FB test strip dev time same as the print dev time?

[gone]

I've been under developing my fb prints, and was reading in some old posts here how development times of 4-7 minutes could result in deeper blacks (or, could fog the paper if it's overdone). Is there some parallel universe in which I don't have to develop the test strips for that long as well? If I have 6 negs to print, and the test strip for each........it sure is going to make for a longer time in the darkroom compared to my RC days, what w/ the hypo soak, print washing, etc.

Is this a good reason to buy one of those automatic print exposure do dads?

 

[MattKing]

Well it is true you need to develop the test strips for the same length of time, you certainly don't need to fix them as long before evaluating them.
I like to use the test strips later when I'm toning, so I always end up fixing and washing them fully eventually, but that can come later.

 

[mshchem]

Normal development times for Dektol 1 part stock to 2 parts water @ 20°C is 2 to 3 minutes. In most situations 2 minutes should give full development. More dilute developers, warm tone papers can use a bit more time.
I use Ilford Bromophen and I use 2 minutes.
Your test strips should get you close. Exposure do dads may help.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been under developing my fb prints, and was reading in some old posts here how development times of 4-7 minutes could result in deeper blacks (or, could fog the paper if it's overdone). Is there some parallel universe in which I don't have to develop the test strips for that long as well? If I have 6 negs to print, and the test strip for each........it sure is going to make for a longer time in the darkroom compared to my RC days, what w/ the hypo soak, print washing, etc.

Is this a good reason to buy one of those automatic print exposure do dads?

the test strip should be processed exactly the same asthe final print yo give any meaningful projection of the final outcome.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

the test strip should be processed exactly the same asthe final print yo give any meaningful projection of the final outcome.

I use a timer during developing both, strip and print, [Fomabrom FB in E-72 (+/- => D-72) 3 min. @ 22°C] and fix the strip for the full time (3min @ 22°C) only in the first fix bath.

 

[bernard_L]

I've been under developing my fb prints, and was reading in some old posts here how development times of 4-7 minutes could result in deeper blacks (or, could fog the paper if it's overdone).

4-7 minutes ? Here's what it says on the Dektol package:

Instead of relying on old posts found somewhere on the interweb, you can easily find out for yourself with a one-time experiment. Do a stepped exposure (empty neg carrier, smallest aperture f/16 or 22) increasing exposure times in half-stop increments (5s, 7s, 10s, 14s, 20s, 28s...) Cut it in 4-5 strips perpendicular to the exposure bands. Mark them on the back. Develop them (with agitation) for 1', 1'30", 2', 2'30", 3', 4' (say, or whatever you think appropriate). Fix, wash, dry (hair dryer). Lay side by side, evaluate. Mix them, try to sort them without looking at back. Up to what dev time can you reliably see a change?
Then you have a valid answer to your question, using your paper, your developer, at your lab's temperature. Not some "advice" that someone made up ten years ago off the top of their head in front of their keyboard.
To save time and/or keep uniform dev times in winter, use piglet (or reptile) blanket under dev tray.
As for the dodads, they can help you guess the ballpark exposure. For a real good print even a test strip is not enough, you often need a full print to evaluate the tones of the image and their relations.

 

[Ian Grant]

Development times have an effect on Image colour particularly with Warm tone ppapers. The longer the deveolpment the colder toned. With cols/neutral papers the odeal is to test how long the dev time before you is to reach Dmax, usually that's slightly less than 2 mins.

Ian

 

[gone]

Thanks for the help. I guess there's no way to bend reality to my needs. Funny, politicians do it all the time! The fb papers have been quite a learning experience. I'm using fresh chemicals so they don't spend unnecessary extra time in the developer and fix (usually the inexpensive Sprint Quicksilver for a developer, which has given me exactly the same results as Dektol and others I've tried). The Ilford Cooltone FB Glossy has been pretty easy to dial in for the exposures, not so their matte, which looks so different wet and when it dries.

This has me considering buying an exposure meter to maybe speed things up, give me a baseline, or at least put me in the ballpark before making test strips.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies if I reiterate some already-given advice

First, extending print development time used to be a useful tool with some graded papers for squeezing a bit more contrast out of a particular grade when switching to the next higher contrast grade would be too much, i.e., to get an intermediate contrast. This isn't really needed with modern VC papers, especially if you're using a continuously-variable dichroic color head or the like, since intermediate contrast is easier to achieve by simply dialing in more filtration. Even with half-step filters, there is more contrast choice than with graded papers.

Second, if you're not getting deep blacks with standard development times (i.e., 2-3 minutes with Dektol, Bromophen, etc. and less with some liquid concentrates), then you're not exposing correctly (or not choosing contrast correctly, or your negative is just so flat that even a #5 filter won't help). It is erroneous to think that extending development somehow increases print quality; you would be much better off exposing correctly at the right contrast setting and developing "normally."

Third, with most modern papers, extending development does not result in a contrast change, rather it just increases the paper's effective speed, just like exposing a tiny bit more would do. That's what I use extended development for; making small changes to print exposure. Often it's easier to just extend development than to add a second or two to the exposure time so I don't have to change my dodging and burning routine that I've already practiced and got down pat. Adding a minute or even 30 seconds can make a noticeable difference in the final print. However, if I find I have to add 2 or more minutes of extra development, then it is always easier (and better) to change print exposure time.

Finally, you make a test strip to get started, and you should be developing it at your "standard" print developing time. If you want to make a change in development time later when refining your print, you don't have to make a new test strip. Whatever the case, you shouldn't be standardizing on extra-long development times. Not only is it unnecessary and won't deliver better results, but it wastes time. Sure, you need to develop long enough to get the full range of tones, but after a certain point, you're just adding overall density and risking fogging the whites. FWIW, my standard times in D-72 (Dektol) and ID-62 is 2.5 minutes.

Make your test strip, find your base exposure and make a "first print." Decide on what improvements, manipulations, changes you want to make (including exposure and contrast) and make a second print (unless a rather large contrast change is needed, then start over with a new test strip at the new contrast setting). Continue refining, including extending development to get a bit more overall density if that is more convenient than changing exposure, till you have a print that is a keeper.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

This has me considering buying an exposure meter to maybe speed things up, give me a baseline, or at least put me in the ballpark before making test strips.

The exposure meter can be quite useful if you use it to determine what your test strip times should be centered around.
As an example, if one negative prints well at 22 seconds, take a meter reading from a detailed highlight, then switch to the next negative, meter the detailed highlight in that negative and adjust your aperture until the meter reads the same as the first. Then you can do your test strip, centered around an exposure of 22 seconds.

 

[btaylor]

The exposure meter can be quite useful if you use it to determine what your test strip times should be centered around.
As an example, if one negative prints well at 22 seconds, take a meter reading from a detailed highlight, then switch to the next negative, meter the detailed highlight in that negative and adjust your aperture until the meter reads the same as the first. Then you can do your test strip, centered around an exposure of 22 seconds.

That’s useful.
I have a couple of enlarging exposure meters. If I were real organized I would record the settings for all the papers I use at the various enlarger head heights and filtrations. But I am lazy and feel like that would take as long as running the occasional second test strip. I do find the Ilford meter very useful when changing magnification because I can meter the exact same spot in the negative- it’s faster for me than any other method and requires no math or charts!
3 minutes in the Dektol is my max developing time, anything beyond that means I did something wrong in the exposure and it’s time to make an appropriate change and re-print.

 

[MattKing]

If I were real organized I would record the settings for all the papers I use at the various enlarger head heights and filtrations.

It is a lot less work to have a standard negative (a "Shirley"), and to record the meter reading from a particular point, then make a table with the right print times for each paper/contrast setting for that negative and that meter reading and that point.
It might be useful to keep that negative sleeved, because it will be subject to some wear.

 

[btaylor]

I actually keep useable records and gray card “Shirleys” for color printing for each film I use and Fuji CA, but never bothered for B&W. I probably should. Although I do like to keep things a bit squishy, otherwise it starts to feel too much like work!

 

[gone]

Oh oh. That sounds complicated. In the meantime, I wonder if making one test strip and several 4x6 proofs based on that w/ different exposures might work? The real problem is that the matte papers are new (to me), and there hasn't been one keeper, so I have no idea what a "correct" print is supposed to look like. If I take a perfect neg I can make a print that looks very much as it should w/ RC or FB Gl papers, but when that same neg is printed w/ the fb matte it ain't working.

Unlike the RC and FB GL papers, where there are baselines from printing so many, w/ the matte papers there are none. I'll try that tomorrow, and may need to get my exposure right, then make a filter change to get the blacks. Never needed to do that before, but might now.

 

[MattKing]

Be sure to key your evaluation on detailed highlights when evaluating exposure.
Or in a very small percentage of cases, the mid-tones.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I must have somewhere a few enlarging meters put away in a box: Gossen, Jobo, Philips, Kaiser, Durst...
Many years ago, I got tired of all that stuff and switched to the 'feeling meter', meaning that I follow my, what you US english speakers call, "guts"...
Anyway, when I press the camera's shutter release button, I try to 'know at forehand' how I will print that negative.
After all, time is the key, I mean: the time you take, in mixed order, to expose, to 'compose', to develop, to evaluate, to testprint and to finally print the negative.
Festina lente!

 

[Bikerider]

I generally ignore the development times for Ilford Multigrade V. I always develop for 1.5 mins whatever subject/contrast grade the negative suggests with a developer temp of +/-3 degrees for both the test strip and the main print. It would be utterly pointless developing one time for a test strip and another for the main print. If that is how you wish to work, carry on and waste paper.
I always develop for longer because we pay a lot of money for the silver content so why not use it to it's fullest extent.

 

[gone]

My idea on that was just satire born from frustration Bikerider. Getting one good print to go by will really help. We'll see what happens today in the darkroom. Since fb papers are so time consuming to process relative to rc, anything that can speed the process up will be welcome. Which at some point (soon) is going to lead me to get an exposure meter of some sort.

Using just test strips to determine exposure has worked fine...... until I got to the fb matte papers. With very little experience w/ these, I definitely need something else to get me in the ballpark initially, then make some test strips to dial things in.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

... If I take a perfect neg I can make a print that looks very much as it should w/ RC or FB Gl papers, but when that same neg is printed w/ the fb matte it ain't working...

Maybe you just don't like matte papers. I know I don't.

Doremus

 

[Andrew Patteson]

^Yes, I was thinking that too, Doremus -- matte papers have a very different look -- if you are comparing them to your glossy prints you will never get that kind of black. To me, matte can be very nice for certain types of images.

 

[gone]

Things look better this time. The Ilford matte needs very different filtering and exposure than the fb glossy. I ended up making small prints initially, which helped get things in the ballpark quickly, and several prints were made w/ multiple test strips in different places. I still don't understand the matte papers, but that should come w/ more printing. They sure dry nicely in a hot and humid bathroom, hanging by one peg like an rc print.

The test strips went in the microwave, but that introduced a new variable when they turned to glossy in there! I'd read about this happening, but it was still strange to see. Didn't take long to do it either. So once again, thanks for all the help! My phone just can't take a good print pic w/ room lighting, so this crummy little photo is all I got, but the prints do look decent. The blacks are nice for matte paper.