Short Exposures With Ilford Classic Fiber

[Richard Jepsen]

I’m trying to achieve an enlarging time of 10s or longer at a middle aperture on my 50mm Componon-S. Yesterday I was enlarging 5x7s with an aperture of f/11.5 timed 8.5s. LPL 670 condenser. Developer Ilford Multigrade mixed 1:14. Film -135 TMY-2. Completed prints had 5-6 stops of tones.

My thought is a slower developer would let me use f/8 and a time a bit above 10s. I tried a 105 enlarging lens but that seems impractical. Any suggestions?

 

[MARTIE]

You could try using a lamp with a lower wattage?

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

A slower developer will not help. It will just take longer to develop the print, the exposure time will remain the same.

Use a neutral density filter. In a pinch a polarizer will do. Cheap ND filters can be cut from sheets of Rosco gel:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=rosco neutral density gel&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps

A 0.3 OD gel will double print times, 0.6 will quadruple and 0.9 will octuple.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Nicholas
Should have thought of that. I have a Valoy with the same problem when using Classic. I have a project I’m using Classic on and don’t want to switch to another paper.

 

[NB23]

No matter the developer. Developing to completion is the same end result.

use a 75w bulb.

use a neutral density filter

use a longer lens

...

 

[Sirius Glass]

You could try using a lamp with a lower wattage?

My enlarger has a high brightness and an lower brightness level.

 

[Rick A]

The obvious solution is to shoot denser negatives. In the old days, we picked our favorite graded paper and learned to expose negatives that printed the way we wanted.

 

[DWThomas]

use a longer lens

Except for possible idiosyncrasies with condenser settings and such, I believe the math says projecting the same negative to the same dimensions on a given enlarger is pretty much the same exposure regardless of lens focal length.

I managed to have three enlarging lenses for use with 35mm, 6x6 & 6x9 that happily all take the same filter thread. So I keep a 2-stop ND filter handy. I have used it to advantage with 6x6 (my main format) by putting the filter on to play around with small prints (5x5) for testing, then when I decide to go for 10x10 or so, taking the filter off puts me in the ballpark.

 

[NB23]

Except for possible idiosyncrasies with condenser settings and such, I believe the math says projecting the same negative to the same dimensions on a given enlarger is pretty much the same exposure regardless of lens focal length.

I managed to have three enlarging lenses for use with 35mm, 6x6 & 6x9 that happily all take the same filter thread. So I keep a 2-stop ND filter handy. I have used it to advantage with 6x6 (my main format) by putting the filter on to play around with small prints (5x5) for testing, then when I decide to go for 10x10 or so, taking the filter off puts me in the ballpark.

I’m sure there are 2 seconds to be gained, with the lightbulb being 2x further away thabks to the longer lens. This calls for a test I will do asap.

 

[Bill Burk]

The obvious solution is to shoot denser negatives. In the old days, we picked our favorite graded paper and learned to expose negatives that printed the way we wanted.

It’s an option. I enjoyed some dense negatives this summer.

But my all-time classic move is to “drop” a Kodak Wratten No. 96 0.60 neutral density filter on top of the enlarging lens. I don’t have to touch it - it stays there all the time.

Two stops is perfect, it is still easy to focus and slows down print times just like you want. Sometimes I wish I had three stop 0.90 but then I realize three stops is too dark to see through easily.

 

[Arthurwg]

Why do you want to use an f/8 aperture? Is it an issue of resolution of the Componon-S at f/8 vs. f/11? Something else?

Yes, why not stop down?

 

[MattKing]

I’m sure there are 2 seconds to be gained, with the lightbulb being 2x further away thabks to the longer lens. This calls for a test I will do asap.

Nope - the light intensity is a function of magnification - negative to print. The cone of light from the longer lens is less spread out, so if it is the same distance away from the paper, the image at the paper is smaller and brighter. When you raise the head up, the image gets larger, but the intensity goes down. When the head is at the right height to achieve the same size print, the light intensity ends up being the same as well.

 

[Richard Jepsen]

Using an aperture of 11.5 places me .5 stops from f/16.

A rule of thumb is best optical performance is 2-3 stops from wide open. But hey, the prints are 5x7s so f/11.5 should not degrade the print.

The negatives print full tones with a 2.5 or 3 filter. I have a standard process that produce easy to print negatives. The lamp is 75w.

Wish Classic was a bit slower. Has lots of nice attributes. The density filter is the answer.

 

[Maris]

Here's a contrary view ,,, but not for everybody.
I've done thousands of 5x7s off mainly roll film negatives. The vast majority of enlarger exposures have been less than 10 seconds, sometimes 3, 4, or 5 seconds. Lens apertures down to f16 or even f22 don't seem to make much difference at this modest enlargement ratio.
Yes, at big enlargement ratios the use of small apertures will infest the image with sharpness losing diffraction. BUT for big enlargements exposure times are long anyway so why use small apertures?
Burning and dodging can be done accurately for short exposure times; just takes practice and the willingness to accept some failures in the beginning. Minimising darkroom time is nice if the prints are coming out good.

 

[Pieter12]

If your enlarger has a filter drawer. ND gels are inexpensive and available in many densities. A simple, cheap and effective way to extend exposure times. And I assume if your times are so short, the negative is thin or the light source is bright, so you should still be able to see clearly enough for dodging and burning with the ND in place.

 

[mshchem]

20Y 20M 20C repeat as required

 

[Pieter12]

20Y 20M 20C repeat as required

Not sure the OP has a color head or filters.

 

[mshchem]

Not sure the OP has a color head or filters.

Yeah, that dawned on me just now. I don't even know if you can still buy sets of acetate filter sets. I usually use a longer focal length lens in this circumstance, however then you need enough bellows extension.
If the enlarger has an ordinary medium Edison base a lower wattage bulb could be used. 211 enlarger bulbs IIRC are 75W, 212 150W, I think an ordinary 40W bulb would do.

My first 4x5 enlarger had a Resitrol dimmer on the lamp, I never used it.

 

[mshchem]

Aha! If I found the right enlarger it takes a PH140 lamp, medium base 75W opal lamp. I would go to a hardware store and try a 40W bulb.

 

[albada]

Aha! If I found the right enlarger it takes a PH140 lamp, medium base 75W opal lamp. I would go to a hardware store and try a 40W bulb.

LEDs took over, so one might not be able to buy a 40W bulb any more. According to other reports on Photrio, popular LED bulbs are hit-and-miss in enlargers: Some are ok, some not. I like the suggestions of an ND or polarizer.

Mark Overton

 

[mshchem]

That's why some us whack jobs panic bought a case of 15 and 25 watt genuine GE bulbs before they were all gone .

For contact printers and safelights I never use.

So get a threaded 2 stop neutral density filter for that beautiful Schneider lens.

 

[mshchem]

According to the specs on B&H for the Schneider 50mm f2.8 Componon-S lens, it takes 43mm filters. A 0.6 ND filter is good for 2 stops. $40 bucks for a nice B&W MRC filter

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/120426-REG/B_W_66012851_43mm_102_Neutral.html

or you could try a lower wattage bulb.

 

[logan2z]

I echo the suggestion to use ND filters. I use the gel type and put them in the filter drawer of my Beseler 23C II. They are dirt cheap and work well.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44186-REG/Rosco_RS340311_3403_Filter_Rosco.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44183-REG/Rosco_RS340211_3402_Filter_Rosco.html

 

[gone]

Great tip on the ND filters, I was wondering how to deal w/ the negs that need dodging and burning. Does a ND filter degrade the enlarged print image?

 

[MattKing]

Great tip on the ND filters, I was wondering how to deal w/ the negs that need dodging and burning. Does a ND filter degrade the enlarged print image?

Not if it is above the negative.
And usually not to a meaningful extent if below.