- 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.
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.
Sure, after that though the paper's iso rating can be factored in to get close. Kinda like film that way.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.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 !
Works great with all 6 of the lenses I use (some way more than others) - for the purposes I use it for: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.
The Heiland Split Grade system does not require a correct target print.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 !
often happens but doesn't mean everyone can't regurgitate their opnions on the question anyway.Maybe nobody else noticed but the OP seems to have gone quiet.
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.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?
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.
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.
Interesting to see people holding on to making test strips to get to the correct time and grade.
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?