Even Ansel Adams suggests making test prints with even increments of exposure. ??? Proportinal increases make more sense. For example; 4, 5.6, 8, 11, etc. seconds. The easy way isn't always the best way, or we all might be using digital cameras.
Test strips
-
A
- Thread starter cliveh
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Toyo - Speed Graphic Lens Board Adapter (NOS)
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Toyo 4x5 Back - Complete (NOS)
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Voigtlander Helomar 240mm f/3.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale 100 TMAX Kodak Professional 4x5 50 sheet boxes 04/2019 exp
- Started by opPaulT
-
For Sale FS: Hansa 6x9 Wooden Field Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Even said twice, I don't understand you. How does "proportional" time increase make more sense, again?
(You're really comparing making GSP's to digital shooting???)
(You're really comparing making GSP's to digital shooting???)
Last edited by a moderator:
MattKing
Moderator
The 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45 ... sequence results in exposures that are each 1/2 stop different from the adjacent ones.
The images that result differ in density in what appears to be even steps - due to the logarithmic response of the paper.
So the appearance of the images that result make it much easier to evaluate appropriate exposure including, where necessary, interpolating between two examples.
It works really well, and the sequence is easy to remember
.
The images that result differ in density in what appears to be even steps - due to the logarithmic response of the paper.
So the appearance of the images that result make it much easier to evaluate appropriate exposure including, where necessary, interpolating between two examples.
It works really well, and the sequence is easy to remember
.
Gene Nocon was a bit of a pioneer with f/stop printing, and he was an amazing printer. When people like Yousuf Karsh comes to ask 'How did you do that?' you know there's something to it.
I've used it for a while now, and I find blacks and highlights that I didn't find before.
I've usually used test strips, sometimes I've cut 8x10" paper into a couple of 5x7s and used what was left as test strips. Or I cut a whole piece into strips... if I can't tell from the test strip whether I'm 'there' or not, I've cut whatever size piece of paper I needed for the particular photo. (Or I just figure what the h... and go ahead and use a whole piece of paper and see what I've got.)
I don't know if I'd make smaller sized strips to be able to use less paper/save money, but I've cut smaller strips when I was running out of paper and didn't want to stop what I was working on! or had gone thru my last pack of paper faster than I thought.
I don't know if I'd make smaller sized strips to be able to use less paper/save money, but I've cut smaller strips when I was running out of paper and didn't want to stop what I was working on! or had gone thru my last pack of paper faster than I thought.
I used Gene Nocon f-stop system for years until RH Designs produced the Stop Clock Professional an F Stop enlarger Timer. When I got used to using that I could never see myself going back to any other type of printing. I also have the Zone Master II by the same company. But through all the changes I could never eliminate the use of test strips. I find them a comfort to know that I'm nearing the best print that I can make.
I normaly use a third of a sheet as test strips. I use 1/3 sto between the strips.
Test strips are much better thane some kind of measurement: i have always a piece of a real image and se what I'll get.
Test strips are much better thane some kind of measurement: i have always a piece of a real image and se what I'll get.
Paterson made a device that took paper up to 5x4 to make test strips. It had 5 'fingers' which could be used to block off light to the piece of paper being used. I normally use Kentmere fibre for my better prints and buy a 12x16 box because this works out cheapest. However to avoid cutting down a big sheet I also have a box of 5x7 which I either cut into 2 or 3 pieces and use that. I very rarely use more than a complete sheet of 5x7 to make a decent 12x16.
Hi Vincent, I am new to darkroom work and am awaiting delivery of the rh design stop clock pro and zone master. Could you please point me in the right direction for a starting point about using them.
Thanks in advance
The user manuals are available for download here:
User Manuals - RH Designs
The latest User Manuals for our products are available here. An archive of manuals for older products is also available further down the page. All manuals are in PDF format and can be opened with either Adobe Acrobat Reader or in your web browser. Download the free Acrobat Reader here. Analyser...
rhdesigns.co.uk
Instructional videos can be found on the RH Designs YouTube channel:
Nicholas Lindan
Advertiser
AA, being a musician, used a metronome for timing. F-stop timing with a metronome might be possible, but I can't see any easy way. Ye old 4, 5.6, 8 ... sequence might be adequate for the short and simple print but when things get involved (and AA's prints were decidedly involved) I think that linear metronomic methods would cause less brain pain.
I'm as much a proponent of f-stop timing and measuring as anyone but I do use test strips on occasion. There is no such thing as a universal tool.
There was an old movie of AA making a print in a contact frame. The movement of his hands over the exposing frame was, indeed, as if he were conducting a musical composition.
I make test strips the same size I always have. They need to be large enough to be useful.
Test strips and f-stop printing are two different topics. Here is a recent thread on f-stop printing. Generally, people who like f-stop printing advocate f-stop printing; those who don't don't.
F stop printing
The theory isnt holding up very well well dropped to nuts and bolts. 1. the timer used by many, and that book chapter the fellows linked too, is a gralab 300. Officially only does whole seconds and minutes. Dont see how i can do that ultra reliable and ultra repeatable 8.6...
www.photrio.com
Did you know that the earliest alternate to the saying "They are more ways than one to skin a cat." is "There are more ways to kill a dog than hanging." It dates from 1678. I guess there was a lot of dog hanging and cat skinning going on back then.
Last edited:
I use Ilford Multigrade FB, and I only print 16x12, which is currently about £3 per sheet. I cut 16x12 sheets into about 8 or 10 strips, so that the final print and the test strips are from paper of the same batch and age. I use one to three strips per print: first to nail exposure for the highlights, then to nail contrast grade for the shadows (if that isn't already obvious), and finally to check that both are correct (if that isn't already obvious) before committing a whole sheet of paper. It's is expensive, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. I don't like to consider whether the whole thing warrants the sacrifice of eggs.
I print only a tiny proportion of my negatives. I do my pre-selection by studying the negatives first with a loupe, then contact sheets and/or negative scans.
I print only a tiny proportion of my negatives. I do my pre-selection by studying the negatives first with a loupe, then contact sheets and/or negative scans.
Thank you, that is a big help, at the moment I am watching all the relevant videos on the rh design website + others prior to it arriving and setting it up. Not a cheap piece of equipment but hopefully a sound purchase to nailing accurate prints
( at least to my vision)
( at least to my vision)
I forgot to say that - to me - the sense in using smaller strips of paper (and not using a strip-printing gadget) is that you can choose the areas of the image that are most informative with respect to highlights or shadows. Otherwise, you end up with what might have been the perfect exposure falling on a desert of uninformative mid-tones. Personally I'm not convinced about the value of analysers, but I have never had the opportunity to try one.
To be honest been a complete newbie, and yet to produce a print, I can't confirm or deny your comment. But I will however post my opinions. ( once I have figured it all out. But I do appreciate your input.
A wonderful thing about photography is that you don’t need a huge lot of kit at the outset. My suggestion FWIW would be to defer the analyser purchase until you have learned to do it without. Then decide if the outlay makes economic sense.
Hahaha!
Buy a copy of Ralph Lambrecht’s Way Beyond Monochrome too.
Have fun.
Buy a copy of Ralph Lambrecht’s Way Beyond Monochrome too.
Have fun.
I'm sure we've discussed this before
As I am a musician myself, I also use a metronome when printing. Test strips are in percentage increments, which approximates f-stop timing but without the timer. Changes in base exposure and times for dodging and burning I figure in percentages of the original exposure as well. I just figure out how many seconds x% is and adjust my counting by that.
My test strips are in roughly 30% increments: 10 - 13 - 17 - 22 - 29 - 37 - 48. I just count 10 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 7 - 8 - 11 with the metronome. Not exact, but close enough for test strips.
I like to call my dodging and burning a dance; sometimes there's a whole lot of complicated choreography going on!
Best,
Doremus
It's due tomorrow I think,
They're cool products, I have an Analyzer Pro and find it useful, but I did learn how to make prints the 'standard' way before buying it. I think that doing things more manually at the outset gave me a better understanding of/appreciation for what the Analyzer was actually doing.
Enjoy the new toys and learning to make prints.
Thank you
Bye the way I fully intend to enjoy myself.!!! Trying as a newbie to narrow down the frustration of failure
| 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:  |