Terminology itself is rather confusing. There is no "f" involved here since you are not changing the aperture of the enlarging lens. It is simply "stop" printing where each exposure is a multiple of the preceding one, which is like doing a Stouffers but without it. It is useful if you are starting out totally in dark about where the exposure is going to fall - 1 second or a 100. Once you are in the ballpark, you can fine tune by the old fashioned way - using equal steps. You are not trying to make the characteristiuc curve, only trying to to get the optimum exposure for the negative at hand.never heard of it. just make plain old test strips and hit the button x-times, who would have known this subject was this controversial
Terminology itself is rather confusing. There is no "f" involved here since you are not changing the aperture of the enlarging lens. It is simply "stop" printing where each exposure is a multiple of the preceding one, which is like doing a Stouffers but without it. It is useful if you are starting out totally in dark about where the exposure is going to fall - 1 second or a 100. Once you are in the ballpark, you can fine tune by the old fashioned way - using equal steps. You are not trying to make the characteristiuc curve, only trying to to get the optimum exposure for the negative at hand.
:Niranjan.
I see. so it is to get close, sounds useful but I do not need more controversy in my life.
It is simply "stop" printing where each exposure is a multiple of the preceding one, which is like doing a Stouffers but without it. It is useful if you are starting out totally in dark about where the exposure is going to fall - 1 second or a 100. Once you are in the ballpark, you can fine tune by the old fashioned way - using equal steps. You are not trying to make the characteristiuc curve, only trying to to get the optimum exposure for the negative at hand.
Agreed. The subjective and the objective tend to get confused a little with controversy.I see. so it is to get close, sounds useful but I do not need more controversy in my life.
Agreed. The subjective and the objective tend to get confused a little with controversy.
an exposure increase of a 1/2 stop will appear the same
For me switching to f-stop printing made things quite difficult at first, but once I got my head around it, making a print became a lot easier!
Then I built my own darkroom timer especially for this and it does all the calculations for me.
When making test strips I choose a start exposure and specify the spacing between exposures (full/half/third/quarter/... stops) and the timer does the rest for me.
It took me some time to get familiar with it but now I reach my end goal much faster than when using "regular" test strips.
The problem with the seconds steps is that it may have started out with either too much exposure or too little exposure and the whole sheet is wasted because it did not have enough overall exposure range. f/stop exposures cover the range exponentially with powers of two. I prefer to at least start with the f/stop exposures.
I typically print full frame at fixed print sizes so I have a pretty good idea what the initial exposure needs to be. Different people have different workflows so f-stop printing may have more or fewer advantages for them.
In the past that was true for me, but we are helping someone new get started.
In the past that was true for me, but we are helping someone new get started.
In the past that was true for me, but we are helping someone new get started.
Are we? Although he hasn't replied to my post asking him if he had already made his mind up about whether there was any value in fstop timing there might already be evidence about this. At the very least his relationship with Photrio might not be all it should for a new arrival seeking help
pentaxuser
OP is on Restricted Access and all his posts are deleted by Sean.
Well, shall we not delve into how that came about?
I knew from the start that there was something weird about his threads.
I like low-tech; I print with a metronome and think in percentages when it comes to exposure. I don't need a fancy timer or a table or to make any charts except maybe a 25%-interval sequence for test strips. Others swear by f-stop timing, others just use a fixed interval. Whatever works.
You are just more clairvoyant than I am.
Not clairvoyant. He asked vague and nonsensical questions like "I just built my darkroom and I am looking for the basic "dummies" book on enlargement." I am suspicious of any new person who is asking questions without giving details and contexts of what they are looking for. And then once the well meaning members as they are on this forum come back with their recommendations, OP shows little or no follow-up interest. I think members can do a better job early on to make the OP divulge more information and clarifications before jumping on to interpret their take on it.
:Niranjan.
I agree. Our brains all work very differently. I made my first print in 1978, I did take a shot at f-stop but... my brain, salad colander that it is, is already really comfortable with timing. My print maps can be very complex (they're storyboards, really) since I do a lot of masking. I dial it in at, say, 8x10, and when I go to 16x20, I do the math and find the exposure factor, and scribble in new exposure, dodge, burn, and mask times based on that factor. I'd still have to re-write my print maps regardless of method used, but once I have my factor to go bigger (say it's 1.8x more exposure time), it's a few seconds with a calculator to fill in a fresh print map. Works for me, but you folks that swear by f-stop, I believe you! I believe you!!!Geez-Louise! This is really a tempest in a teapot. It doesn't really matter how you figure out your exposure for the final print as long as you get good results.
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?