Darkroom test strip, or test print?

[gone]

I've been making print exposures based on test strips for a long time, but now I'm thinking of either making localized test prints (masking off the paper and making multiple exposures of just one main area) or making 4x5 or 5x7 test prints after a regular test strip, and before making the 11x14's. Is there an advantage either way? How do most people here do this? Of course, w/ a perfect neg this would probably be easier, but I've never seen one of those.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use both methods, with most negatives I can find a strip of the print that covers the area with the detail or shadow areas I'm most interested in, other times there may several areas that I want to find time for and test print is the most efficient method for me. Other time I use test squares for several different areas, might expose a series of squares at 3 or 4 second intervals to find a time for sky.

 

[Down Under]

It depends. For one thing, how deep your pockets are.

Printing paper (especially FB) is no longer as cheap as it was. For many years when Kodabromide, Kodabrome, Polycontrast and eventually Multigrade in avatars III and IV didn't cost the price of a kidney, I printed like a mad fiend, endured long (as in "all night") printing sessions and often as not threw out as much printed and processed paper as I kept finished prints.

Eventually I realised I was wasting more good paper than I kept and I decided it had to top. Fortunately, good photo scanners then came on the market. Scanning has freed me from the tyranny of the darkroom. No more all-night printing sessions and lost sleep. Or waste baskets filled with expensive unwanted prints. True freedom, this.

I never, ever print 11x14" as I long ago gave up boring friends and family with showing big prints. These days when I (infrequently) set up my home darkroom and print, I make nothing bigger than 5x7" which to me is the ideal size for 99% of my 35mm negs. Or square prints on 5x8" (8x10" sheets cut in two) for my Rollei negatives. an 8x10" from my darkroom is a rare event, in fact making an eight-ten nowadays rates a glass of good red wine.

What really saved my sanity was a fortunate find in a secondhand shop - a Patterson test printer. I paid as I recall, A$10 for it and it has simplified my test strip making. A 4x5" sheet cut in two gives me a perfectly adequate test prints. I can then fine-tune the rest of my enlargement and often as not get it 90% right, which is good enough for me, with the first print I make.

I now scan all my good images as tests, which lets me visually inspect the scenes and work out what I want in a final print.

It's also entirely true as you say, perfect negatives don't exist, never did and never will. But good negatives can be made better. I improved all my images when I finally forced myself to stop taking pretty landscapes and included less sky in my images. Also I no longer shoot very much on bright sunny days and concentrated on more overcast day situations. This works for me.

All this worked for me and it may for you. Tinker with things a bit and fine-tune your shooting and printing. Lateral thinking can be fun.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do both. If I have other prints from the roll that have similar negative I might go to a print, but usually I do test strips.

 

[awty]

I usually play around with a smaller print to work out my dodge and burns etc.
For a large print I will cut strips to do a 1 stop interval test strip, to make sure Im in the ball park with exposure, then I do another test strip at 1/4 stop interval to make sure and also check contrast filter is correct.
Then I will use a full sheet to run 1/4 stop interval test sheet. Sometimes it pays to allow full dry down to make sure your shadows arent blocking up once dry.
Then good to go to print.
Whenever I try to cut corners I end up wasting more paper.
I only print big pictures I really want to frame and hang on the wall, which isn't often.
I go through boxes of 5x7 and 8x 10 to play with.
Practice makes perfect.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I've been making print exposures based on test strips for a long time, but now I'm thinking of either making localized test prints (masking off the paper and making multiple exposures of just one main area) or making 4x5 or 5x7 test prints after a regular test strip, and before making the 11x14's. Is there an advantage either way? How do most people here do this? Of course, w/ a perfect neg this would probably be easier, but I've never seen one of those.

My home darkroom is really short on space, so I find that it's easier to just burn a sheet on a test print and not go through the effort of cutting test strips. Yes, it does cost more money to do that, but in all honesty, time is money, and for me it's just simpler and faster to make test prints. You can make test prints with smaller sized sheets (like 5x7) if you want to just work out the contrast and rough exposure time, but again, for me, I find it more useful and instructive to just use a full 8x10 sheet (or 11x14 if printing a bit bigger).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use both methods, with most negatives I can find a strip of the print that covers the area with the detail or shadow areas I'm most interested in, other times there may several areas that I want to find time for and test print is the most efficient method for me. Other time I use test squares for several different areas, might expose a series of squares at 3 or 4 second intervals to find a time for sky.

first a test strip of the most important highlight area to determine optimum exposure, Then, a print at grade two to anticipate best grade for shadowdetail and dodging and burning requirements.

 

[radiant]

I'm always using localized test strips. Way more better and easier than the incremental system. Small incrementally made test strips are usually really hard to evaluate for the correct time & contrast because of small area and the "jumping" on the exposure.

I have bought 5x7" sheets from the same paper that I'm using for enlarging just to make the process easier so I don't have to cut any strips. I need two 5x7" in most cases to get to working print. First I adjust exposure and then I adjust the contrast.

 

[Alan9940]

Like Ralph, I make an initial test strip based on highlight detail to determine overall exposure, then a full size print at that exposure to determine overall contrast. Once I have a good work print made, if I think any dodging/burning is required, I make small "patches" to lay right on the work print. Once I have the formula down, I make a final print; or, a few because ya never know what might happen in the toning process.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm always using localized test strips. Way more better and easier than the incremental system. Small incrementally made test strips are usually really hard to evaluate for the correct time & contrast because of small area and the "jumping" on the exposure.

I have bought 5x7" sheets from the same paper that I'm using for enlarging just to make the process easier so I don't have to cut any strips. I need two 5x7" in most cases to get to working print. First I adjust exposure and then I adjust the contrast.

5x7' pieces of the came paper may not behave as the same paper. I often cut 5x7 pieces from the same paper but, it is even possible that those do not behave as the next sheet. although, the differences are usually too small to worry about.

 

[Bill Burk]

It depends. For one thing, how deep your pockets are.

Printing paper (especially FB) is no longer as cheap as it was. For many years when Kodabromide, Kodabrome, Polycontrast and eventually Multigrade in avatars III and IV didn't cost the price of a kidney, I printed like a mad fiend, endured long (as in "all night") printing sessions and often as not threw out as much printed and processed paper as I kept finished prints.

Eventually I realised I was wasting more good paper than I kept and I decided it had to top. Fortunately, good photo scanners then came on the market. Scanning has freed me from the tyranny of the darkroom. No more all-night printing sessions and lost sleep. Or waste baskets filled with expensive unwanted prints. True freedom, this.

I never, ever print 11x14" as I long ago gave up boring friends and family with showing big prints. These days when I (infrequently) set up my home darkroom and print, I make nothing bigger than 5x7" which to me is the ideal size for 99% of my 35mm negs. Or square prints on 5x8" (8x10" sheets cut in two) for my Rollei negatives. an 8x10" from my darkroom is a rare event, in fact making an eight-ten nowadays rates a glass of good red wine.

What really saved my sanity was a fortunate find in a secondhand shop - a Patterson test printer. I paid as I recall, A$10 for it and it has simplified my test strip making. A 4x5" sheet cut in two gives me a perfectly adequate test prints. I can then fine-tune the rest of my enlargement and often as not get it 90% right, which is good enough for me, with the first print I make.

I now scan all my good images as tests, which lets me visually inspect the scenes and work out what I want in a final print.

It's also entirely true as you say, perfect negatives don't exist, never did and never will. But good negatives can be made better. I improved all my images when I finally forced myself to stop taking pretty landscapes and included less sky in my images. Also I no longer shoot very much on bright sunny days and concentrated on more overcast day situations. This works for me.

All this worked for me and it may for you. Tinker with things a bit and fine-tune your shooting and printing. Lateral thinking can be fun.

I love hearing stories like yours. Alternate universes. Practically everything you do is the opposite for me but I am happy we have differences to share. In my case I always print 11x14 because it gives me room to reach in for dodge and burn. It’s kind of like you ride a motorcycle and I drive a minivan, gets you there just the same.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I always begin with a proper proof. I proof all my negatives; four 4x5s per 8x10 sheet. Evaluating the proof gives me information about where to start when printing (or not to bother at all). From the proof I have a good idea of what contrast to begin with and what part(s) of the print I want in my test strip as well as what I may want split-print or to dodge and burn later.

I always make an initial test strip, in 30% intervals from about seven to 35 seconds or so. Using percentage increments instead of a set time is similar to f-stop timing, but without the need for a special timer or calculations using the square root of 2.

If the contrast is obviously wrong on the first test strip, I'll tweak contrast and make another. Once I have the contrast close, I'll make a straight print (or a print with some obvious dodging/burning) at that exposure. My standard print size is 11x14 inches, and I make a full size print. Some smaller still-lifes or detail images lend themselves better to smaller paper, so I'll use that size for smaller images. For prints in 16x20 and 20x24 sizes, I always have an 11x14 final print with printing notes to refer to before beginning, However, I still use a full sheet for those first prints after the initial test strip. They contain all the information I need to make a plan to reach an excellent final print. Why would I want less than full information?

That first straight print after the test strip goes up on the viewing wall and gets stared at a long time while I sketch my dodging/burning/bleaching scheme and decide what contrast and exposure changes I want to make. My adage is: waste time, not paper, so I spend time planning what to do rather than a lot on trial-and-error.

After I have a viable plan, I make print number two with all the changes I've planned. It, too, goes up on the viewing wall and I'll sit and plan print number three.

After a few sheets, I'm usually closing in on the print that I envisioned. A that point, I'll often have three or four slightly different prints up on the viewing wall for evaluation. I let them dry completely before final evaluation.

Sometimes, more than one performance of a print will make the cut, but usually I end up with two or three close-to-identical prints for the run. Reaching that point usually takes 6-8 sheets of paper, sometimes fewer if I'm lucky.

My best tool in the darkroom is my trash can.

Best,

Doremus

 

[radiant]

5x7' pieces of the came paper may not behave as the same paper. I often cut 5x7 pieces from the same paper but, it is even possible that those do not behave as the next sheet. although, the differences are usually too small to worry about.

Why is that? I believe those are cut from same stock roll as the larger ones?

Paper doesn't know who has cut it

 

[ic-racer]

I have not used a conventional test strip (where each portion of the projected image gets a different exposure) since the early 1980s.
This shows an example of how I obtain the base exposure for a print. Each needs to be processed and dried to know how to proceed to the goal.

In the example I'm printing grade 5, so very tiny exposure changes are all that is needed (1/8th of a stop). If I were printing grade 0, then much larger exposure changes are needed.

1/4 = 1.4142140^.50 = 1.189
1/8 = 1.4142140^.25 = 1.091

 

[Paul Howell]

first a test strip of the most important highlight area to determine optimum exposure, Then, a print at grade two to anticipate best grade for shadowdetail and dodging and burning requirements.

Over the years I've scaled my negatives to print on grade 2, I will try grade 1, not sure that will work the same as if I had scaled my negatives to grade 3 or 4. I attempted split grade printing, not much if any difference from a grade 2 print. I do a test strip for shadow details to determine how long to dodge. As graded 2 paper has become very hard to find if at all I use a 2 or 2 1/2 Ilford VC filter depending on the paper.

 

[Bill Burk]

Over the years I've scaled my negatives to print on grade 2, I will try grade 1, not sure that will work the same as if I had scaled my negatives to grade 3 or 4. I attempted split grade printing, not much if any difference from a grade 2 print. I do a test strip for shadow details to determine how long to dodge. As graded 2 paper has become very hard to find if at all I use a 2 or 2 1/2 Ilford VC filter depending on the paper.

It will work for you... I aim my negatives to print in between grade 2 and 3 on my diffusion enlarger. When I choose a negative to print, it's pretty obvious to me which paper grade it is leaning towards (if it's thin grade 3, if it's rich with contrast grade 2). So I will try my first test strip on one or the other. If everything I want to see looks good on one or two adjacent steps of the test strip, then I have a base exposure figured out and my first dodge or burn attempt. If it's obvious I need higher or lower contrast, I will resort to multigrade paper. Otherwise I have Galerie 2 and 3...

 

[eddie]

Each needs to be processed and dried to know how to proceed to the goal.

I think this is an important point. Most people I've known who are disappointed with their final prints after making test strips (or test prints) do not take dry down into consideration.

 

[logan2z]

I think this is an important point. Most people I've known who are disappointed with their final prints after making test strips (or test prints) do not take dry down into consideration.

+1 I use a hairdryer to speed things up.

 

[Kilgallb]

I scan my 4x5 negatives and decide on the cropping and inspect for flaws. (I always expose a main and backup). In the darkroom a make test strips of the same spot in 1/2 stop increments at grade 00 and again on a separate sheet at grade 5.

Then I guess on the in between times and expose a full sheet.

It usually takes three or four full sheets to tweak the exposure, dodging and burning.

This uses more paper but gets me a final result faster.