Which paper to cut up for test strips? An analysis...

[vdonovan]

I was printing some 16x20s the other day and cutting up sheets of 8x10 to use as test strips and proof prints on the logic that the 16x20 paper was more expensive. Then I thought, well, do I know that's true?

So here's a brief analysis on the cost per square inch of Ilford MG IV RC. I checked Amazon, Adorama, Freestyle and Ultrafineonline. Of those Adorama was cheapest. Adorama sells some paper through Amazon which, oddly, is cheaper than buying directly from Adorama, but they don't have all sizes.

I just checked the quantities I normally buy.
All prices include shipping to San Francisco.

8x10, 100 sheet box $.0066/square inch (Adorama through Amazon)

8x10, 100 sheet box $.0084/square inch (Adorama direct)

8x10, 25 sheets $.011/square inch (Adorama)

11x14, 50 sheet box $.0087/square inch (Adorama)

16x20, 50 sheet box $.0083/square inch (Adorama)

So the answer is: use whatever batch of paper you bought cheapest. It doesn't matter much, just don't buy 25 sheet packs!

 

[Nick Zentena]

With aging different batches etc is there any reason to believe 8x10 and 16x20 paper are going to react the same?

 

[vdonovan]

It's a good point. Is there any reason to believe they are going to react differently? We assume that film has similar response from batch to batch, why not paper? I've never compared batches of paper. It wouldn't surprise me if they were different. It also wouldn't surprise me if the differences were so small that most people wouldn't notice.

 

[argus]

I always cut test strips from the same pack as I'm printing on.

Humidity and temperature have great impact on aging of paper.

G

 

[Jerry Basierbe]

I always cut test strips from the same pack as I'm printing on.

G

Same here.

Jerry

 

[pentaxuser]

Paper pricing can be a strange thing. Sometimes, most often nearly all the time, it is cheaper to buy a 100 sheet box of 8x10 than 2 100 sheet boxes of 5x7 with the further benefit of getting 5x7.5 to match a 35mm neg.

On occasions a 50 box of 16x20 is cheaper than 2 x 100 sheet box of 8x10. Of course you have to have the means of cutting the sheets. It's only an extension of the argument that says buying big rolls is the cheapest method of all. The downside is cutting. If you were a big user and in printing for the long term then a cutting machine, black bags and boxes would almost certainly pay for themselves.

pentaxuser

 

[roy]

Surely, the only accurate way is to use the paper you are going to use for the final result.

 

[stillsilver]

Cutting test strips from the same box of paper you are using should be cheaper than making a test strip from a small box and having the results differ from the large box. The cost per square inch should only be used for comparison shopping. Just my opinion.

Mike

 

[walter23]

I've never had a problem using strips cut from smaller versions of the same type of paper I'm printing on.

If I ever do, then I'll switch, until that point the cheaper method rules No problems at all yet.

It's more than just economy. If I have only a small number of 16x20 sheets, I don't want to waste one by chopping it up. If I ever do waste one because of mismatch, I'll probably still be ahead over the long run.

 

[Mike Crawford]

I suppose with a paper such as Ilford Multigrade you could use a different batch in a smaller size and get a good proximation with a test strip. Their quality control is excellent, so different batches are usually close. However, with with a paper like Forte Polywarmtone, it would be impossible. As wonderful as the paper was, batches drifted all over the place. I've been to the Ilford factory and marvelled at their computer controlled chemical plant and have also met one of the Forte emulsion experts who demonstrated, (with the help of almost a mime performance), their more 'hands on' approach to chemical mixing. I believe measuring jugs and not computers were involved. This explains the paper's beautiful individuality. However, my main worry is why use skimpy little bits of paper to judge a larger 16x20 print. The idea of a test strip is to find out about the tonality and contrast of a whole image. Placing a little bit of paper, ripped from a 10x8 sheet on a far larger image will say very little about the bigger picture. Chances are that another test will have to be made, so instead, why not use half or a third of a sheet of the paper size being used and learn more about the image.
All the best
Mike

 

[BWKate]

I don't cut my test strips at all. I use a full sheet of whatever size I'm printing and judge from that. Reasons for that is one, if you use the same paper it's more accurate and second when I use a full sheet I find it doesn't take long to fully judge the entire print's base time. You can also get a better sense of where you might want to burn and dodge or use more than one MG filter.

 

[Jose A Martinez]

I don't cut my test strips at all. I use a full sheet of whatever size I'm printing and judge from that. Reasons for that is one, if you use the same paper it's more accurate and second when I use a full sheet I find it doesn't take long to fully judge the entire print's base time. You can also get a better sense of where you might want to burn and dodge or use more than one MG filter.

I don't cut eather, and for the same reasons. Only when I print 20 x 24 sheets me duele el codo, then I cut in half in the direction that gives me more info.

 

[dancqu]

I don't cut my test strips at all. I use a full sheet of
whatever size I'm printing and judge from that.

I also. I 'test strip' full frame 2 up on 5x7 then take
a look at 1 up on 5x7. An Ilford EM-10 enlarging
meter makes easy same exposures when print
size changes. For under $30 a big help. Dan

 

[fschifano]

You can't cut test strips from one batch of paper and expect identical results from a different batch. Papers of the same brand can vary from batch to batch, despite the best efforts of the engineers and workers. Testing on one brand and printing on another is an almost ironclad guarantee that you won't even be close in your estimations.

 

[msage]

I agree, full sheets smaller than 16x20. Test strips don't show enough info.
Michael

I don't cut my test strips at all. I use a full sheet of whatever size I'm printing and judge from that. Reasons for that is one, if you use the same paper it's more accurate and second when I use a full sheet I find it doesn't take long to fully judge the entire print's base time. You can also get a better sense of where you might want to burn and dodge or use more than one MG filter.

 

[dancqu]

I also. I 'test strip' full frame 2 up on 5x7 then take
a look at 1 up on 5x7. An Ilford EM-10 enlarging
meter makes easy same exposures when print
size changes. For under $30 a big help. Dan

Haven't got one yet but Darkroom Automation's
Precision Enlarging Meter for under $100 looks
good. It also serves as a Densitometer. Full
frame the way to go; lots of info. Dan

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

I'm not sure about the "use whatever paper you bought the cheapest" way of thinking.

I mean, once you've bought it and it's in your hand, there is no "cheapest"!

Here's what I mean, If I run out of paper, run down to the local and pick up 25 of kentmere VC RC for $19.00 (the actual price) and then my order of 250 kentmere VC RC comes in that I got at the spring promo sale for 65.99 (made up), how much did I pay per sheet?

Answer? Well, technically I paid almost a dollar a sheet for the first 25 and then about a quarter a sheet for the next 250.

Or, you could say I paid about 31 cents a sheet for the 275 right?

I guess, but as a professional I could also ask myself how many final prints I get v.s. how many total sheets of paper I purchase, and that will give me a cost per product. Of course, there is the time required to sell those prints, and of course the opportunity costs incurred in having that much money tied up in product that sits on the shelf instead of multiplying in investments.

But I'm an amateur and I think the best way to think of it is just to look at my credit card statement at the end of the year, and divide that by the hours of joy I received from photography. Being a business major we learn to look at costs-benefit, opportunity costs, sunk costs, gross and net profit, etc..etc...

Sometimes though, I think the best advice can come from the bible, and I'm not even christian. I think it says somewhere in the old testament, "let not the right hand know what the left hand is doing".

P.S. (as long as I'm still being reasonable and responsible of course. I don't want to incur serious pain in my future because of my hobby)