Distance & Exposure times....

wiltw · Jan 19, 2012

ChristopherCoy said:
I was able to print an 8x10 using a #3 filter at 3 seconds exposure, around f/5.6 I think, and produce something that I like.

Last night I was thinking about trying a 16x20 of the same print.... I want to try and have an idea of how the distance may change my exposure time, before I start wasting 16x20 sheets...

Kodak enlarging dial in the Kodak B+W Dataguide says: 8X 3sec f/5.6 becomes 16X 10.5sec f/5.6

ic-racer · Jan 19, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Not relevant as we were referring to moving lights, not the focus (well, I was anyway!) and inverse square rule in general. But yes, on an enlarger the re-focussing will affect it a bit. but only because it will also change the coverage so the inverse square rule will still apply.

Steve.

You can think of re-focusing as thing that changes the effective aperture. As the lens gets racked out the effective aperture changes. Otherwise you could easily calculate the exposure changes based on conservation of energy and the spread of the light. The change in aperture screws up the simple equation.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 20, 2012

TheFlyingCamera said:
The inverse square rule applies to enlargement the same way it does to studio lighting - double the distance, lose a stop, halve the distance, gain a stop. So going up to a 16x20 from an 8x10 is roughly 4x the distance, or two stops. If your base exposure is 3 seconds at f5.6, then give it 12 seconds as a starting point on your test strip (still do test strips!). you'll probably want to go up at least one grade in filtration, maybe a grade and a half. So you'll have to add another half to whole stop for the filter grade increase too. Try starting at grade 4, 24 seconds, and give your test strips three exposures at 12, 24, 36 and 48 seconds to see where the truth lies.

sorry but itdoes not
Exposure Height and Exposure Correction Whenever the enlarger head is raised or lowered, and the negative magnification is changed, print exposure must be corrected. in the attached pdf on page 511 you will find a chart to determine the magnification of your enlargement and another to estimate the exposure compensation required to accommodate a change in enlarger height. Strictly speaking, projected print exposures fail to follow the inverse-square law, but they follow the inverse square of the lens-to-paper distance if the paper reciprocity failure is ignored, in which case, a new theoretical exposure time (t2) is given by:

RalphLambrecht · Jan 20, 2012

Steve Smith said:
Not relevant as we were referring to moving lights, not the focus (well, I was anyway!) and inverse square rule in general. But yes, on an enlarger the re-focussing will affect it a bit. but only because it will also change the coverage so the inverse square rule will still apply.

Steve.

noit doesn't!!!!
Exposure Height and Exposure Correction Whenever the enlarger head is raised or lowered, and the negative magnification is changed, print exposure must be corrected. In Tables and Templates, you will find a chart to determine the magnification of your enlargement and another to estimate the exposure compensation required to accommodate a change in enlarger height. Strictly speaking, projected print exposures fail to follow the inverse-square law, but they follow the inverse square of the lens-to-paper distance if the paper reciprocity failure is ignored, in which case, a new theoretical exposure time (t2) is given by:

Distance & Exposure times....

wiltw

ic-racer

RalphLambrecht

RalphLambrecht

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency