Timers and light meters

[Markok765]

Do we even need them? it takes me about 5 prints to know what the settings are for various negs, i also time my own exp.

 

[Roger Hicks]

There's a long-standing saying that by the time you can use them, you don't need analyzers, and many excellent printers do not, indeed, use them.

But equally, one of the best printers I know (Ed Buziak) swore by his analyzer and turned out final prints either first time or after one work print.

Timers are another matter. "i also time my own exp." [sic] Well, so do we all. The only way we differ is in what timers we use. I cannot quite see your point here.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Nick Zentena]

Colour or B&W? A good colour analyzer will make things almost robotic.

B&W IMHO tends to lead to more personal expression. You can make a B&W print in many different ways and have them all right. A commerical printer would want all the toys. Time is money. But if you're printing for your own pleasure the only issue becomes paper cost.

Of course some would suggest you need more consistent negatives

 

[Markok765]

Of course some would suggest you need more consistent negatives

Yea, but im a beginner, here is my times at f8. really thin 5 thin 10 normal 15 slightly dense 20, and pretty dense 30. the enlarger at my photo class ive calculated to be 25 sec at f5.6 with 200 filter. for norm neg

 

[antielectrons]

Do we even need them? it takes me about 5 prints to know what the settings are for various negs, i also time my own exp.

Good for you. Everyone is different. There is no "right way" in photography. Personally I love my Zonemaster II and StopClock - wouldnt be without them. It often takes me just 1 print to get it right, the first print.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

IMHO, yes and no.

I use a ZoneMaster and a StopClock, and I love them. That said, I question the 'done with the first print' method. It takes me many work prints before I'm done with the negative. This is not because I'm so bad with these tools (I hope), but because I'm very picky about the final print. I always find something else to improve. 'Just one more print'.

For me an analyzer save the very first test strip. That's it! After that, I do all my fine-tuning with localized test strips. I need to see ' too light' and 'too dark' to determine what is right. When done, I puzzle it all together like a mosaic. That's how I learned it from John Sexton, and it works a treat. But it's time consuming and cost a lot of paper. I get about 2 to 3 prints from a box of 50. That's OK. I want them to be just right, almost perfect is not good enough for me.

The timer is another matter. I work with f/stop timing, and consequently, I depend on the StopClock. I could use a linera timer and a chart, but that is not as convenient as the StopClock. If I would have to part with one of the two, take the ZoneMaster and leave me with the StopClock, but I'm very happy with both.

 

[Wade D]

"one of the best printers I know (Ed Buziak) ". Where is Ed these days. I used to correspond with him through his blog but he hasn't posted for quite a while.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Wade,

A friend ran into him in a supermarket lately (after neither of us had heard a peep from him for six months) but Ed seemed unwilling to tell him his address, phone no., etc. so all I can say is "somewhere near Preuilly-sur-Claise in Southern Touraine."

Cheers,

Roger

 

[clogz]

Ed Buziak has updated his weblog:http://blogs.salon.com/0004217/

 

[Chan Tran]

I work only with color and I do use a bunch of stuff. An X-rite 810 reflection/transmission color densitomer, a Beseler dichro head with digital readout, an Omega SCA-300 color analyzer, a Konica Minolta dimage dual scan IV scanner and a Gralab 505 timer. Other times I used CP filters with a B&W head and a metronome. I had to make a lot of test prints without all the instruments. I have to make fewer test prints with the instruments. The reason primarily because my darkroom sessions are so far apart and I need to make some tests at the beginning of each session.

 

[Jim Jones]

A basic enlarging meter may give me a better first test print, but after that the exposure and manipulation are based on the previous print from that negative. Long ago even my first expousre, based on the difference between shadow detail and negative blank areas, was almost as close as with a meter. Except for mass production of prints with little or no dodging or burning, counting seconds with perhaps the help of a metronome or quartz clock is efficient.

 

[unregistered]

Get yourself an enlarger timer. If for nothing else than to produce consistant exposures with the same negative so you can learn about printing. The basic rule in printing is first to set up a system where by you can get repeatable results. Then print and pay attention to the results of the actions you did exposing the print. If you don't do those 2 basic things, you'll never be even a mediocre printer.

And forget about those damn light meters. They are a waste of money and further handicap your ability to learn how to print. Just as you learn to see the light when making the exposure in your camera, you will learn to see the light coming thru that negative on your easel. It just takes time, practice and paying attention.

 

[DannL]

I'm not sure what most folks do, I being self taught and all. Infact most of my methods are probably most archaic/primitive by any standard. LOL! I do use a timer attached to the enlarger, which allows for 0-6 sec, 0-60 sec and 0-6 min exposure settings. The timer in combination with a Unicolor Mitchell Picture Box II makes the first test run a real breeze. I couldn't go back to doing test strips. Plus the added benefit of getting 4-5 fair wallet size photos from the test sheet, leaves very little to waste. I don't use a light meter in the darkroom. I might if I had one.

 

[MattKing]

A meter is quite useful if you use rented darkroom facilities, and are therefore constantly having to deal with change. It also makes it much easier to deal with changing magnifications. Just make a point of either using a standard test negative, or metering without a negative in the carrier.