How dark should a darkroom be?

keithwms · Jan 12, 2010

fotch said:
If Black is perfect, why accept less?

Because unless you live in a cave there is no perfect black? And because a lot of folks don't have access to a perfect darkroom anymore? There are a lot of dual-purpose rooms being used these days, it's not like everyone can dedicate a perfect, windowless room. Newcomers should not be given the false impression that they can't make do with a room that isn't textbook perfect.

Also there are many ways to get a little extra base fog in a neg, not just some stray light in an imperfectly dark room that isn't hermetically sealed.

People speak of base fog like it's an intestinal polyp or something. I am still using 40 year old panatomic x that wasn't cold stored and yeah there is all kinds of base fog and it's doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I do have benzotriazole on my shelf and I have yet to use it. Seriously, if base fog is cutting into my contrast, then I guess I am lucky because I am still printing just about everything at grade 2 or 3. And in my darkroom I see my hands, I see my feet, I have two timers with bright glowing faces, a leaky safelight and a leaky enlarger bellows.... not to mention my discovery that residual wd2d+ glows when you transfer the film into the stop bath. So many things I *thought* were big crises.

If someone is having a really hard time lightproofing a room and is working with fast films then my advice is just to invest in a big film changing tent e.g. 11x14, put a big kitty litter tray in that, and load up all your chems in that. Short of dev'ing HIE in high noon sun, you can use a Harrison tent just about everywhere.

Again, as has been said many times, people simply need to test. We can't conduct exposure checks over the internet so none of us knows who does or does not have a problem. Test and all will be clear.

langedp · Jan 16, 2010

Mahler_one said:
... IF the light is coming in from the bottom of the door, and is rather faint....since light travels in a straight line, if the light is not bouncing off of anything bright, how can such light affect film on a table some feet above and to the side of the bottom of the door?

I always find these "since light travels in a straight line" assertions very interesting. Light does travel in a straight line IF.... (insert the many ideal state conditions here). The key point is light coming in under a door is getting scattered by many things like the uneven surface of the floor and even dust in the air. If it were not, then how could you see it when your eyes are 5 feet above the floor?

I used to not worry about this stuff too until I attended one of John Sexton's Expressive Print workshops and saw the lengths he went to insuring that no white light hit his paper unless it passed through the negative. He devoted a fair amount of time to this subject during the workshop.

Vonder · Jan 16, 2010

My "darkroom" ia a laundry room. It has ventilated folding doors and a window whose only covering is a blind. The door itself is made of nothing but slanted wood strips. Light tight? Not in a million years. Add to that the furnace, right there inthe room, and the hot water heater, gas-burning, light emitting beasts - plus white walls and 3 large white appliances - and I have no hope of darkness. I can only work in it at night. During the Winter it works out ok but by summer I have to stay up way past my bedtime to print. My prints don't seem to be affected by it, or I'm just used to the results as I have nothing else to compare to.

Mahler_one · Jan 16, 2010

Simple solution for light coming under the door.....find one or two of those bean bags that one can use to put by the door in winter time to prevent drafts from entering the house. Close the darkroom door, put down the bags, forget about it....end of problem...low tech solution, and you can still use the bags to prevent the drafts....of course, one can always train the dog to stretch out in front of the bottom of the door as well...:{

RalphLambrecht · Jan 16, 2010

Wolfeye said:
My "darkroom" ia a laundry room. It has ventilated folding doors and a window whose only covering is a blind. The door itself is made of nothing but slanted wood strips. Light tight? Not in a million years. Add to that the furnace, right there inthe room, and the hot water heater, gas-burning, light emitting beasts - plus white walls and 3 large white appliances - and I have no hope of darkness. I can only work in it at night. During the Winter it works out ok but by summer I have to stay up way past my bedtime to print. My prints don't seem to be affected by it, or I'm just used to the results as I have nothing else to compare to.

Well put. Much better than the folks who claim never to have had a problem with a little light leak. They don't know what they are missing.

John Sexton knows what he's doing!

pentaxuser · Jan 16, 2010

My impression has always been that even on the darkest night outdoors and far from the kind of "light pollution" we now experience in most urban areas there is always more light than in a 100% blacked-out darkroom and yet if there is, then it might not be enough to fog film. On the BBC programme "The Genius of Photography" there was an interview with an American army photographer who during World War II has used a 35mm camera instead of the standard issue Speed Graphic. During the fighting in the Ardennes he had obtained chemicals from a shell-damaged chemist's shop and had developed, fixed and washed a roll of 35mm film outside in the dark using three soldiers' helmets for dev, fix and wash, hung the roll on a bush and had a perfect set of negs the next day.

Assuming his story to be true and I see no reason why its shouldn't have been, especially the part about having to wait until dark and develop it outside, then is there a very low level of light which allows film to be developed.?

It may be that a very dark night is in effect the equivalent of absolute blackness but I would have thought that even on the darkest of nights there must be more light than in a 100% blacked-out darkroom but presumably not enough to fog film but maybe still just enough for our eyes to discern a difference between 100% darkness and a very dark night.

Presumably some human eyes are better than others in the dark. Certainly an owl's eyes are. It can fly in conditions in which most or all humans would say that it was impossible to see.

Just a few thoughts and I hope you liked the story about the photographer. For our U.S. members, he had an Italian name which I cannot remeber but I think he was called Tony something and he continued to earn his living at photography after the war. Maybe someone here will know of him.

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

Kirk Keyes · Jan 16, 2010

Ian Grant said:
Don't waste too much time the OP decided APUG's answer's weren't good enough and is now looking elsewhere

Ian - that's just not the APUG way, we MUST debate every subject to the most abstract point... Original question be damned!

RalphLambrecht · Jan 16, 2010

pentaxuser said:
My impression has always been that even on the darkest night outdoors and far from the kind of "light pollution" we now experience in most urban areas there is always more light than in a 100% blacked-out darkroom and yet if there is, then it might not be enough to fog film...

Not correct. If the war story is true, he must have been using very slow film. Please read post #19.

keithwms · Jan 16, 2010

Why is this still rambling on? People should simply test.

Since I did a lot of experimentation with preflashing, I was naturally very interested in base fog and how much flash gave how much change in tone. Through that I learned that my darkroom most certainly is dark enough.

There is no shortcut... you cannot advance to GO and collect $200... you have to test your own darkroom Anecdotes are nice, but in the end they are just anecdotes.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 16, 2010

keithwms said:
Why is this still rambling on? People should simply test.

Since I did a lot of experimentation with preflashing, I was naturally very interested in base fog and how much flash gave how much change in tone. Through that I learned that my darkroom most certainly is dark enough.

There is no shortcut... you cannot advance to GO and collect $200... you have to test your own darkroom Anecdotes are nice, but in the end they are just anecdotes.

But Keith

By arguing on APUG for days you can easily save yourself a 30-minute test in your own darkroom.

pentaxuser · Jan 16, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
Not correct. If the war story is true, he must have been using very slow film. Please read post #19.

Ralph I presume it was very slow film- by modern standards, most if not all films were slow back then. I have never experienced what a really dark night can be like either. It may be as dark as a 100% blacked-out darkroom but I had always assumed that the inherent light level on the darkest night was brighter than a good darkroom.

Can anyone here say who he was? Once I get his name then it will be intrguing to try and discover the full story such as what was the film and was it truly done outside with no cover such as a big army blanket over his head!

My post is only a diversion but an interesting one, I think. It would seem as if the OP has long since ceased to be interested so I felt it was OK to introduce this story. Personally I am paranoic about getting my darkroom 100% dark for film and wouldn't want to risk anything less. However I did once load a film into a tank with my back to the door only to discover that there were tiny faint pinpricks of light around the door. No fog on the film but probably my back shielded the film sufficiently.

pentaxuser

RalphLambrecht · Jan 16, 2010

pentaxuser said:
Ralph I presume it was very slow film- by modern standards, most if not all films were slow back then. I have never experienced what a really dark night can be like either. It may be as dark as a 100% blacked-out darkroom but I had always assumed that the inherent light level on the darkest night was brighter than a good darkroom.

Can anyone here say who he was? Once I get his name then it will be intrguing to try and discover the full story such as what was the film and was it truly done outside with no cover such as a big army blanket over his head!

My post is only a diversion but an interesting one, I think. It would seem as if the OP has long since ceased to be interested so I felt it was OK to introduce this story. Personally I am paranoic about getting my darkroom 100% dark for film and wouldn't want to risk anything less. However I did once load a film into a tank with my back to the door only to discover that there were tiny faint pinpricks of light around the door. No fog on the film but probably my back shielded the film sufficiently.

pentaxuser

Without moon and urban light pollution, you might be able to do it.

Mahler_one · Jan 16, 2010

Thanks to Ralph and others I went back into my darkroom and made careful observations as to any light leaks. If the door is pulled very tightly closed there is essentially no light entering the darkroom. So, I guess I was working in the dark....in more ways then one.....I agree with Keith....test your own space....if you see no problems that might be attributable to light leaks than proceed with abandon. If there are problems, then fix such...good luck.

DLawson · Jan 17, 2010

pentaxuser said:
Ralph I presume it was very slow film- by modern standards, most if not all films were slow back then. I have never experienced what a really dark night can be like either. It may be as dark as a 100% blacked-out darkroom but I had always assumed that the inherent light level on the darkest night was brighter than a good darkroom.

I've done night drives through empty areas (most of Nevada is great for that) and been amazed at the depth of the black of the sky. If you had that kind of "middle of nowhere" light (which in the 1940s was most places not urban centers), a new moon and maybe some cloud cover, maybe some forest cover . . . it could be impressively dark.

An ISO 12 orthochromatic film certainly makes that easier, in practical terms.

rx7speed · Jan 19, 2010

I admit haven't read the whole discussion yet but you all would cring at my darkroom from the sounds of it. I have no door to my darkroom. no double bends curtain, nothing. it's an old coal room and so no windows though the little "window/door" like that that allows you to move the coal into the house isn't sealed that great from light eithr. right outside the door though and off to the side there is one of those small basement windows. they are actually scattered about downstairs.

all I really do though is make sure the lights ustairs are turned off right next to the stairs and in the living room, put my back to the door and have the enlarger sitting on the floor with all my chems as well. so far haven't had problems even when leaving some paper out and about in the open with it fogging up or whatnot.

wclark5179 · Jan 19, 2010

Dark enough so as things develop.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 19, 2010

rx7speed said:
I admit haven't read the whole discussion yet but you all would cring at my darkroom from the sounds of it. I have no door to my darkroom. no double bends curtain, nothing. it's an old coal room and so no windows though the little "window/door" like that that allows you to move the coal into the house isn't sealed that great from light eithr. right outside the door though and off to the side there is one of those small basement windows. they are actually scattered about downstairs.

all I really do though is make sure the lights ustairs are turned off right next to the stairs and in the living room, put my back to the door and have the enlarger sitting on the floor with all my chems as well. so far haven't had problems even when leaving some paper out and about in the open with it fogging up or whatnot.

Is there a difference between 'not having problems' and not 'knowing about them'? Can you post some prints?

RalphLambrecht · Jan 19, 2010

wclark5179 said:
Dark enough so as things develop.

Bill

Your post is kind of lost without the reference it was made to.

wclark5179 · Jan 19, 2010

Come on Ralph let your imagination wander a wee bit.

What do you think I meant?

Could be several ideas.

Have a wonderful week & weekend.

KenS · Jan 19, 2010

My mentor, some 50-odd years ago, would have told you that it needs to be...

'As black as the Earl o' Hell's waistcoat'

ken

fschifano · Jan 19, 2010

rx7speed said:
...so far haven't had problems even when leaving some paper out and about in the open with it fogging up or whatnot.

Ah, but there's the rub. There could be just enough exposure to stray light to rob the prints of contrast, but not enough to cause obvious fog. In other words, the paper could be exposed to just under the threshold where it becomes visible. Since exposure is cumulative, when you expose the print you drive the fog level past the threshold.

Ken Nadvornick · Jan 19, 2010

How dark?

Mind-numbing, sensory-depravation, terror-inducing, unimaginable to contemplate, insanity-creating, you should fear for your very survival, as if you unexpectedly awoke inside your grave with proof there is no God... dark.

It either is, or is not. There is no try...

Ken

rx7speed · Jan 19, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
Is there a difference between 'not having problems' and not 'knowing about them'? Can you post some prints?

I can post prints but they will have problems but that is due to other problems. so far haven't been able to get a set of negatives that aren't thin so my prints are usually lacking contrast as well as my lack of developing skill leads to some problems as well. BUT you will at least be able to see the edges of the prints compared to the print itself and see how much light is putting a general fog on the unexposed parts of the paper.

JBrunner · Jan 19, 2010

rx7speed said:
I can post prints but they will have problems but that is due to other problems. so far haven't been able to get a set of negatives that aren't thin so my prints are usually lacking contrast as well as my lack of developing skill leads to some problems as well. BUT you will at least be able to see the edges of the prints compared to the print itself and see how much light is putting a general fog on the unexposed parts of the paper.

What you aren't realizing is that the most insidious fog, the kind that wrecks your VII, won't develop in the edges or paper white. It gives the paper a "start". More exposure gives fog in your exposed areas of paper. It makes things dingy in your high tones, and wrecks that little sparkle that makes a print truly great if everything else is in order. Test with pre-flashed paper. I'm not talking about the kind of thing where you pull the paper out of the fix and it looks like an LA horizon. Maybe you have a problem maybe you don't, but if you do, and you don't know it, you are thwacking your head against an invisible wall. So many miss this point! It isn't something you can readily see, until you fix it.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 20, 2010

wclark5179 said:
Come on Ralph let your imagination wander a wee bit.

What do you think I meant?

Could be several ideas.

Have a wonderful week & weekend.

Bill

No I don't, and I hate to second guess what you meant. It would help if you 'reply with quote'. Save a lot of time for the reader.

How dark should a darkroom be?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency