F-stop printing

[Mahler_one]

Will the "record sheets" be in your new book for us to copy and use Ralph?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Will the "record sheets" be in your new book for us to copy and use Ralph?

Yes, and it will be also available for free on the web. The older version is already on the web at:

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

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, and it will be also available for free on the web. The older version is already on the web at:

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

Ralph This has reminded me that I made a prediction that your current copy of Way Beyond Monochrome on the German e-bay would eventually sell for at least 45 euros. I forgot to click the "watch this item" option so wasn't able to check its final price.

What did it sell for? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph This has reminded me that I made a prediction that your current copy of Way Beyond Monochrome on the German e-bay would eventually sell for at least 45 euros. I forgot to click the "watch this item" option so wasn't able to check its final price.

What did it sell for? Thanks

pentaxuser

€78

 

[Chuck_P]

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.

Ralph,

A nice form indeed----on an unrelated question (and I apologize, I know it's not specifically related to the OP), I can see in the example that the total factor applied to the shutter speed of the measured exposure is 1 2/3x or 1.66x and I see that the shutter speed is appropriately adjusted to 1/2 second (1.66 x 0.125 = 0.2075 or 21/100 for 1/2 sec)----but why is the aperture stopped down an additional 1/3 from 16 2/3 to 22? Typo? Am I missing something?

It thought if it was a typo it might be confusing to some that were paying close enough attention to the numbers, but if not a typo, perhaps you could explain it otherwise. Just curious.

I don't see an indication of what film is used, but I have, depending on either -2 or +2 development time used with TMX, had good reason to tack a "+" or "-" 1/3 stop adjustment to the exposure after all other adjustments are made. Again, just curious.

Chuck

 

[gattu marrudu]

This is the chart I use in my darkroom. It has 1/6th stop intervals. I usually start with a 3-step strip with 1/3 stop steps, starting from a guessed time, masking the strip and adding the '+n' times on the 2nd column subsequently (i.e. 40 +10 +14 makes 40", 50", 64"), then I refine with 1/6th stop adjustments if needed.

 

[Romary]

Excel spread sheet

I have now a StopClock Professional, but I use to use the following.

You can easely change the step in the formulae

 

[RalphLambrecht]

...I can see in the example that the total factor applied to the shutter speed of the measured exposure is 1 2/3x or 1.66x and I see that the shutter speed is appropriately adjusted to 1/2 second (1.66 x 0.125 = 0.2075 or 21/100 for 1/2 sec)----but why is the aperture stopped down an additional 1/3 from 16 2/3 to 22? Typo? Am I missing something?

...

I don't see an indication of what film is used, but I have, depending on either -2 or +2 development time used with TMX, had good reason to tack a "+" or "-" 1/3 stop adjustment to the exposure after all other adjustments are made...

Chuck

I don't think there is a typo. The measured exposure was 1/8s @ f16-2/3. The filter required 1-2/3 stops extra exposure. I gave 2 stops by extending the exposure time (1/8s > 1/2s) and took 1/3 back by closing the aperture (f16-2/3 > f22), which makes a total of 1-2/3 stops extra exposure. Looks OK to me.

As far as film speed goes, the subject brightness range required an N-1 development, and this film is rated at EI 200 for that development regime. Both are marked on the sheet.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

This is the chart I use in my darkroom. It has 1/6th stop intervals...

Gattu

Very practical chart. I would question one thing. The steps directly above 10s are too rough and uneven. The actual sequence is 10.1, 11.3, 12.7, 14.3, 16. You are switching between 1 and 2s intervals, which will not make for an even exposure intervall (you have almost 1/3 stop between 11 and 13s, but less than 1/6 stop between 13 and 14s).

If one does not have a timer capable of 1/10s increments above 10s (really needed), I suggest to double or triple the exposure time to gain additional uniformity.

You'll find a more detailed chart and other tools at:

Dead Link Removed

 

[Chuck_P]

Chuck

I don't think there is a typo. The measured exposure was 1/8s @ f16-2/3. The filter required 1-2/3 stops extra exposure. I gave 2 stops by extending the exposure time (1/8s > 1/2s) and took 1/3 back by closing the aperture (f16-2/3 > f22), which makes a total of 1-2/3 stops extra exposure. Looks OK to me.

As far as film speed goes, the subject brightness range required an N-1 development, and this film is rated at EI 200 for that development regime. Both are marked on the sheet.

Yes, I saw the EI of 200 and -1 dev on the sheet but was wandering what the actual film was, not important now, disregard.

I see-----I took the 1 2/3 on your form as a filter factor, such as 1 2/3x, but you are intending it to read 1 2/3 stops. My bad, of course those are not the same thing. My habbit (not always a good one) is to apply the adjustments to the shutter rather than the aperture, if I can and it is practical to do so. So, my error was in thinking that 1 2/3 was a factor instead of f-stops.

The filter factor equivalent for 1 2/3 stops is 3x. So my habbit would have led me to apply a 3x factor to the shutter speed of 1/8 sec. to obtain the necessary exposure compensation. In this instance, that would be 2.5 seconds, not practical for me. So, I like the way you did it, especially since you gained some additional DoF in the process over your measured shutter speed.

It just so happened that my erroneous application of 1 2/3 as a factor applied to 1/8 sec, comes to a 1/2 sec adjusted exposure.

My apologies, sorry to be the cause of confusion.

Chuck

 

[pentaxuser]

€78

Thanks Ralph. So I was ridiculously optimistic expecting it to sell at only 45 euros! Get the new book published quickly or the old one will be fetching the ridiculous prices that the two remaining copies of Tim Rudman's Toning book are.

pentaxuser

 

[Chuck_P]

The filter factor equivalent for 1 2/3 stops is 3x. So my habbit would have led me to apply a 3x factor to the shutter speed of 1/8 sec. to obtain the necessary exposure compensation. In this instance, that would be 2.5 seconds, not practical for me.

A correction:

What a doleful error! The calculation I stated for a 3x factor applied to 1/8s shutter speed would give 3/8s not 2.5s. An embarrassing dyslexic moment or otherwise lapse in concentration. For some reason I divided 8 by 3 for 2.6 and then stated 2.5s. Sorry.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Attached is an example of exposure and print records.

You may want to add fields for: film type (Tri-X, FP4 ...); details film development - method (Jobo, Nikor, tray..), agitation (5/30, 3/180...); paper type (MGIV FB; MC110 ...); paper development - developer (D-72, A130...), dilution, time & temperature, comments (water bath, hot developer ...); post process (bleach, toning...) ...

The tendency is to add more and more fields and then in the heat of the creative moment to neglect filling any of them in.

I put notes on the back of each work print and then transfer the details of the final print to a 3x5 record card for the image. If it is an image that I print a lot, or will print a lot, I keep the work prints, notes, and negative in a large envelope that I then file.

Sorry to say, after half a lifetime of designing forms with ever more level of detail, I have given up on them entirely.

 

[makanakijones]

I think that's the right point to keep the thing as simple as you can.
Caponigro said one time (I read it in an interview from Anchell) that doesn't matter the things you write because the print will become different each day you try to print it.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I think that's the right point to keep the thing as simple as you can.
Caponigro said one time (I read it in an interview from Anchell) that doesn't matter the things you write because the print will become different each day you try to print it.

Although I can't remember the reference, I seem to recall reading that Paul Caponigro doesn't keep printing data but approaches each print afresh. On the other hand I still prefer the back up of a lab book; which apart from documenting approaches to materials and processes, also allows one to check on activities from last year or last week. Once or twice this facility has helped me avoid directly repeating experiments I'd forgotten about.

Tom

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You may want to add fields for: film type (Tri-X, FP4 ...); details film development - method (Jobo, Nikor, tray..), agitation (5/30, 3/180...); paper type (MGIV FB; MC110 ...); paper development - developer (D-72, A130...), dilution, time & temperature, comments (water bath, hot developer ...); post process (bleach, toning...) ...

The tendency is to add more and more fields and then in the heat of the creative moment to neglect filling any of them in...

As you said, it needs to be simple and contain the important data only. If I want to know the film type, I take a look at the negative, which is referenced. My development method is always the same (Jobo). I take these records to be independent of the paper type, and as with film, my paper processing is consistent. Post processing is something that could potentially be added.

Something could to be said about starting each print afresh. I'm all for it. These records should not get in the way of the creative process. However, if I start over, I still like to record what I did last time. The next print should be an improvement over the old, not a lucky guess.

It's always good to know where you are before you start a journey. Otherwise, how do you know what direction to take?