F-stop printing

[naaldvoerder]

. This IS of course a problem for all forums. Noobs like me coming along and asking the same questions that everybody else stopped discussing 3 years ago.

r

This is not a problem at all. That's what the forum is here for!!

Jaap Jan

 

[Ken N]

LOL, Check the FAQ!

I know two of our sponsors of APUG smile every time this topic comes up.

 

[Mats_A]

LOL, Check the FAQ!

I know two of our sponsors of APUG smile every time this topic comes up.

We have a FAQ!?!?
Nobody tells me anything!

r

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Thank you for the free chapter. I am on the Amazon watch list to be informed when the book is available.

r

To be sure, I'd suggest to get yourself on our watch list too:

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/Where_to_Buy.html

 

[bill schwab]

I have been printing for over 60 years, and rarely make a test print these days.

Well Ann, I won't argue this as you have been printing 10 years longer than I've been alive! I will say however that even though I know my printing pretty well and can get it in the ballpark with ease, I never fly without a test. Especially when using the F-stop method. It is far too easy and valuable a step to skip in my opinion.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...I will say however that even though I know my printing pretty well and can get it in the ballpark with ease, I never fly without a test. Especially when using the F-stop method. It is far too easy and valuable a step to skip in my opinion.

I could not agree more!

 

[jamusu]

Ralph.

Will the second edition contain a chapter on f-stop printing? If so, how extensive will it be.

Jamusu.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph.

Will the second edition contain a chapter on f-stop printing? If so, how extensive will it be.

Jamusu.

Jamusu

Yes, and it's already online. In addition, it is referred to in several areas of the book.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/TimingExposureEd2.pdf

 

[jamusu]

Jamusu

Yes, and it's already online. In addition, it is referred to in several areas of the book.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/TimingExposureEd2.pdf

Great.

I will make sure to purchase it this time so I will add my name to the list also. What month(s) do the publishers consider to be the Spring if you do not mind my asking?

 

[Chuck_P]

............. Now, my test strips work...........

What do you mean by this Ralph? I don't use f/stop printing and my test strips work, just curious.

Chuck

 

[Q.G.]

Many people use "f/stop printing" without even knowing it.
I would dare say that we all know that adding, say, 2 seconds to a 10 second exposure is not the same, has not the same effect, as adding 2 seconds to a 30 second exposure.
So we think of exposure times as a geometric progression anyway, and double or halve times without knowing that some call that "f/stop printing".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What do you mean by this Ralph? I don't use f/stop printing and my test strips work, just curious.

Chuck

With f/stop printing, my test strip have even exposure increments (% wise). Traditional test strips have decreasing increments, such as the 'famous' series 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18s. There is a 100% difference between the first two steps, but only 20% between the last two.

 

[polyglot]

I ain't an old hand by a long shot but I guess I use f-stop printing - it just seemed to be the obvious way of doing it. I don't have a fancy timer, I just count clock-ticks (from a nice loud clock) in my head, flick the power-switch and use the classic half-stop[1] scale of 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22s (or 1/6 stop scale: 4, 4.5, 5, 5.6, 6.3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, etc) as my test-strip points. Using those as starting points for the base exposure makes it really really easy to determine how much time to add/subtract to get a certain change in exposure - you just move the desired number of steps up/down the scale.

[1] yes they're full stops on an aperture, but they're half-stops when applied to time.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

It is an interesting question as to how much "f-stop resolution" one needs. Although I normally use a 1/8th stop scale, I suspect a 1/16th stop step change would still show differentiation.

Tom

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

It is an interesting question as to how much "f-stop resolution" one needs.

The maximum 'error' is 1/2 the resolution. 1/10th of a stop resolution gives a maximum error from optimum of 1/20th of a stop.

If you make two regular prints 1/10th of a stop apart you can't reliably tell which is which in the cold light of the next morning. With grade 5 filtration, though, the prints are distinguishable.

 

[Mick Fagan]

When you are virtually on the money with a print that has some quite subtle highlight tones, then 1/16 of a stop extra or less light, really does make a difference.

I use 1/8 gradations of a stop from my printed chart stuck on the wall, when I need to, I will split that further to 1/16 and it shows.

By the same token whilst using subtle time changes, I also use ¼ grade contrast changes. The difference is usually to go from a good print, to one that sings.

Mick.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

It is an interesting question as to how much "f-stop resolution" one needs. Although I normally use a 1/8th stop scale, I suspect a 1/16th stop step change would still show differentiation.

Tom

This depends, of course, on the paper grade. For normal grades, I use an f/stop resolution of 1/12 stop to determine highlight exposure. With very hard grades this might be a bit too coarse, but I try to stay away from those paper grades.

There is also a debate, how to increment the f/stop into smaller fractions. Some people use metric increments (1/10 stop), some split things in half (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16) and others start with LF-lens increments (1/3) and split that in half (1/6, 1/12). I prefer the last method, because it seems to work best in the darkroom and goes along nicely with what I learned in percentages.

A 1/3-stop change (~20%) is significant, a 1/6-stop change (~10%) is modest, and a 1/12-stop change (~5%) is fine-tuning.

 

[Vincent Brady]

I ain't an old hand by a long shot but I guess I use f-stop printing - it just seemed to be the obvious way of doing it. I don't have a fancy timer, I just count clock-ticks (from a nice loud clock) in my head, flick the power-switch and use the classic half-stop[1] scale of 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22s (or 1/6 stop scale: 4, 4.5, 5, 5.6, 6.3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, etc) as my test-strip points. Using those as starting points for the base exposure makes it really really easy to determine how much time to add/subtract to get a certain change in exposure - you just move the desired number of steps up/down the scale.

[1] yes they're full stops on an aperture, but they're half-stops when applied to time.

You won't believe how much your printing will become easier if you invest in one of those 'fancy timers'. Now you will be able to think instead of counting and you can even listen to music if you wish without losing the beat.

 

[Steve Smith]

such as the 'famous' series 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18s. There is a 100% difference between the first two steps, but only 20% between the last two.

Experience will also tell you that you may not need to start with 3 seconds or even 6. Even if you were using 3 second intervals, it is likely that 9, 12, 15, 18 would give you enough information to give you a ballpark figure to start from.


Steve.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Experience will also tell you that you may not need to start with 3 seconds or even 6. Even if you were using 3 second intervals, it is likely that 9, 12, 15, 18 would give you enough information to give you a ballpark figure to start from.


Steve.

I guess that my way of making test strips puts me somewhere in the middle of f-stop and "simple" printing. I pick a base exposure based on minimum time for maximum black through film base + fog and a normal contrast grade. That's especially useful if I have to make several different prints from a roll. If I don't make that test, I'll guestimate. So, let's say that base exposure is 10''. I make a series of 4 exposures, with the last 3 being increments which will make the last one almost double the base exposure. So, that means 10'', 13,5'', 17'', 20,5''. It's 3,5'' more for each additional exposure. I know it's not f-stop printing, but that gets me close enough. If I don't get a reasonable result with this test strip, something went wrong during exposure and/or development.

 

[polyglot]

You won't believe how much your printing will become easier if you invest in one of those 'fancy timers'. Now you will be able to think instead of counting and you can even listen to music if you wish without losing the beat.

Oh I don't disbelieve you at all. It'll probably happen once I get my own darkroom instead of working from a shared one but for now, there are other things demanding my cash.

 

[Steve Smith]

Now you will be able to think instead of counting and you can even listen to music if you wish without losing the beat.

Or if you make sure all of your darkroom music is played at the same number of beats per minute, you can use the beats to time your print!


Steve.

 

[polyglot]

And reggae for the 1/12th stops!

 

[MattKing]

But watch out for Thelonious Monk!

Matt

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Attached is an example of exposure and print records. The print data on the right is recorded in terms of f/stop timing. This is transferable to any print size, and if the filtration is calibrated, it can also be transferred to another paper or enlarger without any modification of the relative f/stop timing.