Help a beginner make their first enlargement from scratch?

[Craig75]

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.

Hi chris sorry i know my explanation was very woolly.

I think matt kings post above explains it better but i will try again probably badly..

If you find your best print exposure is your base exposure of whole paper (say 10 seconds) + 4s +4 s this is not the same as giving the paper a constant 18 seconds of exposure. Giving a constant 18 seconds could well produce a darker print than 10s +4s +4s which tripped me up for ages. I think its called the intermiticeny effect (?).


The easiest way is to compare two strips done each way. Try say 4 bursts of 4s seconds versus a constant 16 seconds. If there is no difference then its rubbish. If you see a difference then you know its something to watch out for

 

[twelvetone12]

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

 

[Craig75]

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

Yes thats a very important caveat. As with everything in darkroom it is going to be dependent on your personal equipment. I use colour enlarger and it was a semi constant source of frustration with final print looking darker than test strip but you may not see it.

 

[ChrisBCS]

Thank you so much everyone. This thread has been so informative and humbling. It has definitely guaranteed my subscription will continue. As for now, this is what I settled on:

Time for me to read, read, read!

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ok I will explain why I like a time range a bit further..

One thing I do is count down all my exposures, over the years I have gotten pretty good at this considering the amount of enlarger prints I have tested and finished.
I do this to be able to precisely dodge and burn in a predictable sequence based on percentages of time for each area needing attention. I have found that the 10 -20 second range allows me
to narrow my precision.
I am also working with two sometimes three filters and to be honest I do not want to stand around all day with a long base exposure . somtimes I will hit the enlarger timer 6-15 times on any single image.

I also was taught a few things about looking at the enlarger easel when setting up a new negative and based on experience I am actually pretty good in determining apeture and starting density by eye.
This is again of course after many thousand enlarger prints and the resulting prints.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to be able to judge basic contrast and density of negatives, In my case I work with many source negatives, if I only worked with film of my own I think it would be
one step easier than above.

Therefore the bulb required is a quick assessment of the negative, the desired magnification of the print needed. Once all these factors are considered its just a matter of going through a bunch of negatives.

To the OP this may be more info than you need but over time if you are serious and want to up your printing game keep what I say in mind.

Also the biggest tip I can give you is watch your print in the developer. This is where you can judge contrast and future density changes. I learned this from years of Lith printing and pulling for black..

 

[Leigh B]

...say 10 seconds + 4s +4 s this is not the same as giving the paper a constant 18 seconds of exposure...

That's why we use projection print scales rather than cycling the enlarger light on and off.

The PPS takes one 60-second exposure and tells you what to use for the actual print.

You can accomplish the same thing using a mask by leaving the light on.
Move the mask quickly from one step to the next.

- Leigh

 

[ChrisBCS]

I made my first split grade print this week, too.

 

[tedr1]

Great picture.

I've never seen one of those things in person. Are they powered by an internal combustion engine? Does the pump that pumps oil need some oil to run?

 

[LarsAC]

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

 

[trendland]

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 .

 

[trendland]

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 .

Bob - different grades of paper ?
I just remember my most frustration in
darkroom with Ilford RC deluxe.
I bought grade 0 -5 .......worried about
to have not bought grade 6.

And then......? I just was wainting for the
day I would need grade 0 !

I am still waiting today ...!

with regards

 

[Bob Carnie]

When I started printing, I used grade 3 predominately , sometimes 2, then I started when I gained confidence using two developers , hard and a soft.
When Ilford introduced Warmtone I was one of the Beta testers and loved the paper and started split printing immediately and have not looked back.

But for projects that I do I would have no hesitation to go back to graded paper , it worked well for 40 Plus years for printmakers. I think that this site and others offer the
beginner way too many options, and exotic process that I think could be overwhelming.
Micheal R pretty well sums it up that the Kodak and Ilford manuals are great resources for beginner printers. Get your feet wet make a thousand prints then start getting fancy smancsy.
KISS is a good way to go.

I shudder when I see a relative beginner printer wanting to learn, unsharp masking, tonal mapping, flashing and complicated split printing methods as well as stand development and multiple
films , before they actually pick one film, one developer and one paper and make a few hundred images before moving to these methods that may in the wrong hands screw up the print.

Nothing wrong with educating oneself with the many options , but another to make them all work at once.

I am at a stage in my life where I love hot spicy food, it took me years to build up my palette for this.

 

[cornflower2]

Hi everyone, if you want a completely different take on how to print then try setting up with enLARGE, a new app available on the Apple AppStore for iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. It lets you use your Apple device as a predictive exposure computer ('PEC') for your enlarger. When you use it you can just make all your initial work and test prints as whole small full-frame enlargements, eg. wallet prints/matchbox size prints, rather than muck about with large test strips or large stepped prints. Then when you've got your best tiny print looking as good as you can get it then you use the app to compute the exposure time needed for any larger print or prints of any size or sizes you like. Also computes all your dodging and burning, paper dry-down and split exposures. The app needs to be calibrated to your enlarger and then it's 100% accurate. Check it out: first time since enlarging began that your traditional optical darkroom enlarger has been accurately and conveniently mapped to a computer, being your iPhone!

 

[cliveh]

How did I ever manage to make a print without having to use a phone?

 

[Kino]

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

Electric drives are the rule pretty much these days. In my youth, growing up in Oklahoma, the pump jacks ran on single-cylinder combustion engines called "popping-johnnies" and burned the casing gas that condensed out of the crude oil or, if the well produced natural gas, it burned that. The casing gas was called "drip" and it was unleaded in an era of leaded gasoline automobile engines, so many a "drip thief" would burn up their car or pickup engines by stealing this gas for everyday use.

Some of these pump jacks and engines could be enormous. I worked as a roustabout in High School and College during summers and had to service some of these monsters. We would re-pour Babbit bearings for the walking beam, service the motors (rings, plugs, head gaskets, etc.) and take radiators into be repaired.

It was forever ago...