OCD printing times

[cliveh]

This is probably just me, but when printing a 35mm negative on a condenser enlarger within a 10" X 8" sheet of paper to a reasonable size, my average print time is between about 6 and 12 seconds, at two stops down and I never use odd numbers. Thus all my print times in seconds are even numbers. Does anyone else regardless of format/enlarger/print size have similar strange habits?

 

[Xylo]

Since I print using the stop system, the only odd numbers I use are 1 and 3 seconds (for fractional stops).
If I can divide by 2, I know it's something I can do without a calculator

 

[Daniela]

I always use multiples of 5 and I try to never print for less than 10 seconds, so there's some easiness in case of needing to dodge. That's just what I was taught and I've stuck with it.
A couple of years ago, I used to find papers in the community darkroom I use with notes for exposures that were 40-50-60 seconds long, and I always wondered why someone would use those...may be someone here works like that and can share their point of view!

 

[MattKing]

I always prefer to start with a progression of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 seconds.
But I don't think that is OCD - habits that you are used to can simplify the variables.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I have "CDO." It's like OCD, but it's in alphabetical order like it should be!!

Seriously, the only obsessive thing I do in the darkroom is to be too nit-picky. Sometimes I'll make prints with small variations that even I can't tell apart once they are fixed and dried, just to see if I can "make one even better."

I won't make prints in increments smaller than one second. If I need to change something by a fraction of a second to refine the print, the exposure time is too short to start with.

Daniela, I like longer printing times in the range of 20-30+ seconds. That enables me to do whatever dodging I have to do without hurrying and making mistakes. Sometimes, I'll purposely make an even longer exposure by stopping down if I have particularly complicated dodging to do.

However, prints in the one to many minutes exposure range are likely due to their being large (longer exposure required unless you have a really powerful light source) or being made on enlargers with weaker light sources or needing lots of filtration.

Best,

Doremus

 

[L Gebhardt]

Many of my printing times are to the thousandth of a second. I use an fstop timer and I can set the test strip size in fractional stops. So my times end up at odd values. Once you factor in dry down compensation it's almost certain to not be a whole second for the final print. I find it best to not worry about it.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I always use multiples of 5 and I try to never print for less than 10 seconds, so there's some easiness in case of needing to dodge. That's just what I was taught and I've stuck with it.
A couple of years ago, I used to find papers in the community darkroom I use with notes for exposures that were 40-50-60 seconds long, and I always wondered why someone would use those...may be someone here works like that and can share their point of view!

I find some warm tone papers are very slow. I still have a supply of Forte Poly Warmtone. It's so slow normal times are frequently a minute or so. Luckily it's so slow it's hasn't noticeably aged despite being out of production for a long time. Maybe they were printing on slow papers or with dense negatives and it wasn't by choice. I like times of 20 seconds or so.

 

[ic-racer]

The only thing I can report about my usual printing times is that they are 2 digit. Usually between 99 and 10 seconds.

 

[awty]

I remember showing some of my prints to a photography group and describing my choices of different contrast, dodge and burns, different f stop printing times and toning to each individual print. One chap looking perplexed asked me if I ever just printed to a standard time, I looked back equally perplexed not understanding how that would be possible.

 

[mcfitz]

Like Daniela I use multiples of 5 seconds, and prefer an exposure time in the 5 x 5 seconds range, if possible, for dodging and burning. And I mean 5 x 5 seconds - not a continuous running total of 25 seconds. My students used to challenge me on that, so we'd do both from the same negative to see. The difference was obvious, the values were darker on the continous running time.

Works for me, I'm sticking with it.

 

[Daniela]

I always prefer to start with a progression of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 seconds.
But I don't think that is OCD - habits that you are used to can simplify the variables.

Where do those numbers come from? I'm trying to find some sort of pattern!

Daniela, I like longer printing times in the range of 20-30+ seconds. That enables me to do whatever dodging I have to do without hurrying and making mistakes. Sometimes, I'll purposely make an even longer exposure by stopping down if I have particularly complicated dodging to do.

However, prints in the one to many minutes exposure range are likely due to their being large (longer exposure required unless you have a really powerful light source) or being made on enlargers with weaker light sources or needing lots of filtration.

I see! I had not considered larger prints. Thanks!

I find some warm tone papers are very slow. I still have a supply of Forte Poly Warmtone. It's so slow normal times are frequently a minute or so. Luckily it's so slow it's hasn't noticeably aged despite being out of production for a long time. Maybe they were printing on slow papers or with dense negatives and it wasn't by choice. I like times of 20 seconds or so.

So paper sensitivity can be another factor. Thanks!

 

[MattKing]

I always prefer to start with a progression of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 seconds.
But I don't think that is OCD - habits that you are used to can simplify the variables.

Where do those numbers come from? I'm trying to find some sort of pattern!

In case you didn't realize it, that progression gives you equal half-stop increments of times - f-stop printing without charts or fancy equipment!

 

[Daniela]

In case you didn't realize it, that progression gives you equal half-stop increments of times - f-stop printing without charts or fancy equipment!

I considered f-stops but the 45 kept throwing me off!

 

[albada]

One chap looking perplexed asked me if I ever just printed to a standard time, I looked back equally perplexed not understanding how that would be possible.

With a LED-head and appropriate controller, one can vary the brightness of the LEDs, using the same time for most prints. That feature has spoiled me.

Mark

 

[cliveh]

I remember showing some of my prints to a photography group and describing my choices of different contrast, dodge and burns, different f stop printing times and toning to each individual print. One chap looking perplexed asked me if I ever just printed to a standard time, I looked back equally perplexed not understanding how that would be possible.

Maybe you should have asked him what he meant by a standard time?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have "CDO." It's like OCD, but it's in alphabetical order like it should be!!

Seriously, the only obsessive thing I do in the darkroom is to be too nit-picky. Sometimes I'll make prints with small variations that even I can't tell apart once they are fixed and dried, just to see if I can "make one even better."

I won't make prints in increments smaller than one second. If I need to change something by a fraction of a second to refine the print, the exposure time is too short to start with.

Daniela, I like longer printing times in the range of 20-30+ seconds. That enables me to do whatever dodging I have to do without hurrying and making mistakes. Sometimes, I'll purposely make an even longer exposure by stopping down if I have particularly complicated dodging to do.

However, prints in the one to many minutes exposure range are likely due to their being large (longer exposure required unless you have a really powerful light source) or being made on enlargers with weaker light sources or needing lots of filtration.

Best,

Doremus

Best answer!

 

[Sirius Glass]

I always prefer to start with a progression of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 seconds.
But I don't think that is OCD - habits that you are used to can simplify the variables.

Basically I use Dektol and develop for a standard two minutes. That eliminates timing variabilities and staring in the dim light at slight changes. Then I make strip exposures of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 and start from there. If I am doing split grade development:

1. Then I make strip exposures of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 of the magenta filter and
2. Select the best exposure
3. Tune that exposure for the best print
4. Take the exposure in #3 and use it to make strip exposures of 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 or 64 of the yellow filter
5. Select the best exposure
6. Tune that exposure for the best print
7. Study this print and as necessary adjust for dodging and burning at the magenta and yellow stages.

Those two changes makes life simpler and more successful in the darkroom.

 

[awty]

Maybe you should have asked him what he meant by a standard time?

It doesn't matter. You should do what ever you want to get your desired look.
It's only a problem when you start believing your process is better than someone else's.....especially if it is because someone told you to think that way.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Like Daniela I use multiples of 5 seconds, and prefer an exposure time in the 5 x 5 seconds range, if possible, for dodging and burning. And I mean 5 x 5 seconds - not a continuous running total of 25 seconds. My students used to challenge me on that, so we'd do both from the same negative to see. The difference was obvious, the values were darker on the continous running time.

Works for me, I'm sticking with it.

Halogens and fluorescents in particular glow for a bit after the current stops flowing, and so do some LEDs that use phosphors. They seem to glow for longer than the startup time, so I would have expected the opposite effect where the multi step prints would be the denser ones. Did you reproduce with other timers?

 

[mcfitz]

@ L Gebhardt - I only have access to one timer, the multi step prints were reliable in terms of reproducing the effects accurately. The continuous run of the same time was consistently overexposed.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Like Daniela I use multiples of 5 seconds, and prefer an exposure time in the 5 x 5 seconds range, if possible, for dodging and burning. And I mean 5 x 5 seconds - not a continuous running total of 25 seconds. My students used to challenge me on that, so we'd do both from the same negative to see. The difference was obvious, the values were darker on the continuous running time.

Works for me, I'm sticking with it.

The difference you saw is due to the intermittency effect. Five five-second exposures will always be less than one 25-second exposure; something to do with reciprocity and threshold I think. Couple that with ramp-up time for the bulb and no wonder there was a difference. You could have easily matched the prints by exposing the continuous print for less time.

The same applies to film too, BTW,

Doremus

 

[Xylo]

One chap looking perplexed asked me if I ever just printed to a standard time, I looked back equally perplexed not understanding how that would be possible.

That's an old printing method that was mostly used in commercial settings.
When you have a known film developed in a controlled manner with controlled lighting and a controlled exposure, all the exposures are pretty much the same. So you can print a whole roll without doing much else but press the timer button.

 

[PicklesFrog]

i get super precise - 2 stops down, then i go for (say) strips of 2,4,6,8 secs.
then i do (lets say) 6,6.5,7,7.5,8.
finally i try and see what is good and i usually go towards the middle (.3 or .8) if i still need in between.

i also always put in a #3 (or equivalent with dichro filtration) to start, then go up or down if my tests did not work well.

once i finally have the desired lighting, i stop down and double my times each stop down to dodge and burn

 

[Maris]

I use a Omega D2V enlarger fitted with a Philips Photocrescentra 150 watt bulb as the light source. Test strips are done in 2 second steps, 2-4-6-8-10- ... and so on, by advancing a masking card a centimetre or so between exposures. The test strip is (ideally) angled to sample thin and thick parts of the projected negative. This method is quick to run and the fine exposure steps help in finding the best overall exposure with some precision. But light bulb "ramp up" and "ramp down" illumination changes need to be allowed for.

If I set 1 second on the enlarger timer I actually get about 0.8 seconds worth of actinic light because the bulb gives off reddish light during ramp up/down and the enlarging paper doesn't "see" red. My standard 2 second test strip steps are effectively 1.8 seconds so if I count 5 steps (nominally 10 seconds) to find the best part of the test strip I must give 9 seconds for the full size enlargement. Similarly, if the test strip suggests 14 seconds I'll give 12.6 seconds and be pretty well right.

A longer test strip step, say 5 seconds, is less affected by bulb ramp up/down and, for example, a fifth step, nominally 25 seconds, needs to be modified down to 24 seconds. No practical difference, maybe?
I started darkroom work printing for others so I got used to 2 second step test strips to get jobs done quickly. Too old to change now.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Maris,

That's a lot of stepping on the footswitch if you turn the enlarger lamp on and off for each two-second strip. That and the ramp-up/down problem you describe are easily avoided if you simply leave the enlarger lamp on for the whole test-strip exposure time and simply move the card every two seconds (or whatever interval you desire). Use the metronome function on your timer to time your movements. If you start with the card completely covering the lens, you'll even get rid of the initial ramp-up.

What I do is hold the card over the lens, step on the footswitch and get the rhythm of the metronome. Then quickly remove the card and make the first overall exposure (I start with 7 or 10 seconds). Then cover consecutive stripes of the test strip every interval.

FWIW, you'll get more even exposure differences between test strips if you don't use a set interval, but vary the interval between stripes. I like 30% differences (approximately) for a rough test strip. So, my test strip looks like:

10 seconds initial exposure (10 seconds for stripe #1)
3 seconds on the first stripe (30% of 10 = 13 seconds total for stripe #2)
4 seconds on the next stripe (~30% of 13 = 17 seconds total for stripe #3)
5 seconds on the next stripe (~30% of 17 = 22 seconds total for stripe #4)
7 seconds for the next stripe (rounded from 6.6 seconds; roughly 30% of 22 = 29 seconds)
9 seconds for the next stripe (~30% of 29 = 38)

I usually don't have to refine by making another test strip, since I can extrapolate intermediate times for the first test print. I usually make small adjustments in contrast and exposure time by simply making another print and refine my dodging and burning scheme at the same time.

And, I expose the print with the metronome too, uncovering and covering the lens with the card; no ramp-up/down to worry about

Best,

Doremus