Making enlargements - how long & how do I know?

Donald Miller · Oct 3, 2004

inthedark said:
After reading this thread, I am concerned with the max black concept. Now I only print and am not a photographer, so I don't get a choice as to what to print. But here is the thing. Different negatives from the same roll will print differently (especially color negs), so I am a bit confused as to how using the blank at the end of the roll will get you anything but closer to the correct exposure.

Jill, Those are my sentiments as well. I have heard this method propogated over the years and have not found it viable for my printing.

bazz8 · Oct 3, 2004

max black

I,m with the last 2 posters regarding the max black concept I use a ilford 500 series head and started to use the probe for exposure times but still very hit or miss the times were quite different with a slight change in position in shadow detail so the print scale comes out for me.
regards
Barry Treleaven

dr bob · Oct 4, 2004

BWGirl said:
What determines how long you expose a negative for when making a print? Does fiber-based paper need a longer exposure than RC?? How do you know when you should maybe open the lens up a stop and reduce the time of the exposure?
Jeanette

After a great deal of consideration, I've decided to respond to this request: I'm still experimenting to find these answers after 52 years of trying! Even today some of my first attempts at printing a fairly well defined negatives fail miserably. I'll be continually reading the information here and elsewhere, and will plod on with quarter-torn sheets and tears.

jcausey · Oct 13, 2004

Speaking of stopping down the enlarger lens...

Keep in mind the classic issues of lens aperture that apply to cameras as well as enlargers. When you stop down, you increase the DOF of the lens, which can help with minor focusing issues (should your eyes be going bad or if you don't have a grain enlarger).

However, keep in mind as well that most enlarger lenses are sharpest at their middle range of apertures.

SuzanneR · Oct 13, 2004

An instructor of mine explained the minimum printing test a bit differently to me. Just put the negative in the holder so that you can see clear area of the film between images. (Basically, just move it over a bit, so you get a big fat black strip alongside the image) Place a paper test strip on the easel, and do the three to five second exposures as you would for a test strip. When that clear area, (base plus fog) is black, and no longer getting blacker, that is the minimum print expsure. Then expose a whole sheet, and you can get an idea of the information in the negative. The minimum print exposure should be the same for the wole roll, but this way you don't have to change the negative out. It's also easier done with a filed negative carrier.
Cheers,
Suzanne

Ed Sukach · Oct 13, 2004

Suzanne Revy said:
Just put the negative in the holder so that you can see clear area of the film between images. (Basically, just move it over a bit, so you get a big fat black strip alongside the image) ...

Hah!! Gotcha!! If you are using negative film, it should be a "big fat CLEAR strip".

I never make mistake like that when I wrote. Welll, hardly ever.

Donald Miller · Oct 13, 2004

Ed Sukach said:
Hah!! Gotcha!! If you are using negative film, it should be a "big fat CLEAR strip".

I never make mistake like that when I wrote. Welll, hardly ever.

Ed,

I think that the young lady was indicating the color of the strip when printed. At least that is the way that I interperted what was stated.

My negative film is clear in the areas that receive no exposure. In my darkroom that clear area prints black.

lee · Oct 13, 2004

I think part of the process here with regards to the black test strip exposure is that this is a way to check development times. When you find a time that works for the film it now allows you to make a print without having to do test strips and the like. Remember thou that this print that you made using the time you found with the test is only the begining of the process and is not the end all, be all. Picker was a big advocate of this test. Now after 35 years of photography I don't pay much head to that information anymore.

lee\c

Donald Miller · Oct 13, 2004

lee said:
I think part of the process here with regards to the black test strip exposure is that this is a way to check development times. When you find a time that works for the film it now allows you to make a print without having to do test strips and the like. Remember thou that this print that you made using the time you found with the test is only the begining of the process and is not the end all, be all. Picker was a big advocate of this test. Now after 35 years of photography I don't pay much head to that information anymore.

lee\c

Lee,
You and I are on the same page on this matter.

Ed Sukach · Oct 13, 2004

Donald Miller said:
Ed,

I think that the young lady was indicating the color of the strip when printed. At least that is the way that I interperted what was stated.

My negative film is clear in the areas that receive no exposure. In my darkroom that clear area prints black.

This is not important ... not even a little bit!!

I meant this light-heartedly ... see the intentional tpyos.

She wrote, "... just move it over until you get a big, fat, black strip..." If this was meant to indicate after processing, there would be a LOT of "moving over".

SuzanneR · Oct 13, 2004

Ed and Don,

I'll happily concede that I'm a better photographer than writer. Sorry for the feeble attempt, but I thought using the leader of the film just seemed like more work than neccessary.

I have to say, I don't use these tests all that much, but if you are new to printing they can really give you a good sense of what exactly is on the negative, and can be a good place to start your printing process.

The very young lady has spoken
Cheers,
Suzanne

Ed Sukach · Oct 13, 2004

I'm not rying to offend you or exert any type of "alpha-male dominance" over you, Suzanne. I just got hit with an old, recurring affliction more commonly called "wise xss". I figured that would be apparent when I wrote, "I never amke mistaks".

My apologies if I was taken the wrong way. It was unintentional.

SuzanneR · Oct 13, 2004

Ed,

No offense taken at all. You pointed out a perfectly valid gaffe!

Cheers,
Suzanne

jon koss · Oct 14, 2004

I was having trouble sleeping so I thought I would get up for a few minutes and then try to snooze again. So, please pardon if I sound foggy!

We may have ended up combining or confusing two ideas in this thread, namely the way to get the best print and the way to determine minimum time to max black. It is probably not useful to think of the test strip as a way to determine the printing exposure that will yield the best print. The test strip humbly determines the time to max black for the neg/paper/chemistry/enlarger combination under consideration. By definition, if the neg is overexposed, then a print made at min-time-to-max-black (MTTMB) will look indeed light/overexposed. The best print from such a neg will require considerable burning in above and beyond the MTTMB, and/or radical changes in paper grade. This is why many folks say that the test strip system is useless - their prints look lousy at MTTMB on Grade 2 paper. However, the Test Strip Police would say that the correct response to such a condition is to modify exposure index and/or development times until prints look pretty close to perfect at MTTMB on Grade 2. Then the other paper grades can be used for creative adjustments rather than salvage operations.

One last thought - my earlier bragging about making prints with minimal guesswork applies only if the enlarging system is left alone. The test strip would need to be repeated if the enlarger head were raised or lowered, etc.

Suzanne wrote: "An instructor of mine explained the minimum printing test ... put the negative in the holder so that you can see clear area of the film between images... Place a paper test strip on the easel, and do the three to five second exposures as you would for a test strip. When...(base plus fog) is black, and no longer getting blacker, that is the minimum print exposure. Then expose a whole sheet, and you can get an idea of the information in the negative..."

Thanks Suzanne - much less windy than that earlier post by that Jon Koss guy!

Back to beddy-bye for me!

TIA,
J

mikewhi · Oct 14, 2004

There are even other approaches to determining correct exposure times. Noone has yet touched on measuring the light project onto the easel from the negative, for instance. This way, one can determine correct exposure for the hightlights, overall density range in the negative which would imply paper grade, density of assorted thin areas of the negative that may require dodging, etc. There are assorted tools to do this with, one of the least expensive is the Gossen Luna-Six meter with the baseboard attachment. I believe R&H sells something but it costs 10 times more than the Gossen meter. I've used this technique before, it works, it's fast and it saves a lot of paper. It won't give you the 'fine' ptinr the first time, but you'll get a good quality print the first time.

I would like to comment on the MTTMB approach. I've used it for years. At the beginning, I was using roll fillm and like most people I had to do a test strip for every negative in the roll that I wanted to print. This was because my densities were all over the place from one negative to another. When I learned of this technique, it made sense and I was interested in seeing what my negatives looked like. Well, I was very surprised by the contract prints that I got. I ended up making enlarged contract sheets in a 4x5 enlarger so I could study them closer. I was surprised at how underexposed they were almost uniformly. This was almost certainly due to me relying on the camera meter, which averaged a scene out. I invested in a handhel meter (eventually a spot meter) and things improved right away in terms of exposure. My instructor told me that a good density for highlights should barely let you read newsprint thru them which was the guidline I used until I really got into the Zone System. After the hand held meter and using newspaper to determine development times, my negatives started showing up a lot better on the MTTMB contact sheets. I got much more uniform negatives.

I still use this approach today and I think it makes a lot more sense with sheet film, where each sheet can be exposed and processed individually. To make a print from a 8x10 negative, I just expose it for the MTTMB time which I already know. The contact then shows all tones in relation to maximum black. If I made a mistake in exposure or development, it shows up light a neon sign. If a full-tone image, I will get a bright white area all the way down to one at or near paper black. Some prints may still require some dodging\burning, etc but this can be determined on an individual basis. For a long time, all my 4x5's could print an 8x10 with a standard print exposure time of 12 seconds, the minimum time to produce black thru the film edge.

I think the MTTMB approach can still be useful for roll film, especially as a check on exposures being too thin, but the lighting conditions for each individual image on a roll can vary so much that it's pretty difficult to get uniformity\consistency. Still, you may find that 75% of the exposures on a roll are all about the same and may therefore call for the same basic print exposure times, which is a good place to start.

So, BWGirl, if you're really starting out new at this here is what I'd suggest:

1) Go ahead and start with the test strip method. It will be something that you'll do no matter what refinements you may add in the future.

2) Give the MTTMB process a try. It will tell you LOT about your negatives and where you may need to improve exposure\development. I can't stress how important this is - if you're underexposing or over-exposing this technique, which is quite simple, will show it very quickly.

3) Lacking a densitometer, pay some negatives over newspaper in a sunlit room and see if you can just barely read the print thru the densest part of the negatives. If not, cut back development until you can. I know this seems odd, but it works. Later in lif, I tested this with expensive densitometers and it is actually true - this technique very cosely approximates the correct density to print a white on a grade 2 fiber paper.

Have fun.

-Mike

SuzanneR · Oct 14, 2004

jon koss said:
I was having trouble sleeping so I thought I would get up for a few minutes and then try to snooze again. So, please pardon if I sound foggy!

You know you been hit by the photo bug when you can get up in the middle of the night and write about minumum printing tests! I hope you got some sleep.

And indeed, the minimum print to maximum black can tell you a lot about your exposure and development. Once I got a hand held meter (with a spot) my exposures were so much better, and the minimum printing tests really do become a good starting place for final prints. I haven't done them in awhile, but now that I've had this whole conversation I may need to go back to them; they are very handy!

Then I'll try that newspaper trick next!

Cheers,
Suzanne

Melisa Taylor · Oct 27, 2004

wdemere said:
See Dead Link Removed for a similar approach that works very well. One of his better points is that people don't see dark greys as well as light greys (which includes the observation that one stop darker than the first perceptible change from black is zone IX - not necessarily the same thing as the max black that the paper is capable of producing.) And, also that most negatives are under-exposed and over-developed.

Check out everything on his site. It is time well spent.

Good luck,

William

William,

Do you happen to have this article saved on your computer? I was reading along, got into it and hit the link for page two and got a 404-page not found error. I feel like I am missing something not being able to read this. :/

Peter De Smidt · Oct 27, 2004

BWGirl said:
I had just wondered about why it might be better to do a longer exposure at a more "closed" f/stop.

While you probably already know this, most enlarging lenses are sharpest if they are closed down one or two stops from wide open, and so you might stop down to get a sharper print. Second, stopping down gives more depth of field, both at the negative stage and at the easel, with a much greater effect at the easel. Hence, stopping down might help if you don't use a glass carrier which keeps the negative perfectly flat, or your enlarger isn't aligned properly; or it could help keeping everything in sharp if you need to tilt your easel and/or lens to correct converging lines on the print. Finally, with a really tricky negative, having more time will help with dodging and burning.

On another matter, warm tone papers, which are finer grained than cold toned papers, tend to be slower than cold toned ones.

Someone else in the thread mentioned f-stop timing. I highly recommend it, especially with a StopClock professional.

AndrewH · Oct 27, 2004

Confused

If I am exposing for the highlights, and grading for the shadows, how will the minimum time for black help? I realize I will learn about my negatives, but will it help print a certain negative?

SuzanneR · Oct 27, 2004

It can help you decide if a negative is good enough to print or not! You'll get a sense of the detail in shadow areas. And if you decide to print, then it can be a good place to start in terms of deciding on contrast filters, and exposure time.

jon koss · Oct 28, 2004

AndrewH said:
If I am exposing for the highlights, and grading for the shadows, how will the minimum time for black help? I realize I will learn about my negatives, but will it help print a certain negative?

Hi Andrew. I have not used VC paper, so I may be missing something. If so, please be merciful.

I was wondering how it is possible to expose for the highlights and grade for the shadows. (I am assuming you are speaking of the printing process only, not film developing.) For instance, let's assume that you have taken a photo of a freshly painted white church on a brilliant winter day after a blizzard has cleared. The windows of the church have been thrown open to let in the fresh air. The openings form a riveting pattern of inky blackness against the blinding clapboards. In your mind you see the photo as clear as, well, a photograph: blackest rectangles against searing white. You then print for and acheive just the whites you were hoping for - just straining against the limits of the paper but not blocked up. And the blacks, oh they look like the winter night in their infinite depth. Simply perfect. You think. But... how can you tell if maybe those blacks couldn't be just a smidge darker? Maybe just a couple of percent? Gosh, how much pop would that add to the whites? And if they could be a couple of percent darker, maybe they could be 12% darker. Or 22%! Yikes, what unrealized glories are latent in this negative, anyways? Now you cannot sleep until you know for sure that you have achieved the blackest black that this film and paper can produce. You rush to the darkroom and decide that you must know how black is black. Out come the Dektol, the Ilford Multigrade, the stop and fixer, even fresh hypo clearing agent (this must be getting serious). You decide that to be sure you are getting the best black possible, this time you are going to _____________________.

If you were the instructor in a photo class, how would you fill in the blank?

Thanks for playing along with this thought experiment,
Jon

Donald Miller · Oct 28, 2004

The perception of black is all that is required...You will absolutely go bat shit crazy thinking in terms of percentages improvements in blacks...insomnia is a symptom of some mental illnesses from what I understand. Better to get some sleep and go out and make meaningful negatives.

jon koss · Oct 31, 2004

Donald Miller said:
The perception of black is all that is required...You will absolutely go bat shit crazy thinking in terms of percentages improvements in blacks...insomnia is a symptom of some mental illnesses from what I understand. Better to get some sleep and go out and make meaningful negatives.

Yes, I understand that some psychiatrists are beginning to explore a possible link between insomnia and mental illness. Interestingly, virtually all psychiatrists define use of profanity as "a weak mind trying forcibly to express itself."

As far as making meaningful negatives, that seems to be far beyond me, sleep or no sleep - so I am compensating by hanging out here! (Would put smilie here if I was smart enough to know how.)

Seriously, I am not sure that I agree that "perception of black" is all that is required. Perhaps trying to assign percentages is a bit much, but careful control and repeatability are something to strive for, would you not agree?

Jon

Donald Miller · Oct 31, 2004

jon koss said:
Yes, I understand that some psychiatrists are beginning to explore a possible link between insomnia and mental illness. Interestingly, virtually all psychiatrists define use of profanity as "a weak mind trying forcibly to express itself."

As far as making meaningful negatives, that seems to be far beyond me, sleep or no sleep - so I am compensating by hanging out here! (Would put smilie here if I was smart enough to know how.)

Seriously, I am not sure that I agree that "perception of black" is all that is required. Perhaps trying to assign percentages is a bit much, but careful control and repeatability are something to strive for, would you not agree?

Jon

It seems that perception is at issue here whether that is of "black" or "profanity". I guess whatever floats your boat is what you must pursue. I happen to be involved in making photographs.

Glenn Mathison · Oct 31, 2004

The things you learn...

I have just finsihed reading through every post on this thread, and WOW, I have learned a lot! I have used the test strip approach in my darkroom with ok results, but I'd never heard of this MTTB approach before. I also particularly like Mikes post re assessing your negatives for exposure & film dev issues.

This gives me some very good food for thought as a darkroom amateur and I will be very interested to see how things improve.

Thanks BW girl for the initial post and for all those who contributed...

Glenn

Making enlargements - how long & how do I know?

Donald Miller

bazz8

dr bob

jcausey

SuzanneR

Moderator

Ed Sukach

Donald Miller

lee

Donald Miller

Ed Sukach

SuzanneR

Moderator

Ed Sukach

SuzanneR

Moderator

jon koss

mikewhi

SuzanneR

Moderator

Melisa Taylor

Peter De Smidt

AndrewH

SuzanneR

Moderator

jon koss

Donald Miller

jon koss

Donald Miller

Glenn Mathison

Making enlargements - how long & how do I know?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency