First enlargements

[Jessestr]

So... I did my first enlargements tonight. Forgot about some pretty obvious things due to the excitement. Such as filter grades and aperture ( ). After finally digging out what was wrong got some successful prints.

I only saw one vid about enlarging so mostly trial and error. Took only 7 tries to get a good exposure on the paper. But I have some questions.

What I was using
I was using Adox MCP 312 10x15 matte paper (variable contrast), love the blacks!
Durst M305 Cls with a Schneider Componon-S 50/f2.8
Ilford Multigrade kit (grade 3 for a particular photo, which I knew needed a little bit more contrast)
Adox Adotol NE
Adostop
Adofix

What I did
Put a piece of paper, and exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such. I found a sweet spot on about 7 seconds (aperture: f11) for my picture and some other pictures I did. (which had correct exposure)
Now how can I find this time without trial & error. How do I add some extra stops, (logaritmic ?). Is there any logic in the "base" time?

My actual questions
- (answered) What is the best way to find the correct exposure for a shot?

- (answered) So Adox says, Adotol NE needs 60 seconds of development for PE paper in 20°C... Does it vary on what paper is used (like developer times changes on film type)? As I used 60 seconds and it worked fine

- (answered) The vid I saw of the darkroom, the guy had exposure times of about 20-30 seconds, also on f/11.. How is that achieved? I'm not sure but I think he used Ilford paper with ISO 6 (possible?)

- (answered) What is the ISO of the Adox MCP 312 paper? And how does the grade filters affect the ISO speed?

- (answered) The developer acts different is I thought it would do. The first 10 seconds basically almost nothing, then from 10 tot 20 seconds I can see the picture appearing, and from 20-60 I can't see any other differences in the development process. Pretty weird actually. Thought it was going to fade in smoothly from 1 to 60.

- I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?


Here are some prints I made, sorry for the crappy iPhone shots (weird color balance & noise), I dumped all my digital gear for analog

 

[MattKing]

So... I did my first enlargements tonight. Forgot about some pretty obvious things due to the excitement. Such as filter grades and aperture ( ). After finally digging out what was wrong got some successful prints.

I only saw one vid about enlarging so mostly trial and error. Took only 7 tries to get a good exposure on the paper. But I have some questions.

What I was using
I was using Adox MCP 312 10x15 matte paper (variable contrast), love the blacks!
Durst M305 Cls with a Schneider Componon-S 50/f2.8
Ilford Multigrade kit (grade 3 for a particular photo, which I knew needed a little bit more contrast)
Adox Adotol NE
Adostop
Adofix

What I did
Put a piece of paper, and exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such. I found a sweet spot on about 7 seconds (aperture: f11) for my picture and some other pictures I did. (which had correct exposure)
Now how can I find this time without trial & error. How do I add some extra stops, (logaritmic ?). Is there any logic in the "base" time?

My actual questions
- What is the best way to find the correct exposure for a shot?

- So Adox says, Adotol NE needs 60 seconds of development for PE paper in 20°C... Does it vary on what paper is used (like developer times changes on film type)? As I used 60 seconds and it worked fine

- The vid I saw of the darkroom, the guy had exposure times of about 20-30 seconds, also on f/11.. How is that achieved? I'm not sure but I think he used Ilford paper with ISO 6 (possible?)

- What is the ISO of the Adox MCP 312 paper? And how does the grade filters affect the ISO speed?

- The developer acts different is I thought it would do. The first 10 seconds basically almost nothing, then from 10 tot 20 seconds I can see the picture appearing, and from 20-60 I can't see any other differences in the development process. Pretty weird actually. Thought it was going to fade in smoothly from 1 to 60.

- I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?


Here are some prints I made, sorry for the crappy iPhone shots (weird color balance & noise), I dumped all my digital gear for analog

Well done for a first try.

In response to your questions .....

Your approach isn't a bad one. You will find that as you do this more, you will get better at choosing the start time for your test prints.

The standard development time is dependent on the paper and developer, but most papers and developers give suggested times, and those times are usually quite similar. It would be worth your while to try the same print with 60, 90 and 120 seconds of development, so as to see how they might be subtly different.

The video you watched involved a different enlarger than yours, a different bulb and a different paper. All those variables affect the exposure time. You can add neutral density filters to most enlargers to cut down the light intensity, and lengthen the time.

The ISO numbers for printing papers are actually measured on a different scale then film. The manufacturer's data sheets usually include that sort of information. Filters don't affect the sensitivity of the paper, but do affect the intensity of the light.

I'll leave the rest of the questions for now.

Isn't it fun?!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

There are three stages to printing.

I The induction period where there appears that nothing is happening.
II During this second period density in increasing rapidly.
III In the third period density increase slows but contrast continuues to increases.

It is very important that the print not be pulled during stages II as this will result in muddy prints lacking in contrast. This is a problem that newbies often have. They see that the print is becoming too dense and pull it. In this case exposure needs to be reduced. Prints need to remain in stage III until the contrast suits you.

 

[Jessestr]

Wow thanks guys, almost all the questions are solved already! Thanks, clear answers!

Only this left:
I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?

Jesse

 

[ic-racer]

Ilford filters are NOT simply mixtures of Magenta and Yellow. I think they are a little more narrow band and only they know the exact composition of filtration. The contrast achieved can be duplicated with Yellow and Magenta dichroic filters but the printing times are usually longer than the Ilford filters in my experience. The shortest printing times are obtained with sole Yellow or Magenta filtration, but, of course, this defeats the advantage of constant printing times across grades.

 

[omaha]

Those sure look a lot better than my first-shots did last year! Very nice!

 

[piu58]

> exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such

Yor images are quite good.
It is easier to find a correct exposure time if you use a geometric row, for instance third stops: 8 10 13 16 20 25 seconds (rounded to full seconds). I don't recommend times below 10 seconds. They are to short to make manipulations like dodging.

 

[Nige]

is the 10x15 paper 10x15 centimetres?

 

[MattKing]

> exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such

Yor images are quite good.
It is easier to find a correct exposure time if you use a geometric row, for instance third stops: 8 10 13 16 20 25 seconds (rounded to full seconds). I don't recommend times below 10 seconds. They are to short to make manipulations like dodging.

The geometric (actually logarithmic) progression is a good idea, but if you want an easier to remember example, you might recognize this:

8, 11, 16, 22, 32 seconds

Each step in that series provides, logarithmicly, 1/2 stop more exposure. And photographic paper responds logarithmicly, so a test strip will show more even gradations - it will be easier to choose the right step.

And with respect to using the Ilford filters vs dichroic filters in a colour head, you need to realize that:
a) photographic paper is not sensitive to red light, but your eyes are;
b) the magenta filters don't add magenta, they hold back varying amounts of green, and the green sensitive emulsion in the paper controls the low contrast rendition of the image;
c) the yellow filters don't add yellow, they hold back varying amounts of blue, and the blue sensitive emulsion in the paper controls the high contrast rendition of the image;
d) any difference in the visual appearance of the light is likely due to how much red light is being transmitted through the system.

When you use the dichroic heads, you can use the "grade" charts as a general guide, but you really benefit more if you pay more attention to the effect of increases of, for example, 20 units on the dial, rather than what constitutes the equivalent of a half grade on the filters.

 

[dorff]

Wow thanks guys, almost all the questions are solved already! Thanks, clear answers!

Only this left:
I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?

Jesse

Using the Ilford filters, you can use the following approach, which doesn't work for colour mixing heads:

You can start basically with any filter from 0 to 3.5, but I recommend starting with 2. When you determine the exposure time for your print, look particularly at the highlights that you want to preserve. If you get detail in the highlights where you want, then changing the grade will not affect them. Then at that exposure, assess the shadows and decide where you want the black point. This is done with filter grade, not exposure time (otherwise you mess up the highlight detail). Your Ilford filters will have clear instructions. If they are like mine, for grades 4-5 you double the exposure time.

Don't use a full sheet of paper for testing. Take scissors (or a guillotine) and cut test strips about 1,5 cm (half-inch) wide, and store them in the envelope BEHIND the full sheets so they don't scratch the emulsion side, or put them in an empty paper envelope which you keep with the full one. Because different papers have different exposure indices, you must know which test strips go with which paper.

Use a step wedge approach, i.e. take a piece of cardboard and move it along in 2-3 cm increments, at 3-5 sec intervals or whatever makes sense in terms of your expected exposure. Start at about half of full exposure and then step it up from there, ending at about twice the expected exposure. Sometimes you will have a very dense or very thin neg, and in that case it will take more than one or two test strips to get it right.

A tip Andrew Sanderson gave is to record a metronome at 1 sec intervals onto an mp3 player, then play it back in your ear and use that to shift the wedge. This is because enlarger bulbs have a warm-up period of up to a second or more, during which the light is weaker and possibly yellower. So to stop-start the bulb and add up the incremental exposures does not give you the same exposure and contrast than a full uninterrupted exposure.

BTW, excellent first attempt. Not many of us can boast that we did that well at first.

 

[mr rusty]

I wouldn't normally post this answer to someone taking first steps, but I've just looked at your website, and as a photographer, you ain't no newbie!!

There is another way rather than learning test-strips and that is put your hand into your (by necessity rather deep) pocket and consider buying an Analyser-Pro or ZoneMaster/Stopclock rig from RH Designs/SDS. The reason I say this is that if you are serious about moving into film, and I think you are, this technology presents an alternative (note not "better") route to determining exposure and contrast. It is the route I took when I realized that as my time is precious, short-cuts to good end results were, for me, worth paying for.

I won't go over the all the ins and outs of these devices - they are presented in great detail on the RHDesigns and SDS (who now sell them) website.

However, the basis is that using the sensor you measure the highlight and shadow of the projected image and the analyser presents the readings on a grey scale, allowing exposure and contrast settings to be manipulated until the measured areas are placed on the part of the grey scale you want. All time adjustments are "f-stop" and the user can easily tweak both exposure and contrast. Other features allow split time/grade settings, burning dodging settings, to be more easily determined. There is some skill in learning how to use the machine to get consistent results. Another huge benefit (for me anyway) is that you calibrate the machine against the papers you want to use and *your rig*. This means that even if the filter settings you dial in on a colour head wouldn't reliably give consistent exposure times using a test-strip method, the calibration process adjusts for this when you input the offsets into your analyser to suit the paper you are using. The machine stores settings for multiple papers, so printing an image on two different papers is as simple as taking one set of measurements, making a print, switching the paper setting with the machine re-setting exposure and contrast automatically, and making another. Provided your calibration is good (and that is a little bit of an art in itself), you get two prints where the only variable is the differences in the papers.

I admit that I am biased - I stopped making test-strips very, very early on in the learning curve, and although I understand them and can use them, I have never developed the "sixth sense" I know experience practitioners have in getting to the required settings quickly, and I also admit if my analyser broke I would be floundering back to first-principles! However, on the upside, I have learned to understand how the analyser works and without a doubt I get a finished result much faster and with much less paper waste than I personally would using test strips. I am sure, again, that experienced old hands will still get better results than I even faster, but coming to this late, I haven't got those years of experience behind me.!

On this forum there are many extremely experienced people, and to an extent they do have different opinions on the way things should be done for best results. There are definitely people who say that technology is uneccessary (as it is); everyone should become skilled at making test strips (they probably should); you don't need to spend big-money on machines, when you can achieve the same result without (you can). All I am doing here, is giving another perspective on something that works for me.

 

[Jessestr]

> exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such

Yor images are quite good.
It is easier to find a correct exposure time if you use a geometric row, for instance third stops: 8 10 13 16 20 25 seconds (rounded to full seconds). I don't recommend times below 10 seconds. They are to short to make manipulations like dodging.

Mhm. I only have f/16 left and that's diffraction time... ND-filter it is? But I'm far away from burning & dodging stuff. I bought myself an enlarger and stuff and tried to print.

is the 10x15 paper 10x15 centimetres?

Yes centimeters! Also did a 13x18 print

The geometric (actually logarithmic) progression is a good idea, but if you want an easier to remember example, you might recognize this:

8, 11, 16, 22, 32 seconds

Each step in that series provides, logarithmicly, 1/2 stop more exposure. And photographic paper responds logarithmicly, so a test strip will show more even gradations - it will be easier to choose the right step.

And with respect to using the Ilford filters vs dichroic filters in a colour head, you need to realize that:
a) photographic paper is not sensitive to red light, but your eyes are;
b) the magenta filters don't add magenta, they hold back varying amounts of green, and the green sensitive emulsion in the paper controls the low contrast rendition of the image;
c) the yellow filters don't add yellow, they hold back varying amounts of blue, and the blue sensitive emulsion in the paper controls the high contrast rendition of the image;
d) any difference in the visual appearance of the light is likely due to how much red light is being transmitted through the system.

When you use the dichroic heads, you can use the "grade" charts as a general guide, but you really benefit more if you pay more attention to the effect of increases of, for example, 20 units on the dial, rather than what constitutes the equivalent of a half grade on the filters.

Thanks! But I feel like 8 seconds will be too long and 7 was just the sweet spot. 6 was already again too light. It doesn't feel like I can go to 11 seconds without ruing it. Basically at 25 seconds it was almost dark. (f/11).
How are there extra stops calculated? As my "base" exposure (7 secs) differs from 8 seconds. Can I calculate the next 1/2nd stop? Maybe I should just try it, but what I noticed of yesterday was that 11 seconds would be way too long (I guess)).

And about the dichroic heads, is it better to use grade filters or the heads? Or both the same, just a different way? Else I'll just order myself a couple of grade filters.

Using the Ilford filters, you can use the following approach, which doesn't work for colour mixing heads:

You can start basically with any filter from 0 to 3.5, but I recommend starting with 2. When you determine the exposure time for your print, look particularly at the highlights that you want to preserve. If you get detail in the highlights where you want, then changing the grade will not affect them. Then at that exposure, assess the shadows and decide where you want the black point. This is done with filter grade, not exposure time (otherwise you mess up the highlight detail). Your Ilford filters will have clear instructions. If they are like mine, for grades 4-5 you double the exposure time.

Don't use a full sheet of paper for testing. Take scissors (or a guillotine) and cut test strips about 1,5 cm (half-inch) wide, and store them in the envelope BEHIND the full sheets so they don't scratch the emulsion side, or put them in an empty paper envelope which you keep with the full one. Because different papers have different exposure indices, you must know which test strips go with which paper.

Use a step wedge approach, i.e. take a piece of cardboard and move it along in 2-3 cm increments, at 3-5 sec intervals or whatever makes sense in terms of your expected exposure. Start at about half of full exposure and then step it up from there, ending at about twice the expected exposure. Sometimes you will have a very dense or very thin neg, and in that case it will take more than one or two test strips to get it right.

A tip Andrew Sanderson gave is to record a metronome at 1 sec intervals onto an mp3 player, then play it back in your ear and use that to shift the wedge. This is because enlarger bulbs have a warm-up period of up to a second or more, during which the light is weaker and possibly yellower. So to stop-start the bulb and add up the incremental exposures does not give you the same exposure and contrast than a full uninterrupted exposure.

BTW, excellent first attempt. Not many of us can boast that we did that well at first.

Thanks for the compliment and information! I'll have these shots now with the grade filters, will also try it with the dichroic head. I did that trick with the 2-3cm increments to find the correct exposure. Also bought a pie-chart thingy now, which you can put above the paper which has incremental exposures things on it and automatically gives different exposure times.

As I don't have a timer, my friend plugged & pulled the cord when the timer hit about 7 seconds. The bigger negative was cut a bit too early which makes it more bright (like 6 seconds, instead of 7). And that is why I'm worried that it has such a small latitude of exposure error. I really have to find out what is wrong. (and buy a timer or I'll make one myself with a microcontroller).

 

[Jessestr]

I wouldn't normally post this answer to someone taking first steps, but I've just looked at your website, and as a photographer, you ain't no newbie!!

There is another way rather than learning test-strips and that is put your hand into your (by necessity rather deep) pocket and consider buying an Analyser-Pro or ZoneMaster/Stopclock rig from RH Designs/SDS. The reason I say this is that if you are serious about moving into film, and I think you are, this technology presents an alternative (note not "better") route to determining exposure and contrast. It is the route I took when I realized that as my time is precious, short-cuts to good end results were, for me, worth paying for.

I won't go over the all the ins and outs of these devices - they are presented in great detail on the RHDesigns and SDS (who now sell them) website.

However, the basis is that using the sensor you measure the highlight and shadow of the projected image and the analyser presents the readings on a grey scale, allowing exposure and contrast settings to be manipulated until the measured areas are placed on the part of the grey scale you want. All time adjustments are "f-stop" and the user can easily tweak both exposure and contrast. Other features allow split time/grade settings, burning dodging settings, to be more easily determined. There is some skill in learning how to use the machine to get consistent results. Another huge benefit (for me anyway) is that you calibrate the machine against the papers you want to use and *your rig*. This means that even if the filter settings you dial in on a colour head wouldn't reliably give consistent exposure times using a test-strip method, the calibration process adjusts for this when you input the offsets into your analyser to suit the paper you are using. The machine stores settings for multiple papers, so printing an image on two different papers is as simple as taking one set of measurements, making a print, switching the paper setting with the machine re-setting exposure and contrast automatically, and making another. Provided your calibration is good (and that is a little bit of an art in itself), you get two prints where the only variable is the differences in the papers.

I admit that I am biased - I stopped making test-strips very, very early on in the learning curve, and although I understand them and can use them, I have never developed the "sixth sense" I know experience practitioners have in getting to the required settings quickly, and I also admit if my analyser broke I would be floundering back to first-principles! However, on the upside, I have learned to understand how the analyser works and without a doubt I get a finished result much faster and with much less paper waste than I personally would using test strips. I am sure, again, that experienced old hands will still get better results than I even faster, but coming to this late, I haven't got those years of experience behind me.!

On this forum there are many extremely experienced people, and to an extent they do have different opinions on the way things should be done for best results. There are definitely people who say that technology is uneccessary (as it is); everyone should become skilled at making test strips (they probably should); you don't need to spend big-money on machines, when you can achieve the same result without (you can). All I am doing here, is giving another perspective on something that works for me.

Thanks man! The analyzer seems like a good thing, a little expensive for a student. But maybe this summer if I tried a lot more things. Like you said, there is so many different opinions (and probably so many different ways to do it right and make it bad). I'll probably do it the hard way, like I don't even have a timer, just my iPhone with a darkroom timer on it.

As I'm an IT/Electronics student, I'll probably make my own timer which could be easily exact on 0.00001 seconds (if necessary). Is also a challenge and would maybe be more fulfilling than just buy myself a timer. Although the timer looks awesome. But there are already so much variables to think of and need to test a little more before I can actually think how the stuff reacts to the light and such. As said before.6 seconds gave me too bright exposure, 7 spot on and probably 8 would gave me a too dark exposure. That's why I need to test if that is the problem. Feels like such a small latitude...

 

[mr rusty]

If making small prints, enlargers can concentrate the light so that exposure times are very short. Dialling in equal amounts of C/Y/M on your colour head works like an ND filter and slows things down. Gives more control on small prints!

 

[Jessestr]

If making small prints, enlargers can concentrate the light so that exposure times are very short. Dialling in equal amounts of C/Y/M on your colour head works like an ND filter and slows things down. Gives more control on small prints!

Mhm, so if I'm making larger prints. I can't use the same exposure time of the smaller prints? Was thinking about that as the light is much less strong. Maybe that's why the bigger exposure is just a little too light, because it wasn't exposed long enough.

I just want to use the color head, but I can't check if I have the right values for like grade 2 & 3 because I don't have any reference points, that's why I might just buy the Ilford filters.

 

[mr rusty]

so if I'm making larger prints. I can't use the same exposure time of the smaller prints

No.

There are formulas that can calculate exposure adjustment v head height, but its prob easier to make a new test strip.

I just want to use the color head, but I can't check if I have the right values for like grade 2 & 3 because I don't have any reference points

You will find dual filter settings here (use dual as these are intended to keep exposure settings as constant as possible). These will be close enough to begin with.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628932591755.pdf

 

[pentaxuser]

There are formulas that can calculate exposure adjustment v head height, but its prob easier to make a new test strip.

You will find dual filter settings here (use dual as these are intended to keep exposure settings as constant as possible). These will be close enough to begin with.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2010628932591755.pdf

On the first point you might be right but I tested my Philips enlarger probe against the site that several years ago I was directed to by someone called, I think, dyler. You simply put in the old enlarger column height, the new column height and the known exposure and each time the probe and the calculation agreed. Very easy and no maths or calculations required.

I was going to direct the OP to the site but I have checked it and the URL has disappeared. Why do these sites disappear? The original poster doesn't appear to have been around for several years either. Pity. I thought it a useful site. If it helps it was called home.centurytelnet/dwilder57/timeAdjust.html

On the second point Ralph Lambrecht on his darkroom magic site gives a table whereby you can apply compensation in 1/12th stop when changing contrast using dichroic heads.

Again with a fstop table to convert 1/12ths stops to seconds it is a relatively easy-to-follow method.

I do for computers what the Boston Strangler did for the careers of door to door salesmen but can anyone else here help? Given that the OP doesn't have an RH Designs Analyser and intends to try using a dichroic head for contrast can anyone else help with links?

pentaxuser

 

[John Koehrer]

1/10th second is close enough for a timer. I doubt most people will ever see 1/10th second difference anyway. Building your own? Make it any tolerance you want.

The VC values for any enlarger are just starting points and need a bit of experimentation to refine to your system. It's the same as exposing and developing for the negative. Box speed or EI? Recommended development/developer vs. modified technique

 

[polyglot]

Excellent first prints. At this point what I think you need is not scattered comments from the crowd but an excellent technical reference. Buy Way Beyond Monochrome and an f/stop timer. There are some excellent+expensive ones out there or if you can solder, there's my open source one (link in signature).

 

[Nige]

there's a thread here somewhere about using an Ardunino as the basis of an f-stop timer.

EDIT : haha, and there he is!

 

[MattKing]

Here is Ralph Lambrecht's table and the article attached to it

 

[Jessestr]

Thanks guys, really helps me forward! I'm off switching my room into a darkroom now and experiment some more.

Excellent first prints. At this point what I think you need is not scattered comments from the crowd but an excellent technical reference. Buy Way Beyond Monochrome and an f/stop timer. There are some excellent+expensive ones out there or if you can solder, there's my open source one (link in signature).

I saw the Arduino one, looks great!

Here is Ralph Lambrecht's table and the article attached to it

Thanks. I saw that table before in the video I watched. But what if my base exposure isn't the same as in the table in the PDF?

 

[Jessestr]

Did some more tests today.

So what I did was, used the dichroic head as contrast filters. Worked grate. I tried two versions. The one Ilford provided and the one Adox provided. (Two strips on the left, the less contrasty is Ilford, the good one is with the settings of Adox)

Then I made a test strip photo of my dad (not on the picture) but I had set it to f16 (by accident) which made me double my time, but the picture was a little under exposed so I did 1/2nd stop of dodging which made my exposure time about 11 seconds instead of 16. The results is the big picture of my dad.

After that I wanted to know what the results would look like on f11 (and I was kinda confused about the times). So I did an exposure of f11 - 4 seconds (too light) and f11 - 8 seconds (too dark). But as it turned out I did the right thing on f16 minus a half stop which made it a half stop lighter. So if I had to do it on f11 it should be a half stop less than 8 seconds.

Then I did another picture of the girl on f16. Only took me one strip to find out. As my base time on f11 was about 8 seconds.. I figured out that on f16 it would be 16 seconds. And then did it correctly on the final print.
(F16 isn't the smallest aperture available on my lens, so no diffraction)

Also bought a masking easel which was way easier than tape. Ready to print some more!

 

[polyglot]

Thanks. I saw that table before in the video I watched. But what if my base exposure isn't the same as in the table in the PDF?

The table (fig.6, page 26) has pretty much every useful exposure combination (1/12 stop increments between 3=>8s and 6=>64s). You do your test strips, which means choosing which row of the table you're going to operate from, i.e. the base exposure. Then if you want to dodge or burn some area, moving across the table tells you how much time is required to perform the dodge or burn. Note that this article is an excerpt from Way Beyond Monochrome; getting that book and understanding its contents is far more important than any darkroom equipment acquisitions you might make - an f/stop timer makes it easier to do this, but it is not a necessity if you just use the provided table. I printed using a loudly ticking clock for my first 2 years.

You should avoid exposures shorter than 8s unless you have an electronic timer (for repeatability), and it's also pretty hard to move the dodge/burn tool around during a short exposure to achieve smooth seamless results. Exposures over 64s are a drag and you risk running into reciprocity failure on the paper (say you do a 2 stop burn off a 64s base exposure, that's about 4 minutes of exposure and the paper is almost certainly not behaving properly at such low illumination intensity... you should open the aperture if at all possible).