RH Designs = Digital?

[Mick Fagan]

Rob, I see your point, but there is a difference when trying to teach someone in a darkroom something different compared to film exposure in a camera.

I have never seen anyone decide to give 20% more exposure for certain picture when exposing film.

If they have eventually, or sort of, mastered film exposure in f stops and/or it's time variants, then the same procedure in a darkroom is already understood.

Trust me, when you are on a learning curve with something, having to apply only one set of exposure parameters for both film and paper is quite easy and much faster to comprehend.

Having taught people for quite a few years and still teaching, I can say that the f stop method of enlarging is more accurate and far easier for a beginner to get their mind around, than an extra 10% or 20%.

Once they see and understand the f stop enlarging system, I have not seen one single person revert to percentage figures for paper exposing.

Mick.

 

[RobC]

No I won't trust you.

 

[Chuck_P]

Rob, I see your point, but there is a difference when trying to teach someone in a darkroom something different compared to film exposure in a camera.

I have never seen anyone decide to give 20% more exposure for certain picture when exposing film.

If they have eventually, or sort of, mastered film exposure in f stops and/or it's time variants, then the same procedure in a darkroom is already understood.

Trust me, when you are on a learning curve with something, having to apply only one set of exposure parameters for both film and paper is quite easy and much faster to comprehend.

Having taught people for quite a few years and still teaching, I can say that the f stop method of enlarging is more accurate and far easier for a beginner to get their mind around, than an extra 10% or 20%.

Once they see and understand the f stop enlarging system, I have not seen one single person revert to percentage figures for paper exposing.

Mick.

I was agreeing with much of what you said regarding the use of f/stops in the darkroom as it relates to f/stops in the camera as I can see how that may facilitate learning from ground zero. But more accurate? How do you figure?

I can believe that, especially for a beginner, efficiency in paper usage is a plus, just as I also know that experience in percentage increases, or even just adding time arbitrarily, can be just as efficient and I think the key word there is experience. I'm not talking against the f/stop method regardless of which equipment one is using to do it (RH Designs or whatever), so understand that. I would argue, however, that darkroom efficiency is more intrinsically linked to the quality of the negative produced and not on the timer used to expose it. Just a suggestion (respectfully), but IMHO it may be more of a piece of wisdom to insist on learning to expose and develop with confidence than to pass on that a particular timer is more accurate at getting the desired print. It may indeed be more efficient for some, but I guess I'm challenging you )) on your claim of being "more accurate". That implies that without the f/stop method, your prints will somehow suffer and I don't believe that to be the case.

I, personally, have come a long way in the past three years toward producing better, more accurate negatives that fit my desired end result. It is not an exaggeration to say that my darkroom efficiency has paralleled that same transition.

Respectfully
Chuck

 

[Dave Miller]

Man! I can't wait to try f-stop timing. How big is the learning curve?

Jamusu.

Very small.

 

[Dave Miller]

You are quite right Chuck in maintaining that no one needs a sophisticated timer as a printing aid. I agree that it does nothing that cannot be achieved by simple mental methods.

When I started printing I counted elephants, it’s quite an accurate method; but I found I occasionally lost the plot when my mind wandered off on an artistic discussion of what I was printing, or worse, a day job problem. Result, waste paper, chemicals, and most importantly time.

So I brought an electronic linear timer. Result less waste. I could have got a clockwork timer, but as an electrician I know I would forget to wind it up. About this time I read Tim Rudman’s first book and discovered the f-stop sequence tables therein. I have no doubt that elephants could be herded into an f-stop corral, but it somehow seems cruel, after all what use is 28% of an elephant when rounded off.

I find my f-stop timer results in less waste, and a faster work flow. But perhaps most importantly for me, it enables me to consistently reproduce the same image across a range of sizes and paper types within the short printing sessions that I am permitted. As I said, I don’t need it, it’s not essential, it just makes my time in the darkroom so much more productive and enjoyable.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

28% of an elephant rounded off would be a Damien Hirst sculpture.

I learned printing the old-fashioned way, with a linear timer. When I started to think kinda-sorta in terms of F-stops (ok, I want to make this print THIS MUCH darker, I double the time, etc), my printing improved. Otherwise I was just flailing around in the dark so to speak, and producing random results. Then I tried the RH Designs Analyzer Pro. Having the timer built around f-stops just made so much more sense. It also makes the whole burning/dodging process so much more logical/transparent. Instead of deciding I need to burn this area down by 1/4 stop, so I need to add 4.6 seconds (and calculating out what that 1/4 stop is to yield 4.6 seconds as my time) I just hit the increment button on the timer, select 1/4 stop, then hit the expose button and voila, my burn is done, without breaking out the reverse polish notation scientific calculator.

 

[RobC]

I guess some people just find it tough to commit a few nice simple round numbers to memory and use their in built cpu to good effect...

 

[Mick Fagan]

Chuck, yes I see where the, "more accurate" statement does fall over a bit.

I think I really should have said something like this:-

Once a person understands film exposure using the f stop and time difference method, transposing this methodology to enlarging, immediately brings a more accurate guesstimate for the novice printer.

I have seen people struggle with the concept of just how much more % wise they believe they should add or detract, but once they have seen a step test done in 1/4 stop increments, it becomes crystal clear.

Sometimes, you can almost hear the bingo word going off in their head, when they see a step test print done in f stop increments.

I teach people photography on a one to one basis, rarely two people at once, the darkroom is small. I don't charge for this, I do it to put something back into photography.

I show people my methods, but don't force anything upon them. Invariably, every person who has been in my darkroom will have a variation of most things I have shown to them, but the f stop method of exposing paper is probably the one constant they don't alter.

Rob, as for keeping figures in your head like a set of times tables, that is all and well, especially if you can remember them accurately, or are able to do mental calculations on the fly, but it isn't for everyone.

Working on percentage changes is quite feasible and the majority of the printers that I know do this. There is usually one area that learners do have a bit of difficulty with, that area is when they increase an exposure by a certain percentage but it's not quite enough or maybe too much. If it is too much, they may decide to pull the exposure by a percentage. It is nearly always when this scenario happens that things start to go awry and they get confused.

Also, when learning anything, people always take notes and refer to them as they do things themselves, having a set of f stop times written down alongside oneself, is quicker than working out a percentage increase or decrease on the fly for the average darkroom learner that I have seen.

Mick.

 

[haris]

RHdesigns Analyser simply automate calculations and replace making of several test prints. Everything you get with RHdesigns Analyser you can get with several sheets of test prints. It doesn't make print for you, it doesn't erase need for film/paper/chemistry/enlarger, it simply makes several calculations instead of you. And using RHdesigns Analyser you at the end must expose paper with enlarger, develop, fix and wash it. So, it is not digital photography, even if it use digital technology for making calculation. Well, my Gossen handheld lightmeter does the same, as well as mine Canon EOS3 or EOS500n analogue cameras when meter the light on AE and focus on AF modes...

Saying that, every few days I decide to buy one RHdesigns Analyser, but then I remember I have two Jobo's (ComeTime and Jobotronic Quartz 2000) and can't make absolute decision. Well, I will "accidentaly" split some water or chemistry on my Jobos to justify buying Rhdesigns...

 

[jamusu]

Based on some of the work that I have seen with these timers I would have to say they do quite well.

 

[jamusu]

How big is the learnign curve with f-stop printing?

 

[JBrunner]

How big is the learnign curve with f-stop printing?

If you are already using a camera and meter, and understand reciprocity, and haven't been printing by "time" for a long time, it's easy. If you have been printing by time, it takes some getting used to, but it still isn't that hard. If you don't understand stops, and reciprocity, it won't make sense, but that shouldn't be the case for someone that is at the point of printing their own stuff in a darkroom.

 

[Dan Henderson]

I agree with what Jason said, and would add that when you really think it through, f/stop printing is much more intuitive than printing by time. Especially, as he said, if you have a good understanding of camera exposure. Its just taking film exposure experience into the darkroom and applying the same principles to printing. I often wonder why darkroom students are not taught f/stop printing from the start.

 

[jamusu]

Great! Should I by Les McLean's book before hand as a study guide?

 

[Chan Tran]

I use a digital to take test shots before I shoot with film.

 

[jamusu]

Chan...

This discussion is not about digital cameras.

 

[JBrunner]

I use a digital to take test shots before I shoot with film.

And that has something to do with enlarger timers?

 

[jamusu]

My point exactly Jason.

 

[Bob F.]

I would buy the Les McLean book in any case. The book has a lot of stuff that will be useful to you as well as the f-stop printing method. You can download the timer manual from the RH Designs site and there are a couple of other useful documents re' f-stop printing on there IIRC.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[bdial]

I use f-stop printing, and have forever. After following this thread for a while, and trying to remember what has made it so difficult, and realized the answer is digital timers. It's a lot easier on a clock face timer, such as a time-o-lite to just move the pointer, than to do the math to figure out what the new number should be, then figure out the right combinations of buttons or knobs to punch and turn to get the new time.

Thoughts?

cheers,
Barry

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Barry- I'd disagree actually. With a Time-O-Lite you still need to calculate the proper amount of seconds to increment by to give a 1/2 stop or 1/4 stop increase or decrease. Easy enough when working in whole stop increases, but 1/3 stop is not so simple. With the RH Designs, it automatically computes the correct increment (and you tell it what size increment you want to use) to an accuracy of .1 seconds. I realize that most of us are more than happy with good-enough-for-government-work guesstimate accuracy on printing times, but having that degree of precision is a big help when you're going for repeatability. It's also a help to be able to see what exactly is a 1/4 stop change in a print.

 

[RH Designs]

I use f-stop printing, and have forever. After following this thread for a while, and trying to remember what has made it so difficult, and realized the answer is digital timers. It's a lot easier on a clock face timer, such as a time-o-lite to just move the pointer, than to do the math to figure out what the new number should be, then figure out the right combinations of buttons or knobs to punch and turn to get the new time.

Thoughts?

Yes - press "time up" once on one of our timers and you get an extra quarter stop (or whatever f-stop interval you choose). Press again and you get another one - and vice versa with "time down". It can't get much simpler than that! And each time you do this, you get the same increase/decrease of density on the print. In other words, you have a simple, consistent control of print density. Controlling density in equal steps seemed much more logical to me when I first started printing than controlling time in equal steps. It doesn't matter whether you call these steps f-stops, percentages, or elephants, the important thing is whether they are consistent. If you want to use percentages that works fine but bear in mind that if you add 10% and then subtract 10% you do not get back to where you started ( 10 seconds +10% = 11 seconds, 11 seconds -10% = 9.9 seconds). It's certainly possible to mark f-stop intervals on a dial-type timer, but when it comes to dodging and burning a true f-stop timer just makes life easier, and that's all I was after when I designed the original StopClock way back in 1994.

Going back to the OP, at one point I did wonder about using the phrase "digital imaging!" in an advert but probably wisely decided not to . Although based on digital electronics our products have nothing to do with digital any more than the electronic shutter in many modern film cameras does. The Analyser does not show you the image, but the tonal range you'll get on a print made at your current settings of time and paper grade - in other words it's a paperless test strip, and you can see how the tones change when you alter time or grade settings. Anyone who's used an Olympus OM-3 or OM-4 series camera will recognise the origins of the idea.

If you want an easy way to try out f-stop printing, just use the sequence of ISO film speed numbers from your exposure meter i.e. 50, 64, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200 etc. These are probably already familiar to you. They are in third stop steps, and just place a decimal point to convert the sequence to sensible numbers of seconds - 5.0, 6.4, 8.0 etc. Make test prints using this sequence and see how print densities change consistently between them, compared to 5.0, 7.0, 9.0 etc.

Lastly - remember we offer a trial period for all of our products after which you can return the product for a refund if it doesn't suit so all you risk by trying one is the cost of return carriage.

 

[Chan Tran]

I missed the second part...
I used a film scanner to determine exposure and filtration for my RA-4 printing.
So that makes me a digital guy?

 

[JBrunner]

I missed the second part...
I used a film scanner to determine exposure and filtration for my RA-4 printing.
So that makes me a digital guy?

LOL No, I don't think so.

 

[RobC]

And each time you do this, you get the same increase/decrease of density on the print. In other words, you have a simple, consistent control of print density.

Now lets not get carried away. A fraction of a stop converted to a time may give consistent time changes but the paper characteristic curve is not linear. It is curved and bendy so will not necessarily give the same increase/decrease of density.