My print times for 5 x 7 are really short. How to gain time to dodge and burn?

rpavich · Feb 1, 2016

I was practicing printing over the weekend. I was printing some 5 x 7's for friends and wanted to do a simple dodge to lighten a man's skin tone. The problem was that the entire exposure was 5 1/2 seconds. I had a hard time accurately getting in an out and dodging well. A little bit of time went a LONG way as you can imagine. Small variations in time made huge variations in the amount of the dodge.

I was stopped down to f/11 (lens goes to f/16) and was using a 2 1/2 contrast filter in a tray inside the unit.

I noticed that the smaller the print, the shorter the exposure times.

How can I double or even triple this exposure time? Could I put an ND filter in the same slot as the contrast filter?

Anon Ymous · Feb 1, 2016

Yes, you can put a ND filter along with a contrast filter, but you can also use a lower wattage lamp. What lamp do you use? But why not use f/16 anyway?

rpavich · Feb 1, 2016

Anon Ymous said:
Yes, you can put a ND filter along with a contrast filter, but you can also use a lower wattage lamp. But why not use f/16?

Thanks.

I was wondering about going to f/16; would it be detrimental to the image quality? Is it like a camera lens that would introduce diffraction or something?

If it wouldn't, that would be a good first step, I can see.

Anon Ymous · Feb 1, 2016

At this size/magnification level I wouldn't expect to see image quality loss. Why not try it and see for yourself?

removed account4 · Feb 1, 2016

not sure what you are dodging with, have you made
a dodge wand with a coathanger and black tape
( or seen the set you can get from reinhold )
http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Dodging Wands.html

don't forget you might need to burn in a little if you dodge a little, its like adding salt and pepper to a meal ..

rpavich · Feb 1, 2016

Anon Ymous said:
At this size/magnification level I wouldn't expect to see image quality loss. Why not try it and see for yourself?

That's what I'll do next.

rpavich · Feb 1, 2016

jnanian said:
not sure what you are dodging with, have you made
a dodge wand with a coathanger and black tape
( or seen the set you can get from reinhold )
http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Dodging Wands.html

don't forget you might need to burn in a little if you dodge a little, its like adding salt and pepper to a meal ..

Thanks, I used some thin wire and made the dodging part out of gaffers tape.

bence8810 · Feb 1, 2016

I even stop down to f22 when I need to and haven't seen any loss.
Other than that a weaker bulb or ND filters above in the tray if you have any so you can still use contrast filters below the lens.

Ben

rpavich · Feb 1, 2016

bence8810 said:
I even stop down to f22 when I need to and haven't seen any loss.
Other than that a weaker bulb or ND filters above in the tray if you have any so you can still use contrast filters below the lens.

Ben

Well that's very good to know, thanks.

David Lyga · Feb 1, 2016

Much has been said regarding the 'treachery' of stopping down too much. I have NEVER seen a decrease in resolution doing what is based, theoretically, upon those aperture blade edges taking up too much (relative) real estate and causing all that nasty diffraction.

Thus, theory does not always trump reality (but Donald Trump does, indeed, trump reality.) - David Lyga

Mark Fisher · Feb 1, 2016

jnanian said:
not sure what you are dodging with, have you made
a dodge wand with a coathanger and black tape
( or seen the set you can get from reinhold )
http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Dodging Wands.html

don't forget you might need to burn in a little if you dodge a little, its like adding salt and pepper to a meal ..

My advise is to go to f16 and make up a set of dodgers/burners. I use iron wire from the hardware store. It is very easy to fabricate and it naturally bounces a bit given the thin wire. The issue with coat hangers is that the wire is pretty thick and may even show on the print.

jeffreythree · Feb 1, 2016

I print 5x7 and smaller all the time now, and the times can be very short. I have not seen a loss of resolution stopped all the way down to f32 on this small a print. Even that small, I only had 7 second print times on that particular print until I used a ND filter. Even better was when I switched my bulb from the 150 watt PH212 to the PH211 75 watt listed as an alternative in the catalog. I also considered a dimmer, but thought that may be hard to maintain repeatability. I don't know if your particular enlarger has an alternative bulb wattage available. Those little marker flags you see at construction sites or marking utilities make great dodge/burn tool handles. Stiff, strong, and springy.

darkosaric · Feb 1, 2016

David Lyga said:
I have NEVER seen a decrease in resolution

When I was starting - I used f16 and f22 a lot on my nikon F801s ("all is sharp - so it must be the best settings "). Now looking on those negatives - I don't see any problems at all (and this is on the negatives, not on prints where it is even less significant).

lauffray · Feb 1, 2016

I'm not saying this is your case, but check your negatives. The first negatives I tried to print were very thin and so I had very short print times

rpavich · Feb 1, 2016

Thanks everyone, very helpful.

Arvee · Feb 1, 2016

A piece of mylar or tissue paper in the filter drawer above the neg will cut out a bunch of light.

paul ron · Feb 2, 2016

i wonder if using a longer lens will raise the head enough to shorten exposure time?

put a light switch dimmer in the circuit?

MattKing · Feb 2, 2016

paul ron said:
i wonder if using a longer lens will raise the head enough to shorten exposure time?

.

It has no effect on exposure times.

Light intensity at the easel is a function of magnification and f/stop. Whether you obtain the necessary magnification (e.g. 5x to make a 5x7 from a 135 negative) by using a short lens close to the easel, or a longer lens farther from the easel, it is the same magnification at the end of the day, so the same light intensity.

There is one possible advantage with a longer lens. Some longer lenses have smaller minimum relative apertures. So a 50mm lens may only go down to f/16, while a 105mm lens may go down to f/22 or f/32, which would help.

Two concerns arising from using the longer lens at a smaller relative aperture are that you may run into more pronounced diffraction effects, and in general, you usually want to use lenses at the magnifications they are optimized for. A 50mm lens used at 5x magnification may be much closer to its optimum than a 105mm lens used at 5x magnification.

Jim Jones · Feb 2, 2016

The effect of diffraction certainly does become noticeable at small apertures. Using a strong grain magnifier, I can see fine grain images begin to lose edge sharpness at f/8. This should not be noticeable at normal print viewing distances. Unless one needs more depth of field, 35mm photography with fine lenses is usually best done at fairly large apertures due to diffraction. It depends on the subject. For example, depth of field is more important than absolute sharpness when photographing flowers. The same rules of optics govern enlarger sharpness.

Ko.Fe. · Feb 2, 2016

Sounds familiar. 4x5 are tricky to get printed on 5x7.
So, I went to Home Depot and purchased same as my Minox enlarger has build in. As it was mentioned above it is called "the dimmer". But one I have purchased for few dollars is advanced technology. It is variable dimmer.

BetterSense · Feb 3, 2016

Dimmers make the bulb redder as well as dimmer, so you will be changing contrast as well as exposure time if you use VC paper.

I am having good luck with using an LED bulb in my enlarger. It extends my print times by several stops and also cures my negative popping issues.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

ic-racer · Feb 3, 2016

Using f22 to enlarge 5x7 negatives would be a routine or most common aperture to use. Using f22 to take or enlarage 35mm negatives produces obvious loss of sharpness. If you are not seeing this, look closer.

f22 with a 210mm lens is a nine milimeter opening! f22 with a 50mm lens is a two millimeter opening. The small opening, combined with the high magnification makes the effects of diffraction visible in pictures.

ac12 · Feb 3, 2016

Ideas:
- use a lower wattage bulb
- put a ND filter in the filter drawer
- screw a ND filter onto the lens
- put a dimmer on the enlarger (last step as mentioned, the color temp of the bulb will change and affect contrast with VC/MC papers)

My print times for 5 x 7 are really short. How to gain time to dodge and burn?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency