Developing time for FB paper

[MattKing]

So your saying maximum black is black with some detail like the second image? And the last image wouldn't be maximum black? To me I'm still thinking maximum black is the bottom picture because it's more Black.

Both examples have some maximum black in them. The darkest parts of the second example are the same black as the darkest parts of the last example - they are both "maximum black".
But the goal is to achieve "maximum black" with the minimum possible exposure, so that only the darkest parts of the image are "maximum black". The last example has too much exposure, so parts of it that shouldn't be printed "maximum black" end up being that dark.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Let's see if an illustration might help. These are digital facsimiles of prints, but the middle one is very close to how the print looks on my wall.
First, this is how a print looks when you haven't given it enough exposure to for the print to have any fully black part to it - "maximum black" hasn't been achieved. Note that the darkest parts are more grey than black: View attachment 346120

The next example is a print where I have given the print enough exposure for the blacks to achieve "maximum black", without giving it too much exposure. Note how there is a wide range of tones, from bright highlights, to well rendered midtones, through nice, substantial and weighty shadows:

View attachment 346121

The final example is the one where the digital approximation is not quite as accurate, but it should still give you a sense what happens when you give the print much more exposure than is necessary to achieve maximum black. The details that should be visible in the near darkest shadows have disappeared, the mid-tones are more like shadows, and the highlights are dim and grey:

View attachment 346122

I hope these give you a sense of what you are looking ffo

It is probably too soon to read those books. They are better for someone with more experience than I think you have.

Wouldn't those three books be the books to learn from though? I mean they are written to learn from right? Ok well since I'm such a beginner and don't have the knowledge to read those books from the experience you think I have what are good beginner books? So apparently stay away from those three books I mentioned. I kind of feel put down with you saying that to me man.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Both examples have some maximum black in them. The darkest parts of the second example are the same black as the darkest parts of the last example - they are both "maximum black".
But the goal is to achieve "maximum black" with the minimum possible exposure, so that only the darkest parts of the image are "maximum black". The last example has too much exposure, so parts of it that shouldn't be printed "maximum black" end up being that dark.

I'm still not understanding maximum black. What is maximum black exactly? Where your blacks become completely black with no detail? The word maximum to me means to the max the blackest of blacks with no detail at all. Your second photo has detail in the blacks. Why is the third photo darker than the first one but as you said has the same blacks?

 

[MattKing]

It is probably too soon to read those books. They are better for someone with more experience than I think you have.


Wouldn't those three books be the books to learn from though? I mean they are written to learn from right? Ok well since I'm such a beginner and don't have the knowledge to read those books from the experience you think I have what are good beginner books? So apparently stay away from those three books I mentioned. I kind of feel put down with you saying that to me man.

No - I'm saying they aren't designed for those who are relatively new to this.
They were designed for the advanced amateur or beginning professional (of the time), who had a good, functional amount of experience, but wanted to deepen and refine their understanding.
Parts of them were also focused on equipment and materials that are no longer available and, in some case, much more demanding and elaborate than what most people use.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Photo knowledge - I think the fastest approach for you would be some personal coaching. But if you enjoy photo books, you could peruse those two little Ansel Adams volumes Andrew just noted, The Negative and the Print. Learning the Zone System itself is optional, though many black and white practitioners have benefitted from it.

Some of the ways AA explained certain things in these book can be clumsy and confusing, and will no doubt lead to further questions. So a degree of patience is needed by all parties involved when question and their answers arise. As you probably already noticed, these threads can drift quite a bit once started, but you can still selectively glean only the contributions you personally need from them, and ignore side discussions more relevant to advanced printers.

I gave away all three vols of that AA classic how-to series, but did keep the supplemental volume, Examples, which is more interesting in terms of the history behind some of his most famous images. Quite a bit in those old manuals is somewhat out of date. Some of the films have changed, and the printing papers certainly have, with the selection now being mainly variable-contrast rather than graded 2,3,4, etc.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

No - I'm saying they aren't designed for those who are relatively new to this.
They were designed for the advanced amateur or beginning professional (of the time), who had a good, functional amount of experience, but wanted to deepen and refine their understanding.
Parts of them were also focused on equipment and materials that are no longer available and, in some case, much more demanding and elaborate than what most people use.

Well I'm a beginner and not advanced so they may help. It's ok I don't like to read anyways and most of the time I don't understand what I read anyways. I don't own any books but one and I recently bought it to set on my prints to flatten.

 

[MattKing]

I'm still not understanding maximum black. What is maximum black exactly? Where your blacks become completely black with no detail? The word maximum to me means to the max the blackest of blacks with no detail at all. Your second photo has detail in the blacks. Why is the third photo darker than the first one but as you said has the same blacks?

If you look at the very darkest parts of the second example, it is so dark that it doesn't have any detail, and it is "maximum black".
The same parts of the last image are equally dark - if you put those parts from the two examples side by side they will be identical.
The additional exposure for the last example means that there are too many parts of the image that are "maximum black". You need to remember that the goal is "minimum exposure for maximum black", not just the abbreviated "maximum black".

 

[Pieter12]

Unfortunately, the example shown are about exposure variations in the enlarger and not development time. I believe before this went off the rails, the initial query was about development time for FB paper. All this bouncing around will easily confuse a darkroom novice.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The more correct term is Dmax - maximum density, rather than "maximum black". Either way, it implies the deepest black any given paper can achieve. But what that is exactly is, just how black it really is, varies somewhat from paper to paper, with premium or more expensive papers tending to achieve deeper blacks than cheaper papers. But how any paper is supplementally toned after development also a factors into full DMax.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

If you look at the very darkest parts of the second example, it is so dark that it doesn't have any detail, and it is "maximum black".
The same parts of the last image are equally dark - if you put those parts from the two examples side by side they will be identical.
The additional exposure for the last example means that there are too many parts of the image that are "maximum black". You need to remember that the goal is "minimum exposure for maximum black", not just the abbreviated "maximum black"

If you look at the very darkest parts of the second example, it is so dark that it doesn't have any detail, and it is "maximum black".
The same parts of the last image are equally dark - if you put those parts from the two examples side by side they will be identical.
The additional exposure for the last example means that there are too many parts of the image that are "maximum black". You need to remember that the goal is "minimum exposure for maximum black", not just the abbreviated "maximum black"

If you look at the very darkest parts of the second example, it is so dark that it doesn't have any detail, and it is "maximum black".
The same parts of the last image are equally dark - if you put those parts from the two examples side by side they will be identical.
The additional exposure for the last example means that there are too many parts of the image that are "maximum black". You need to remember that the goal is "minimum exposure for maximum black", not just the abbreviated "maximum black".

I don't know what abbreviated mean

If you look at the very darkest parts of the second example, it is so dark that it doesn't have any detail, and it is "maximum black".
The same parts of the last image are equally dark - if you put those parts from the two examples side by side they will be identical.
The additional exposure for the last example means that there are too many parts of the image that are "maximum black". You need to remember that the goal is "minimum exposure for maximum black", not just the abbreviated "maximum black".

I don't know what you mean by the word abbreviated in this topic of maximum black. I just watched a video on maximum black. So let me take another guess on what maximum black is. This might just be something I'll never understand no matter how many times and ways people explain it to me it happens. So is maximum black black with detail? Or black with no detail? If it's no detail why would you want to reach maximum black? Here is that video. Basically it's showing that 9 seconds has detail and anything longer than that is no detail. Is no detail maximum black?

 

[Photo Knowledge]

The more correct term is Dmax - maximum density, rather than "maximum black". Either way, it implies the deepest black any given paper can achieve. But what that is exactly is, just how black it really is, varies somewhat from paper to paper, with premium or more expensive papers tending to achieve deeper blacks than cheaper papers. But how any paper is supplementally toned after development also a factors into full DMax

The more correct term is Dmax - maximum density, rather than "maximum black". Either way, it implies the deepest black any given paper can achieve. But what that is exactly is, just how black it really is, varies somewhat from paper to paper, with premium or more expensive papers tending to achieve deeper blacks than cheaper papers. But how any paper is supplementally toned after development also a factors into full DMax.

So maximum black is black in your print with no detail?

 

[GregY]

Well I'm a beginner and not advanced so they may help. It's ok I don't like to read anyways and most of the time I don't understand what I read anyways. I don't own any books but one and I recently bought it to set on my prints to flatten.

A library near you should have a book in their photography section that will you a good outline for darkroom practices. A good example is Henry Horenstein - "Black & White Photography: A Basic Manual." You may find answers to some of your questions as they come up.

 

[L Gebhardt]

How do you adjust the contrast on a print? I know what adjusting my exposure is. Most of my times are between 3-5 seconds with my enlarger lens set at F8. Say I set my lens to F11 or F16 would my times go from 3-5 seconds to say 7-9 seconds or more? How does all that work with F stops on the lens vs times. And I'm still not understanding Maximum Black or Fogging. I guess I can research that more myself instead of ask questions on here. I'm just not understanding Maximum Black or Fogging. Got a simple example or picture or video for me on both those subjects of Maximum Black and Fogging?

Print contrast is how the paper responds to the range of light passed by the negative. Variable contrast paper responds differently based on the amount of blue and green light in the projected image. You can control the light color with contrast filters or with a color enlarger.

Maximum black is the blackest the paper can get. if you expose a sheet of paper to room light for a few seconds and develop it for a few minutes it will be about as black as it can get. Any more light and any more development time won’t make it darker.

if you make a print and include the clear border of the film you would expect that border to print at maximum black. In fact that’s how I judge exposure when making contact prints from my negatives. You can make test strips and choone the time that the border is as dark a the next step up.

The lens aperture will allow you to get longer times by reducing the light. Each stop will halve the light and therefore require twice as much time. I usually use an f stop that gives me times around 16 seconds. Any adjustments after that are done with time adjustments.

 

[xkaes]

Maximum black, DMAX, maximum density, or whatever you want to call it is simply how black a piece of photo paper can produce. You don't need a negative to determine this. Take two pieces of photo paper, for example, one Kodak glossy, and one Ilford matte. Expose both of them to the sun, then develop them for five minutes. Dry them and place them together. One will look slightly darker than the other. They are both displaying their maximum blacks. They are different, but they are both maximum black. There is no detail in either. They are both all black, but one is slightly darker black than the other. But they are both their own maximum black.

Your job, should you accept it, is to produce this same black from any area in a negative that has no density -- AKA, pitch black shadows! If you don't, your pitch black shadows will appear just dark gray.

 

[takilmaboxer]

It's frustrating to try to describe on an Internet forum, things that could be quickly demonstrated by a darkroom session with a good photo teacher. They'd explain the concept, demonstrate it, and then watch over you while you do it yourself. Do yourself a favor, take a class, it will change your Photo Life.

 

[Photo Knowledge]

It's frustrating to try to describe on an Internet forum, things that could be quickly demonstrated by a darkroom session with a good photo teacher. They'd explain the concept, demonstrate it, and then watch over you while you do it yourself. Do yourself a favor, take a class, it will change your Photo Life.

I have no place to take a class. I am in a small town that offers no darkroom or any teachers

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Print contrast is how the paper responds to the range of light passed by the negative. Variable contrast paper responds differently based on the amount of blue and green light in the projected image. You can control the light color with contrast filters or with a color enlarger.

Maximum black is the blackest the paper can get. if you expose a sheet of paper to room light for a few seconds and develop it for a few minutes it will be about as black as it can get. Any more light and any more development time won’t make it darker.

if you make a print and include the clear border of the film you would expect that border to print at maximum black. In fact that’s how I judge exposure when making contact prints from my negatives. You can make test strips and choone the time that the border is as dark a the next step up.

The lens aperture will allow you to get longer times by reducing the light. Each stop will halve the light and therefore require twice as much time. I usually use an f stop that gives me times around 16 seconds. Any adjustments after that are done with time adjustments.

I still do not understand Maximum black. I appreciate you guys trying to explain it to me but I absolutely do not understand. Am I supposed to make the blacks in my image reach maximum black? Like you and someone described maximum black is the blackest with no detail in the blacks at all right? Why would I want my shadows to be maximum black? Or any blacks in the image at all to be maximum black? What does maximum black mean? And what's the clear border of the film? The sprockets? This is getting frustrating I've even browsed online other than here on Photrio and I'm still not understanding. Do I want maximum black in my prints? Or no?

 

[Photo Knowledge]

I still do not understand Maximum black. I appreciate you guys trying to explain it to me but I absolutely do not understand. Am I supposed to make the blacks in my image reach maximum black? Like you and someone described maximum black is the blackest with no detail in the blacks at all right? Why would I want my shadows to be maximum black? Or any blacks in the image at all to be maximum black? What does maximum black mean? And what's the clear border of the film? The sprockets? This is getting frustrating I've even browsed online other than here on Photrio and I'm still not understanding. Do I want maximum black in my prints? Or no?

And what do you mean by blue and green light in the projected image? What is a projected image?

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Both examples have some maximum black in them. The darkest parts of the second example are the same black as the darkest parts of the last example - they are both "maximum black".
But the goal is to achieve "maximum black" with the minimum possible exposure, so that only the darkest parts of the image are "maximum black". The last example has too much exposure, so parts of it that shouldn't be printed "maximum black" end up being that dark.

Why would you want the darkest parts of the image to be maximum black? Wouldn't that be pitch black with no detail?

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Maximum black, DMAX, maximum density, or whatever you want to call it is simply how black a piece of photo paper can produce. You don't need a negative to determine this. Take two pieces of photo paper, for example, one Kodak glossy, and one Ilford matte. Expose both of them to the sun, then develop them for five minutes. Dry them and place them together. One will look slightly darker than the other. They are both displaying their maximum blacks. They are different, but they are both maximum black. There is no detail in either. They are both all black, but one is slightly darker black than the other. But they are both their own maximum black.

Your job, should you accept it, is to produce this same black from any area in a negative that has no density -- AKA, pitch black shadows! If you don't, your pitch black shadows will appear just dark gray.

I'm a visual learner that's why I'm not understanding. Is there any videos on maximum black? Remember I'm not even a week into any of this. How about this. I like to take pictures and develope them and if there's a image I'm satisfied. Is that ok? Or do I have to know what maximum black is? Is it important? Do we need to know it?

 

[Photo Knowledge]

Both examples have some maximum black in them. The darkest parts of the second example are the same black as the darkest parts of the last example - they are both "maximum black".
But the goal is to achieve "maximum black" with the minimum possible exposure, so that only the darkest parts of the image are "maximum black". The last example has too much exposure, so parts of it that shouldn't be printed "maximum black" end up being that dark.

A library near you should have a book in their photography section that will you a good outline for darkroom practices. A good example is Henry Horenstein - "Black & White Photography: A Basic Manual." You may find answers to some of your questions as they come up.

Is it ok for me not to understand the science behind all of this? Is it ok not to understand Maximum black and curves and all that? I really just have more fun not understanding things. I like to shoot and then develope my negatives and print it without trying to understand. Ever since I've been trying to understand what maximum black is and curves and fogging and all of that ive been making myself stressed. Can I just shoot develope and print without knowing? Or would I be a failure and have to give up because I don't know what the science is behind it? And I don't do libraries I don't even read books. I own one book and it's to weigh down my prints I haven't even read a word from it because reading is not for me. So did I fail because I don't know what maximum black is? Should I just throw my cameras and enlarger away? Or is it ok that my tones aren't placed correctly? I don't even know if my images are good anymore because all of this trying to understand has made me look at my images different like they are garbage and I should throw them away. I'm very hard on myself and I think I've failed at this. Can I still do it without knowing all that you guys know?

 

[MattKing]

Why would you want the darkest parts of the image to be maximum black? Wouldn't that be pitch black with no detail?

Yes.
In the examples, there are areas at the bottom of some of the boat sheds that are supposed to be pitch black, and we shouldn't be able to see detail there.
Those (supposed to be pitch black) parts of the scene are the parts of the print that you want to be maximum black.
If you don't give the print enough exposure, or you don't develop the print long enough, nothing will get to that maximum black - it will never get past grey.
If you give the print too much exposure, or you develop the print way, way too long, parts of the subject that ought to have greys and detail in them will also end up maximum black.
We want the right amount of maximum black. If we develop the print enough, and we give the print the right amount of exposure, we end up with just enough maximum black. When we talk about wanting "maximum black" it is really shorthand for (an abbreviation for) saying we want enough development and the minimum exposure to get those really dark parts to maximum black.
It is easy to develop the print enough - just pick a convenient time within the range that is specified for it and the developer you use, and then use that time consistently. There are a number of times within that range that will work great, as long as you are consistent.
Choosing the right exposure is more picky - the paper is very responsive to changes in exposure. That is why you do test strips.
And then when you get the exposure at or near where it should be, you can adjust the appearance further by adjusting the contrast and employing a bunch of other more specialized techniques. Working on those makes more sense when you have gained just a bit more experience.

 

[MattKing]

Is it ok for me not to understand the science behind all of this? Is it ok not to understand Maximum black and curves and all that? I really just have more fun not understanding things. I like to shoot and then develope my negatives and print it without trying to understand. Ever since I've been trying to understand what maximum black is and curves and fogging and all of that ive been making myself stressed. Can I just shoot develope and print without knowing? Or would I be a failure and have to give up because I don't know what the science is behind it? And I don't do libraries I don't even read books. I own one book and it's to weigh down my prints I haven't even read a word from it because reading is not for me. So did I fail because I don't know what maximum black is? Should I just throw my cameras and enlarger away? Or is it ok that my tones aren't placed correctly? I don't even know if my images are good anymore because all of this trying to understand has made me look at my images different like they are garbage and I should throw them away. I'm very hard on myself and I think I've failed at this. Can I still do it without knowing all that you guys know?

Absolutely - you can have all sorts of fun and get all sorts of good results that you are happy with if you only understand parts of this.
Give it some time, and continue trying things to see how they work for you.
Some stuff will be easier and more satisfying if you learn things as you go, so don't avoid trying to pick up additional understanding. Just learn at your own speed, and in your own way.
As far as the science or specialized techniques or terms like "maximum black" are concerned, it is really hard to explain stuff on the internet without using them, but don't worry if they don't work for you yet. You may find that just doing more printing will start to make them clear for you - but don't be too worried about it.
And in particular, with the exception of the fairly obvious things like handling things safely, don't worry about any "correct" way to do something. Try to find ways that work for you. Just understand that in many cases the ways that are considered "correct" by many people got that way because, in the end, they turned out to be the easiest and simplest - and sometimes result in the least expense.
Do your best to relax and have fun.

 

[GregY]

Is it ok for me not to understand the science behind all of this? Is it ok not to understand Maximum black and curves and all that? I really just have more fun not understanding things. I like to shoot and then develope my negatives and print it without trying to understand. Ever since I've been trying to understand what maximum black is and curves and fogging and all of that ive been making myself stressed. Can I just shoot develope and print without knowing? Or would I be a failure and have to give up because I don't know what the science is behind it? And I don't do libraries I don't even read books. I own one book and it's to weigh down my prints I haven't even read a word from it because reading is not for me. So did I fail because I don't know what maximum black is? Should I just throw my cameras and enlarger away? Or is it ok that my tones aren't placed correctly? I don't even know if my images are good anymore because all of this trying to understand has made me look at my images different like they are garbage and I should throw them away. I'm very hard on myself and I think I've failed at this. Can I still do it without knowing all that you guys know?

Some of the books you'll find will really be how-to books. Explaining the way to print. You can definitely start from the practical. Learn to develop film and make prints. You'll learn more as you go. Yes you can learn to do those things without understanding all the complex science.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Boy, there sure is a lot of confusion out there about "maximum black" and how to achieve it. So let me add to the fray

You can get maximum black (D-max) from any negative with any contrast filter. Just expose long enough. The image may be totally worthless, but you can get as black as you like with enough exposure. Heck, I don't even need a negative or even an enlarger to get paper to D-max; just turn on the room lights and toss it in the developer. D-max is a result of two things: adequate exposure and adequate development - period.

The adage that a fine print must contain a maximum black and a maximum white (just paper-base white) is about as valuable as many other photographic generalizations. Yes, most successful prints have good blacks and good highlights and lots of nicely-separated midtones in between. Some don't and that's just fine too if that's what the goal of the photographer is. I've got a couple of prints with nowhere near D-max in them on purpose. They work well IM-HO.

Besides, achieving a print with a full range of tonalities is really all about the negative that you start with. The idea is to have a negative that has a full range of densities in the right proportions to deliver a fine print when printed on a medium-contrast paper grade or filtration setting. That's why we spend so much time on film exposure and development.

The whole point of exposing a clear area of the negative for enough time to get D-max (or close enough to it to be visually indistinguishable) is to see if you are exposing and developing your film properly. Making the "proper proof" is a down-and-dirty way of checking to see if your negative has enough exposure and the proper range of densities to get print tonalities that correspond best to the scene (and how the photographer visualized it).

Yes, developing for a too-short time will not allow the paper to reach D-max. This is not good, so develop your prints long enough. Finding how long to develop your prints so they are not underdeveloped is pretty straightforward; read the directions that come with your paper and print developer.

Overdevelopment of prints happens only when fogging starts to occur. That takes a pretty long time with most papers - say 8-10 minutes or longer before any ill effects are noticed. I've developed prints for five minutes and more with no fogging. The upshot here is that the window of development time where you can achieve a maximum black and still have no fogging is really large, somewhere between 1.5 and 6 (or more) minutes for most fiber-base papers.

As mentioned before, extending development time beyond that which is needed for the paper to achieve a maximum black and the characteristic curve shape has stabilized only speeds up the paper. That's just like adding a bit more exposure at the enlarger, nothing more.

So the inevitable conclusions: Expose your paper long enough to get the blacks you want in the print and develop it long enough for those black to appear.

It's good to standardize on a print development time that falls within the window between under- and overdevelopment just so you can make consistent changes in exposure with exposure time at the enlarger. A refinement of that is to use development time to make, in essence, small tweaks of exposure, which might be inconvenient to make with exposure time. This comes when making the final adjustments to a print; not when starting out.

If you print for good, "realistic" midtones and highlights and can't get a decent black, it's not the paper's fault. It's your underexposed and/or underdeveloped negative that is the problem. Similarly, if you need to use extreme contrast settings a lot to get decent prints, you really need to refine your film exposure and development.

Best,

Doremus

I think that with this good en well written text all is said what had to be!
Thank you Doremus...