F-stop printing

[Mats_A]

I notice that a device/method called f-stop printing comes up now and then. Is this something very esoteric or is it used among "normal" B&W photographers?

r

 

[Lee L]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=printing+"f+stop+"+site:apug.org

 

[Mike Wilde]

Look at the 'way beyond monochrome' site. There is/was a sample chapter about f/stop printing with a sample printing chart. I now use it as my bible for printing test prints. Once I get the base exposure, I use f/stop 1/3 stops as adjustments for dodges and burns. Someties I will combine to with sprit filter pronting, but more usually with just a straight single grade filter.

 

[Mats_A]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=printing+"f+stop+"+site:apug.org

Yes, very clever. I am sure there are not many topics that haven't been discussed here before so if you are waiting for that I think you are in for a long wait.
But I start on the threads now. Oh, I see the first is from 2002. Nothing like up-to-date data.

r

 

[Mats_A]

Look at the 'way beyond monochrome' site. There is/was a sample chapter about f/stop printing with a sample printing chart. I now use it as my bible for printing test prints. Once I get the base exposure, I use f/stop 1/3 stops as adjustments for dodges and burns. Someties I will combine to with sprit filter pronting, but more usually with just a straight single grade filter.

Yes, I have read about the procedure. What I am interested in is finding out if it is used by a majority of dark room users now a days or more on the "fringe" so to say. The equipment looked a bit pricey.

r

 

[ann]

we have been using the theory for many years, if makes more sense to many folks.

My question would be, what difference does it make about the majority, if it works for you fine. if you find it not helpful fine.

 

[Leon]

you can f-stop print using a simple chart - or those more numerate printers could do it in their heads ... but I use an f stop timer because I'm a bit slow when it comes to maths. I use f stop printing exclusively because it makes sense to me. And when I decide to change a print size, all I need do is work out a base exposure again, then all further manipulations can be worked out using the f-stop method, so not taxing on the grey cells at all. It's a personal preference though. I dont think it;s any better or worse than linear timing methods - what ever suits you and your working methods really.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Gene Nocon made a device for the darkroom for such printing. I've heard he's a master printer and photographer. I haven't printed with Fstops before. Printing with time is so engrained in me. Here's a video on Mr. Nocon. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7773022561368471214#

Best.

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't know how many people use it, but I do and it's awesome. It is totally logical. Several of the newer darkroom books I've read refer to it if I'm not mistaken (Les Mclean's book and Tim Rudman's book). One could make due with a chart, but since I needed an enlarger timer anyway, I bought an F-Stop one. Darkroom Automations and RH Designs both make them. I ended up with the RH Designs one since I was thinking of getting a Zonemaster at some point as well and the exchange rate was particularly good at the time.

It really makes burning logical too. Both the timers I mentioned are programmable, so you can set up multiple exposure steps, which is a big help when doing multiple prints with several burns of the same photo. If you change paper size, just figure out the base exposure and all the extra burn times are scaled automatically since they are referenced to the base exposure. Very cool.

 

[Leon]

Printing with time is so engrained in me.

f-stop printing is printing with time - it's just a way of dividing the time into manageable units - it might just as well be called percentage printing. an f-stop equals a whole or 100%. it works on the idea that the base exposure equates to 1 stop, and all further manipulations are additions or subtractions of parts or wholes of that one stop - so base of 15 seconds plus half a stop = 22.5 seconds (plus reciprocity adjustment).

 

[RH Designs]

so base of 15 seconds plus half a stop = 22.5 seconds (plus reciprocity adjustment).

Nope . It's a logarithmic function using powers of 2. A full stop is indeed a doubling (or halving) but half a stop increase is 2 ^ 1/2. So 15 seconds + half a stop = 21.2 seconds. You can use percentages but it's still not that simple; if you add 50% to 15 seconds, you get 22.5 seconds, then if you subtract 50% you get 11.25 seconds. Whereas if you add half a stop to 15 seconds and then subtract half a stop from that, you get back to 15 seconds.

Half a stop increase is 41.4%, half a stop decrease is 70.7%. Smaller fractions of stops can be worked out on a similar basis.

It's exactly the same principle that your camera shutter speed and aperture adjustments use, and it makes perfect sense to use it when printing because that's the way photographic materials work. Paper's no different to film in that respect.

 

[bill schwab]

As one who spent years printing the "normal" way, once I started printing with the F-Stop method, I never looked back.

 

[Ken N]

If you don't think F-Stop printing is a preferable method for printing, imagine your cameras without F-stop based apertures and shutter speeds.

I'll give up my darkroom if I have to give up my StopClock Pro.

 

[Ian Grant]

f-stop printing's not that common, while there's a logic behind it in reality it's just a slightly different way of working and you van make excellent repeatable prints without ever using it.

Ian

 

[Robert Hall]

I have used f-stop printing since I got back into printing in the 90's. It helped my printing in ways I never thought possible.

I think it rocks!

 

[ozphoto]

I too use f-stop printing - never looked back!!

 

[Mats_A]

Ok. Thanks all. I was curios to find out if this f-stop printing thingie was a buzzword or something real.
It seems to be real all right. I will investigate it further once I get my own darkroom setup.

r

 

[ann]

years ago, i started teaching this method and th ought i was so clever to figure this out when i got a book by tim rudman and discovered a larger chart in the back of the book breaking down the stop. nothing like that to bring one back down to reality. That is when i discovered many others had been using the theory and then low and behold there was even a timer made to figure it out for you.

I bought one but found i rarely used it as my method was ingrained in my head and so i sold it; ;with that said, if i was starting out i would certantly use an fstop timer.

 

[Mahler_one]

we have been using the theory for many years, if makes more sense to many folks.

My question would be, what difference does it make about the majority, if it works for you fine. if you find it not helpful fine.

Well said Ann!

 

[Mats_A]

we have been using the theory for many years, if makes more sense to many folks.

My question would be, what difference does it make about the majority, if it works for you fine. if you find it not helpful fine.

In a perfect world it might not make any difference but in the real world it is so that a method that works will spread and be more used than a method that is not working. So asking what the majority uses/thinks about a method is valid. Now if we were discussing taste......

r

 

[Leon]

Nope . It's a logarithmic function using powers of 2. A full stop is indeed a doubling (or halving) but half a stop increase is 2 ^ 1/2. So 15 seconds + half a stop = 21.2 seconds. You can use percentages but it's still not that simple; if you add 50% to 15 seconds, you get 22.5 seconds, then if you subtract 50% you get 11.25 seconds. Whereas if you add half a stop to 15 seconds and then subtract half a stop from that, you get back to 15 seconds.

Richard - I just put this into google translation but I had to do an emergency shut down, smoke started to spill out of my PC.

like I said, maths + me = plain wrong

 

[Anon Ymous]

In a perfect world it might not make any difference but in the real world it is so that a method that works will spread and be more used than a method that is not working. So asking what the majority uses/thinks about a method is valid. Now if we were discussing taste......

r

If a method works or not depends on many factors. I agree that F-stop printing has a valid theoretical foundation, but using it without a timer that supports it is a bit of a hassle IMHO. My timer is pretty basic. I've tried using this technique, got bored, forgot about it.

 

[df cardwell]

This may seem wrong, but back in 1968 when I was being taught by a 75 year old photographer who learned his craft in 1910,
I was taught to use 2 (.5) / 1.4 (.7) / 1.19 ( .84) .

It is old as dirt, and more common than you are letting on. Well, it used to be any way.

A pencil and a piece of paper, tape it to the side of the enlarger.
The important thing is to train yourself to think in shades of gray,
and not just punch numbers.

Practice makes it intuitive.

 

[ann]

what ever works for you is fine, but i don't think I need to approval of others if it is working for me.

 

[Lee L]

Yes, very clever. I am sure there are not many topics that haven't been discussed here before so if you are waiting for that I think you are in for a long wait.
But I start on the threads now. Oh, I see the first is from 2002. Nothing like up-to-date data.

r

The point wasn't to be clever. The point is that a new thread, useful as it is, won't have the participation of many experts who are no longer active on APUG, so you'll be missing out on that perspective if you choose not to read the multitude of f-stop printing posts already here on APUG. There are also charts of stops/time conversions in the old threads for making f-stop printing adjustments with standard enlarger timers that you might find useful.

Physics hasn't changed since 2002, and neither has f-stop timing in any appreciable way.

Lee