Incident light metering for calculating exposure of photographic paper

A window to art

D
A window to art

  • 0
  • 0
  • 17
Bushland Stairway

Bushland Stairway

  • 4
  • 1
  • 65
Rouse st

A
Rouse st

  • 6
  • 3
  • 105
Do-Over Decor

A
Do-Over Decor

  • 1
  • 1
  • 114

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,237
Messages
2,788,376
Members
99,840
Latest member
roshanm
Recent bookmarks
1

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
I really, really, really think blind test-stripping is a foolish way to get to a final print. Base the start exposure off what you see on the properly exposed contact sheet and it will usually be within a stop and near to the right base grade. The contact-sheet is typically an 8x10" sheet so if that looks ok, use the same exposure for an 8x10" print, otherwise vary it in proportion to the area of the print and/or how 'wrong' the specific frame is on the contact-sheet. Contrast can be relative to whatever is used for the contact-sheet too (remembering that size changes apparent contrast a bit).

Also, of course, one correctly exposed and developed neg at one size on one type of paper is going to be printing similar to the last time you did that, and any changes you might want will be suggested by (yet again) the contact-sheet.


hi martinp

not sure how test strips ( not sure what blind test strips are ) are foolish.
its the only way i have known to make prints. i stopped making contact sheets a few decades ago
but can see how they might be useful. i can get a good idea of what i am looking at as a negative though ..
while i am sure they are handy, and useful i'd rather not be tied down to another piece of electronica.
i don't use a sensitometer or densitometer either ... going on IDK 35 years?
that isn't saying they are a waste or foolish to use, to each their own ...
 

MartinP

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
1,569
Location
Netherlands
Format
Medium Format
By 'blind test strip' I mean the fairly random procedure suggested above for someone who has never previously printed, and has no idea of what his/her negative should look like or print like. By persuading them to use the contact-sheet to analyse problems with their negatives, and then to use the contacts as a guide to base their printing exposures on, it gives a solid connection to what is actually going on and why.

In my experience, test strips with no analysis beyond making a print are much less helpful to a beginner in becoming aware of the exposure, development and print-time relationships. After time and practice, estimation is internalised and done by eye, as you say, but to begin with I have found that guidance is clearer and more quickly understood when based on the properly made contact-sheets.
 
Last edited:

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,098
Format
8x10 Format
I'm not religious about any of this. Practice makes perfect, regardless. I've been down all that high-tech path (required for certain color printing techniques proficiently) and have hence landed in humble test strip territory. It works for all my basic b&w and RA4 printing needs (after any optional supplemental masking, etc, which does indeed benefit from instrumentation). A lot also depends on the inclination of the individual. Some like the
challenge of juggling hard data, some prefer direct hands-on. I like some of each, depending on the specific medium.
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
By 'blind test strip' I mean the fairly random procedure suggested above for someone who has never previously printed, and has no idea of what his/her negative should look like or print like. By persuading them to use the contact-sheet to analyse problems with their negatives, and then to use the contacts as a guide to base their printing exposures on, it gives a solid connection to what is actually going on and why.

In my experience, test strips with no analysis beyond making a print are much less helpful to a beginner in becoming aware of the exposure, development and print-time relationships. After time and practice, estimation is internalised and done by eye, as you say, but to begin with I have found that guidance is clearer and more quickly understood when based on the properly made contact-sheets.

thanks for the explanation martinp.
i agree, without a llittle guidance it is not easy to know
what a "good print" might look like, and maybe a meter would help at least get an idea ...
while i agree to a certain extent, but even with a meter saying
" f8 @ 15 seconds" how would a beginner know that was even right ?
i would guess ( maybe wrongly ? ) that if someone followed a meter blindly
it would be just as bad as following test strips blindly, even though one would see
what 10 seconds and 20 seconds and 15 seconds would look like on the strip.
there are lots of ways to figure out exposures i guess, and someone should just do what feels most comfortable for them. either way there is a learning curve.

ADDED MUCH LATER

there is a thread from a week or 2 ago on out flanking
which might come in handy when not using an exposure meter ( or using one )
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

out flanking helps give an idea what a good exposure is, and helps a printer figure out how to best interpret a negative
 
Last edited:

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,098
Format
8x10 Format
And every enlarging meter or easel densitometer I've ever used required the ability to make a correct target print to begin with, just to calibrate the meter itself !
 

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
And every enlarging meter or easel densitometer I've ever used required the ability to make a correct target print to begin with, just to calibrate the meter itself !
Sure, after that though the paper's iso rating can be factored in to get close. Kinda like film that way. :wink:
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,272
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
And every enlarging meter or easel densitometer I've ever used required the ability to make a correct target print to begin with, just to calibrate the meter itself !
The EM10 works best when you are adjusting one setup, to give good results, like with another.
The OP was looking for something that helps when you switch between setups.

QED
 

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
the em10 is a pretty useless device IMO. Sure it allows you to replicate and exposure BUT it takes no account of print time and if your lens only has detents and not smoothly adjustable between stop values you have to adjust head height to get it to match for brightness becasue thats all it measures.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,272
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
the em10 is a pretty useless device IMO. Sure it allows you to replicate and exposure BUT it takes no account of print time and if your lens only has detents and not smoothly adjustable between stop values you have to adjust head height to get it to match for brightness becasue thats all it measures.
Works great with all 6 of the lenses I use (some way more than others) - for the purposes I use it for:

- standardizing exposure for contact sheets
- adjusting exposure to take into account changes in magnification
- determining a "starting point" for my initial test strips
- repeating a "flashing" exposure (work in progress).

If you understand its limitations, you can appreciate its benefits.
 

Frank53

Member
Joined
May 18, 2013
Messages
660
Location
Reuver, Netherlands
Format
Multi Format
And every enlarging meter or easel densitometer I've ever used required the ability to make a correct target print to begin with, just to calibrate the meter itself !
The Heiland Split Grade system does not require a correct target print.
About 3 months ago I decided to go back into the darkroom after 15 years of scanning and did some research what happened in those years and ended up investing in a Heiland system.
From the moment I started, the worst thing I get is a perfect working print within minutes and 8 out of 10 prints are good enough to my taste. No more test strips for me. It saves materials and above all, lots of time.
Frank
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
14,098
Format
8x10 Format
Paper batches are not all the same. You might not always choose to use the identical developer. So NO, it is not like going out and exposing film. Like
I did mention already, I know about darkroom meters. I've got one about a thousand times more sensitive than that EM10 toy. I also know that every
single package of color paper I ever worked with had to be specifically calibrated, and then would even drift with age. Cibachrome was a real headache in this respect. Fuji chromogenic RA4 paper has been a lot better, but still a standard neg test print needs to be done for every significant
batch difference, as well as for each different colorhead I use. Test prints are still the best way to do this. If you're just starting out, learn to do
"ring-around" testing. But yeah, we've probably scared off the OP by now, or else he's already gotten sufficient info the get some traction. No machine
in existence will substitute for your eyes. Photographic quality is ultimately something subjective. "Good enough" is never good enough for me.
 

RalphLambrecht

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 19, 2003
Messages
14,663
Location
K,Germany
Format
Medium Format
I'm just beginning my darkroom adventure and after first few prints I can't help but wonder if there are methods to make the exposure of photographic paper a more predictable endeavor.

I've learned of course of the test strip method, but even with test strip one needs a decent ballpark range of exposure times (hoping that the right exposure will be found somewhere in the middle). I just hate wasting paper and chemistry for no good reason, unless of course it's a one in a life time, move over Ansel Adams, work of art kind of print. Let me also add that I print from three formats (35mm, 6x7, 4x5), so depending on the enlargement size, lens used and crop factor the distance of the lens from the paper varies wildly and so thus the irradiation of the paper. I've quickly discovered that there are no simple rules of thumb I can develop for each format/lens combination.

So I was wondering if normal principles of photography (plus the Zone System) could be applied here with the help of incident light meter lying on the base board. In particular I was thinking about using a phone app since smart phones have really tiny light sensors which would be perfect for doing the spot metering of various spots of the enlargement. Having obtained their EV values and their corresponding exposure times (for the known paper speed) this way I could correlate them with zones and compute the right exposure.

That's the theory. I've just thought of it right now and haven't had a chance to test it. I can think of several factors that could adversely impact the efficiency of this method (like inaccuracy of paper's ISO sensitivity numbers), accuracy (or lack thereof) of the phone sensor or inadequacy of its range.

Any thoughts whether this could work? Do you guys know/use other methods?
Jerry,Ihave a lt of experiencewith darkroom printing and onsider myself a very decent printer.I have used all kinds of drkroom tools and use an RhdesignZonemaster myself but in my opinion,there is noyhing absolutly nothing that bets a good test strip when it comes to testing for the bet exposure time.The Zonemaster gets me close to a good workprint but I still verify with a test strip and consideringpaper waste due to failures,teststrips are not a waste of paper at all,Thy are just part of the cot of doingbuiness and gettingthebest printfrom any givennegative.Don'tbe fooledbyads for electronic gadgets.None of them can beat a teststrip print as any experienced ggood printer will tell you.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Monroe, WA, USA
Format
Multi Format
Don't be fooled by ads for electronic gadgets. None of them can beat a test strip print as any experienced good printer will tell you.

Direct from the Master to the Grasshoppers...

:wink:

As a matter of principle, anything less than testing on the exact same material as the targeted final result will by definition involve the insertion of abstraction layers into the perception and judgment process. Layers that can only attempt to simulate the attributes and behaviors of real things, instead of actually being those real things.

An enlarging exposure meter will try to tell you the same thing as a photographic paper test strip. Meaning, it will try to simulate a photographic paper test strip for the characteristics a darkroom printer requires.*

But it's not a piece of photographic paper. It's a rudimentary computerized device that's trying to act like a piece of photographic paper. And as such, we must interpret what it tells us, and then translate that interpretation onto a real piece of paper, instead of just using a real piece of paper to begin with.

Fundamentally, this process is directly analogous to software abstracted film exposures generated by a digital camera, except that in this case it is software abstracted paper exposures. The crucial difference is that the meter's abstract simulation is only used here to help produce a correctly exposed final real paper result, and not substitute permanently for it, as a RAW file does for a negative.

Of course, Y(philosophical and/or practical)MMV. Significantly...

:smile:

Ken

* Another related example might be a digital (computerized) thermometer that has been designed to simulate the behavior of a true mercury thermometer. The former relies on software simulations of the behavior of mercury. The latter relies on the actual physical behavior of mercury.

Properly calibrated, the former is mostly reliable. But with the latter the physical coefficient of expansion of elemental mercury requires no calibration. It just is what it is, regardless of the accuracy of the numbers printed on the glass tube containing it. There is never a doubt that the actual expansion behavior of the mercury itself is correct.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Monroe, WA, USA
Format
Multi Format

GRHazelton

Subscriber
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
2,249
Location
Jonesboro, G
Format
Multi Format
I've had decent results with an old Paterson enlarging meter. IIRC it cost perhaps $20 in the mid 70s. It is a diffusion meter, working like a full-screen SLR meter, in reverse. Of course, it has to be calibrated using a "standard" negative, which YOU furnish. The redoubtable Mike Butkus has the manual for it. Once calibrated I found it useful to get a work print which would serve as a starting point. On negatives with the usual sort of spread of densities it worked pretty well; of course a negative of a few dark weeds in a snow field would trip it up. Since it used a CdS cell ALL lights had to be off, AC powered meant no batteries do die or corrode things.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,272
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I used my Ilford EM10 today.

I used it to quickly adjust the light intensity coming from my enlarger to match what I know works well with Ilford Multigrade IV RC Glossy paper and contact sheets. Two contact sheets resulted.

I then used it to quickly adjust the light intensity coming from my enlarger to what I know to be a good starting point for test strips on Ilford Multigrade IV RC Pearl paper, and did a set of four different 4x5 exposures of a 35mm negative. One of those exposures was quite close.

I then used the EM10 to match that light intensity after adjusting the enlarger and changing the lens to enable an 8x10 enlargement. I increased the contrast by a half grade and then printed it 8x10 for the same time. The print was just slightly too light and needed a slight bit more contrast. I made a small adjustment and did another print, which I was happy with.

As I've posted before, if you understand the limitations, something like an EM10 is useful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
I used my Ilford EM10 today.

I used it to quickly adjust the light intensity coming from my enlarger to match what I know works well with Ilford Multigrade IV RC Glossy paper and contact sheets. Two contact sheets resulted.

I then used it to quickly adjust the light intensity coming from my enlarger to what I know to be a good starting point for test strips on Ilford Multigrade IV RC Pearl paper, and did a set of four different 4x5 exposures of a 35mm negative. One of those exposures was quite close.

I then used the EM10 to match that light intensity after adjusting the enlarger and changing the lens to enable an 8x10 enlargement. I increased the contrast by a half grade and then printed it 8x10 for the same time. The print was just slightly too light and needed a slight bit more contrast. I made a small adjustment and did another print, which I was happy with.

As I've posted before, if you understand the limitations, something like an EM10 is useful.

Ahem,

to do what you just explained, you must have previously done some testing to find the setting on the em10 that you want to reproduce. Therefore you will already know what the head height, the aperture and the print time to produce that setting on an EM10 are. Why do you need a bloody em10 if you already know that. Its just a useless crutch for the insecure.

Oh, and take some notes next time you print so you know what the values are.
 

DWThomas

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
4,606
Location
SE Pennsylvania
Format
Multi Format
Heh, I have one of those Kodak Projection Print gizmos, a pie chart of densities. I will normally pick a portion of a scene that has a broad range of tones and use that with a 2x2 inch or so test strip to accomplish what Ken describes upthread. That usually gets me quite close to where I want to be. I do have an EM-10 and I do often record two or three readings of identifiable tones in case I want to make another print. But in general, it's measuring an extremely tiny piece of the print and depending on the specifics, it may be difficult to get a consistent reading due to varying textures and details, especially if you change print size (YMMV, etc.!) :whistling:

Like many things in life, it gets easier/better with practice.
 

RobC

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
3,880
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
maybe just easier to say to everyone, the chart is showing the log of print reflection density thatt the log of negative transparency density produces.

I thought it was pretty obvious.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,272
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Ahem,

to do what you just explained, you must have previously done some testing to find the setting on the em10 that you want to reproduce. Therefore you will already know what the head height, the aperture and the print time to produce that setting on an EM10 are. Why do you need a bloody em10 if you already know that. Its just a useless crutch for the insecure.

Oh, and take some notes next time you print so you know what the values are.

We clearly approach the EM10 differently. I don't use it to make measurements of tones from a negative. I use it to measure light from the light source (or sometimes, through the film rebate), and then to replicate that light intensity. I think that having that ability to replicate conditions can help someone new. I know that it is particularly helpful in my context, which involves printing from multiple formats and films, using multiple lenses, sometimes changing diffusers in my multigrade head and sometimes printing in other people's darkrooms.

Using the contact sheet example, to use it effectively, you do need to first use trial and error to make one good contact sheet on the paper you intend to use.

Once you have that, you need to record the print time you used, and you need to measure the intensity of the enlarger light by nulling the EM10. Don't change the lens aperture - adjust the dial on the EM10 until the green light turns on on the EM10. Record the number on the EM10's dial.

From then on, if you use the same paper you never need to worry about which enlarger you are using, the enlarger's height, which lens you have installed, what diffuser you have installed or condensers you are using, or what (empty) negative carrier might be installed.

Just adjust height and focus until the contact sheet area is well covered by the illumination, set the EM10 dial to the number you recorded and adjust the aperture on your lens until the EM10 turns green. That means the light at the contact frame is the same intensity as with your first "good" contact sheet, so you can use the print time you used. Sometimes the nature of the negatives causes me to do another one a bit darker or a bit lighter or with different contrast.

You can use a similar technique with normal prints. Just make a good first print (by trial and error) from a negative that prints well from something close to grade 2, and use the EM10 to record intensity through the film rebate (between frames). Record the printing time. The EM10 can then be used to match that intensity for future prints from different negatives, cropped and enlarged in different amounts. The time you recorded will be an excellent starting point for your test strips.

It works really well for making different size prints from the same negative. Once you get a good print at one size, without changing any settings on the enlarger measure the light intensity without a negative, adjust the enlarger height and focus, take out the negative and adjust the aperture for the same intensity as for the good print. The time(s) you used for the good first print will probably be really close to ideal for the new size. It helps to have more than one, easily replaceable negative carriers.

With respect to prints, none of this eliminates the need to make tests. What it does do is get you to a close starting point right away, which improves the quality and decreases the quantity of test strips required, especially for someone new to the darkroom.

I need to have a particular number for each paper I use. I usually don't need to worry about batch variation, because there is enough consistency within the papers that I use that variations are caught by the test print procedure.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
4,942
Location
Monroe, WA, USA
Format
Multi Format
Interesting to see people holding on to making test strips to get to the correct time and grade.

It's not an emotional thing. It's a well-grounded practical thing.

The greater the number of variables that can be included within a testing regime (of anything, not just photo print exposures), potentially the more valid are the test results.

This is because the greater are the number of factors contributing to a final result, the greater are the number of potential cross-interactions between those factors. Some of which may not even be known, and thus for which we cannot later mitigate or correct.

Matt's excellent use of his EM10 is a fine example. In his description he states:

"From then on, if you use the same paper you never need to worry about which enlarger you are using, the enlarger's height, which lens you have installed, what diffuser you have installed or condensers you are using, or what (empty) negative carrier might be installed."

In his test regime using that meter, the test is able to correct for enlarger behaviors, lens behaviors, light quality behaviors, (empty) negative carrier behaviors, as well as many other factors not also listed.

But he also notes the weak point in the test. The regime does not also factor in different paper types. However, traditional test strips made using different paper types do, by definition, automatically factor into the final results the behaviors of those different types.

For example, using the universal two-step test strip procedure described in post #14, in addition to the factors listed above one can add, you also never need to worry about the paper type being used in the test regime. By using it to make your strips, you have automatically factored it in to the final test result.

Of course, if you only ever use a single paper type, this additional test strip characteristic is still present, but is irrelevant. However, if you routinely change papers during a printing session, then a testing protocol that directly includes that variable at test time can be very desirable.

Ken
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom