I'm not sure I follow.
I picked (pretty randomly) a base exposure of 6 seconds of F11 and I made the test print span 2.5 stops.
Moving left to right, first strip gets 8s, then next strip gets 8, then 4, then 4, then 2, then 6. That gives six test strips with a total time of 32, 24, 16, 12, 8, 6 seconds.
Now what you're saying is that if I liked the 16 second strip as a base exposure, in order to replicate it I would need to give it 6 + 2 + 4 + 4? Can you explain why? Because for my map print I chose a 14 second base exposure, a quarter stop darker than 12 seconds, and I gave it a constant 14 seconds, then developed. The map print looks exactly like I expected it to when placed next to the 12 and 16 second test strips.
The explanation makes complete sense. HOWEVER, and please don't take offense, what is the latency of enlarger lamps? I think I need some convincing that a person's reaction time to a seconds timer/metronome is faster than the latency on an enlarger lamp. As a scientist, that's a claim I would want to test for myself... Two "identical" test prints, one made incrementally, and another with the lamp remaining on.
On my color enlarger you can clearly see the lamp slowly (1/2 second) lighting up. If you do two test prints one with intermittent and one with continuous lighting you clearly see that the latter will be darker. On my other enlarger it is much faster and it only slightly makes a difference, and just in certain conditions.
IMHO nothing to panic about, but just something to know when (sometimes) you get frustrated on why the final print is not the same as the perfect exposure on the strip
And, besides that, as a professional musician I can react quite precisely to a metronome. If this was not possible much of the great symphonic music we enjoy would not exist
That's why we use projection print scales rather than cycling the enlarger light on and off....say 10 seconds + 4s +4 s this is not the same as giving the paper a constant 18 seconds of exposure...
lots of good advice, I would suggest not trying to split print until you have a good handle on the different filters and how they change contrast and density.
Also do not be afraid of making your image too dark or too light as you can learn a lot by making prints on either side of perfect.
When changing anything do one thing at a time, rather than two or more elements at a time.
Remember back in the GOOD OLD DAYS we used graded paper and many people only worked with one or two grades of paper and were able to make fantastic prints.
have fun and do not beat yourself up, it takes some time .
lots of good advice, I would suggest not trying to split print until you have a good handle on the different filters and how they change contrast and density.
Also do not be afraid of making your image too dark or too light as you can learn a lot by making prints on either side of perfect.
When changing anything do one thing at a time, rather than two or more elements at a time.
Remember back in the GOOD OLD DAYS we used graded paper and many people only worked with one or two grades of paper and were able to make fantastic prints.
have fun and do not beat yourself up, it takes some time .
Great photo again, yes.
I'd say electric drives are more common. If it were a combustion engine, it would not run with the crude oil you pump from the ground.
Lars
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?