How do you know exposure time for paper when making print

[Steven Ruttenberg]

From negative? Like base exposure without wasting paper? I assume it will be different for each nevative and f-stop of enlarging lens. I have not done this beforedoes an exposure table come with paper when you buy it?

[jp]

If you have a consistent batch of negatives, it will be fairly close, but you will still end up wasting some scraps of paper fine tuning or doing test strips. Things will dry down somewhat darker than they look in the tray too. There are a few different ways of making test strips; visit youtube or read an old photo instruction book. Use smaller pieces of paper for test strips and you really won't be wasting much. Enlarger lens aperture is predicable with doubling or halfing the exposure.

You can gain a ton of experience with this making contact print proof sheets of your negatives to get a feel for the paper and process. I'd recommend starting there.

And when you make good test on a piece of scrap, fix/wash/save it and they make stunning bookmarks. I feel like my book marks of scrap paper with photos get more viewing than most of my prints.

[esearing]

There are exposure analyzers/meters for under the enlarger that get you in the ball park. The RHDesigns model even plots your measured points on a grey scale. I can usually get close in one test sheet because it even has a test strip mode. Fine tuning with that system is a little harder for me since my head uses partial blue and green light for the entire exposure.

Experience is still key because every image is different.

[drewf64]

JP:
Love your use of "good" test strips as bookmarks !!!
Drewf64



If you have a consistent batch of negatives, it will be fairly close, but you will still end up wasting some scraps of paper fine tuning or doing test strips. Things will dry down somewhat darker than they look in the tray too. There are a few different ways of making test strips; visit youtube or read an old photo instruction book. Use smaller pieces of paper for test strips and you really won't be wasting much. Enlarger lens aperture is predicable with doubling or halfing the exposure.

You can gain a ton of experience with this making contact print proof sheets of your negatives to get a feel for the paper and process. I'd recommend starting there.

And when you make good test on a piece of scrap, fix/wash/save it and they make stunning bookmarks. I feel like my book marks of scrap paper with photos get more viewing than most of my prints.

[Tin Can]

Yes, test strips and test corners.

I do a lot of testing with RC not FB. Way quicker wash and dry down.

250 sheet boxes of 5X7 for economy and larger sizes for final.

The 5X7 can be placed in 4 corners and center to check exposure, contrast and sharpness/focus.

I keep a lined trash can by the sink for quick disposal of tests.

[Jim Jones]

I agree with easering (post 4). Intelligent use of inexpensive enlarging meter is a quick way to get close to the right exposure, often close enough to permit fine=tuning the print in the developer. Enlarging meters vary widely in precision and convenience. My last one was an Ilford EM-10. It was faster and more convenient than test strips. I had to establish my own procedure for using it, though. It relies on varying enlarging lens aperture for adjusting exposure, while I prefer to use a lens at optimum aperture and vary exposure time.

If you compare the difference between the density of the film rebate and image areas of each negative, it will help you to guess at the proper exposure. However, this does take practice. I eventually could get the right exposure most of the time without metering.

When making two 5x7 prints from a sheet of 8x10 paper, those 1x5 strips of scrap paper do make good test strips.

[Ted R]

As you are probably aware there are multiple variables:

negative density
negative contrast
paper speed
print size
enlarger lens aperture

I have two pieces of advice:

1) this stuff can take a lot of time to get comfortable with you will have many questions, get a good reference book on black and white printing

2) start simple by making test strips, they respond to all the variables listed above, purchase of an enlarger exposure meter does not eliminate the need for test prints

PS developing paper is not like developing film. Film can produce a continuous range of contrasts by adjustment of the development conditions, chiefly time. Paper on the other hand has fixed contrast and is developed to completion, that is, the development time recommended by the manufacturer produces full development and the time should not, at least while you are learning, be manipulated in attempt to adjust tone or contrast, those are adjusted by exposure adjustments.

[neil poulsen]

experience? test strips+test prints?
i don't think there really is any other way.

Ditto. There are so many variables involved. And in addition to exposure, there's also print contrast on which to decide. Mostly, I manage contrast with development time. But even still, I find that I typically need to add some contrast to "normal" contrast. (No magenta or yellow added to filtration for VC paper.)

[Doremus Scudder]

Test strips, test prints and more test strips, test prints and work prints. Don't try to save money on paper; it's counterproductive and will end up costing you more in the long run.

I choose a target contrast grade for a negative from my proof and make a test strip in 20% intervals to find a base exposure for the highlights. Then I make a straight test print. I evaluate this and adjust contrast grade if needed (new test strip, new test print) while planning dodging, burning, masking, bleaching. Print no. 3 is usually a work print with manipulation in the correct contrast grade or very close. Then it's small adjustments and evaluation and making more work prints till I get one that sings. Then I'll make a couple more.

If you're just beginning with a particular paper, you might have to make two initial test strips to find the best exposure range for further test strips. Keep notes and you'll get to know your materials more quickly.

Some say they can just look at a negative and (somehow magically) know what exposure to use for a good print. In more than 35 years in the darkroom, I've never acquired that skill... I've never seen an exhibition print that was a first-print-without-test-strips-etc. either...

Best,

Doremus

[Oren Grad]

When I print regularly with a given paper, developer and type of negative I pretty quickly get to the point where I can eyeball the negative and expect to be in the ballpark on the first test exposure - i.e., my test strips are where they need to be. There's no way to avoid trial and error after that for arriving at the final rendering, though.

In principle an enlarging meter can help, though you can expect to spend some paper up front figuring out what it's telling you and how to use that to print more efficiently. Systems for using enlarging meters to assess particular densities in the negative, once calibrated, can give you repeatable results in placing particular tones in the print. But identical placement in the print of particular densities from your negatives won't always produce the best-looking print. And without a good intuitive understanding of how your paper's characteristic curve maps a negative's density range into the tonal scale of the print, you won't know how to get from the meter-directed first print to where you want to be.

The bottom line: printing a lot is your best teacher.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

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.

[Bernice Loui]

*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

[Peter Lewin]

I do a lot of testing with RC not FB. Way quicker wash and dry down.
The 5X7 can be placed in 4 corners and center to check exposure, contrast and sharpness/focus.
I keep a lined trash can by the sink for quick disposal of tests.
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?

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.

[Tin Can]

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!

[Oren Grad]

If I get the correct exposure and contrast on the RC will it transfer directly to the FB?

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.

[Bernice Loui]

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






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.

[Bernice Loui]

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




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.

[Vaughn]

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.

[Pere Casals]

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 !

[jp]

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.

[Bernice Loui]

Papers have different curves and they vary batch to batch, box to box, with time-aging, developer vaviations and a host of many, many other factors.

Best way is to do test at the time when prints are made and used the same stack of print paper for print and test.

C print color is not that difficult, exposure, color correction and that is mostly it.

Ciba color prints are a different matter, this is not any where as easy to make a GOOD print compared to C print color.

GOOD B&W prints are difficult to make due to the demands of expressive artistic expression and the degree of control required (This included dodging and burning to levels never possible in color prints) to achieve tonal scale, micro-contrast, deep blacks, whites with texture and all that GOOD stuff.

While one can be quite sloppy making B&W prints and these prints are quite forgiving in many ways, once the clamps of artistic expression is applied tight as possible, these B&W prints are extremely demanding on the technical aspects as well as artistic-creative abilities.


Been there done this,
Bernice




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.

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.

[esearing]

Papers have different curves and they vary batch to batch, box to box, with time-aging, developer vaviations and a host of many, many other factors.
Bernice

I used to keep developing times and notes for each print, but as stated by Bernice the differences from one batch to another can be noticeable. Also my mood and likes can change from batch to batch. Sometimes I like a really dark cold print, other times I favor warm and more open.

Bob Carnie had a suggestion on another post to make 300 prints in a short period of time for as many different content images . You quickly will learn rough exposure, contrast, and when dodging or burning is needed. I have not tried the full 300 but did do a few sessions back to back where I began to see what he was inferring.

[Corran]

The bottom line: printing a lot is your best teacher.

+1

This was the hardest lesson I had to learn, and accept.

[LabRat]

As some of the basic basics, here are the starting points...

The better the negative, the better the print... If you expose and develop the neg well, it will be much easier to print, in fact can be quite easy... Yes there are many things in the "chain" that need to be at a normal, if you get them where they should be, you won't be fighting something later...

As for the print, you will learn to expose and develop a print so the darkest areas will just touch max black when print is processed and dried... Your test strip will give you an idea of that black, but will change when dried, but you learn soon what about that will be...

Your test strip should also cross an area that has the brightest highlight, as you want to compare these two extremes... With a good negative, both of these ranges will be on the paper balanced...

If these do not balance, you have some correction with MG papers and filters, or your colorhead, but as said before, a good negative will not need it...

A good thing right now to study is how to make a standard negative, and find your standard printing time... There many texts that will describe how to calibrate your process... This is well worth the effort, and bring confidence and $$$ savings, and nice work!!!

Good luck, and happy learning!!!

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Oren Grad _
The bottom line: printing a lot is your best teacher.

Similar to learning how to play a musical instrument or artistic skill that requires sensory (in this case visual) acuity, intellectual involvement, muscle memory and ...

It take an enormous amount of practice, dedication, passion and more to acquire GOOD printing skills.


Suggest starting with a box of 8x10, 100 sheets of variable contrast RC paper. Keep the print contrast grade between 2 or 3, any less or more means there is a struggle to get the negative to produce a decent print. Do not be afraid to wast lots of paper when beginning, and accept the difficulties of print making first time. Do not give up, be persistent in making prints, time and time again until you're OK enough with the dried print.

What often comes out of this is the understanding making a GOOD negative solves a host of printing difficulties and problems. This is the often unspoken and most difficult challenge of producing an expressive B&W image. This is a most important part of the B&W image making process as it can provide enormous feed back as to how negatives needs to be made and how lens, film, exposure, developer and all prior to making the print might need to be altered to achieve the intended-desiered results.

One more and most important item, learn what a really GOOD B&W print looks like by going to a museum - art gallery or similar that has known excellent examples of B&W prints. It is extremely important to know what an excellent B&W print looks like and the viewing conditions related to viewing these prints. Without learning B&W print excellence is, producing GOOD prints will be a problem. This does not mean copying-replicating these B&W prints, the point is to get some idea and experience of what a really excellent print is. It is much about understanding what makes a excellent print or a print that is OK or awful.


Bernice

[Pere Casals]

C print color is not that difficult, exposure, color correction and that is mostly it.


Bernice, my view it's that the difference BW vs C is that color prints are not considered as collectible as BW, with some exceptions (ciba, some alternative, some C...), because of long term permanence.

An optical color print may have the same complexity for the desnsities that a BW print, and then add the color management. In fact digitalization solved all that in commercial area.

But I was speaking about another thing, let me explain it, developing a test strip for a C print it takes a lot of effort/time compared to BW, so in the past a Pro C printer had to rely more in readings than in test strips, and he had to train better his visualization skills to guess the result from the light readings.

I don't say that testing strips or metering light is the good method, just I found that we often overlook how useful is metering on the easel to push forward our printing process.

A test strip has a problem... the band where we feel we have the right exposure may not include highlights or shadows, so we need an iterative testing.

With VC paper a way is making a test strip for highlights to find the base exposure and then finding the grade that places shadows where we want...

But spot metering highlights, shadows and some key spot in the mids will allow us to directly pick a grade and an exposure base for the job, of course a very complex work may follow to locally control the print, or to adjust the result.

It's also true that an experienced photographer makes the process straight, because he may start printing before shutter release. For example he may compress the shadows (mostly) in the way he wants in the film toe (Yousuf Karsh !), leaving mids and highlights for the darkroom... (usually this is not the T-Max linear capture way, Sexton !).

The beauty of all that is that it may be seen as an integral process...

Anyway, to me, nowadays what rocks a lot is the Ross way... in fact it's what overcomes the Ps+inkjet competition, for those having a doubt about control capability in the optic arena.

[Fred L]

There's going to be no way around test strips and test prints before getting to a final print. How much paper used is the variable and depends on your workflow. I'd suggest a darkroom/printing workshop if there's one around you. Nothing beats this imo, no matter how much wisdom the web provides. You're new to this, so starting off on the right footing will be well worth it.

also, I never used rc as a stand in for fb for exposure testing. It's close, but I don't want close.

[koraks]

In C41/RA4, your possibilities for controlling contrast are much reduced compared to b&w. This is also true for actions like burning/dodging due to the generally shorter exposures when printing, although there certainly is the possibility for some of it. Sure there are parallels between the processes, but I personally, printing both RA4 and b&w, wouldn't say that there's all that much to learn specifically in RA4 that carries over to b&w. They really are different beasts, each with their own specifics and pros & cons.

[Bernice Loui]

C41/RA4 is much about proper exposure, color balance (which should be evaluated by color cast in white and black areas) and not a lot more.
There has been a deep dislike for C prints that has developed over the decades for a host of reasons.

B&W silver gelatin prints is much about contrast, contrast gradation and all that related stuff. Very different image in many, many ways.


Bernice

[bob carnie]

I never do test strips but rather a full sheet low contrast to establish density, I then add in a #5 hit on top of what I think is the correct low filter exposure.

Like MAS I do OUTFLANK ( big adjustments and then come back) rather than CREEPING which is small adjustments trying to reach a density and contrast.

My first print takes me longer as expected , but from the initial negative I then move to similar looking negatives and am able to get decent first test prints. I think it takes me about 7-9 sheets to get where I want to be with two or three of them very acceptable prints.

I also will make lighter and darker prints to view as backups to what I think is correct, sometimes the lighter prints look better next day under gallery lighting or sometimes the darker prints.

[Tin Can]

Bob I’m going to try your method.

In a another field we call that ‘Loop Tuning’.

Thanks for sharing.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Soon, I will try. At the moment, I am glad the enlarger turns on and doesn't make funny noises. Yes, we have a place close by that offers classes on making prints I believe. Art Intersection, in Gilbert, AZ/

[bob carnie]

Soon, I will try. At the moment, I am glad the enlarger turns on and doesn't make funny noises. Yes, we have a place close by that offers classes on making prints I believe. Art Intersection, in Gilbert, AZ/

This would be worth it to go in and have someone show you the basics, rather than try to muddle your way in the first stages of your printing career. There is nothing better than good teachers, I had a few and I forever am thankful to them.
Don Dunsmore, John Kippen, Slobodan Filipovich, Leo Scirino, Iggy Broks to name a few.

[aaronnate]

What bob said. It is possible to get book/internet learning but without hands on training you are going to make mistakes. Take a community college course. That is what I did and it was great.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Agreed. I am looking at some different possibilities in the way of printing. Maybe I can apprentice. I am old, but always ready to and eager to learn.

[Pere Casals]

different possibilities in the way of printing.

Of course nothing substitutes real darkroom practice, but something that helped me a lot was prototyping with Photoshop.

Specially at the beginning, adjusting the print in Photoshop will show what aesthetic alternatives we have, and we'll easily find our sweet point for the look. Then obtaining the same in the darkroom can be a real challenge, well, it can be really frustating not achieving what we can in Ps... but that exercise (IMHO) should force us to excel in the darkroom, and finally allowing even a better result for the integral optic way.

[jnantz]

OP sorry for my seeminglysnarky comment before ..
what i meant to say, nicely, was that through experience
with materials you might have a easier time with paper exposure.
not sure any other way to gain exposure numbers except through test strips ...
some folks like small test strips but IDK its hard to get an idea with a small test strip
.. paper is cheap

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Ifs all good. I didn't find your comment or any others snarky, etc. I amearning this new way of making prints and I find it fascinating the endless possibilities. All comments and suggestions are welcomed!

[Chuck Pere]

I use a homemade test strip maker that lets me push the paper(usually 4x10) under a slot open to the enlarger. So I can view all at once a part of the print at several different exposures. I normally use a highlight and try to get a shadow area also to get some feel for contrast. Yet another way to get to the exposure time. Hardest thing for me is looking at the print done with several different contrasts and exposures and picking the one I like. Takes time with some things.

[Tin Can]

I have a Durst test strip 'maker'.

It has interlocking flip up panels.

I have yet to use it...

[Luis-F-S]

Called a test strip, and yes it wastes paper. Or you can buy an RH timer with the density probe, but it costs more than the test strips and will still waste paper.


Yes, we have a place close by that offers classes on making prints I believe. Art Intersection, in Gilbert, AZ/

That should be money and time well spent. L

[Mamu]

Papers have different curves and they vary batch to batch, box to box, with time-aging, developer vaviations and a host of many, many other factors.

Best way is to do test at the time when prints are made and used the same stack of print paper for print and test.

C print color is not that difficult, exposure, color correction and that is mostly it.

Ciba color prints are a different matter, this is not any where as easy to make a GOOD print compared to C print color.

GOOD B&W prints are difficult to make due to the demands of expressive artistic expression and the degree of control required (This included dodging and burning to levels never possible in color prints) to achieve tonal scale, micro-contrast, deep blacks, whites with texture and all that GOOD stuff.

While one can be quite sloppy making B&W prints and these prints are quite forgiving in many ways, once the clamps of artistic expression is applied tight as possible, these B&W prints are extremely demanding on the technical aspects as well as artistic-creative abilities.


Been there done this,
Bernice

Getting "acceptable" results with color is easier because the careful burning and dodging and contrast masking required for contrast control require a serious commitment of time and materials to learn. It can be every bit as challenging as black and white. I printed custom color orders for a large camera store and I never even learned the contrast masking techniques master printers of cibachrome and dye-transfer use. Making custom c-prints, I found myself doing even more, though very subtle burning and dodging. You can't get away with as much. Even the lower contrast papers are very high contrast compared to modern color imaging or black and white. Picking up color printing if you are above the novice black and white printing level might seem easy depending on how well you see color, but both black and white and color printing (even specific processes within each) offer a lifetime of challenge to get the best we can do. IMOH too often quality comes down to what a customer is willing to pay for and not holding ourselves to the perfectionism to which the master photographers of the past held themselves. You do have to do your on printing to have real control as they did. I recommend black and white not because offers more artistic expression on a technical level, but because color chemistry will give you cancer. Mastering it can cost you your life. Color isn't easier, it's just that most people never even knew the possibilities. People shot transparencies thinking they had final artistic control and then gave an internegative to a printer who was behind the actual creation of the print...and that was an artistic craft all its own.

[Pere Casals]

Even the lower contrast papers are very high contrast compared to modern color imaging or black and white.

It looks to me that today's RA-4 papers are very oriented to digital processing (laser exposed). With digital process a paper with "high saturation" look can do all, as saturation can be easily lowered in the digital image.

In fact the industry started punishing optical color printers long ago. When digital minilabs started ruling in the market then films changed. Negative color films were re-engineered (in general) to have larger clouds in order to allow an easier scanning, followed by a digital sharpening.

[interneg]

Colour neg papers are the least contrasty of colour print materials, but are still pretty seriously contrasty compared to any BW materials. I recall someone (Ctein?) commenting that they started at at least 3.5 (in BW terms) & went upwards by a grade or so from there. Saturation is adjustable by pre/ post flashes, really a question of getting their colour balances correct. Getting rid of saturation is rather easier than adding it with chromogenic materials!

The big change in CN films happened with the introduction of Portra in the late 90's & was not to do with scanning (I think grain related & the apparent density of the neg, but can't remember) - after all there were NC, VC, UC & T variants of Portra, which does not suggest a film intended for digital post-production only. The current variants largely reflect what were the most popular of those options at the speeds in question.

The biggest changes for scanning have really only been in the supercoat. Because of the way most minilab scanners work (pixel shift & stitch), they may inherently produce less noise than some high end scanners where the effective aperture cannot be adjusted. Over aggressive use of the USM by the operator/ software is a different matter...

But this is rather beside the point. Printing at a competent level is not an engineering problem to be solved by technology, rather it is about understanding just enough of the applied science to be able to make the art you want to make. It's the difference between being able to play a musical instrument at a technical level & playing it expressively/ creatively & that's the point at which nothing substitutes for a few hundred sheets of paper. Most people discover fairly quickly that 'correct' prints aren't as pleasing as those that have been manipulated to something closer to what they imagined they'd seen. And at the end of the day that was the point of the zone system & its derivatives - not to necessarily represent 'reality' but to enable the photographer to distort that reality via exposure & process of the negative so that it would deliver that intention on a specific grade of paper. And personal preference will further inform your printing approach - for example, I might set 80-100M on a DeVere head to put the shadows where I want them, even if the negative might be more 'correct' for G3 & selectively post-flash the highlights with white light as I find it can be more convincing than a 00 burn.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This will be a fun journey. The more film I do, the more I find I am not as good at image making as my mind told me I was with digital and printing digital. While I have produced good results, I find the film is not forgiving. You take your shots, do everything right or so you think, get home, develop and come to find out you toasted the highlights, wasted the shadows, your composition was what you thought it would be, and so on. And since you only have 1 or 2 images of a scene, if one of those are not correct (as far as being usable) then your done. With digital, you might end up with 10-20 or more of a scene and by virtue of statistics you will get at least one usable image. That isn't art or learning the craft, that is just dumb luck. So, with film, I am being more disappointed in learning I am not as good as I thought I was. But I will get there thru practice and doing.

That is the same for printing. I suspect I will suck at first, get better, suck again, but thru practice and patience, I will arrive at where I want to be.

[Pere Casals]

(I think grain related & the apparent density of the neg, but can't remember)

interneg, if the color clouds of the different layers are not overlaping this ends in noise when scanning at high resolution, the popularization of digital minilabs led to larger clouds in CN films.

The PORTRA 160 datasheet says "Film features a significantly finer grain structure for improved scanning and enlargement capability in today's workflow"

Well, first is that CN films have clouds and no grain... second is that manufacturers never want to say "larger color clouds"

[Mamu]

Lots of good advice above. If you use two test strips and make one working print to get a satisfactory print, you've done a good job using materials with minimum waste. You can get good enough to get within less than 1 stop by eye and still wind up wasting whole sheets on close but not quite perfect prints if you try to bypass test strips.

My basic procedure is as follows:

Once I've got the image focused with lens wide open, I stop it all the way down and then open up till I can just make out the image (usually about 2 stops). Try to put your strip in a spot where you have both shadow and highlight detail all the way across the strip. Hold a piece of cardboard to cover up 2/3 of the strip and set timer for 20". Hitting as close as you can to the time, move your cover over when you hit 10" and then reveal entire strip at 5". This should give you 3 bands each one full stop apart. Even if you have to use up a couple more strips, adjust your time and/or aperture until you get a strip with one band too dark, one about right and one too lite. There are lots of methods people use. This is just a basic outline of what works for me. Good luck!

[Mamu]

interneg, if the color clouds of the different layers are not overlaping this ends in noise when scanning at high resolution, the popularization of digital minilabs led to larger clouds in CN films.

The PORTRA 160 datasheet says "Film features a significantly finer grain structure for improved scanning and enlargement capability in today's workflow"

Well, first is that CN films have clouds and no grain... second is that manufacturers never want to say "larger color clouds"

Actually, I believe that color films do have silver halide grains that are removed and replaced by dye clouds in the bleach/fix. You can see the effects of grain structure with the grain magnifier when focusing for making large prints. I think what the marketing guys were crowing about is just the engineered (T-grain) technology like T-Max as opposed to something like Tri-X.

[Pere Casals]

Actually, I believe that color films do have silver halide grains that are removed and replaced by dye clouds in the bleach/fix. You can see the effects of grain structure with the grain magnifier when focusing for making large prints. I think what the marketing guys were crowing about is just the engineered (T-grain) technology like T-Max as opposed to something like Tri-X.

A color negative film only has grains a few minutes while processed, the first developer converts some of the halide crystals to silvers grains, but the bleach removes those grains.

Probably marketing guys don't even understand what's a crystal, a grain or a color cloud. Here marketing guys say that scanning is easier, but they don't say that this is because of larger clouds.

Slide film like Velvia or Provia (also sporting a kind of tabular technology) have smaller clouds, so having better resolving power, but at the cost of being more difficult to scan at HighRes, that's easy to see with a powerful scanner like a Nikon LS 5000 or 9000, because of effects in the discretization.

[koraks]

I second Mamu's suggestion of making test strips with one stop intervals. It really helps if that first strip gets you within the ball park. After that, smaller increments are useful; I usually do a strip spanning 3 or 4 stops and then a strip with 2 second intervals. Sometimes the second strip isn't even necessary and the first gets me sufficiently close to take it from there. The multi-stop strip is also useful to approximate the time needed to burn or dodge areas.

[interneg]

interneg, if the color clouds of the different layers are not overlaping this ends in noise when scanning at high resolution, the popularization of digital minilabs led to larger clouds in CN films.

The PORTRA 160 datasheet says "Film features a significantly finer grain structure for improved scanning and enlargement capability in today's workflow"

Well, first is that CN films have clouds and no grain... second is that manufacturers never want to say "larger color clouds"

Very simply, the designers don't want to get larger dye clouds from finer grain. It would impact sharpness massively, in fact most of the things that are done in terms of specialised couplers etc are to ensure higher sharpness intra- & inter-layer from what are essentially oily clouds (couplers) forming around the grain. Scavengers, acutance dyes etc also play roles in this.
The couplers use a form of controlled starvation to ensure that as more silver forms (overexposure), there is not a major rise in dye formation or coarser 'granularity'.
Aliasing etc is best combatted by smaller, more tightly packed grains - which is why modern C-41 films are harder to bleach & fix & need specific integrated components (in the case of the former) & a fix with thiocyanate etc for the latter.

[Cor]

Many roads to Rome..

What works for me is a F-stop timer (in my case a RH deign)

And the test strip printer (https://books.google.nl/books?id=tYmblNt3wG8C&pg=PA472&lpg=PA472&dq=lambrecht+test+printer&source=bl&ots=FVjvDG1bJi&sig=7jE1h3jAAhu6PFznBYM0aMVrAX4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjrzaCinqTeAhWH3KQKHVn4DAkQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=lambrecht%20test%20printer&f=false)from the Way beyond monochrome book of Lambrecht (great book !)

Good luck,

Cor

[Pere Casals]

Very simply, the designers don't want to get larger dye clouds from finer grain. It would impact sharpness massively, in fact most of the things that are done in terms of specialised couplers etc are to ensure higher sharpness intra- & inter-layer from what are essentially oily clouds (couplers) forming around the grain. Scavengers, acutance dyes etc also play roles in this.
The couplers use a form of controlled starvation to ensure that as more silver forms (overexposure), there is not a major rise in dye formation or coarser 'granularity'.
Aliasing etc is best combatted by smaller, more tightly packed grains - which is why modern C-41 films are harder to bleach & fix & need specific integrated components (in the case of the former) & a fix with thiocyanate etc for the latter.

Interneg, take a competent microscope and observe the developed film with it, at aprox. x600, and just compare Velvia/Provia with Fuji 160 (or Portra) clouds.

This will tell you why velvia is sharper than portra and why Portra scans better. Then, if you want, you can also observe a color negative pre-dating the digital minilab era, then you will have all information about that, and you will know what was changed in negative color films and why.

[interneg]

Interneg, take a competent microscope and observe the developed film with it, at aprox. x600, and just compare Velvia/Provia with Fuji 160 (or Portra) clouds.

This will tell you why velvia is sharper than portra and why Portra scans better. Then, if you want, you can also observe a color negative pre-dating the digital minilab era, then you will have all information about that, and you will know what was changed in negative color films and why.

This is not the case at all - as you'd be able to observe (for example) if you've scanned VPS III, the various generations of 160NC & VC & current 160 side by side on the same high end scanner with no in scanner sharpening. Or for that matter made optical chromogenic prints of reasonable size. Only significant changes for scanning related to the supercoat & retouching surfaces. VPS III has a print grain index equivalent to current Portra 400 according to the available data & my own experience would generally agree. The sharpness jump of the Portras is significant & it is clear that they are using much finer grain structures & tighter control of coupler cloud growth in exposure & processing. This should not be surprising given that films like TMY-II clearly display grain growth technology learnt from manufacturing C-41 films etc - indeed it would not be hugely surprising if the r,g,b sensitised layer groups each had a remarkable resemblance to the layers & grain shapes of TMY-II.

For that matter, a transparency made on a print film from a colour negative will outperform Velvia & other transparency films. Which is at least a large part of why professional filmmaking adopted a pos/neg process rather than pos/pos - and beyond that, it gets deeply mathematical. What a transparency looks like on a light table is not necessarily a good indication of how well (more accurately, how painful it'll be) to translate to a print or reproduction.

Finally, you might want to look much more carefully at how minilab scanners actually work to achieve their resolutions relative to aliasing - your suppositions are wrong, at least on the Fuji Frontier. Suffice to say, a low resolution sensor (1500ppi), pixel shifting & supersampling all seem to be working together 'under-the-hood' to balance resolution & aliasing long before the (often heavy-handed) sharpening options in the software.

Again, most of this is not complicated stuff at the end user point (and is arguably largely irrelevant if you have half an idea about the real-world behaviour of your materials), unless you believe you know more than the engineers who designed the films.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Wow, and here I tbought taking a picture was straight forward. Digital technology is rather simple compared to this and now my head hurts. :)

[Bernice Loui]

Most important relative to the recent posts on this topic. Unless the viewer has DECADES of experience with negative-positive color films and related prints coupled with as much experience with lens personalities, lighting and a LOT more, what metric does one use for a point reference?

Keep in mind there are numerous individual bias and more mixed into visual and emotional perception of images that will result in a variety of outcomes.


Bernice

[interneg]

Wow, and here I tbought taking a picture was straight forward. Digital technology is rather simple compared to this and now my head hurts. :)

Main thing is that to a large extent you don't need to understand too much of what's going on under the surface with analogue processes to make good prints - and in fact many of the claims & 'special procedures' and developers that have gained traction over the years have very little advantage (and often the opposite) over basic technique competently applied. It largely boils down to sufficient exposure & adequate processing. The rest is largely commentary.



Most important relative to the recent posts on this topic. Unless the viewer has DECADES of experience with negative-positive color films and related prints coupled with as much experience with lens personalities, lighting and a LOT more, what metric does one use for a point reference?

Keep in mind there are numerous individual bias and more mixed into visual and emotional perception of images that will result in a variety of outcomes.


Bernice

I'd essentially agree - and it gets deeply technical & far away from what can be observed with a basic microscope very, very fast, not least because of the number of optical, mechanical & chemical interactions that need to be controlled for. I go by what the finished print looks like - though it is somewhat reassuring to discover that there is a correlation between what you can observe in day-to-day printmaking work & the conclusions that the product researchers arrived at.

[Bernice Loui]

There is currently an entire group of image makers who have not had the real world experience of film and film based prints to projected or similar transmitted light images. Many have grown up with digital based, display screen based images which are inherently different than film based images. Once the point of reference has been set by either metrics, individuals can develop an emotional attachment to that metric which can bias their preferences. This is neither good or bad, it is one of the host of factors that must be considered when a point of reference is used.

One can go deep into the technical and theoretical aspects of image making, being technically and theoretically ideal is often simply not good enough to result in emotionally expressive images. To achieve this requires far more than the technical and theoretical aspects, there is a human and artistic aspect that can impart that special quality of emotionally expressive images.

And yes, if one were to make technical assessments of film image quality, use a high quality microscope with the proper lighting system.



Bernice

[Pere Casals]

This is neither good or bad, it is one of the host of factors that must be considered when a point of reference is used.

Of course. At the end it's about a cultural development, new artists will create with the resources what they have at hand, and this has been seen in how digital image edition has evolved.

But darkroom printing process has also an amazing cultural heritage that cannot be overlooked. Some times cultural evolution looks back to find what was lost.