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.
[...]
Any thoughts whether this could work? Do you guys know/use other methods?
The only thing I did was answering the original question: it is possible to make a perfect print without any test strips.
Actually, a more careful reading of the above shows that the original two questions were: Could the normal principles of photography be applied when using an incident light meter on the baseboard? And second: Do you guys know of or use other methods to the same end?
The post never posed the question: It is possible to make a perfect print without any test strips?
And my answer to the second original question is: Yes, another valid method of determining exposure is to make an initial test strip using a manually applied exponential (f/stop timer style) exposure sequence. This will have the effect of surrounding the unknown negative and always give an initially useful result.
It is, in effect, a universal starting point for all negatives that will always work on the first try, while also factoring in the greatest number of system variables.
Ken
Jeez Gentlemen, I'm out of my league here...
I've been printing for 30+ years and still can't seem to get a decent work print on the first try without a test strip (or two). Then it takes me all day to get from there to a fine print...
But then again, my negative densities are all over the place (intentionally) and my enlarger head is never, ever at the same height for two different prints. Add to that that I develop some negatives to work on grade 3 (or higher) paper and some to be on grade 2 and that I often overexpose by a stop (or more) to get shadow detail up out of the toe of the film curve or underexpose to do just the opposite. Heck, I even make mistakes metering and exposing my negatives from time to time...
So, I first contact print everything. Mostly just for the record and to store together with the negative and so I can cogitate on cropping and exposure things without handling the neg. However, I also make "proper proofs," i.e., contact printing at the minimum exposure to render close to max. black through the unexposed portion of the film. The resulting contact print then gives me info on contrast, overall exposure, etc., which I use when printing. Mostly it gives me a really good idea of the contrast I want to start with (either a "grade" when I'm working with graded paper or a filtration setting when working with VC).
When I print, I make test strips. Not of the average or "representative" areas of the negative, but of the print highlights. I use a percentage exposure (similar to f-stop but much easier in my estimation). I like ~20% for the first test strip - 10 - 12 - 14 - 17 - 20 - 24 - 29 - 35 - 42 seconds for my first test strip (I've got the sequence memorized). If that doesn't include a too-dark and a too-light strip, I'll change aperture and try again (usually it does, however).
Because I base my print exposure on the highlights, I'll then dry the test strip completely; drydown isn't predictable and it affects different subjects in different (subjective) ways. When I have decided on a base exposure, I'll make a fairly straight print, maybe incorporating some obvious dodging and burning. I'll develop that and dry it down, tack it up on the white board, turn on the gallery lighting and sit on a stool for 10 minutes or so evaluating it and taking notes. I'll then make another print... Or I may decide to change the contrast, at which time I'll tweak the filtration or change grade and then start with another test strip.
I make lots of prints of one negative; some darker, some lighter, more and less contrasty, with different dodging, burning, bleaching, more or less development, different or split-developed, on a different brand of paper, tweaking my developer with BZA or carbonate, etc. These all get hung up on the "gallery wall" in my darkroom and evaluated under brighter and dimmer light. The vast majority of these get torn up and discarded. I sit, look and take notes for the next print. Think some more, then go back to the enlarger and make another print.
If I'm lucky, after a couple of hours I'll be happy with a print and I'll make a "run" of prints (usually 3-5). If not, I make prints and hang them up till I have 3-5 that I can't decide between. These I'll call "keepers" and valid performances of the negative. I'm really satisfied if I make nice prints from two or three negatives in a session.
I wash and dry everything and evaluate again the next day, culling as I go and reprinting if needed. I usually end up with 3-5 copies of the same print that I'm satisfied with. When I've saved up 36 prints that I want to keep, I'll do a toning session. Often I'll tone too much or too little for my taste and end up culling some more. If I get two or three final prints that I think are worth mounting and displaying, I'm doing well.
I print with a metronome, count seconds in my head, and use simple test strips and take a lot of time, make a lot of bad prints and waste a lot of paper. My trash can is my most used darkroom accessory.
You guys seem to be able to eyeball a neg or use your fancy exposure meter and make a great print in one or two tries.
I must be a really lousy printer...
Doremus
I print with a metronome, count seconds in my head, and use simple test strips and take a lot of time, make a lot of bad prints and waste a lot of paper. My trash can is my most used darkroom accessory.
You guys seem to be able to eyeball a neg or use your fancy exposure meter and make a great print in one or two tries.
I must be a really lousy printer...
Doremus
Doremus, I'm sure you are excellent printer, but the reason for my question is to run a darkroom exactly polar opposite to yours, that is a darkroom that can (to the maximum extent possible) avoid using the thrash can and have much higher throughput.
You obviously have different goals. That's because in the world of 4x5 it's a different story - those negatives could and should use any amount of love that's necessary. To begin with with, they were exposed because the subject really deserved such a negative and the amount of work that goes into taking the photograph through a view camera. On the other hand, shooting 35mm film is much more casual, you end up up with 36 negatives, most of them worth 5x7 prints at most and rarely a frame and space on the wall. Medium format is somewhere in between, although it can easily produce view camera caliber photos especially in situations where the use of view camera is simply impossible.
So for the sake of those casual prints, or prints for family members and friends or prints that simply go to an album and never on the walls - those I'd like to print quickly and without trial and error. I simply want to make it quick and painless but at the same treating each neg individually and steering away from Walmart approach to printing.
The other thing is, in the times of Ansel Adams or Edward Weston, photographic paper must have been as cheap as toilet paper I imagine. Not so much these days. Having cheap paper the great masters of the past had no problem advocating the test prints - while at the same time having no technical means to avoid it.
To sum things up, paper wasting is a no no. Even for important, artistic prints I see no reason to waste paper if there's a method that allows to eliminate some variables from making the proper and desired exposure.
J.
But in the end, if you want your prints to reflect your judgment and vision, that trash can is going to be a necessary accessory.
Doremus, I'm sure you are excellent printer, but the reason for my question is to run a darkroom exactly polar opposite to yours, that is a darkroom that can (to the maximum extent possible) avoid using the thrash can and have much higher throughput.
You obviously have different goals. That's because in the world of 4x5 it's a different story - those negatives could and should use any amount of love that's necessary. To begin with with, they were exposed because the subject really deserved such a negative and the amount of work that goes into taking the photograph through a view camera. On the other hand, shooting 35mm film is much more casual, you end up up with 36 negatives, most of them worth 5x7 prints at most and rarely a frame and space on the wall. Medium format is somewhere in between, although it can easily produce view camera caliber photos especially in situations where the use of view camera is simply impossible.
So for the sake of those casual prints, or prints for family members and friends or prints that simply go to an album and never on the walls - those I'd like to print quickly and without trial and error. I simply want to make it quick and painless but at the same treating each neg individually and steering away from Walmart approach to printing.
The other thing is, in the times of Ansel Adams or Edward Weston, photographic paper must have been as cheap as toilet paper I imagine. Not so much these days. Having cheap paper the great masters of the past had no problem advocating the test prints - while at the same time having no technical means to avoid it.
To sum things up, paper wasting is a no no. Even for important, artistic prints I see no reason to waste paper if there's a method that allows to eliminate some variables from making the proper and desired exposure.
J.
So what is this Heiland unit? Can only find links to articles discussing it but not to the product itself.
Oh, and how about this: http://www.darkroomautomation.com/pem.htm
Also to clarify: I'm not into printing tons of 5x7 (never ever 4x6!) pics. Only occasionally when I have a roll or two of 35 mm film. Doing test strip for each frame would be a headache. Also some negatives would deserve an enlargement (say 8x10 or 11x14 max) and/or a crop. So enlarging head's distance to paper can be different for each frame. On top of that negative's contrast may call for different filters. That's way too many variables that eliminate any chance for repetability of the process.
Sure experience will help but even then I'm sure I will encounter negatives that will surprise me. So far I've printed about twenty negatives only (4x5 and 6x7) on about three times more sheets of paper of various formats. All of these negatives surprised me in terms of exposures required vs exposures I thought would be right judging from a previous, similar negative. BTW, my total paper consumption has been so far about 4100 square inches, all on a single batch of chemistry, which is now almost 3 weeks old and still doing well. Is it normal?
Anyway, the artistic intent and intricacies of an individual image on each particular negative may call for different exposure and filter even if two such negatives have (hypothetically) identical histograms and would yield identical readings of their average density. These "right" exposures can only be tested by walking the walk and making those work prints. I get that part.
But it still doesn't preclude the usefulness of a device able to count those pesky photons (per unit area in Watts per cm^2 or lumens) at the surface of the paper.
Only occasionally when I have a roll or two of 35 mm film. Doing test strip for each frame would be a headache. Also some negatives would deserve an enlargement (say 8x10 or 11x14 max) and/or a crop. So enlarging head's distance to paper can be different for each frame. On top of that negative's contrast may call for different filters. That's way too many variables that eliminate any chance for repetability of the process.
This pdf will give you a useful progression. It works in half stop increments. I use it to get things close, and then the chart in Beyond Monochrome to get results within 1/6 stop.I tried to make an f-stop test strip by the moving cardboard method, but the math for the additional exposure of each segment was not easy to figure out, and I constantly made mistakes in the darkroom.
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?