This definitely sounds like a good winter project! And here I thought PS was tough to master. This also sounds quite fun and more satisfying.
Lots of good advice so far. Sounds like I will need to invest in some 5x7 and 8x10 paper of choice and start developing some experience along with reading and watching. Tnere is a place nearby where one can take a class on this as well I believe.
*Cut up a sheet of B&W print paper to be used as test strips.
*Load negative into enlarger, set print size, focus, stop the lens down to exposure aperture.
*Choose the most difficult to print area of the image for the test strip to be made.
*Cover the test strip with a sheet, exposing each segment of the test strip for 5 seconds for a total exposure of 60 seconds (more often than not, 40 seconds is enough).
*Test strip into Dektol for two minutes, no less as this will results in black density problems.
*Stop, fix. wash.
*Dry the test strip to check for dry down of the specific paper to be used.
*Adjust exposure, lens aperture as needed to achieve about 30 second exposure.
*Repeat with full sheet of paper to evaluate print.
*Consider what areas will need to be dodges-burned to get the print acceptable.
*Repeat until the print is acceptable enough.
*Expect to waste significant amounts of paper, time, and more to achieve an acceptable print.
*The enlarge, light source, film flatness and all related to the hardware of printing must be absolutely stable during this process or there will be much struggle, frustration and more trying to deal with film flatness, light source stability, enlarger stability and more. There is NO substitute for a high quality enlarger, film holder, easel, and ... to achieve GOOD prints.
If printing paper runs out during this process, do not expect the next box of print paper to be identical, they can vary in many ways.
Bernice
Randy: I have always made my test strips from the same paper I'm printing on, usually using half of an 11x14 sheet of FB. You comment intrigues me, since I also have a big box of 8x10 RC. I know I can test this myself, but do you find that your RC test "sections" expose the same as the final FB? If I get the correct exposure and contrast on the RC will it transfer directly to the FB?Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Steve: As I just mentioned, like almost everyone, I start with a test strip, in my case I use 3-second increments. I use a half-sheet for the test strip, because you get more from a test strip than just the base exposure. For example, if your strip is positioned to get some ground and some sky in a typical landscape or architectural image, you may see that the exposure you like best for the ground is not the best exposure for the sky. But you have learned how much to burn or dodge from the exposure you choose as your base to the exposure you like for the other area (because in my case I count how many 3-sec intervals the two are apart). After this my approach is very similar to Doremus's, the test strip gives me a base exposure, the next step is a full sheet at the base exposure with no manipulation (marked "straight print" in pencil on the back), the next print gets whatever dodging and burning seems obvious from the straight print, and after that as many iterations as necessary to refine the manipulations until I have a final 11x14 FB print I'm pleased with. Usually by the 4th full size print I'm either there, or very close. I write all my manipulations on the back of each print in pencil so that I remember what I did, and I can track the improvements from print to print.
Now 5 11x14 (or a few more) FB sheets isn't cheap, but I'm only printing the images I really like, which is nowhere near all the 4x5 film I expose. I usually proof my negatives digitally by scanning and printing PrintFile sheets holding 4 4x5 negatives; from those proof sheets I often re-scan the few negatives that interest me and print those on my desk-jet, just to see what they look like as 8x10s. From those, the really interesting ones (negatives) go down to the darkroom for real work. All my digital proofing is not even photo-grade, just a scan and an ordinary multi-purpose printer.
As Bernice just wrote paper varies. RC vs FB and batch.
When I get a good final print I now always make 3 and soon 5 exact copies.
I save ‘good ones’ as backup.
I vastly prefer wet printing to Inkjet. Cheaper!
Tin Can
In general, the answer is an emphatic NO.
It's not primarily a matter of minor differences in ISO speed; one could easily adjust for that.
The Ilford line, which is what I know best, is a terrific example of how branding creates "false friends", to borrow a term from language studies. You might think that Ilford Multigrade IV RC Deluxe is the "RC version of" MG FB Classic, and similarly with the Ilford Warmtone and Cooltone RC/FB pairs. But in each case, the RC and FB versions have substantially different characteristic curves (tonal scales). If you tune for the FB or the RC version, in general you'll have to start again if you want to move to the other.
If you're primarily an FB printer, it can make sense to use a less expensive RC paper sometimes if you're just trying to do a lot of quick-and-dirty work printing to get a feel for which negatives are worth more effort. But in general, it will only be by sheer luck that an exposure and contrast tuned for an RC paper will transfer directly to an FB paper.
Suggest starting to print with 8x10 and no smaller as smaller is difficult to dodge-burn. Unless the negative is ideal in every way for a full no alterations print, 5x7 is OK.
For 5x7, likely better to make contact print that can be burned-dodged as needed. The resulting images are often large enough and can be excellent in many ways. For contact prints, 8x10 is better still.
My fave print size is 10x14 (cut down 11x14) from a 5x7 negative. Once up to 16x20, the wet prints can be difficult to handle and easy to wrinkle-krinkle-damage while wet.
16x20 prints require significantly more darkroom area than 11x14. Upping to 20x24, it becomes even more "interesting".
Keep in mind there is washing and drying involved and "events" can happen while washing-drying. If toning is to be done, more stuff can happen to a print. Each step of the way, bad things can happen to a print.
And... the dried print can look quite different than the test print specially when wet.
Use proper lighting to evaluate a test strip, test print and dry print. In the past, this was done using a small halogen spot light in a area similar to actual viewing conditions. Type of lighting and viewing area lighting can alter the appearance of a print in surprising ways.
Bernice
Been there tried this decades ago. Never able to make a RC print transfer to FB.. they are just that different.
If variable contrast paper (filters or adjust the color head) is being used, that is another serious variable to consider.
Bernice
I agree that test strips (and test prints) are not a waste of paper, but are important tools. Placement of the test strip is also important...as is eventually learning how to read them and pull as much info out of them as one can.
It has been years since I printed silver regularly -- made a few last week and made strips for all of them (11x14 contact prints). When printing 16x20 from 4x5, I'd use a third of a sheet of 16x20 for the test strip. From that I'd check the contrast and pick a time for the full sheet test print. The test print told me how to fine-tune the exposure and my burning/dodging info.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
If two papers have a different toe and shoulder then there is no easy way to obtain a perfect match,
if we nail the equivalent exposure and the equivalent grade we may have the same mids, but the way highlights and shadows are depicted (compressed) will depend on the shoulder/toe lengths of the paper.
It's not that difficult to make a paper calibration (for each grade), then when we pick an exposure and a grade we can predict the density we will obtain for each spot in the image by simply mesuring the LUX we have on that spot. Also for that spot we know if it's in the shouder or in the toe, and from the gradient we know how compressed is the scale there. Well, we usually develop paper to completion, so graphs tell the truth.
Because the curves change a bit with exposure time (LIRF on the paper) I found useful to use always same exposure time and adjusting illumination.
Of course a complex print will need way more than the graphs, we have to see the real print... but using graphs will speed up the process and will minimize wasted paper. If a print requires a complex split grade we can waste entire boxes of paper until we approach to a sound result, at least me, so IMHO having practice with a lux meter is nice.
I know a retired color printer that had worked in the weddings business...
He told me that any BW printer would learn a lot from color printing. With color there is no room for a loose method, because feedback is way more time consuming, so one has to rely less in the feedback an more in the visualizatopn and in the accurate prediction.
For example he told me that he was always nailing the hue and the density that he wanted in the girl's cheek, of course this is straight if having the right tools.
IMHO the BTZS book is a treasure for wet printing !
I used to have an enlarging analyzer/meter beseler pm2a and if I put a diffuser under the lens in the red-light tray of my Omega enlarger, it would give an average reading based exposure for the photo. Worked fine for average scenes, but photos with many dark tones or hi-key would not meter well with that. I've done enough printing now, that I don't need to bother with it to get close.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks