Do you make a test strip for every contact sheet?

[ChristopherCoy]

On Tuesday I'm headed to the farm to start making contact sheets for every page of negatives that I current own, or at least until I run out of paper. In the past I've used test strips to estimate exposure. But I'm wondering if that is necessary. Since the bulk of my negatives are on Tri-X, I'm wondering if once I get black edges for one sheet, can I use that same time for all the sheets, since it's all the same base?

 

[Valerie]

No, I don't make test strips each time. I have a pretty good idea what exposure I need for my contact sheets. I'm also not nearly as exacting as others regarding my contact sheets, so a little "off" is fine by me. I'd much rather put my time into making prints.

 

[sterioma]

I have some notes in my notebook about what height to set the enlarger, fstop, contrast filter, seconds, etc... As long as I use the same paper, they are usually in the right ballpark.

 

[Aviv]

Assuming you are using the same developer for each developed roll, and that the rolls are generally all exposed in the same way, you can use a single time for all of the sheets. I usually make one test strip using a blank frame or the rebate of the film for a given film/developer combination, and then use that test strip's time to find my time for all subsequent contact sheets for that film/developer combo. Saves lots of time and paper!

 

[takilmaboxer]

I use a standard time and enlarger height. It was arrived at by timing contacts of what I believe are perfectly exposed negatives. So, one look at the sheet and I can tell if the new sheet's images are exposed correctly, and whether the print will need exposure adjustments.

 

[gone]

W/ 35mm, I don't bother w/ contact sheets. The images are too small for me to discern anything meaningful from them, other than that there's a teeny tiny picture there somewhere. I have to scan the negs to see if I'd like to print them or not.

 

[MattKing]

I deal with a coupler of different variables when I make contact proof sheets, so I have developed a technique.
One of the variables is paper variation. From time to time people give me paper, or I find it in places like thrift stores. I use that paper for contact proof sheets (unless it turns out to be really nice, in which case it gets re-purposed). I use an Ilford EM-10 enlarging meter to set the enlarger light to my target intensity, and then do a test print to determine use my standard exposure for all of the rolls.
My darkroom is a temporary one, and the EM-10 helps take away some of the potential variability that arises from having to set up each time.
Another variable is light source. In normal times I also use the enlargers at my Darkroom Group when we have a meeting with lots of group darkroom time. The enlargers there vary, so I use the EM-10 there (if I remember to bring it with me) to set my target light intensity, and then go from there.
If I were Christopher, I wouldn't devote long periods of darkroom time to just doing contact proof sheets. I'd do a bunch, and then have some fun actually printing something each session.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I was contact printing roll film, I used a standard enlarger height, aperture, same developer, and time depending on the film. This is what I teach my students. It took them a while, but they can now see the value in making them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, not for contact prints. I know the exposure for that. I make test strips for the negatives that I want to enlarge, if necessary. [Edit: For all film sizes]

 

[logan2z]

W/ 35mm, I don't bother w/ contact sheets. The images are too small for me to discern anything meaningful from them, other than that there's a teeny tiny picture there somewhere. I have to scan the negs to see if I'd like to print them or not.

Same here. In fact I don't bother with them for 120 either.

It may sound weird coming from someone who only shoots film and makes darkroom prints, but I find contact sheets an anachronism. They made sense when they were the only way to get a preview of a photo before deciding to print it but, given the option, scanning makes a lot more sense to me. I'd much rather spend my limited darkroom time (and my money on materials) making actual prints than making contact sheets.

 

[Alan9940]

If you think your film is pretty consistently exposed and developed, then I'd set the enlarger for about an 11x14" size print, put a negative in the carrier and focus it, then remove the negative and put the empty carrier back in place. Run a test strip to determine what exposure provides max black through the clear film edge. Once you've got that nailed down, don't move anything on the enlarger and make all your contact sheets. A different film may require a different exposure.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I make proper proofs on a middle contrast setting. That means I test once for a particular film/development combination (and enlarger height/aperture) to find the minimum exposure to make almost maximum black from the clear film rebate. I then proof all my negatives of that combination at that time. The resulting proofs will then give me a good idea of whether I've exposed correctly and what starting contrast I need for making a print.

Proper proofs are a good process control and also help refine technique. If I see I'm consistently over- or underexposing, I can adjust my personal E.I. If I have consistently too much or too little contrast, I can tweak my development time.

I keep a note of my proper-proofing times for all the film/developer combinations I use. When proofing, I can just set the enlarger height, set the aperture and choose the proofing time according to the film/development. No need for any test strips except for the initial one to determine proper-proofing time.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Same here. In fact I don't bother with them for 120 either.

It may sound weird coming from someone who only shoots film and makes darkroom prints, but I find contact sheets an anachronism. They made sense when they were the only way to get a preview of a photo before deciding to print it but, given the option, scanning makes a lot more sense to me. I'd much rather spend my limited darkroom time (and my money on materials) making actual prints than making contact sheets.

This is exactly my view. I scan negatives solely to 1) make a "contact sheet" for administrative purposes, and 2) to look at on the computer screen to decide which ones to print. I am grateful that I no longer have to waste darkroom time on contact sheets!

PS. Of course, I am forgoing any enlargement exposure information attainable from an optical contact sheet.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I didn't ask about scanning. If I wanted to introduce as many unknown variables as I could, I would scan. I asked about contact sheets.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How does one scan in a darkroom? Can I do it using trays or a tank?