What's your darkroom workflow?

Marco B said:

I don't know how limited the gear is you are carrying, but my mobile LF set does not weigh more than 35mm.

Click to expand...

This year I was using a Voigtlander Bessa R3A with a 40mm and 21mm lenses - very light. For MF I had my Minolta Autocord - not heavy on its own, but the tripod was too much after a few hours! I've been thinking about finding something a bit lighter for those times when I have to be on foot for a significant period. (or if I could find a strap for the Autocord, I could handhold it!)

My secret to darkroom efficiency is standardization and read, watch, and ask questions of EXPERIENCED photographers. To elaborate, about 2 1/2 years ago I graduated to an 8x10 camera. That meant contact printing. I acquired some Azo and a B&S contact printing frame. I was using Tri-X and HC-110 at the time and used a Zone VI cold light to expose the Azo. Exposures ran 36 seconds and it took about 1.5-2 minutes to unload/reload the contact printer. THEN I changed my film to TMax400 and Pyrocat-HD. Suddenly my exposures were running 120 seconds. That meant almost 4 minutes just to make a simple proof print. Not too bad if you have 10 negatives, but a real PIA when you have 70 negatives after returning from a photography trip. I obtained a vacuum easel and that greatly reduced the time compared to the contact printing frame. Then I obtained a slightly used "The Cold One" Azo head. That reduced my exposures from 120 seconds to 9 seconds. Then to further reduce my "chore" time in the darkroom, I expose my "proof" prints and store them in a paper safe. When I accumulate enough exposed prints, I head into the darkroom one AM and mix up the amidol and TF-4 and go to work. I set up 4 sets of 2 prints each on the enlarger baseboard. I then develop them two at a time in the Amidol for 2 minutes (Canadian Grade 2 Azo) and as I move the 1st two prints to the fix I reset the clock and put the next pair of prints in the developer. Now, with two prints in the developer and two prints in the fix, I use my left hand (I'm left handed) to agitate the amidol prints while my right hand rocks the fix tray every 10-15 seconds. I repeat this procedure until I have developed all 8 prints and have them all in the fix. Next, I start the fixing timer and agitate through the stack for two minutes. Next step is to give the prints a quick look and then move them to the print washer. This whole procedure is repeated until the print washer is full--30 8x10 prints. Once the prints have been in the washer for an hour they are squeeged and placed on screens to dry. During the wash, I have time to expose some more contact prints, or most likely take a break. After the the prints are on the drying screens the whole process is repeated until I have 72 prints drying (my capacity to dry prints).

Once all of the "proof" prints are dry, they are evaluated for possible "fine print" treatment. Even when doing fine prints, I always seem to have two prints in the developer at once. Most of my fine prints have a base exposure of 9-12 seconds so that is the first pair into the developer. From there I can judge contrast and look for possible areas requiring dodge or burn. I find most "final prints" take me 1-2 hours.

I keep the following variables as consistant as possible, so I don't waste time: Enlarger height, light source, lens and aperature, paper, paper developer, rapid fix, film type, film developer and vacuum easel. Changing any of these variables will result in wasted time associated with additional "testing".

As Fred Picker used to preach, be mechanical and consistant with the mechanical parts of photography. This allows you to be creative with the parts of photography that require creativity i.e. where to put the camera, or getitng the most expressive print you can to convey your message. Don't be creative with film developing or proofing your negatives. Try to think about the mechanical parts of photography as a Micky D's. You want to be as efficient as possible on those areas.

My wife took 20 rolls of 645 B&W last October during a week in Charleston SC. I developed the film and made contact sheets. She picked the ones she liked (about 15) and then I, (please don’t expel me) scanned them. She reviewed them on the monitor for final composition, cropping, focus etc. This narrowed us down to five candidates for final printing at 11 X 14. Four of them are worth framing. It took me 3 hours to develop the film, 2 hours to print the contact sheets and an hour to scan the interesting frames. It takes me about 1 hour in the darkroom per final print. The mounting, matting, frame building and glazing will take about 4 hours per photo. So I’ll have about 25 hours enjoying myself playing with a large assortment of my tools and other stuff. We will end up with four nice photos on our wall that I will admire every day. This is a hobby for us so time is not a critical factor but I do appreciate efficiency.

Im my lab sometimes I can have to do 70 prints a day amongst having to process film, proofing, dealing with clients so printing can be a strain.
What I do to try and minimise time is I batch film into its type and look at each neg on a lightbox im going to print and group them according to their similarities (density contrast etc) once ive grouped them I go into my darkroom do the test for each frame and write down the info as test strip 1 is priocessing I load the sencond negative and while its processing I load neg 3 and so on untill all are tested. I then I load the negs into my enlargers having assessed the tests and am able to peel off the prints faster as there is no lag time waiting for test strips to paint. I also find exposure readers are a hand tool at times.

If an exhibition print is required rather than a straigh commercial print then the burning and dodging etc is going to take you longer.

Takes me between 2 and 4 hours to make a print. I run tests at different grades starting from an estimate by looking at the negative or remembering the scene, then go through 3 or 4 test strips and a number of regional scrap-paper tests to refine contrast & exposure.

Started out with split grade last spring when I first started with this but found I tended to get too hung up on "preserving detail" in areas of the print that didn't matter, and wasn't getting the prints I wanted. Now instead of caring about extreme highlights & shadows I decide what kind of contrast I'm looking for and just adjust grades until I get it, and damned be the shadows & highlights if they aren't important.

ITD, you ask what advantage there is in using a dedicated 35mm enlarger.

I make prints from 35mm and 120 roll film. For years I used a succesion of multi-format enlargers for this. My latest is a Meopta Magnifax. Changing from 120 film to 35mm involves changing the condensers, changing the enlarging lens, fiddling about making alterations to the negative carrier, and changing the column height. All before you can start making a print.

Recently I bought a Leitz Valoy 2. Being a dedicated 35mm enlarger this needs no setting up. It just sits there ready for printing at the flick of a switch. So it saves a lot of time. And my Magnifax stays permanently set up for 120 film.

Apart from my home-made 5 x 4 enlarger, the leitz Valoy is the only enlarger I've used that has an evenly illuminated baseboard. All the multi format enlargers I've used have had central hot spots. The Magnifax is a half stop brighter in the centre of the frame than at the edges, as revealed by readings from my spot meter, and this is better than some I've used. I believe this fault is a result of design compromises in multi-format enlargers. Each print can be balanced up by burning in all 4 edges. But this takes time-which is what this thread is about.

So my Leitz Valoy is quicker to use.
It is also a stop brighter than the Magnifax, despite having a lower wattage bulb.
It's helical focussing is very precise and accurate.
All round, it is just so efficient and a joy to use.
And it only cost me £20 on Ebay.

Alan Clark

Thanks Alan. Might be something to bear in mind if I could find space for a second enlarger!

The key to saving time in the darkroom is to select an interesting image before you even take out the camera.

To speed up proof printing in the darkroom, a Heiland splitgrade module on your enlarger does wonders!
I had the chance of working with one today*. Amazing!

G

* yes, I do still make small MF negatives from time to time

ITD,
For years I had a tiny darkrom, with not even enough room for three decent sized dishes! It's a real luxury now to have room for three enlargers.

Alan Clark

AlanC said:

All the multi format enlargers I've used have
had central hot spots. Clark

Click to expand...

Has that been a mix of condenser and diffusion enlargers?
I'd like a condenser head for my now with Color 3 head Meopta
6x6. The Color 3 projects a central cold spot. No problem so far
with my Omega B8 condenser. It is though a 6x9. Dan

ITD said:

So far I've had lots of time on my hands but I'm going
back to work after xmas, so I'll be more pressed for time,
so any suggestions (except lab printing or scanning)
would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

I've set my bladed easel aside and now use the
single size speed easel. Does a better job of holding
the paper flat and is quicker to use. Saunders and
a few others have produced drop frame single
size easels which are likely quicker yet.

Focusing can be time consuming. I've gotten around
that by developing the "Focus Once" method. For same
size negative and image an exact focus is determined.
The elevation of the enlarger is noted and the
image is 'sized' on the easel.

Conventional focusing could be quicker. Too many worry
about the projected sharpness of minute highly magnified
grain. And do the worrying with lens wide open. Dan

Hi
I do it a little different. First, I almost never make a contact sheet, it is a waste of time and paper IMHO. Second, I keep my negatives clean so I don't have to clean them. Third, I make few if any test "strips", I make test prints to get the most information in the shortest time. Also, I usually don't dry my test prints before moving to the next one. You need to develop a eye for dry down with fiber prints.
Michael

ITD said:

Or, how do you cope with large numbers of negatives to print? Here's my situation:

I've been on a number of trips this year, all over Western Europe and out to some of the Greek islands. On my return, I have about 30 rolls of b&w exposed. I've developed them all and produced contact sheets. I've gone through all the contacts and selected 8-10 shots per roll that appear to warrant further investigation.

Now comes my problem - what with cleaning negs, running test strips, washing and drying the test strips. evaluating each one and then printing, even a straight print for proofing is taking me 30 min to 1 hour.

Is everyone else spending this sort of time? I read posts where people are making large numbers of work prints in a much shorter time, is there some shortcut that I hadn't thought of?

So far I've had lots of time on my hands but I'm going back to work after xmas, so I'll be more pressed for time, so any suggestions (except lab printing or scanning) would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Dancqu,
No. All the multi format enlargers I have owned have been double condenser enlargers. Some were really basic. A Gnome Beta 2 had a hot spot you could practically fry an egg on. I had another Gnome before that, then, when I got more cash, a Meopta Opemus 6 (b&w).
Then a friend went over to the dark side (bought a digital camera) and gave me his Meopta Magnifax (6 x 9). As I now have a Mamiya RB 67 this is really handy, despite its slight hot spot.

My home made 5 x 4 enlarger is a diffuser (no hot spot)

Alan Clark

I've found that the key to "production" is standardization. I use only 2 films and two developers for all my work in 35, MF and 4x5, development is 'one-shot' and timing and agitation etc. is consistent. I have an MF enlarger I bought used with no neg carriers set up purely for proofing and ran tests for 'minimum exposure, maximum black' for each combination. (I ran these tests with clear neg strips IN THE NEG SLEEVES!) Now, until I change paper batch, (or until the manufacturer "improves" one of the products) I have a standard exposure for each film/developer combo. Expose all the proof sheets and develop them two at a time. In my "enlarging enlarger" I've established a standard height for an 8x10 work print for each format and an exposure time for each film/dev/format combination. This way, once I've selected worthy opponents from my proofs it is just as easy to bang out the work prints for further evaluation. My film exposure and development time were established by trial and error to provide shadow and highlight detail on an evenly lit test subject with normal contrast paper so an evaluation of a work print on normal paper tells me whether the image is worth pursuing further and what adjustments to contrast or other printing techniques I'll need to use for a final print. I think the key to production is an initial investment in time and money to test your film, developer etc. and then to be a little (perhaps a LOT) anal in the consistency of your technique - timing, agitation, temperature etc. That said, the investment saves a lot of time, frustration and money in attaining a usable work print. The final "fine print" is a different matter - but consistent work prints that offer a known point for departure enable you to make many final printing decisions before you go into the darkroom.

I'm only a university photo student, so I'm no expert or anything, but I just want to concur what others have said about negative scanning.

I make contact sheets and examine them with a loupe on a light table, but this is mainly just to make an initial selection. What's so good about scanning is that you have a digital image which you can easily and quickly manipulate in Photoshop. You can, in seconds, test out croppings, see what level of contrast works, roughly burn and dodge certain areas to see what effect is created; I even test out different borders to see if they work with the image.

Another good thing is that it provides you with a very easy way to test out "concepts" for images -- ie, maybe a subtle vignette around the image is desirable, or maybe you want to severely burn or dodge some area. In this way, it boosts your creativity, because there is a cost-free (and virtually time-free) way to experiment, to indulge every little creative impulse.

msage said:

Hi
I do it a little different. First, I almost never make a contact sheet, it is a waste of time and paper IMHO.

Click to expand...

How so? Do you honestly make prints of each negative or do you look at the density of the negatives and choose the one that look correct? Do you shoot varying subjects and scenes per roll, or do you not use any roll film and are single sheets only?

clayne said:

How so? Do you honestly make prints of each negative or do you look at the density of the negatives and choose the one that look correct? Do you shoot varying subjects and scenes per roll, or do you not use any roll film and are single sheets only?

Click to expand...

I too seldom make contact sheets. But this depends on the format. If I shot 35mm or medium format I would have to make contact prints. But with 4x5 and up I can usually tell which negatives will be easy/difficult to print. I can tell which are underexposed and probably not worth the effort. Also, with large format I am unlikely to print 50 negative like snapshots. Each print will be time intensive so I start with test prints (rather than strips) if I print 11x14 or smaller. With larger prints, I used 8x10 test strips until I am ready for a pilot print.

Why's Clayne resurrected a 2 year old thread ?

I haven't made a contact sheet off my own negatives in years, I can read a negative far better than a contact sheet, but I've stopped using 35mm for the moment.

It's really what you are used to, coming from a commercial background and printing a wide variety of other peoples negatives as well in the past means assessing a negative for contrast exposure and basic dodging & burning is straight forward, and it's even easier with my own negatives.

Ian.

Ian Grant said:

Why's Clayne resurrected a 2 year old thread ?

I haven't made a contact sheet off my own negatives in years, I can read a negative far better than a contact sheet, but I've stopped using 35mm for the moment.

It's really what you are used to, coming from a commercial background and printing a wide variety of other peoples negatives as well in the past means assessing a negative for contrast exposure and basic dodging & burning is straight forward, and it's even easier with my own negatives.

Ian.

Click to expand...

Sorry, wasn't intentional. I think it might have come up in a search and I had it in a background tab. Hey, conversations pick up right where we left off, eh?

I'd personally go insane without contacts as it's uncommon for me to have the same situation in each frame.