Question for anyone with an RH designs Analyser Pro

[rpavich]

Thanks again everyone!

 

[R.Gould]

I thought MGIV was the default?

mg4 is the default, the contrast settings are published by RH themselves, but they also publish user calibration data, and among the user calibration is one for mg4 rc and the customer has produced both contrast and offset details,always worth making RH designs own site a first stop www.rhdesigns.co.uk

 

[rpavich]

mg4 is the default, the contrast settings are published by RH themselves, but they also publish user calibration data, and among the user calibration is one for mg4 rc and the customer has produced both contrast and offset details,always worth making RH designs own site a first stop www.rhdesigns.co.uk

Thanks!

 

[mr rusty]

I've used the published settings as a starter and they are pretty good, but I use a Vivitar V1 with dichroic filters in the colour head, and it definitely is worth the hassle to calibrate to my own filter settings.

 

[tih]

I really enjoyed calibrating my Analyser Pro to my enlarger, and described the process in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[rpavich]

Well, interesting!
I just got done with the exposure part of the calibration for
Ilford MGIV paper and i needed minus adjustments! I wouldnt have guessed that since the
Ilford postcard stock needed positive adjustment.

 

[rpavich]

Are there any good tips on where to meter the negative and why? I've noticed that that's the big variable. I had a hard-to-print negative of a hot rod engine that had lots of Chrome and was very contrasty (taken with some high-contrast Svema ISO 64 Black and White film) and I noticed that what I chose for a highlight or shadow really made a huge difference in the look of the print.

Just looking for tips so that I don't re-invent the wheel.

 

[R.Gould]

Meter from the shadow (light) area first then from the shadow, if there is some detail where you meter the best to set the h/l and shadow at the very end led's are flashing using the grade button, if no detail is present the set the led's so that either one, the darkest on the grey scale, is flashing or neither is flashing, you might have to juggle the time and grade buttons for this, Do you have a manual for the Analyser/pro? if not go to the RH website and download one, all of these questions are anwsered in the manual. The above is a rough and ready way, as with all tools practice makes perfect, as you use the meter these things will become second nature, and using the analyser pays for itself in no time with the saving in paper, I get a great print within 2 sheets, mostly in the first print, but might need a second sheet if the negative is a problem negative, Using the grey scale gives me all the burn and dodge I need, just note down the burn and dodge details and away you go, I have at least ten years of using this piece of equipment and would hate to print without it know,

 

[Svenedin]

I'd say as R Gould says above but I'd add: meter for "shadow with detail" not black shadow (lightest on neg). Personal preference is involved here too. Personally, I think the meter tends to print a bit too dark so I often adjust so the highlight tone is flashing. You will quickly become adept at using this fantastic tool. Check the reading corresponds to the tone you would like in your print.

 

[rpavich]

Meter from the shadow (light) area first then from the shadow,

You mean meter from the highlight and then from the shadow? I don't get what meter from the shadow and then meter from the shadow means. (edited to add: I just got what you are saying..that the shadow is lightest on the negative)

Do you have a manual for the Analyser/pro? if not go to the RH website and download one, all of these questions are anwsered in the manual.

Yes, I do. One came with it and I've read through it several times but many times users have a different way of putting things or they've discovered something that's not mentioned in the manual, which is why I asked.

The above is a rough and ready way, as with all tools practice makes perfect, as you use the meter these things will become second nature, and using the analyser pays for itself in no time with the saving in paper, I get a great print within 2 sheets, mostly in the first print, but might need a second sheet if the negative is a problem negative, Using the grey scale gives me all the burn and dodge I need, just note down the burn and dodge details and away you go, I have at least ten years of using this piece of equipment and would hate to print without it know,

I have to agree, even with negatives that are problematic I've not taken more than a few tries to get a good print and that's mostly due to my inexperience so far. Thanks for the help again.

 

[rpavich]

I'd say as R Gould says above but I'd add: meter for "shadow with detail" not black shadow (lightest on neg). Personal preference is involved here too. Personally, I think the meter tends to print a bit too dark so I often adjust so the highlight tone is flashing. You will quickly become adept at using this fantastic tool. Check the reading corresponds to the tone you would like in your print.

I noticed that also, but after calibrating for my condenser head, it's less severe.
My only problem now is I'm running out of negatives to print!

 

[Svenedin]

It doesn't matter which one you do first. The meter bases the exposure for the print only on the highlight reading. The highlight reading is the darkest area of the negative that you want to print. Sometimes you will need to accept that you cannot print the highlight and the rest of the photo in one hit. Either the highlight needs a burn (additional exposure) so that the rest of the photo is not too heavily exposed or you just blow out that highlight.

 

[Svenedin]

I just printed this for instance. The meter was spot on.

 

[R.Gould]

As with anything practice makes perfect, it will soon become second nature as to where to meter, how to get the best out of what, for me and many others, is an essiantial darkroom tool, you will find that you won't think twice about using it, for all darkroom printing, burning in, holding back, I find that the analyser gets things right, I still today think that with 50 years or more of darkroom work, that it must be wrong, needs more, and I invariably find that 99.9% of the time the analyser has got it right and I would have been wrong, It certainly does what it says and banishies the test strip, so my advice visit the RH site, look at the instructional videos made by the men who actually invented the whole thing, use it and enjoy the darkroom as never before, I certainly did,
Richard

 

[mr rusty]

I 100% agree with the above posts. The analyser is a tool, not an automation robot, and you do need to learn how to use it to best advantage. Although the standard procedure is to start with the highlight (i.e. darkest part of neg - e.g. sky) and then the shadow end for contrast, I often start on skin tones - I know where I want to place these on the greyscale so people come out OK, so I meter a face, add exposure to put this reading(s) where I want them on the grey scale, then meter around them to see how the rest of the print looks. Sometimes it does mean the highlights would be blown, you then have to decide how you are going to manipulate the exposure to best advantage, and the meter helps make those decisions.

Personally, I think the meter tends to print a bit too dark

I've thought this too in the past, but I came to the conclusion that it is very easy to pick a blown highlight rather than a highlight with detail, which does result in a little too much exposure. I tend to select my highlight very slightly away from the darkest part of the projected image. As other's have said, just experience in using this great tool.

Something I often do is burn in sky a little - dead easy on the analyser. After you have exposed for the main print, just add exposure until the sky is where you want it, press that exposure button long so you get the split exposure mode and mask off what you don't want re-exposed for a burn.

 

[rpavich]

I just printed this for instance. The meter was spot on.

That's really nice.

 

[rpavich]

... I often start on skin tones - I know where I want to place these on the greyscale so people come out OK, so I meter a face, add exposure to put this reading(s) where I want them on the grey scale, then meter around them to see how the rest of the print looks. ...

I was thinking about this; frequently I want the skin tones to be correct and the rest is less important. When I don't use the meter I just wing it until it looks good. What zone of the scale do you put your faces on (assuming for example a Caucasian face)?

 

[mr rusty]

What zone of the scale do you put your faces on

4th to 6th LED in from the left depending on the rest of the image with bias towards the lower end, metering off the "highlight" of the face.

 

[rpavich]

4th to 6th LED in from the left depending on the rest of the image with bias towards the lower end, metering off the "highlight" of the face.

Thanks, that will get me started so I can do more exploring. Much appreciated.