteristics of your neg, a test strip (or two) at size should be all you'll need. If you are trying to claim that'll be unaffordable, then frankly you should cut your cloth to suit your pocket, rather than needing to churn out pointless volumes of 20x24's.

 

[jeffreyg]

You can use split grade printing with Ilford fiber paper. You can also cut a larger sheet to make a test print of a representative area or more than one of various areas. Of course do them at enlarged level.

 

[MattKing]

You will probably discover that even if you stay with the same paper - RC and RC , or FB and FB - you will find that it is often desirable to adjust your print exposures slightly when you go up to a significantly larger size. There are subjective and objective factors that lead to this result.
But a good quality 8x10 print on RC, coupled with detailed notes about your contrast, burning and dodging choices can certainly help reduce the amount of new tests you need.
An EM-10 or similar meter that helps you match the light intensity at the baseboard for a reference mid-tone area will also help, as well as a workflow that has you using middle to smaller aperture openings for the smaller print.
You will also need to build some experience with your choice of paper pairs. The first few prints will tell you much about how future prints will need to be approached - something like the FB always needing 30% more exposure, plus an additional half grade contrast for the shadows, or something similar.

 

[Paul Howell]

Ive use a very old F stop meter, not a timer, it worked pretty well, and an reflective densitometer for very large prints 16X20 and 20X24, they all worked to find a starting point, but in end it was always a number of small test strips allowed to dry down to determine burning and dodging. I have used spit grade printing on Foma FB 8X10 and 11X14 and found that it did reduce some of the burning and dodging but not all. The trick with FB is get a good dry down, for test strips I use the microwave. If you want to print glossy with FB then you need a set of ferrotype plates and allow the test stripd to dry on the plates.

 

[mmerig]

There a few options. One is to get a smaller size of the larger fiber paper you plan on using, and use that as a test sheet. Of course you can also cut-up the larger fiber paper for test sheets/strips. The smaller paper trial could be the most economical way if you only do occasional printing. For lots of prining on various paper types, something like the RH Designs Analyzer Pro would work. Several paper types can be calibrated and the resulting settings can be switched to. So if you find good exposure and contrast settings on say an RC paper, you then switch to the fiber paper setting and the exposure and filter settings will show up. This all assumes that the paper types are already calibrated. It takes about 30 minutes to calibrate a paper type once you get the hang of of it. If you spend say 30 minutes or more to get a print just right, and do this maybe once a week or less, the AP Pro is probably not the way to go. So much depends on how much you print and the economics of smaller papers versus springing for the RHD Analyzer Pro.

The Analyzer Pro does not handle split-grade printing settings so automatically, but the first filter step can be switched to as with simple, one-grade printing, and the curve values that come with the two papers could be used to get the proper timing for the second filter value. I rarely ever use split grade printing unless the dodging or burning-in steps use different filters. The in-between filter grades that SP printing affords is not worth the extra trouble to me. There is no other advantage to SP printing (there are posts about this). Split grade printing along with switching papers makes the RHD AP Pro method complicated, but I think it is workable and again, the AP Pro pays for itself faster if you print a lot.

The RHD Stop-clock along with an exposure meter will handle split printing, along with dodging and burning steps. But I don't think it has paper calibration like the AP, so switching papers would require starting over, and storing those steps as with the first type of paper.

Ralph Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse's book "Way Beyond Monchrome" is a good source. Ctein's Post Exposure is good too, and I think it is free on-line.

 

[AZD]

Whether it is “correct” or not, I would do this:

- Establish the difference between exposure and contrast adjustment for “equivalent” prints at the same size on both papers. Something smallish, like 5x7 or 8x10. This is the key to understanding the characteristics of your materials.

- Calculate the exposure increase needed for your intended dimensions vs your small print. For instance, 8x10 to 16x20 spreads the same light over twice the linear dimension but 4x the area; 4x the light is two stops exposure increase.

- Make test strips at this exposure to see if you’re in the ballpark. If yes, make a full size test print and evaluate.

- Make changes as desired.

If you can do this with only two sheets that would be impressive. I suspect you will want to fine tune the larger image several times.

FWIW, I did this when I acquired just two sheets of 8x10 Portriga #3 and wanted a 4x5 and an 8x10 of the same image. Baseline dodge/burn workflow established with Ilford RC Multigrade, differences noted and calculated while making the 4x5 on Portriga. Final 8x10 - my one and only chance - is very satisfactory.

 

[ChrisArslain]

Thanks all for your views on this. Exactly the discussion, tips, and sources I was looking for, all of the opinions above were valuable. I didn't mean to imply that economics was a limiting factor, only it would be nice to save paper. I did get a little sticker shock when I put some boxes of fiber in my Freestyle cart!

I'm new to this forum and have always printed without split grade until recently trying it on a couple prints that ended up pretty good, but I probably could have gotten the same from regular and it took more test strips getting the hang of it. It's evident that the consensus here is that split grade printing is not worth it. I'm going to give those books a read. Th AP sounds like a great a device and I'll check that out.

There a few options. One is to get a smaller size of the larger fiber paper you plan on using, and use that as a test sheet. Of course you can also cut-up the larger fiber paper for test sheets/strips. The smaller paper trial could be the most economical way if you only do occasional printing. For lots of prining on various paper types, something like the RH Designs Analyzer Pro would work. Several paper types can be calibrated and the resulting settings can be switched to. So if you find good exposure and contrast settings on say an RC paper, you then switch to the fiber paper setting and the exposure and filter settings will show up. This all assumes that the paper types are already calibrated. It takes about 30 minutes to calibrate a paper type once you get the hang of of it. If you spend say 30 minutes or more to get a print just right, and do this maybe once a week or less, the AP Pro is probably not the way to go. So much depends on how much you print and the economics of smaller papers versus springing for the RHD Analyzer Pro.

The Analyzer Pro does not handle split-grade printing settings so automatically, but the first filter step can be switched to as with simple, one-grade printing, and the curve values that come with the two papers could be used to get the proper timing for the second filter value. I rarely ever use split grade printing unless the dodging or burning-in steps use different filters. The in-between filter grades that SP printing affords is not worth the extra trouble to me. There is no other advantage to SP printing (there are posts about this). Split grade printing along with switching papers makes the RHD AP Pro method complicated, but I think it is workable and again, the AP Pro pays for itself faster if you print a lot.

The RHD Stop-clock along with an exposure meter will handle split printing, along with dodging and burning steps. But I don't think it has paper calibration like the AP, so switching papers would require starting over, and storing those steps as with the first type of paper.

Ralph Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse's book "Way Beyond Monchrome" is a good source. Ctein's Post Exposure is good too, and I think it is free on-line.

Whether it is “correct” or not, I would do this:

- Establish the difference between exposure and contrast adjustment for “equivalent” prints at the same size on both papers. Something smallish, like 5x7 or 8x10. This is the key to understanding the characteristics of your materials.

- Calculate the exposure increase needed for your intended dimensions vs your small print. For instance, 8x10 to 16x20 spreads the same light over twice the linear dimension but 4x the area; 4x the light is two stops exposure increase.

- Make test strips at this exposure to see if you’re in the ballpark. If yes, make a full size test print and evaluate.

- Make changes as desired.

If you can do this with only two sheets that would be impressive. I suspect you will want to fine tune the larger image several times.

FWIW, I did this when I acquired just two sheets of 8x10 Portriga #3 and wanted a 4x5 and an 8x10 of the same image. Baseline dodge/burn workflow established with Ilford RC Multigrade, differences noted and calculated while making the 4x5 on Portriga. Final 8x10 - my one and only chance - is very satisfactory.

 

[MARTIE]

Is it all just a waste of time and make some new test prints?

Yep.

I learned to stay with the same batch code.
And it works flawlessly everytime.

 

[MattKing]

It's evident that the consensus here is that split grade printing is not worth it.

I hope you don't get that from my post!
I use split grade techniques for just about all my prints - some rely more on them, while others rely less on them, but they are important to how I work.
So for clarity, the initial print on 8x10 RC uses them, and the challenge is merely how to scale up the print and adjust for the differences between the emulsions and support when moving to larger FB paper.
I wouldn't know how to proceed if I intended to not use split grade with one type and size of paper, and then use it for the other size and type of paper.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd just skip to the chase and start out with to-scale test strips with the same final FB paper you intend to use. I have a variety of special meters to facilitate color printing, but don't use a single one of them for black and white work. I hypothetically could; but it would just complicate an otherwise straightforward procedure.
Even each different kind of Ilford paper has its own personality. It's pretty hard to predict exact results aesthetically switching from one type to another.

Your time would be better spent becoming highly familiar through practice with a single paper. Why set up more hurdles?

 

[GregY]

I agree 100% with Drew. The shortcuts never are.
I certainly wouldn't go buying a densitometer or any other fancy timers.
Use one sheet of the same final paper for various test strips. Then make more final prints than you need in case you crease one or find
a flaw in the paper once it's dry.

 

[MattKing]

One of the problems about asking this sort of question of the more experienced darkroom printers here is that it is somewhat difficult for us to put ourselves in the position of being less experienced .
It makes sense for us to start with the bigger paper, because we have less to learn from the process. We probably gain more information from each test and even from just visually examining the negative itself and/or a contact proof of it than someone will who has less experience.
So I'm not sure that recommending against starting with less expensive paper makes as much sense for the less experienced.
If you work out how you want the print to turn out on the economy paper, you can apply the information to working with the larger FB paper.
I personally restrict my printing to RC almost exclusively, but I do gain benefit from printing small - say 5x7 - and then living for a bit with that print before I make my target 11x14.

 

[ChrisArslain]

I too usually change my mind about a print over a couple days too. Thanks Matt. It's super interesting to hear all the opinions. I think I just asked bunch of chefs how to cook a chicken (and then apply that to steak), so I get it.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I think I just asked bunch of chefs how to cook a chicken (and then apply that to steak)...

"Go not to the Elves for advice, for they will say both yes and no."

Boil the steak in a stock pot for 2 hours. Truss the chicken and saute it in a chafing dish with a bit of butter and a splash of Cognac. Or the other way around, as you wish.

On to the original question -

I do this quite often, starting with 5x7 RC and going on to 8x10 or 11x14 FB. With the price of Ilford's fine art paper one would have to be wealthy fool not to.

With the Darkroom Automation timer and meter, and a Dektronics densitometer (highly recommended), it is rather easy to nail the large print on the first try. Maybe I'll write an application note on the procedure.

Split grade techniques aren't suited for this task, though I am sure someone, somewhere, has figured out how to do it and does.

I advise chopping up a sheet of FB into 4x5" or so test coupons to confirm the base exposure, filtration and any dodges and burns before exposing a whole sheet at $10 a pop (Art 300, 16x20).

 

[mmerig]

In my post (#6), I did not consider that you were making the fiber print bigger, so the RHD AP system I described would be more complicated (I assumed the same size final print). You would have to use the same enlarger height on the 8 by 10 RC paper that you need for the larger print, and use a representative area of the larger print to get the new exposure and contrast close. The paper calibration incorporates dry-down.

As others said, a test strip may be the simplest way. But with some experience, you could print the representative area and make a good guess if it just needs to be tweaked rather than making a test strip. Knowing the relative magnification for the two prints gives you the exposure factor increase for the larger print. so even if you don't use a meter at all, and get your exposure with the test strip, you'll be close to the proper exposure for the bigger one using the factor. Like a 2x increase in magnification means 2 stops more exposure, e.g. 8 by 10 to 16 by 20 is 2 stops. Contrast might change a little bit too. There are posts about this.

 

[MARTIE]

I too usually change my mind about a print over a couple days too. Thanks Matt. It's super interesting to hear all the opinions. I think I just asked bunch of chefs how to cook a chicken (and then apply that to steak), so I get it.

Very well put!

If you're finding it's taking too long or you're using too much paper getting to your final print, then I'm sure there's something to win here -without the need to necessarily use splitgrade.

If this is the case, perhaps you could share something of your current methodology. Or any dilemmas you're facing. Or even some test strips and sample prints.

Alternatively, it may just be a matter of 'printing hours'.