Enlarging meters and timers

[cmo]

When I was young we used test strips. A lot. Later I had a lightmeter that allowed to measure the light and dark areas and recommended a contrast setting and time, the result was a "normal" print, not very contrasty, but okay. For everything else I made test strips...

Now as I am setting up a new darkroom I wonder which meter/timer I should buy to avoid making so many test strips. I would like to have one that helps me to make my settings for dodging and burning. I do not expect it to replace all test strips forever but one that takes the guesswork out of this.

I heard about some costly gadgets like the ones made by RH Design Analyser and FEM Kunze.

Which do you use, and how effective is it? Did you have to calibrate it, and how much time did that take?

 

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hello !
I own and use an Analyser Pro from RH Designs. It is THE piece of gear I will keep above everything else in my darkroom.
The adv. says "banish the test strip" ... And it is true.
I've made a set of 50x60 cm prints for a friend for an exhibition. He was amazed that after a set of measurements I used a complete sheet of paper without any test strips. And was overwhelmed by the result going out of the fixer tray !
Now I've to double check his pockets every time he came in the darkroom (as he his planning a darkroom) !
Frankly, it is worth very cent you'll put on it.

 

[R gould]

I use an analyser/pro from R.H.Designs,for me it is the best darkroom investment I ever made, and paid for itself in less waste paper in no time, it will do everything you desire, dodging/burning times,is 9 times out of ten spot on for base exposure, for me I would not now like to print with out it, and the backup is second to none, just look on the RH designs site atwww.rhdesigns.co.ukRichard

 

[BetterSense]

I made my own baseboard meter/densitometer. It uses a microcontroller and has a 16-character LCD, which displays a bar graph. Each segment of the bar graph is 1/3 stop. There is a knob to set the global 'gain' of the device. It also works as a densitometer. I find that it mostly helps just for getting you in the ballpark; the final print still needs worked up by trial+error. It also helps when changing print sizes or when I switch enlargers or lenses.

 

[Mike Wilde]

Yes,the fancy analysers (yes, I own one too- a Lici Colourstar and the ability to interpret its readings) are very handy.

But a simple little EM-10 (or even an M-1), some time to calibrate it with a step wedge, and some graph paper will allow you to do great things as well.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I made my own baseboard meter/densitometer. It uses a microcontroller and has a 16-character LCD, which displays a bar graph. Each segment of the bar graph is 1/3 stop. There is a knob to set the global 'gain' of the device. It also works as a densitometer. I find that it mostly helps just for getting you in the ballpark; the final print still needs worked up by trial+error. It also helps when changing print sizes or when I switch enlargers or lenses.

And now the question(s) is...
Assuming you used a photodiode, which one was it?
What ADC did you use? The one embedded in the microcontroller or was it a dedicated one?

 

[squinonescolon]

Yes BetterSense, share please!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

cmo

I see you have to come over soon.

I share the thoughts mentioned about the RH equipment and use it myself. A darkroom meter is a big help and will give you a good work print quickly. HOWEVER, the aim should never be to eliminate test strips!!!

A darkroom meter stops where your fine-tuning begins. You NEED test strips for fine tuning, otherwise, you can never be sure that what you call 'perfect' is really the best you can do. Without test strips, what are you comparing it to?

It's far better to have other samples that are 'too dark', 'too light', 'too soft' and 'too hard'. Only if you see your print next to almost-good-enough samples and still prefer it, you know it's perfect. Otherwise, you're just hoping it might be.

 

[BetterSense]

I used a TSL230 light-to-frequency chip, which does us an array of photodiodes as the sensing element. My darkroom meter/densitometer is similar to my light meters that use the same chip. The TSL230 is desirable for use in a light meter because of its ease of implementation and because of its extreme dynamic range. Probably for a darkroom meter, you could use a plain photodiode, because the dynamic range demands are not nearly as extreme. In my case I already had the microcontroller software written so it is very tempting to just use the TSL230.

It strikes me that silicon photodiodes are in a sense particularly bad for enlarging with tungsten light, because photopaper is only blue sensitive and photodiodes are much more red/IR sensitive than blue sensitive, so they sense light that is not actinic even more strongly than light that IS actinic. However, I only use my enlarging meter for comparison purposes, not to discover actual units of illuminance, and since most enlargers do not dim the bulb, the ratio of blue to red/IR light should be a constant at any exposure. This spectral sensitivity does, however, make Si photodiodes unsuitable for densitometry on color materials, which I know by experience are completely transparent to IR light but of course block visible light. For my light meters, I use IR filters over the TSL230.

Consider a chip like the LX1971 for a dedicated easel meter/densitometer.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Eh, yes, the extreme IR sensitivity is what puzzles me. I don't know if it matters that much or not for BW processes, since the visible to IR ratio from the enlarger's bulb should be constant. And it gets quite problematic since I can only find IR sensitive photodiodes locally, not the filtered, close to human eye response kind. Incident angle probably isn't a problem, except perhaps if you have a special wide angle enlarging lens.

 

[cmo]

I see you have to come over soon.

Yes

the aim should never be to eliminate test strips!!!

Well, let's say "eliminate a lot of test strips". My main area of business is street photography. I do not expect the same level of complication as with many other genres.

Did you hear the story of Vivian Maier?

I have some hundred 35mm Tri-X developed, but not even one contact sheet is made. A lot of work is waiting, and I am not planning to die and leave all those to somebody else... So, I am talking about darkroom productivity, too. I will even set the Nova processor to a higher temperature, just to speed up development.

 

[Jim Noel]

I have a couple of good meters for use in enlarging. BUT - no matter what meter I use, or anyone else uses, they will not give as much information as proper test strips.
I don't mean those little strips of paper with 10 or more narrow little strips of exposure, but a full sheet of paper with appropriate wide strips full of information. Set your focus and aperture then using a full sheet of paper expose strips for 1, 10, 20, 40 and if needed 80 seconds. This produces strips one stop apart in exposure. They are large enough to determine the appropriateness of your chosen contrast as well as appropriate exposure time and indications of needed burning and dodging. Once I get my student converted to this method they love it, less frustrated by having to make large numbers of prints to get a good one and find they actually use less paper.

 

[squinonescolon]

Thanks for the info BetterSense. I've always toyed with the idea of creating a meter for myself. I never get exactly the information I want from meters or to be precise I never get it in the way I want it. Most meters are of course great as far as accuracy but their implementation always leaves something to be desired. Specially with the new awakening in gui design and ease of use for software, it's specially disheartening that something that's it's intended to be used by artists it's so unfriendly as far as usage is concerned. Although I understand that photography is technical by nature, there is no reason usage has to be cumbersome for the beginner, the amateur, or even the advanced photographer.

Is your meter a spot meter? There are two things I've never been able to get my head around: In a spot meter how do you align what you see in the viewfinder with the light that falls on the cell, and in an incident meter, because of the necessity of a dome for the readings, how to figure out the material for the dome. But maybe this can be taken to a different thread.
Steven

 

[BetterSense]

Most meters are of course great as far as accuracy but their implementation always leaves something to be desired. Specially with the new awakening in gui design and ease of use for software, it's specially disheartening that something that's it's intended to be used by artists it's so unfriendly as far as usage is concerned.

I agree. My meter has 3 modes--aperture priority, shutter priority, and my own "EV" mode that displays both EV for iso 100, and it displays "the number of stops from sunny 16" that I need to open up to. This last mode is the mode I use most often because it matches the way I shoot when I don't have a meter. You quickly come to learn that shadows are -4 stops, overcast is -2 stops, office lighting is -9 stops, etc. which helps obviate the need for the meter.

Is your meter a spot meter? There are two things I've never been able to get my head around: In a spot meter how do you align what you see in the viewfinder with the light that falls on the cell,

I have both kinds. To align my spot meter, I first installed the viewfinder/sight. Then, I positioned the photocell in the correct position to match the viewfinder. To do this, I taped a small piece of photopaper over the photocell, and aimed the viewfinder at a distant light bulb for several seconds. By wiping the photopaper with developer, I could see where the photocell needed to be moved so that it was directly under the spot of light from the light bulb. I was also able to fine-tune focus this way.

in an incident meter, because of the necessity of a dome for the readings, how to figure out the material for the dome.

It doesn't matter that much, because it will calibrate out. I used a small white plastic hemisphere I got by cutting a miniature christmas tree ornament in half, and sanded down. If you have space, half a ping-pong ball would work fine.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... So, I am talking about darkroom productivity, too. I will even set the Nova processor to a higher temperature, just to speed up development.

I feel like there are two different conversations going on in this thread, but anyway:

Maybe you don't want to come over then. I'm not interested in darkroom productivity at all. You'll not find that it in my darkroom. Sure, I've optimized my process as well as I understand it, but there are no shortcuts. I will do nothing to compromise or sacrifice image quality. On the other hand, I see why this might be necessary with street photography or in other areas of photography.

In that case, a good darkroom meter will do exactly what you're looking for. I'm happy to demonstrate mine. The Heiland may also be a good choice for your application.

 

[ic-racer]

It's far better to have other samples that are 'too dark', 'too light', 'too soft' and 'too hard'. Only if you see your print next to almost-good-enough samples and still prefer it, you know it's perfect. Otherwise, you're just hoping it might be.

Listen up, Ralph is giving away the 'secret' to excellent results. This is the SILVER BULLET everyone seeks. You should never be satisfied with a print until you have made one after it with more or less contrast or more or less exposure and the first one still holds up. And even better to do the comparisons the next day!

 

[Vincent Brady]

I have RH Design products in my darkroom and while I think they are great and would not be without them, I have never eliminated the use of test strips. What they give me is more accurate control when using test strips.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thanks ic-racer, and I fully agree, Vincent.

Sorry to dwell on this, but it is really important to understand what these tools are good for and what their limitations are. Get yourself a darkroom meter to cut down on initial test strips, but never give up on test strips!

Ignore this advise if you have to make larger quantities of prints and close-enough is good-enough.

 

[michaelbsc]

... So, I am talking about darkroom productivity, too. I will even set the Nova processor to a higher temperature, just to speed up development.

I feel like there are two different conversations going on in this thread, but anyway:
...
I'm not interested in darkroom productivity at all.... On the other hand, I see why this might be necessary with street photography or in other areas of photography.

I'm glad this came up this way. I think it is important that we all understand the competing requirements for different arena. I know we can understand it intellectually, but understanding it in the context of real life is as important as an academic understanding.

Regardless, in both cases the meter is a valuable instrument.

Makes me think I should pitch out the old Beseler color analyzer I've always failed to use properly and get a real modern meter.

 

[cmo]

Ignore this advise if you have to make larger quantities of prints and close-enough is good-enough.

As I am the one who started talking about 'productivity', I have to add two definitions.

1. 'Productivity' means to eliminate b***s*** steps in the workflow, e.g. repetitive, boring and time-consuming steps and head for results.

2. 'Good enough' means 'good'. A while ago, I saw some very good prints in an exhibition. I stared at one and thought of a movie... "You make me want to be a better man." from 'As Good as It Gets'.

1. & 2. together: I want to make better prints in less time. In the past, I needed a lot of time to make bad prints

I am not happy with 'good enough', but I can't work like W. Eugene Smith and spend days in the darkroom for a single print. Too many negatives, so little time... (when I was young this was 'too many women, so little time' - things are changing).

I want to achieve high quality for a large number of prints, and I appreciate all help I can get:

1. If there are tools that make the technical process shorter, I will use them. For example, I will use good quality RC paper, and all chemistry will be at higher temperatures, in a Nova tank - 1 minute or three minutes for a print or test strip does make a difference, I think. My enlarger focusses automatically. I will probably get some Kinetronics gear, a Kinestat Electric, to eliminate dust and hopefully save a lot of dust spotting time.

2. If there are tools or methods that help me to quickly reach a point where I can make informed decisions about the look of the print, I will use them. A good metering system, I hope, will be a great help.

Here are some examples of photos that I took, both were made in split-second decisions, even the second one - the guy on the stone lay like that for seconds only. Both were scanned from prints I made, and they are clearly improvable. Both suffer from a higher contrast due to scanning, so they are a little better than what you see here.

In the first print, I determined the normal first exposure with two test strips and dodged the figure a little, then I burned the highlights to show some details. This is approximately the look that I wanted, but far from perfect.

This one is really difficult due to the extreme contrast between the foreground and the background. I used ten test strips or so, but still it is far from acceptable. In the background there are also some skyscrapers that I can see in the negative, and I would like to show them in a faint, light way. I dodged the stones and the figure and gave the background a lot of extra exposure, but I could not put some - not much - more detail into the background without killing the rest of the picture. I know how I want this photo, but I can't make it look like that without spending days in the darkroom.

And here is one that looks relatively simple at first glance. I just dodged the face of the young man so far. What I want to achieve is a better separation of the two girls' arms before the background that has almost the same gray tones. I didn't even try yet.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Street photography often has to deal with a large subject brightness range (SBR). This leads to negatives that are hard to print with stubborn highlights and empty shadows. The only way to tackle this is to overexpose the film and underdevelop the negatives. This will result in flat negatives but contain the entire SBR. Attractive contrast is then given in the printing stage by strategically lifting the contrast where possible and leaving it low where necessary.

 

[canonman]

Well Clemens,

I think I had the same questions in the past - and buying the RH analyser Pro was the best decision I have made improving my darkroom gear. Its a great thing to use and it gives me acceptable prints even without test strips. As Ralph and others say: when it comes down to really improve a print and get the best print out of a negative - the test-strips are part of my darkroom work. Still it saved my time printing some pictures which were after that not worth a longer darkroom session. That might be the special thing of my personal workflow: I first scan negatives or make contact-proofs, decide which ones I will eliminate right away, the rest I print pretty fast most of the time straight with the help of the Analyser Pro - and in the third step I work on a few that I really enjoy to get the best out of them. And when I read your posts it seems to me, that our workflow might be close. I have tried several simple and more sophisticated timers: Hauck-trialux, different wallners, Gossen 2000s and so on - the RH-Analyser pro is the one that I will keep as long as I will have my darkroom. Good luck with your decision,
Frank

 

[Anon Ymous]

...It strikes me that silicon photodiodes are in a sense particularly bad for enlarging with tungsten light, because photopaper is only blue sensitive and photodiodes are much more red/IR sensitive than blue sensitive, so they sense light that is not actinic even more strongly than light that IS actinic. However, I only use my enlarging meter for comparison purposes, not to discover actual units of illuminance, and since most enlargers do not dim the bulb, the ratio of blue to red/IR light should be a constant at any exposure...

Ok, I tried the simplest thing I could do. I took an OPT101P, which is IR sensitive, and has its own op amp. I used 5V form a 7805 regulator and put the breadboard with the IC directly under the lens of my condenser enlarger. I have some developed film with shots of a gray card, from -5 stops underexposure to +5 stops overexposure. I used a very basic digital multimeter and took notes of the voltages produced by the OPT101. After few calculations I had the densities and I used gnuplot to get a graph of the characteristic curve, using natural cubic splines. Here's the result and it looks reasonable, doesn't it?

 

[BetterSense]

Yes it certainly looks reasonable. I bet you would not get a reasonable result using color film. With my IR goggles, processed B&W film looks perfectly normal, but color film looks utterly transparent.

 

[michaelbsc]

Yes it certainly looks reasonable. I bet you would not get a reasonable result using color film. With my IR goggles, processed B&W film looks perfectly normal, but color film looks utterly transparent.

There was some discussion about using IR goggles in another thread recently. What do you use? A commercial set up, or one of the gaming headsets?

How do you find it works? And do you have any trouble fogging film?

Michael