small exposure time for printing

[Bill Burk]

you use the ND filter together with the filter for the contrast?

I use Wratten gelatin filters. Just drop it in on top of the lens (inside the Omega D-II lens cone). Most of the time I print Galerie which is a graded paper.

I’ve done a bit with a pure green and pure blue (gelatin separation) filters when doing multigrade. Today I plan to use the green one but with a negative so bulletproof that I won’t need the neutral density. (Densities about 1.3 to over 3.0). By rights I should use Grade -1 (if there was such a thing). Depending what the print looks like I might mix up a super proportional reducer for this one.

Anyway, I also have used under the lens multigrade filters plus the neutral density in the well.

I really like printing times between 30 seconds and a minute. Gives me time to dodge and burn.

 

[faberryman]

I really like printing times between 30 seconds and a minute. Gives me time to dodge and burn.

This is my practice as well. And I am generally in no hurry to finish.

 

[lantau]

Would anyone do print manipulation (dodging, burning) with a print that small? If not I guess the 5s are ok.

Since you're all here: I've started RA4 printing (grand total of five sessions, now) and my experience there is similar to the OPs. I've been using a constant 5s exposure for all prints so far. Paper is 24cm x 30cm, giving a print area of (21.6cm)^2 for 6x6 negatives and ca 29cm x 19cm for 35mm. Apertures are mostly 11 to 16. Sometimes 8.

Is that everyones experience? Quite fast, considering that colour paper is supposedly a chloride paper. But the silver content must be quite low. I once looked at a print in white light after the stopbath. I couldn't see the silver image. Only the colour one.

 

[mshchem]

Use a longer than normal focal length lens. I print 5x5 inch snaps from my Hasselblad with a 135mm lens @ f8 seems like around 16 seconds on Ilford rc mg paper. I know what it's like to try to save money on supplies. Paper is expensive, especially when you are getting started with different equipment.
Great to hear of people printing real photos. No better way

 

[mshchem]

Would anyone do print manipulation (dodging, burning) with a print that small? If not I guess the 5s are ok.

Since you're all here: I've started RA4 printing (grand total of five sessions, now) and my experience there is similar to the OPs. I've been using a constant 5s exposure for all prints so far. Paper is 24cm x 30cm, giving a print area of (21.6cm)^2 for 6x6 negatives and ca 29cm x 19cm for 35mm. Apertures are mostly 11 to 16. Sometimes 8.

Is that everyones experience? Quite fast, considering that colour paper is supposedly a chloride paper. But the silver content must be quite low. I once looked at a print in white light after the stopbath. I couldn't see the silver image. Only the colour one.

I am making 8x10s from 6x9 negs 3.8s @ f11 40Y 10M. 16 x 20 10s f11 similar filtration .Fuji Crystal Archive paper. RA 4 is fun! 1965 in the dark Kodak rapid color processors
People say I'm crazy, I say so what!

 

[lantau]

I am making 8x10s from 6x9 negs 3.8s @ f11 40Y 10M. 16 x 20 10s f11 similar filtration .Fuji Crystal Archive paper. RA 4 is fun! 1965 in the dark Kodak rapid color processors
People say I'm crazy, I say so what!
View attachment 214560

It is surprisingly a lot of fun and not that difficult. Making colour myself, wow! And since it prints my C41 seems to be OK as well.

I'm using a Nova Club Mate with 3+1 slots, heated. I'm quite productive with it. Need more paper soon (Endura glossy).

 

[Bill Burk]

@mshchem is that a “Kodak shrine” you have going on above the sink?

 

[mshchem]

@mshchem is that a “Kodak shrine” you have going on above the sink?

That's a 18 month old photo, I've gotten a boatload of cans of Selectol, DK -60A etc.
Maybe I should light a candle on Dio de Los Muertos for old George Eastman

 

[mshchem]

It is surprisingly a lot of fun and not that difficult. Making colour myself, wow! And since it prints my C41 seems to be OK as well.

I'm using a Nova Club Mate with 3+1 slots, heated. I'm quite productive with it. Need more paper soon (Endura glossy).

The Nova slot processors are really neat. Replenish and there's no better or less expensive way to print color.

 

[logan2z]

I had a similar problem with my Beseler 23C XLII - very short exposure times, even for 8x10 prints on Ilford MG Classic FB paper. I bought some Rosco Cinegel from BH photo and put a piece of the 2-stop filter in the filter tray of the enlarger. Problem solved, and cheaply too.

2-stop
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44186-REG/3403_Filter_Rosco_N.6_20x24_

1-stop
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/44183-REG/3402_Filter_Rosco_N.3_20x24_

 

[BMbikerider]

Why not simply use a neutral density filter (or gel) to get longer exposure times where needed?

Mike

If you do go down that route, it may be better to have a gel filter above the lens so any defects don't affect the lens quality you are using. As a matter of course, making such a small print these are the length of exposures I would be expecting to be correct. Even on a 10x8 which is the smallest I ever print will only need somethng between 15-20 seconds. With a 12x16 which is the largest I can handle, my exposure can be anything between 30-50 seconds this is proportionate to the increased size.

Also some papers are markedly less sensitive than others. I use mostly Kentmere and some Ilford. Whilst both come from the same manufacturer, Ilford is about 1 stop slower than Kentmere. Some of the warm-tone papers (Chlorobromide) are slower still, perhaps even as much as 2-3 stops.(Estimated).

 

[lantau]

Is there a practical solution for enlargers without filter drawer? I have an LPL 7700 colour head. Are there ND filter films available in Europe, which can be sandwiched with the film in the carrier (universal carrier with glas on both sides)?

I'm usually around f11 with 5s and 24cm x 30cm paper and I realised that I will probably want to make small 5in x 7in RA4 prints from some of the few family negatives that are still there. Unfortunately most from my childhood are lost. Retail prints of the past, which are still there, were never really great. I also have APS negatives from when I had my first (film) P&S camera, for two years, around the turn of the millenium. I only started photography as a hobby six years ago, in the digital age.

That is to save on paper and because the old negatives might be not that good for large printing. I'm going through my first 100 sheet box rather quickly. And its also more handy to give a stack of 5in x 7in pictures to aunts and uncles for viewing, instead of 24cm x 30cm sheets.

 

[pentaxuser]

lantau, with a colour head you could dial in ND using the C dial, couldn't you?

pentaxuser

 

[lantau]

lantau, with a colour head you could dial in ND using the C dial, couldn't you?

pentaxuser

Yes, I could. But I seem to remember it being said in a thread that is not great in terms of quality. And might be limiting should I need a high filtration on one of the axis.

Perhaps negligible for those small prints?

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, I could. But I seem to remember it being said in a thread that is not great in terms of quality. And might be limiting should I need a high filtration on one of the axis.

Perhaps negligible for those small prints?

I am not sure why the inclusion of the C filter into the Y and M which you would need anyway, would adversely affect quality but, yes on the second issue of there being a limited effect from C it is a possibility that it would be limited. I have never done dodging and burning with RA4 prints and I have a feeling that it is a much more complicated process than B&W with less predictable outcomes in terms of the desired effect on the whole colour palette of the print.

All you could do is to try and see how much C remains available and what effect this has on exposure. Unless there is a good reason to extend the exposure time for an RA4 print then it seems to me that 5 secs works as well as a longer time.

pentaxuser

 

[lantau]

I am not sure why the inclusion of the C filter into the Y and M which you would need anyway, would adversely affect quality but, yes on the second issue of there being a limited effect from C it is a possibility that it would be limited. I have never done dodging and burning with RA4 prints and I have a feeling that it is a much more complicated process than B&W with less predictable outcomes in terms of the desired effect on the whole colour palette of the print.

All you could do is to try and see how much C remains available and what effect this has on exposure. Unless there is a good reason to extend the exposure time for an RA4 print then it seems to me that 5 secs works as well as a longer time.

pentaxuser

The 5s are fine for now. I'm not really keen on non-straight printing. I had some negatives already that make me question the general wisdom that strong highlights don't matter for colour negative film. Masking might be more interesting to do for the occasional picture worth it. For me the principal reason to use film today is to enjoy the process, so I might consider it one day. I have only found pin registration equipment for large format still being made, however.

The reason for asking here is that those 5s are for my large prints. When I go down to 5x7 that will be less than a quarter of the area I'm having now (35mm film, less extreme for 6x6 non cropped on the same paper). How far down can you go with exposure without the ramp-up and shut down periods of the halogen lamp becoming problematic relative to the short run time?

 

[pentaxuser]

. How far down can you go with exposure without the ramp-up and shut down periods of the halogen lamp becoming problematic relative to the short run time?

When using a Paterson colour analyser I failed to zero the timer dial when I had it turned down as far as it went which was about 3.5 secs. At the that point I decided to use a 75 watt bulb in my Durst 605M instead of the recommended 100 watt. This increased the exposure time enough to enable me to null the exposure dial on anything between about 5-8 secs when doing 5x7 prints. It was a good solution as it helped to increase the exposure for my B&W prints. If I needed to do any burning and dodging(D&B) on a B&W print then if I changed the aperture to f11 instead of f8 I had enough time for fairly simple dodging and burning. Frankly unless a negative is really a masterpiece then I do wonder whether the kind of complicated D&B diagram that makes making a "fine " print worthwhile is worth the effort.

My prints are all fairly ordinary so one or two difficult negatives that may need complicated printing to be the really good are either rejected or are "rescued" enough to make them OK

My experience with C41 negs is that they tend to print OK as straight prints. I have never found it necessary to try and change the look that a straight print gives

I may be easily pleased

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

lantau, with a colour head you could dial in ND using the C dial, couldn't you?

pentaxuser

Actually, you dial in neutral density with all three of the dials. Depending on the system your head uses, adding 30 to all three dials may reduce the light intensity by one stop.
Some suggest that you don't need to adjust the Cyan at all, but I do anyways.
It does limit your access though to the highest and lowest contrasts.

 

[CMoore]

Is there a practical solution for enlargers without filter drawer? I have an LPL 7700 colour head. Are there ND filter films available in Europe, which can be sandwiched with the film in the carrier (universal carrier with glas on both sides)?

I'm usually around f11 with 5s and 24cm x 30cm paper and I realised that I will probably want to make small 5in x 7in RA4 prints from some of the few family negatives that are still there. Unfortunately most from my childhood are lost. Retail prints of the past, which are still there, were never really great. I also have APS negatives from when I had my first (film) P&S camera, for two years, around the turn of the millenium. I only started photography as a hobby six years ago, in the digital age.

That is to save on paper and because the old negatives might be not that good for large printing. I'm going through my first 100 sheet box rather quickly. And its also more handy to give a stack of 5in x 7in pictures to aunts and uncles for viewing, instead of 24cm x 30cm sheets.

If i understand you correctly......couldn't you use something like this.?

www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Kodak-Polycontrast-Filters-Kit-Complete-Set-for-Darkroom-Printing-V-24-/123586546381?hash=item1cc6550acd

 

[lantau]

If i understand you correctly......couldn't you use something like this.?

www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Kodak-Polycontrast-Filters-Kit-Complete-Set-for-Darkroom-Printing-V-24-/123586546381?hash=item1cc6550acd

Thanks, but no. I'd be looking for colour neutral ND filters for use in colour printing.

At least those look like I could cut them out and put then in the filmholder together with the film.

There is a red filter which swings in under the lens. Maybe I could change that to an ND filter somehow.

 

[pentaxuser]

There is a red filter which swings in under the lens. Maybe I could change that to an ND filter somehow.

A good idea that should work. If you wanted to have both an ND and red safety filter then my Durst safety filter holder allows you to remove the safety filter and on top of the filter holder place a camera ND filter in its ring and then if required for sheet positioning or getting the dodging tool in approximately the correct position place a square Ilford safety filter on the empty enlarger safety-filter holder which is then removed instantly at start of exposure

pentaxuser