Do personal EI's standardize printing times?

[ChristopherCoy]

If you go through the trouble of the film speed test, and the film development test, do your printing times become standardized?

For instance, if your predetermined exposure of 15 seconds gives you zone I and zone VIII, and nothing changes, can you always just stick any negative in the enlarger for 15 seconds as a starting point and get the full range of print values, or do you still have to do the test strip thing?

 

[Alan9940]

Don't know if I'd go as far as to label it "standardized", but if you do a film speed test to determine your personal EI, a development time test to lock in Zone VIII (assuming B&W film here, of course), and establish a Proper Proof print time, then, generally, you'll find that your starting print time for about grade 2 will be pretty close to consistent for every negative. Nothing is totally "bullet proof", of course, so things will vary a bit. The Proper Proof will tell you if something is amiss with your negatives.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

... generally, you'll find that your starting print time for about grade 2 will be pretty close to consistent for every negative.

That's what I'm mostly looking for. Right now everything is so out of whack, one negative could start at 9 seconds and another could start at 20.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Too many variables to control. Always do a test strip.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I standardise exposure when I make a contract sheet. They are very helpful in telling you if you are fairly consistent in exposing film.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Too many variables to control. Always do a test strip.

But isn't determining a personal EI a way of decreasing those variables down to a controllable method? If it isn't, then is there really any point in doing it?

 

[Horatio]

IIRC it was more about getting a negative that would print easily on normal contrast paper.

 

[wiltw]

Assuming an area of the neg which landed in Zone V was exposed with consistency, and developed with consistency, it should result in the same amount of density each time.
So then printing Zone V area of neg should result in same density on print, at the same exposure time and the same delvelopment (time and temperature).
That's the theory.

Problem arises when you thint you want a print to be darker or lighter, so that Zone V area is not reproduced to Zone V mid-tone density on print. If your usual print time is 20 seconds, undeexrsposing ((lightening) the frame on paper drops to to 10 sec for -1EV lighter print; darkenin the print increases print time to 40 sec for 1EV darker print.
And problem arises if you use variable contrast paper with filters in the light path, altering intensity of the light.
In short, 'it depends'. It will certainly change if magnification of the print changes! Of if you print on different paper.

It depends, also, upon the scene. If you use flash, perhaps the exposure is great at 10'. But at 30' it is unerexposued. But if you object is to portray the background a bit lighter, you have to give less print time than you otherwise might, simply to brighted up that background to better presentation than a dark hole. But in that kind of case, the background itself is not at your 'standard density'

 

[Paul Howell]

My negatives are scaled to grade 2 paper, some variance over the years and between manufactures which cause the most variability. What I do is test a new paper with a step wedge, fixed and clear strip of film or sheet film then start at a test strip just fixed and washed to match paper base, then at a working aperture expose the strip every 3 seconds in increasing to really dark then find the strip with the best contrast range. Once I find a time sometimes I fuss with the developer dilution and time in the soup. Right now I'm using PW Elite VC, Foma RC and FB and HVC and grade 2 and 3. PW elite is fast, around 9 seconds for a working print, Foma somewhat slower. I still have a 1/2 box of Slavich which seems to slower yet. I have times on file for Multitone Ilford, and and a few others. I'm switching developers to Clayton P 20 so I will need to repeat.


To find your personal E.I or personal ISO, if you don't have access to a densitometry, I don't, you can shoot a ring around by setting up a scene in open shadows or a overcast day with black fabric with texture, white fabric a black, gray card and model for skin tones, start at ISO 25 and work up to 1600 or 3200, a small white broad with the ISO included in the frame is helpful. I find with my newer bodies with electronic shutters and matrix metering shoot pretty much at box speed. There are expectations, Foma 400 matches the Foma data sheet at 320. My older all mechanical bodies with average metering are all over the map. I've thought about getting a densitometer just have not gotten to the point that I think that a precise measurement will be value added.

 

[gone]

I generally start w/ a #2 filter in the enlarger, but that's only a start point. I would always do a test strip, just because. Believe me, I've tried to do things to speed up the printing process, but there are no shortcuts (for me anyway). A few times I considered buying one of those print exposure meters that you place under the enlarger lens and it gives you the best exposure times. That would seem to be impossible. It might put you in the ballpark, but I think that's all it would do.

I want to see what a given exposure looks like w/ my own eyes. This is a visual medium, and if I can't see the problem I should quit photography. But just making a test strip is only the start. It also means drying it w/ a hair dryer, and looking at it in the same light the print will be displayed in. People say that RC paper doesn't have a big dry down like fiber, but if the RC paper is wet, it gives the appearance of being darker and having more contrast.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

IIRC it was more about getting a negative that would print easily on normal contrast paper.

In Picker's method, during the film development tests, you determine that (X) amount of time gives you max black, zone I, and zone VIII in the print. In his book example it's 15 seconds. If the meter never changes, and development never changes, shouldn't every negative made with the same camera, development, enlarger, and paper always give you the proper print tones at 15 seconds whether those tones are in the negative or not?

 

[removed account4]

I standardise exposure when I make a contract sheet. They are very helpful in telling you if you are fairly consistent in exposing film.

+1

 

[gone]

It would if there were such a thing as "proper print tones". Some people like more contrast, some people like less. Some subjects need different exposures. There is no possible way to standardize any of this w/o taking a hit on getting the best image quality. That's never standard, it's worked at. What you may want on one negative may vary quite a bit from one negative to another based on lighting, subject matter, etc.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

It would if there were such a thing as "proper print tones". Some people like more contrast, some people like less. Some subjects need different exposures. There is no possible way to standardize any of this w/o taking a hit on getting the best image quality. That's never standard, it's worked at. What you may want on one negative may vary quite a bit from one negative to another based on lighting, subject matter, etc.

But those are all things that can be determined after the initial print. What you're describing is the difference between a "RAW" photo, and applying certain settings by using JPG. What I'm looking for is a standardized baseline to then make the decisions on whether more or less contrast/exposure is needed,

 

[wiltw]

Here is an example of how 'standard target' for metering can result in differing exposures and differing densities on film, leading to a deviation of print times based upon a standard target density! ALL shots of the 18% grey target were at ONE shutter speed + aperture, only the angle of the 18% grey card was varied.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

Here is an example of how 'standard target' for metering can result in differing exposures and differing densities on film, leading to a deviation of print times based upon a standard target density! ALL shots of the 18% grey target were at ONE shutter speed + aperture, only the angle of the 18% grey card was varied.

But notice that the background didn't change. So assuming all things stay the same, if this were a negative on black and white paper, they would still all have the same print times, correct?. The only thing that would change is if you wanted to say, lighten the gray card in #10, or darken the gray card in #4.

 

[wiltw]

But notice that the background didn't change, so assuming all things stay the same, if this were a negative on black and white paper, they would still all have the same print times, correct?. The only thing that would change is if you wanted to say, lighten the gray card in #10, or darken the gray card in #4.

Yes, the background itself would be identical for all versions, if you printed each neg to the same time. I was illustrating simply how reading a 'standard target' could result in an altered exposure because the 'stadard' itself deviated in brightness (as shown in my examples)/ so you need be be carefult and consistent in your metering methods!

If you used an Averaging meter, you CANNOT be consistent enough, not to the same level of consistency of a spotmeter.And even the spotmeter could be fooled, if I had spotmetered the 18% grey card for all the shots in my example! Just trying to illustrate for you some of the variables that can creep in to defy your efforts to expose for one 'standard print time'.

 

[mrosenlof]

I always do test strips.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

And even the spotmeter could be fooled, if I had spotmetered the 18% grey card for all the shots in my example!

That kind of depends on what you're concerned with though, isn't it? If you had spot metered the card for all the shots, all the cards would be consistent if printed at the same times, and the backgrounds would change.

 

[wiltw]

That kind of depends on what you're concerned with though, isn't it? If you had spot metered the card for all the shots, all the cards would be consistent if printed at the same times, and the backgrounds would change.

Yes, but if your target was exposed differently in the shots (consitent final density of subject 18% grey density) but the background looks like Hell at the same time. So you would print so the background looks better in your mind's eye, and then the subject is NO LONGER going to print to look 'the same' at your standardized print time!

 

[Paul Howell]

In Picker's method, during the film development tests, you determine that (X) amount of time gives you max black, zone I, and zone VIII in the print. In his book example it's 15 seconds. If the meter never changes, and development never changes, shouldn't every negative made with the same camera, development, enlarger, and paper always give you the proper print tones at 15 seconds whether those tones are in the negative or not?

Well sort of right, using a densitometry you figure out what your exposure needs to be for shadow detail then the development time for highlights. If you are shooting roll film then that should be your personal E.I and development time with a given developer, every negative on the roll will need to developed at the same time. When I shoot roll film I expose for zone III shadows and develop for zone 7, fix in the darkroom. If I'm shooting sheet film then I expand or contract development times to achieve the zone you want your high lights to fall into. A working print should be in the ball park for how you visualized the scene. I think the problem with Picker's book is that he does not explain Ansel Adams concept of visualization, what Minor White called per visualization, the Zone system was developed to better achieve visualization.

 

[wiltw]

One benefit of a contact sheet, exposed for a standard time, is it allows you to see the frames that where overexposed, and the ones underexposed, so you get an idea of which frames will print properly at your standard enlarging exposure time vs. those needing more/less exposure time. And your eye can get trained to seeing 1/2EV differences. So when you enlarge one frame, you have an idea from its appearance on contact sheet what you need to do, that gives you higher success rate on first enlargment exposure.

 

[Vaughn]

No, but it gets them close. The print is a moving target.

If you go through the trouble of the film speed test, and the film development test, do your printing times become standardized?...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My goal is to use appropriate EI and development, so that I'll have an easier time printing.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

One benefit of a contact sheet, exposed for a standard time, is it allows you to see the frames that where overexposed, and the ones underexposed, so you get an idea of which frames will print properly at your standard enlarging exposure time vs. those needing more/less exposure time. And your eye can get trained to seeing 1/2EV differences. So when you enlarge one frame, you have an idea from its appearance on contact sheet what you need to do, that gives you higher success rate on first enlargment exposure.

I've been doing contact sheets for each roll that I develop. I usually take a test strip of paper and place it under a section of the negatives so that I can see the sprocket holes as well as some of the image. Then I expose in two second increments, and choose the time where the sprocket holes are just barely visible. Once I do that for one roll of film in a printing session, all subsequent rolls are contact printed at the same time.