How do you do test strips?

[Poohblah]

Too bad about the equipment situation. If you are ok with eBay, I would suggest you get yourself one of the smaller timers. Then if you have a locker at the school darkroom you can keep it there and pull it out for your own use. I've picked up timers for much less than $50. But it is buyer-beware out there.

You might be able to find a metronome to use. At least that way you don't need to keep an eye on the clock. Just count the ticks. Change the rate from say 60/sec down to 10/sec for the longer exposures.

Then work on your best Ansel Adams darkroom curmudgeon impression.

hehe! a metronome would work well, but i assume you mean 60/minute, not 60/second? 60 bps would be excessively fast tempo...

 

[dpurdy]

A metronome used to be the way to go. When I went to photography school we had a metronome set at a tick a second and everyone used it all together at the same time. Tic toc tic toc tic toc.. then you get some idiot whistling a tune.
Dennis

 

[Lee L]

When working in a darkroom hand printing large volumes of B&W, I came up with the following method for doing test strip spacing. To use it you need to understand the Fibonnaci series, which starts with the number 1, then sums sequential results so that each number in the series is the sum of the preceding two numbers. That makes the series 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, etc. I always printed using these exposure times because a one stop step was too coarse for my needs and a half stop change was too fine. Think of it as f-stop printing using steps of 0.62 stops.

I became very good at guessing the needed exposure for a print by looking at the image on the easel, but if I felt the need to make a test strip, the additive nature of the Fibonacci series made it easy to produce a test strip with the times I used. I used a card to progressively cover the paper rather than uncovering more at each step. One little trick is necessary to make the series work out. The first exposure is with the entire sheet uncovered for what I thought would be the minimum exposure time necessary. The second exposure (with the first strip of the paper covered) is with the next smaller number in the Fibonacci series, then cover up another strip and expose with progressively larger Fibonacci numbers in seconds until you feel you've covered the range you need.

The following columns show an example with the exposure added on each step in the first column and the sum of all exposures in the second column, showing the resulting Fibonacci steps for each strip.

5 - 5
3 - 8
5 - 13
8 - 21
13 - 34
21 - 55

This is easily accomplished by using a card and metronome, turning on the enlarger and progressively covering the paper as you count seconds. I count off using the numbers for each step in the first column, but you could easily use the cumulative second column numbers.

I used this method for test strips from 1988 until I got an RH Designs almost 20 years later. It's cheap and effective, and you can go between the full Fibonacci times for finer adjustment if your print needs it.

I know this method doesn't satisfy the preferences of the OP, but thought it might be found useful by others reading the thread.

Lee

 

[Jon King]

i never realized there was a special way to make
test strips, or a specialized device one could use.
i just stick a piece of paper under an area that has
a bit more information than a blank sky ...
i put the enlarger on 5 seconds, and close it down to about 4 stops from
wide open ... my device is a piece of cardboard.
actually the cardboard is kind of fancy, it has notes and stuff
written on it from 25 years of use .. and a hole in the middle of it
since i used to use it for burning and it might have some
chew marks in it from a family of mice that i had living in my walls 10 years ago
... ... now the hole is just something for me to stick my finger in as i hold the board.
if i was over or under in my guess of 5 seconds, i change the time
accordingly ... and pull another sheet of paper out of the box.

My piece of cardboard is only about 5 years along the path of yours..... the mice have checked out the darkroom, but they weren't interested in my test strip/burning/dodging device.... I'll give them some more time :rolleyes:

 

[Vaughn]

I think the amount of information you need from a test strip changes as you go through hundreds then thousands of prints... One little test strip in a well chosen spot can get you in the ballpark for density and contrast. I would certainly never buy a gadget to help me make a test strip.
Dennis

I'm with Dennis here...KISS.

When I was making 16x20 silver prints, it would be 1/3 of a piece of paper for the test strip -- carefully placed to give me info from the areas I needed (based on looking carefully at the neg). Then a "test print" (no dodging or burning) to look at the whole image to look at to fine-tune exposure and determine burning and dodging (mostly burning). Working with the image might take me another 5 to 6 pieces of paper...plenty of time to fine-tune the exposure.

But whatever system works best you. I no longer make test strips (nor dodge and burn for that matter) for pt/pd printing or carbon printing. Not that I hit the right exposure the first time either a lot of the time.

Vaughn

PS...my two pieces of cardboard (one with a hole) for test strips & burning are 25+ years old also -- but covered with the black paper bag Portriga Rapid use to come encased in -- so no writing on them.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

I'm with Dennis here...KISS.

When I was making 16x20 silver prints, it would be 1/3 of a piece of paper for the test strip -- carefully placed to give me info from the areas I needed (based on looking carefully at the neg). Then a "test print" (no dodging or burning) to look at the whole image to look at to fine-tune exposure and determine burning and dodging (mostly burning). Working with the image might take me another 5 to 6 pieces of paper...plenty of time to fine-tune the exposure.

But whatever system works best you. I no longer make test strips (nor dodge and burn for that matter) for pt/pd printing or carbon printing. Not that I hit the right exposure the first time either a lot of the time.

Vaughn

PS...my two pieces of cardboard (one with a hole) for test strips & burning are 25+ years old also -- but covered with the black paper bag Portriga Rapid use to come encased in -- so no writing on them.

My point exactly as to why it is completely unnedessary to use a test strip and why attempting to use one is leading you down the road to wastefullness with your materials.

Here is the path of inefficiency spelled out in detail. You do a test strip to get your base exposure "approximate". Then you use this base exposure to make a full print so for the first time you can get a sense of shadow and highlight print values and where they need to be attentuated or supressed. They you spend God knows how many full sheets of printing paper tweeking individual areas of the print to get things properly dialed in. Why? Because you are needing to iterate with another full test print to learning things about how these areas of the print that need adjustment respond to small adjustments and it is terribly inefficient.

When you purposefully begin with an obvious underexposed test print AND an obvious overexposed print right out of the chute and put them both on your viewing glass under proper illumination and STUDY THEM (ie. emplore the outflanking printing method), you have the ability to save yourself many sheets of iteration printing paper because you have expanded the range of usable data from which the efficient printer can use and learn from about this print from this point forward to essentially reduce the number of sheets of printing paper needed to complete the job. I have seen instances where the third sheet of paper used to print with is actually incorporating a base exposure with dodge and burn time extracted from the first two over and under test prints. It simply works like a charm.

Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee teach this technique in their workshops and they are two of the most proficient prints of our era. Back in the days when printing paper was produced by countless manufacturers and competition kept prices in check (ie printing paper was not that expensive), printing efficiency was not a high priority for the photographer of this era. In fact using a boat load of paper was a sign of professionalism.

I contend that the test strip procedure is an artifact of a time long sense gone as the photographic paper business has seen major players leave the business and serious consiolidations have taken place causing the costs of this product to go sky high. Since I believe this condition is likely to get worse (higher prices and less selection) it is incumbent upon us all to reach for levels of efficiency that we have never had to reach for previously.

During hard times the operative work is innovate.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I like Michael and Paula's "outflanking" technique, but I don't think it solves all problems, or is the ideal method in every case.

It works very well for them, precisely because they don't innovate. They pretty much always use the same film and paper and equipment and can even keep their exposure light at a constant distance from the paper for every print, and because they have so much experience with the same materials, they can develop by inspection to produce very consistent negs. This lack of innovation in their process allows them to focus on other things, which isn't a bad approach.

If someone doesn't use such consistent methods, however, it's a good idea to know a few different ways of making a fine print, like learning to make consistent contact sheets, test strips, etc., to get to a good print as efficiently as possible.

 

[Michael Kadillak]

I like Michael and Paula's "outflanking" technique, but I don't think it solves all problems, or is the ideal method in every case.

It works very well for them, precisely because they don't innovate. They pretty much always use the same film and paper and equipment and can even keep their exposure light at a constant distance from the paper for every print, and because they have so much experience with the same materials, they can develop by inspection to produce very consistent negs. This lack of innovation in their process allows them to focus on other things, which isn't a bad approach.

If someone doesn't use such consistent methods, however, it's a good idea to know a few different ways of making a fine print, like learning to make consistent contact sheets, test strips, etc., to get to a good print as efficiently as possible.

Consistent? Are you kidding me?

A couple of months ago I printed with Michael Smith for five days straight in his darkroom and he was printing negatives from his recent Chicago work that had nearly 0.7 units of FB+F. It was bizzare seeing the unexposed film edges that "dark". Seems that these negatives had been unintentionally left in a hot and humid environment for an extended period and they did not realize it until after they had been developed. I took one look at these negatives and just about fell over as I felt that they would be virtually unprintable. Boy was I ever wrong.

Michael put the negative on the light table and made the necessary adjustment in his first outflanking print and by the third print we had a keeper and the results were absolutely stunning. Michael commented to me that his printing times were 3-5 times the normal printing time. How is that for consistency and "knowing" your materials?

 

[jeroldharter]

I use an RH Designs timer in the test strip mode, covering the paper with cardboard progressively for each strip. I use whole sheets of 8x10 paper for each test strip. I do the same for 11x14 although sometimes I will cut it down to half sheets. I have the timer set to 1/6 stop intervals.

So usually I can gauge the minimum time by experience and doing the test strip this way allows me to "outflank" the print. I do split contrast printing so I usually start with the shadow exposure and then add the highlights. Usually, it takes me 3 iterations to get things right. Then I do a full sheet with the entire printing sequence to verify. At that point, I hit the drydown compensation button and expose several sheets of paper to the printing sequence adjusted for drydown. If it takes much more testing, I am either being meticulous or not realizing that I should move on to a better negative.

If I make large prints like 16x20 or 20x24, I start with an 8x10 to get the printing sequence down. Then I meter the exposure with a Jobo analyser in integrative mode, raise the enlarger, re-focus, and then open the lens to get the same density reading on the Jobo so the I can use the same printing times and printing sequence. Because of slight loss of tonality on the larger prints, I sometimes find myself adding about 1/6 stop to the magenta exposure sequence.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Consistent? Are you kidding me?

A couple of months ago I printed with Michael Smith for five days straight in his darkroom and he was printing negatives from his recent Chicago work that had nearly 0.7 units of FB+F. It was bizzare seeing the unexposed film edges that "dark". Seems that these negatives had been unintentionally left in a hot and humid environment for an extended period and they did not realize it until after they had been developed. I took one look at these negatives and just about fell over as I felt that they would be virtually unprintable. Boy was I ever wrong.

Doesn't sound that surprising to me. SXX has plenty of straight line curve beyond what is needed for printing on Azo, and given the age of their film, some elevated base fog is to be expected, which will increase grain a bit, but that isn't terribly important for contact prints, and the film has so much excess density range, that you could probably have a good deal more base fog than that and still have enough range for good prints on Azo.

 

[MattKing]

One thing that the posters here need to consider is that not everyone here has a darkroom that gives regular, consistent results, session after session.

Like many here, my darkroom spends most of its time as a bathroom, and more problematically, it doesn't serve darkroom duty nearly regularly enough.

I also shoot roll film (various types, and 4 different formats, in 4 different camera systems), under a wide variety of lighting conditions.

Test strips help me a lot - the techniques may not be fundamental to success, but they are helpful to the darkroom worker who has trouble getting into the temporary darkroom on a consistent basis.

FWIW, I use a 6, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13 second progression of uncovering the paper, which results in the following 1/2 stop progression of exposure:

6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 seconds.

(I figure 6 is close enough to 5.6 for government work)

Matt

 

[pquser]

I Micheal makes a good guess at the start point, like most things the more often you guess the better the outcome...just do what works for you !

pquser

 

[nworth]

In general, I don't use traditional test strips. I have an old Kodak Projection Print Scale that produces the same result with far less effort and more accuracy. I understand these are still available, and I recommend them highly. The test strip just gives you a ballpark exposure which you then need to refine. After I get the exposure down, I find a Zone VI area and calibrate an on-easel photometer (actually a color analyzer) for the time. That way I can usually get a ballpark exposure on a new negative without making a second exposure test. There are times when a test strip is needed, though. In those cases, I usually have an idea of the exposure required. I expose a sheet of paper in thirds, at 1/2, 1, and 1-1/2 times the estimated exposure. My eye can interpolate from there. If my estimate was way off, I make another test strip using a new estimate.