Enlarging meters RH Designs, Darkroom Automation etc

[NoPixels]

Hello colleagues,
Last 3 months gathering information regarding enlarging meters as RH Designe Analyser Pro, Zone master, Darkroom Automation Enlarging Meter and similar.
I have 2 favorites- RH Analyser Pro and Darkroom Automation Enlarging Meter. This devices are very different, but both could probably make my life easier, or not)).
1st question is - calibration - video tutorials seems easy but on many forums people telling that calibration is complicated and long process. Asking myself- am I smart enough to do it right? Does it have sense to do it for each paper?
For example yesterday I took a pack of Foma baryt worm tone mat, which is totally different with all papers I used before, especially in combo with Foma PW developer. It was fun, but to use it with any type of Analyser I will need to make a calibration which will take a long time and a lot of paper.

Could you please share your experience regarding using and calibration of your devices?
I did not find much regarding Darkroom Automation Enlarging Meter, maybe someone is using ?

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio @NoPixels !

The underlying question is whether you would want to work with any kind of enlarger meter in the first place. It appears that the world of darkroom printers falls into three obvious categories:
1: People who wouldn't want to even consider this in the first place as it's too much about technicalities, math and other stuff they don't associate with image-making and perhaps even loathe, and that at least doesn't really help them, but sooner would hinder them.
2: People who prefer to have an as objective, consistent and mathematical as possible approach to printing because they feel it helps them to get where they want to be in a quicker and more efficient manner, by making the process of image-making more predictable and 'grippable'
3: The inevitable intermediate crowd that will swing either way depending on the options available to them, how they feel on a given day, etc.

In which category you fall is very personal and in my view there's no way to swing someone in group 1 to group 2 or vice versa using rational arguments, since it's so much a matter of temperament. Group 3 can be convinced either way - but they don't need convincing because they 'feel' both sides anyway and will just seize the day, regardless.

So I think the first question for you to answer would be: why do you consider this in the first place? And if you look at the categories above in relation to your own printing style up to this point, which group resonates with you the most? Also - how much printing experience do you have and how did you learn?

 

[NoPixels]

Korax, thank you for your prompt answer.
Let’s say I am closer to group of people who would like to make a life easier and to improve results with a help of technical devices.
Regarding my darkroom experience - it is not so big, more or less I am still newbie - approx 300 prints. Still learning how to do it, so I believe it could help me to improve my results and to learn more about how it works.

 

[koraks]

In what way do you expect/hope that using automation will improve your prints? I.e. what aspects of print quality are you looking to work on?

 

[NoPixels]

Oh, I mean it will improve my printing - make it more comfortable with expectable results.

 

[koraks]

Yes, in what way will it improve your prints? In what way do you find them lacking?

 

[NoPixels]

Some prints as for example night city takes a long time to find a necessary balance of filters and doge/burn. I could spend 3-4 hours doing it and waist several sheets of paper to achieve a result close to optimal. I assume, that it could help me to do It faster and without wasting so much paper…

 

[NoPixels]

Also, resizing from 10x15 to 30x40 with same result. As I tried to just recalculate it, it did not make the same result

 

[koraks]

For scaling up an enlargement, the meter-based approach would work very well provided that you've removed problems along the chain like stray light that will affect (and essentially break) the relationship between enlargement and exposure.

For the night-time cityscape and burning & dodging, I think where the journey starts is to have some kind of vision of what the print needs to look like. There's two ways to get there: the first is to be able to envision it before the negative even goes into the enlarger (or, arguably, even before you lift the camera to your eye). The second is to iterate towards a desired result through test strips and prints, evaluating the results along the way. In both cases, you'll have to be able to recognize what approximates your vision and to plan ahead in the desired direction. A meter-based approach can be part of that process, but IMO it's not the heart of the matter.

This is not to drive you away from the question of calibration etc., but to try and explore together with you what the underlying problem really is and what aspects there are to it. At least this would make your search within the domain of equipment and calibration more focused and it should also serve to manage expectations.

As it stands, I'm not yet very sure whether the business of calibration is necessarily a useful part of your journey, but like I said, I consider it mostly a matter of temperament. So if this is your style, then by all means explore it and include it in your workflow.

 

[NoPixels]

Yes, I agree, during last more than 100 years most photographers were printing without using any special devices as Enlarging meters, and had good results.
To achieve some level is enough to do it and get more skills, but here is a question - will using of any device make my process easier?
To understand what I actually want to get from my print, I am looking photos of my negatives. My wife always doing it as soon as I am getting it from the development tray. It gives me the first idea how it could look like. I am experimenting with papers, chemistry, filters and so on, and getting, as I think good results, but anyway want to improve it.

As a lot of RH Des users telling, using a ZoneMaster or Analyser PRO gives them a good result for first print, even without test strips, but also lots of them telling that they will not use it for Exhibition works - Why?
Does it mean that the result is some average and it would probably not fulfill your expectations?

And anyway my first question - how hard to calibrate the device?
How long it takes?
Are users doing it for all types of paper they are using?

 

[koraks]

Very bluntly put, I think the metering/device-aided approach can be helpful if (1) that's how you're wired as a person and (2) you know what you want to get out of an image. (1) is either the case or it isn't, but it's relatively easy to figure out where you are in relation to the divide. (2) is far, far more challenging and in a way also more interesting. I think you get there by looking at art (and photography in particular) and most definitely not just your own work, because that's always limited to what your capabilities and vision were yesterday. The trick is to figure out where you want to go tomorrow. And finding that out, I don't think can be assisted by any device, except perhaps a computer to gain access to the wealth of images out there online to take inspiration from.

I realize this is not much of a useful answer at this point. The implication, however, is that the road of calibration and equipment is a journey in and of itself, and it's a journey that can be intertwined with the artistic journey, although it does not automatically contribute to it. In fact, this journey can turn out to be a distraction and take away from your time and energy and focus on the other aspects of your development. That's why I press the point - I totally agree that machines can be very helpful, but they mostly serve their purpose if you have a concrete problem at hand that you know the machine will help solve.

The above might be a bit vague and abstract, so let's make it a little more concrete:

Does it mean that the result is some average and it would probably not fulfill your expectations?

Basically, what equipment like enlarging meters can do for you, as part of a calibrated workflow, is make it predictable how a density in the negative translates to a density in the print. It can help you predict with good accuracy that e.g. the section of snow will become a print tone that's just a little darker than paper white, and that the person lurking in the shadow of a streetlight is just a little lighter than the blackest black that the paper can produce. But what the machine will NOT tell you is whether snow should be just a little lighter than paper white, or whether the person in the shadow should render as a barely distinguishable dark tone. Whether the blue sky ends up as a "zone VII" or a "zone IV" depends on where you need it to be within your artistic vision of the scene. If and when you've decided that, you can either use test prints/strips to determine what the right contrast grade, exposure and burning & dodging movements are to get the sky to render that way - or you can use a calibrated workflow and a machine to achieve the same.

 

[Carnie Bob]

Korax, thank you for your prompt answer.
Let’s say I am closer to group of people who would like to make a life easier and to improve results with a help of technical devices.
Regarding my darkroom experience - it is not so big, more or less I am still newbie - approx 300 prints. Still learning how to do it, so I believe it could help me to improve my results and to learn more about how it works.

I have fallen into both groups, my first two printing full time jobs I used a Kodak VCNA in conjunction with an anylizer/ translator which allowed me to test 20-40 colour images in a row and then from those test prints go to final print. Once one became proficient with the tech the results were amazing and I was able to custom print and keep my job.
I then years later started my own custom print shop and still till today print for others, I do not use any devices to get my balance , other than looking at the density of the easel for first exposure and looking at original neg for contrast, I usually do one test full exposure test and then go to full sheet to examine the image a bit more. It takes me about 5-7 sheets of paper to come up with a couple of gallery grade prints.

Both methods are ok, ( I prefer my eyes and brain) over the translator nowadays but if I was doing heavy production or maybe like the OP new to printing one of these devices would be perfect and quite worthy of purchasing.

 

[NoPixels]

Actually, I understand how all this devices principály works, and even how coul I use it, but I found several threads that someone was setting up the device during 2 days and just after, it started to work as it has to. That is my main question.
How hard is to calibrate it for 1 type of paper or combination of paper and developer?

 

[MattKing]

Calibration is mainly directed at the issue of predictability and consistency.
Are you lucky enough to have a permanent darkroom with a reliable and consistent enlarger and a consistent supply of current, high quality darkroom paper?
And do you produce reasonably consistent negatives?
If the answer to the previous questions is yes, then a well calibrated meter may very well help you get more quickly to a first, good quality work print.
And they may very well help a little bit with making the decisions necessary when incorporating complex burns and dodges.
But mostly, a calibrated meter will help with throughput - for example if you want something close to a straight print from all 36 frames on a roll of 135-36 Tri-X.
Or if you want to scale up a smaller enlargement to another.
In my case, I have a temporary darkroom, and I also work on a variety of different enlargers in a shared darkroom. I get good use out of an old Ilford EM-10 meter, because it helps me adapt quickly to my always changing conditions.
But once I'm up to speed during a printing session, the meter gets put away, unless I am scaling up a print to a larger size.

 

[mshchem]

The old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide with it's cardboard computer dials for everything work great. I believe @MattKing. Uses for film development. And Matt mentioned the old Ilford meter, these work.

Me personally the analyzers are too digital. Maybe use a digital camera in manual to help to setup your film camera for initial photo, then bracket.

 

[Pieter12]

I am on the side of not being at ease with a meter, mostly because I never bothered to learn how. I find my eye and experience render prints as I like them.

 

[MattKing]

In the interests of clarity, I do understand that enlarging meters can provide a real benefit for a lot of people.
I think most of us are reacting to the benefits that @NoPixels seems to be hoping for in the initial post in the thread, which may not align well with what we see as benefits of those meters..
With respect to Darkroom Automation's product, have you, @NoPixels read through their Support Page: https://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/index.htm.
And have you considered reaching out directly to them - the owner, @Nicholas Lindan is active here, and in my experience, is really supportive and helpful.

 

[mshchem]

Reminds me of the promise of consumer grade color analyzers of the late 20th century. These worked well in certain situations. If you made a test shot of your subject holding a big gray card for a target this helped.

No substitute for ring around prints

 

[logan2z]

I use an RH Designs Analyzer Pro in the way that @MattKing mentioned - to quickly arrive at a decent work print as a starting point. After that, I iteratively refine the print by visual inspection only.

 

[NoPixels]

In the interests of clarity, I do understand that enlarging meters can provide a real benefit for a lot of people.
I think most of us are reacting to the benefits that @NoPixels seems to be hoping for in the initial post in the thread, which may not align well with what we see as benefits of those meters..
With respect to Darkroom Automation's product, have you, @NoPixels read through their Support Page: https://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/index.htm.
And have you considered reaching out directly to them - the owner, @Nicholas Lindan is active here, and in my experience, is really supportive and helpful.

Yes, I have read the support but I did not go deep to the topic. As I see, it is a sophisticated machine, which could help a lot in case if you know how to use it. In compare to RH products, it is more science device for advance users.

 

[NoPixels]

I use an RH Designs Analyzer Pro in the way that @MattKing mentioned - to quickly arrive at a decent work print as a starting point. After that, I iteratively refine the print by visual inspection only.

That is my idea too. As I see it helps you to avoid the first technical trying and to do just a fine tuning. How long did it take to you to do a first set up?

 

[NoPixels]

Reminds me of the promise of consumer grade color analyzers of the late 20th century. These worked well in certain situations. If you made a test shot of your subject holding a big gray card for a target this helped.

No substitute for ring around prints

Calibration is mainly directed at the issue of predictability and consistency.
Are you lucky enough to have a permanent darkroom with a reliable and consistent enlarger and a consistent supply of current, high quality darkroom paper?
And do you produce reasonably consistent negatives?
If the answer to the previous questions is yes, then a well calibrated meter may very well help you get more quickly to a first, good quality work print.
And they may very well help a little bit with making the decisions necessary when incorporating complex burns and dodges.
But mostly, a calibrated meter will help with throughput - for example if you want something close to a straight print from all 36 frames on a roll of 135-36 Tri-X.
Or if you want to scale up a smaller enlargement to another.
In my case, I have a temporary darkroom, and I also work on a variety of different enlargers in a shared darkroom. I get good use out of an old Ilford EM-10 meter, because it helps me adapt quickly to my always changing conditions.
But once I'm up to speed during a printing session, the meter gets put away, unless I am scaling up a print to a larger size.

I have a permanent darkroom and printing, for example lots of macro fotos which my wife like to shoot. In this case 10-15 photos are made in the similar conditions and the only question is to find first set up and then in case of resizing to recalculate and make a test strip with new time. So, this could be done with some simple device as an old Ilford, but in case of crop I need to do all again, and the Analyser could help in it. If I am printing my own prints, it sometimes take more time and paper , due to I see it in some other way than could print, and even in this case, I believe Zone master or Enlarging meter could help to move in correct direction.
I do not await that it will do all without me, for this I would use a photolab.

 

[NoPixels]

To all: thank you for your answers. Actually, I am surprised of so many opinions and responses. Appreciate!

 

[mshchem]

The old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide has very good devices for calculation of exposure times with respect to changes in magnification of the print.

 

[Pieter12]

The old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide has very good devices for calculation of exposure times with respect to changes in magnification of the print.

I go by each jump in standard size is one more stop...8x10 to 11x14, 11x14 to 16x20. I don't print anything bigger or smaller. Maybe not quite accurate, but it gets me in the ballbpark.