Lots of ways to skin a cat I guess.
Yes - except with an f-Stop timer you don't work in seconds but stops of time.*
With an f-Stop timer you would have a base exposure of 4.5 stops (22 seconds) and a step increment of 0.1 stops. In this example your first test strip would be from, say, 3.0 stops (8 seconds) in 0.5 stop increments - if you did a 5 step strip that would have given you exposures of 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 stops, or 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 seconds.
If you do test strips by covering up a bit of paper then the exposures needed would be 8, 3, 5, 6, 10 - an f-stop timer does all that for you.
It is plain to see why a linear sequence is 'easier' with a seconds-only timer: 8 seconds and then 6 exposures of 4 seconds till you get to 32.
--
* RH timers are hybrid seconds-stops timers, much like the original Nocon timer. The base exposure time is in seconds which is then adjusted up and down in fractions (1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... 1/24(?)) of a stop. Burns and test strips are in fractions of a stop over a base exposure.
Darkroom Automation timers work entirely in decimal stops of time and only use seconds to count down an exposure.
If the best exposure is between 22 and 32 seconds, I do another strip in between. For me, it is easy to use a 1/12 stop progression within that range, but 2 second intervals within the range will yield useful results as well.So let's say you inspect your test strip and determine that proper exposure is between 22 and 32 seconds. For your next test strip, do you calculate the fractional f-stops between 22 and 32 to arrive at your exposure intervals? Or do you just expose between 22 and 32 in 2 sec intervals? Seems like the latter choice wouldn't make your brain hurt as much.
I find that when one tests with logarithmic/geometric (f-stop) progressions, and makes logarithmic/geometric (f-stop) adjustments, it is easier to see what needs to be changed, and how much one needs to change. So I think that f-stop printing helps one "learn how to judge and make a good print".I'll second that. Learn how to judge and make a good print.
I don't think anyone here is trying to convince the OP of much of anything. Though we haven't given up hope of saving his Immortal Soul.[OP:] Have you made your mind up that f stop printing is either flawed or at least of no value to you
... If the answer is YES then at least those here trying to persuade you otherwise can stop doing so...
OP I think you can help us here if you will. Can I ask: Have you made your mind up that f stop printing is either flawed or at least of no value to you
If the answer is YES then at least those here trying to persuade you otherwise can stop doing so and thus save their time in continuing and save your time in reading what they might otherwise continue to say to persuade you.
That way we reach a win-win situation. Whether this will help you become a better darkroom printer is another matter of course but I accept that its your decision
pentaxuser
It's the final print that counts, not how you get there.
Well I stop down about 2 or 3 F stops to maximise the enlarger lens performance and then experiment with exposure time.
Yes - except with an f-Stop timer you don't work in seconds but stops of time.*
With an f-Stop timer you would have a base exposure of 4.5 stops (22 seconds) and a step increment of 0.1 stops. In this example your first test strip would be from, say, 3.0 stops (8 seconds) in 0.5 stop increments - if you did a 5 step strip that would have given you exposures of 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0 stops, or 8, 11, 16, 22, 32 seconds.
If you do test strips by covering up a bit of paper then the exposures needed would be 8, 3, 5, 6, 10 - an f-stop timer does all that for you.
It is plain to see why a linear sequence is 'easier' with a seconds-only timer: 8 seconds and then 6 exposures of 4 seconds till you get to 32.
If you use the f-stop method it gets easier to eyeball a print - "Oh, yeah. Need to burn that in 0.5 stops" and you don't have to think farther than that. BTW, paper is contrastier than film: a 0.5 stop change in print exposure is equivalent to 1 zone (stop) change in film exposure.
We take pictures in stops - we don't think in terms of entrance pupil diameter of the lens (which is what we are directly controlling) or the number of milliseconds of shutter opening - so why not just carry stops over into the darkroom? I can just see a linear shutter speed dial: 1 second, 0.999 seconds, 0.998 seconds ... turn, turn, turn ... 0.002 seconds, 0.001 seconds - lots of precision in exposure around 1 second but at the other end it jumps from 1/500 to 1/1000 of a second.
--
* RH timers are hybrid seconds-stops timers, much like the original Nocon timer. The base exposure time is in seconds which is then adjusted up and down in fractions (1/2, 1/3, 1/4 ... 1/24(?)) of a stop. Burns and test strips are in fractions of a stop over a base exposure.
Darkroom Automation timers work entirely in decimal stops of time and only use seconds to count down an exposure.
All you need, easy peasy.
And if you ask nicely, Ralph will share the pdf of that table (and a bunch of other useful things) from his book Way Beyond Monochrome.
Well at least we seem to have largely eliminated the OP from the debate which now seems to be about the value of fstop timing rather than whether it is a flawed concept. My idea about asking what final position on the subject the OP had taken was to find out from him if further suggestions to him was worth our time
It strikes me that the OP's thread may have come to an end and if so it might be sensible to end the thread
What we have now moved to is a debate that might warrant a new thread on say "fstop timing, its rationale and what purpose does it serve
That way when someone wants to research fstop timing there is a thread dedicated to it which was not as this one began nor as it may end
We have a wealth of knowledge here on Photrio but we pay less attention as to how we consolidate that information than we may be should
pentaxuser
Darkroom Automation timers work entirely in decimal stops of time and only use seconds to count down an exposure.
there ARE flaws in the theory, or at least in the actual application.
In the book that had a section linked too, the author TEACHES or explains f stop printing USING a paper cut out chart you paste upon a gralab 300 timer.. and simply turn the timer hand to the "correct" "approximate" mark for the desired " f stop" value.
yet an experienced f stop enlarger has declared from the heights of mount olympus that the gralab 300 is NOT suited for f stop timing. based upon the lack of ability to actually be set to 1/10 of a second..
If the "god" of f stop printing was able to be successful at using a gralab 300 with the timer set to the f stop line on the print out... how can the process be accurate or REPEATABLE because there is no actual hard point in the timer dial to be reset to x.3 seconds
and the base value of f stop timing is REPEATABILITY. and the ability to simply crunch numbers when
there ARE flaws in the theory, or at least in the actual application.
In the book that had a section linked too, the author TEACHES or explains f stop printing USING a paper cut out chart you paste upon a gralab 300 timer.. and simply turn the timer hand to the "correct" "approximate" mark for the desired " f stop" value.
yet an experienced f stop enlarger has declared from the heights of mount olympus that the gralab 300 is NOT suited for f stop timing. based upon the lack of ability to actually be set to 1/10 of a second..
If the "god" of f stop printing was able to be successful at using a gralab 300 with the timer set to the f stop line on the print out... how can the process be accurate or REPEATABLE because there is no actual hard point in the timer dial to be reset to x.3 seconds
and the base value of f stop timing is REPEATABILITY. and the ability to simply crunch numbers when
there ARE flaws in the theory, or at least in the actual application.
Of course, every approach has its (staunch) proponents and they'll argue that 'their' approach is superior.
I'll try to be unbiased below.
The last reason above is why I prefer f-stop timing, but this applies to few people. For example, I need to add two stops of exposure when going from 4x5 to 8x10, so I can boost the LEDs until green hits its max, say that was a boost of 1.6, and then boost time by 0.4 stops to total 2.0.
- In favor of seconds: There's nothing new to learn, it's intuitive and works well.
- In favor of f-stop timing: A little easier to estimate exposure between steps on a test-strip. Easy to interchange LED-brightness and time.
If I did not have a LED-head, I'd probably feel 50-50 about these two methods.
I am not sure what you mean by accurate. Using time has always worked well for me. If I determine that an area of the print needs to be burned in for 13 seconds, 13 seconds seems pretty accurate. How would f-stop printing be more accurate than 13 seconds?
f/stop timing is not more accurate than other systems but, it is more consistent.
f/stop timing is not more accurate than other systems but, it is more consistent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?