• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Short Exposures With Ilford Classic Fiber

Latest Gallery

Grill

H
Grill

  • 0
  • 0
  • 32
Cemetery Chapel

H
Cemetery Chapel

  • 2
  • 0
  • 58

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
202,775
Messages
2,845,394
Members
101,516
Latest member
DDX
Recent bookmarks
0

Richard Jepsen

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 1, 2006
Messages
877
Location
Oklahoma, US
Format
Multi Format
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?
 
You could try using a lamp with a lower wattage?
 
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.
 
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

...
 
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.
 
NB23 said:
use a longer lens
Click to expand...
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.
 
DWThomas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rick A said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NB23 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Pieter12 said:
Not sure the OP has a color head or filters.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
mshchem said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
That's why some us whack jobs panic bought a case of 15 and 25 watt genuine GE bulbs before they were all gone :laugh:.

For contact printers and safelights I never use.

So get a threaded 2 stop neutral density filter for that beautiful Schneider lens.
 
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?
 
momus said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not if it is above the negative.
And usually not to a meaningful extent if below.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom