The BTZS Paper Test, Do I compensate for Ilford filters?

[m00dawg]

Bought myself a 4x5 21-step tablet and re-read the chapter in BTZS for how to do the paper test. My initial goal was to see the effects of the grades by eye - I wasn't initially going to worry too much about graphing them. This was to get an idea of how Ilford Coldtone differs from neutral but I plan on testing ADOX paper next (once I have some).

Anyways, couple deviations I have to content with - I don't have the bellows extension for my D2 for my 150mm lens. I mostly print with my 135mm. Book indicates 150mm is best, but that would mean I'd have to print on 8x10. Instead I was thinking of using my 135mm for now which lets me print 1:1 (4x5) so I can save paper.

Second, I use Ilford filters. The book is a bit vague here. It says to get the correct exposure with no filters used. But then it says NOT to adjust the exposure when using filters. But I know filters 4 on up normally require double the exposure. Should I compensate for this?

Any other suggestions on carrying out this test?

[Larry Gebhardt]

I find it useful to contact print the straight 21 step tablets next to each other if I want a visual difference between films. Saves paper and seeing the shifts next to each other is easier than with the 4x5 tablet. The 4x5 is much easier to print and for film testing.

You should not need to adjust the times for the contrasty filters. The paper scale is less than the range of the step wedge. A grade -1 will use about 1.8 density range, grade 5 will be about .6 and the tablet covers 3.0. Seeing the shift between them all is informative. You will need to adjust your exposure so that both extremes work.

I trust the results from contact printing more than projection because of falloff from the lens and the light source (condensers and diffusion). If you have a meter that reads in 1/10ths of a stop or better it's informative to see how uneven things are by measuring on the baseboard. This will tell you if your 135mm lens is going to work. You can minimize falloff effects on the test by reading as close to the center of the target as possible when using the 4x5 target. Just remember that the falloff will be magnified (plus or minus) based on the contrast. So more effect on the higher grades.

If you don't have the bellows you can print on strips from 8x10 with just the central portion of your wedge. That will save paper.

Test both contact and projection to see the differences.

[m00dawg]

Ah good call on testing the fallout with a meter. I have a Sekonic 758 so I can see if it may be sensitive enough. I think I'd be fine with contact printing, I was just worried about the Callier Quotient. I have an Aristo Cold Light on my Omega D2 which is a diffusion head so that Quotient affects me less (with my D2 condensers it was pretty extreme) though not sure by how much.

Initially I just kinda wanted to have some tests to get an idea of what the filters are actually doing, optionally between papers. Should help me figure out base exposure times but also which papers are contrastier than others (or so was my thought).

I didn't quite follow this:


You should not need to adjust the times for the contrasty filters. The paper scale is less than the range of the step wedge. A grade -1 will use about 1.8 density range, grade 5 will be about .6 and the tablet covers 3.0. Seeing the shift between them all is informative. You will need to adjust your exposure so that both extremes work.

Basically you're saying I should NOT change the times from 00 to 5, but I SHOULD make sure the base exposure is enough to make sure I get useful results at 00 and 5? Perhaps it will become clear when I actually do the tests :) As a follow up though if I don't compensate for #4 and above, would I still compensate for them when printing? Ilford suggests if I'm say using a #2 filter but want to go to a #4 I need to double my exposure (either time or by opening the lens up 1 stop).

If I understand how the strip is supposed to work - that would mean the results would be shifted by 2 steps (since each step is 1/2 stop) from where I ran the tests if I didn't change the time?

[ic-racer]

Can you post a link to this "BTZS Paper Test" in question to know what is to be tested.

[Bill Burk]

You do adjust times when printing pictures of course. But do what Larry said for the tests.

Contacts are scientifically better, because if you enlarge, your test is only "valid" for that lens and enlarger. I personally will do an enlargement test to illustrate the flare, as a demonstration for my typical setup, but I only do one or two of those. The rest of the tests (the family of filters) I would do by contact.

When you make all the test contacts at the same exposure time, you can see how much more time you need for filter 4 and 5 because the white tone you want will be shifted from step to step. Just count steps and adjust your picture printing time a half stop for each step difference "between what you got and what you want".

[Pere Casals]

Multigrade filters 4, 4.5 and 5 require twice the exposure than filters from 00 to 3.5, see here page two https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf.

If you change the filter then light greys will remain the same, but as you increase the grade the shadows get darker and mids are more contrasty.

So a recommended procedure is to adjust first light grey of the print and then increasing the grade until the shadows are dark enough for you.

In this test all strips were exposed the same, 2 Lux during 20 seconds. The 2 lux were metered before placing the filters.

189582

From left you have the result with grades 0, 1, 2 and 3. You see that steps 12 are similar, but as grade increases the blacks are closer to that reference step 12.

Then it comes grades 4 and 5, if exposure had been doubled then the grey in the step 9 would had been in the step 11, like with the other filters. (Grade 5 is upside down)

At right you have an exposure with no filter, with 2 Lux going directly to the wedge... light grey has moved 2 or 3 steps up, telling that without a filter we should expose the half than with filters 00 to 3.5, and 1/4 than with filters 4 to 5, to have the same light grey in the same step.

So if you make a calibrated plots then you may meter on the easel to know the exact density you will reach in any scene point.

I had been teached by a retired very good printer that worked a lot in the wedding business. He was all day long printing. He told me that he usally nailed the prints (both BW and color) by accurately metering on the easel.

He told me that in the same way we may perfectly expose an slide we also may expose paper perfectly.

Of course a sound BW print may require a lot of work to refine the aesthetics, with burning, dodging, etc, etc. But with no test strip, just metering, we may predict the density in any spot.

I found that an excellent reference to meter on the easel is using a Lux Meter app for the smartphone, that uses the ambient light sensor (for screen auto brightness).

That sensor it's not scietifically good because it's very directional, but it works perfect on the easel. And the cost is LOL, if you have an smartphone.

[interneg]

It's important to note that the speed drop at G4 & up is much less on both Multigrade Classic FB & Cooltone FB - ISO P drops from 230 to 210 & 250 to 225 respectively.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Ah good call on testing the fallout with a meter. I have a Sekonic 758 so I can see if it may be sensitive enough. I think I'd be fine with contact printing, I was just worried about the Callier Quotient. I have an Aristo Cold Light on my Omega D2 which is a diffusion head so that Quotient affects me less (with my D2 condensers it was pretty extreme) though not sure by how much.

Initially I just kinda wanted to have some tests to get an idea of what the filters are actually doing, optionally between papers. Should help me figure out base exposure times but also which papers are contrastier than others (or so was my thought).

I didn't quite follow this:



Basically you're saying I should NOT change the times from 00 to 5, but I SHOULD make sure the base exposure is enough to make sure I get useful results at 00 and 5? Perhaps it will become clear when I actually do the tests :) As a follow up though if I don't compensate for #4 and above, would I still compensate for them when printing? Ilford suggests if I'm say using a #2 filter but want to go to a #4 I need to double my exposure (either time or by opening the lens up 1 stop).

If I understand how the strip is supposed to work - that would mean the results would be shifted by 2 steps (since each step is 1/2 stop) from where I ran the tests if I didn't change the time?



I have a Sekonic 308 that gives 1/10th stops. I'd assume the 758 would be similar. Better yet is a Darkroom Automation meter (http://www.darkroomautomation.com/em.htm) that's accurate to .01 stop. It's a very useful tool at a decent price. You should be able to use it as a densitometer to read your step wedge for actual light levels at the paper to account for light falloff, but I haven't bothered with that yet so no idea if it works in practice.

Yes, double the times when you print. Though in reality a simple doubling won't give the best print and you should probably make new test strips to get it just perfect.

[m00dawg]

Thanks everyone! I think that gives me enough info to give this a go! To recap sounds like I should start with contact printing (and maybe make a print via the enlarger just to see once I'm done to compare), keep the time the same once I get a proper (filterless) exposure.

Excellent idea about using my phone as well! I use an incident meter app on the phone when I'm in a pinch and that indeed worked great (and did confirm there is indeed some falloff on the edges).

Hopefully I can try this tonight. Probably will only have time to print tests but excited to see how this all works out! Thanks again folks!

[m00dawg]

Did my first tests last night! Here (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6ou7okj7oy9hrnc/AACNmZTdmq8RPMq3aiEJzvkPa?dl=0) are the results! I think it went pretty well overall. The hinge on my (basically new, argh) PrintFile contact printer is broken and I haven't 3D printed a new one yet. This means a few of the tests I didn't have the glass down all the way so those may be a bit skewed.

Even so, the affects of the filters are visible. A few steps are subtle but they're there. 4 and 5 are interesting. Perhaps the exposure was slightly off or the voltage to my cold light changed slightly but 5 does seem to have more contrast but shows a tad bit more exposure.

Also does look like 4 and 5 do require a stop more exposure almost exactly so that was good to validate.

My contact settings ended up being 135mm lens at f8 for 21" with no ND filter on the cold light which got made steps 21 and 20 white when using my filterless tests (which is what BTZS recommended). Usually when printing actual prints I have to use a ND filters (usually 2 or 3 stop) so base printing times are around 15-21".

Max black for the no-filter test looks to be step 11. If I understand things correctly, that means minimum max black would be 5 stops less exposure at 21" (if printing a contact sheet with the same head height)? That makes some sense since I usually use my 3 stop ND filter and tend to be at f8 for 35mm and 120 and f11 or f16 for 4x5 at around the same same exposure time.

[Pere Casals]

(if printing a contact sheet with the same head height)?

Great !!!

I'd recommend you meter the effective Lux you have on the easel before you place a filter or the negative. In this way we always have a solid reference when changing the lens or the head height, you may try to work always with same power on the easel. Me, I dim (electronically) the light power to have always 2 Lux on the easel after stopping the lens, I use the Lux meter for that. A Lux meter is $20, telling 0.01 Lux precision.

later I may vary time or power, but if always starting with a known power all it's easier.

You may spot meter on the projection. Imagine that you place a label in each step of the test contact copies with the Lux.Seconds each step received, if you then if you spot meter on the projection of the negative then you get the Lux.Second and you know the gray level.

There are several ways to do that, with different kinds of exposimeter, the important thing is that you do that in a consistent way. IMHO this is very useful because you may end making 1/8 of the test strips.

Problem with BW is that making test strips is very easy. RA-4 printers had to learn to meter accurately on the easel because making many color test strips was a mess.

[m00dawg]

Great !!!

I'd recommend you meter the effective Lux you have on the easel before you place a filter or the negative. In this way we always have a solid reference when changing the lens or the head height, you may try to work always with same power on the easel. Me, I dim (electronically) the light power to have always 2 Lux on the easel after stopping the lens, I use the Lux meter for that. A Lux meter is $20, telling 0.01 Lux precision.

later I may vary time or power, but if always starting with a known power all it's easier.

You may spot meter on the projection. Imagine that you place a label in each step of the test contact copies with the Lux.Seconds each step received, if you then if you spot meter on the projection of the negative then you get the Lux.Second and you know the gray level.

There are several ways to do that, with different kinds of exposimeter, the important thing is that you do that in a consistent way. IMHO this is very useful because you may end making 1/8 of the test strips.

Problem with BW is that making test strips is very easy. RA-4 printers had to learn to meter accurately on the easel because making many color test strips was a mess.

Awesome thanks for the info Pere! Good to know I might actually be on the right track with some of this! My goal is to better correlate exposure and filters so, to your point on test strips, I can make fewer of those while having an idea of what things will look like without having to do so much trial and error.

Good call on measure the light on the base. I should indeed pick up a lux meter. I'll try my Sekonic too. My phone worked surprisingly well to measure the light falloff - it seemed accurate but I didn't end up doing projection tests so I didn't look too closely.

If I understood you right then I should gather the value of my current setup (I haven't moved anything since the tests) because this correlates the exposure to my test sheets, adjusting for maximum black. Then when I compose with a real negative, I would measure the light to get it to roughly the same exposure. To do that accurately, it would be good to use a clear part of the negative or a clear negative so I account for base fog as well, correct?

Once I've done that, I then have an idea of the exposure adjustments required for each filter as well as a guideline for how the filters would affect the contrast.

Glad you mentioned RA-4. I'm a ways away from that (though something I'd like to do one day) and was wondering how folks deal with making test strips in color. That seemed rather daunting given you also have to account for the white balance stuff.

[Pere Casals]

To do that accurately, it would be good to use a clear part of the negative or a clear negative so I account for base fog as well, correct?


For the moment, I'd suggest next starting procedure with the smartphone, later you may refine your methods with refined meters, lux meters, etc.

0) Make another calibration with filters 4-5 at twice the exposure.

1) You have not moved the head, ok, take your smartphone and meter in the center without filter, this will be your base light power and exposure time, same than in the tests, say 15s, you expose 2x time for filters 4-5 ! say 30 seconds.

2) Now place the Stouffer wedge in the negative carrier, with no filter. Just take the phone again and meter the light power in each patch, write down a table step vs "lux". The smartphone lux are not real, but a good reference.

You are done !!! From know you may predict your densities on paper !


> From now you will use always the same exposure time, (in the future you may change it, but at the beginning for simplicity you keep it always constant).

> Place the enlarger head at the height you want, place the negative without filter.

> Meter with the phone in the spots you want in the projection, imagine you meter in a cheek (face in a portrait), then locate in the table which step (patch) is that exposure, then you may look at each of the test contact copies of the Stouffer what gray level you will obtain.

> Then you may stop more or less the lens (or with a dimmer) to get the gray level you want. For example you want the gray level of patch 18 in the cheek, when you metered the patch 18 on the easel (point 2> ) you had a reading, just adjust light power until the reading in the cheek is the same than when you metered that path 18.

> You adjusted illumination for the ligth greys, now locate your deep shadows and meter with the phone what reading you have there, locate what patch it is in the table. Say it is patch 8.

> Now locate what test contact copy Grade of the Stouffer has the black level you want in the Patch 8.

You are done, you expose 15 seconds (or 30 for 4,5 grades) and you will have, in the cheek and in the shadows, the gray levels you wanted. Bingo !!! with no strip...

Explained it's a bit long, but it can be done in half a minute: Decide what (light greys) Patch you want for the cheek, take the reading in the table, adjust light power until the cheek has that reading. With the adjusted power take a reading of the shadows, locate what patch is in the table (say patch 8). See what Grade has the gray level you want in patch 8. In half a minute you nailed basic exposure and grade.

From here:

> You may also check what gray level you will have in any spot, from the reading, the equivalent patch, and the grade.

> You may modify the exposure times, so you multiply the reading by the proportionality factor before locating a patch in the table.

You will get practice, you will understand the basic mechanism of the darkroom exposure systems, you will have a criterion to get a commercial exposure system.

This is how I started, one year ago...

[m00dawg]

This is amazing! I wish they taught printing using this method way back when I was in high school. Of course back then we had those infamous Nokia candy bar phones so - well before the iPhone and such. Still I've been used to test strips for so long this is extremely exciting. Thank you again Pere!

[Pere Casals]

Let me add 3 warnings,

A) with described method, in point "2>" you mesure the light in the projected patch to know how much light received the paper for that patch, in theory it's the same, but in the projection case you may have some flare added.

You may meter more accurately in the dense patches (#18, for example) by masking all the stouffer but the patch you are to meter. In the thin patches flare is relatively low, but in the dense patches flare may have relatively important depending on your setup.



B) Another warning, the safe light influences the reading, check what the reading increases when opening safe light, so you may close the safelight for then readings, or you may place a Cyan filter on the sensor. Locate well the sensor on the phone, it is not the front camera, sometimes the sensor it is seen and sometimes you have to find it by casting a show on in it while reding the value.

On my (gelatin) Cyan flter I sprayed some 3M Re Mount glue to place it on the sensor for the printing, but you may also use an old phone. I adjusted the screen to make it display only red, so phone light won't expose paper in the developer.


C) Depending on the smartphone, the sensor can be very, very directional, this may deliver inaccurate readings in the corners, check that by tilting the phone, if it is too much directional you may place a thin difusser on the sensor, say a thin adhesive paper label or translucid plastic.

[m00dawg]

Ah thanks Pere!

I'm hoping to try this today. I have to do some house cleaning (boo) but shot some 4x5 practice portraits of the kiddo and am hoping to use one of these to test things out later today. Really excited to give this a go!

[m00dawg]

So right off the bat this is going to be apples and oranges because I used neutral tone paper today (and did my tests on cool tone) but I tried applying some of the methods up above and actually I got the initial exposure really close! I haven't (yet) recorded the lux values of the step tablet on the enlarger. Perhaps I should have because...

The problem I ran into, I think, might be flare or maybe diffraction or something? I cleaned house today and couldn't find my 3-stop ND I usually use in the enlarger which meant I needed to stop down to f32 and f45 (using my 135mm lens - this is for a 4x5 negative) to get the exposure time where I wanted. The exposure was rather close to what I expected given the above test (I know neutral and cool tone work a bit different so I need to do the tests with the neutral paper for sure). But while the exposure was really close, the contrast was waaay off compared to scans of the negatives I made.

This is a portrait and on the scans the backdrop is a nice visible gray with nice separation to the subject (my kiddo) and his dark brown hair and there is good shadow detail and contrast overall.

For the (5x7) prints, however, the exposures that had good detail and shadow in the face rendered a black backdrop. A #1 filter just made the whole thing muddy. #4 was rather awesome but cut out too much - his hair disappears completely into the inky black backdrop as does his ear (which is on the shadow side). Split grading didn't improve things much. I think the only way out for the backdrop was a dodge and burn which I wasn't keen to do on 5x7 and was running low on time anyway.

The prints are decent apart from the backdrop. In fact they look more like what I expected based on how far the kiddo was away from the backdrop. But the scans definitely show a nice darkish gray backdrop. Prints show a black backdrop.

Projecting a BW negative can cause a contrast bump due to the silver, but flare is a reduction in contrast correct? The latter kinda feels like what I'm running into but whoa it seems extreme. Weirdly this only seems to happen with portraits and usually with the backdrop. Landscapes in the darkroom seem much closer to the scans (I guess perhaps because there is less smooth tone like a person's face perhaps)?

EDIT: Forgot to say I can post the photos tomorrow (prints are still drying)

[m00dawg]

I couldn't sleep super well last night while my mind stirred trying to figure this out (and also had a strong storm roll through) so I got up this morning to try out a contact print. Sure enough, the contact print looks much closer to the scan using a #2 filter. It might look a tad better with a #3 but the background is fairly well defined. The enlarged print I like the most also shows just a hint of background but it's still darker.

So yeah it looks like I should finish my testing :) Namely to see how much flare I'm getting and how that compares to my contact prints, as well as to go ahead and get the lux of each step since that would have proven useful last night.

This morning I chickened out and used test strips since I wanted to see the results of the film border on the backdrop but the numbers I ended up getting were also close to my tests so that's a positive sign! With a bit of refinement and practice on my part I think I can get there!

[Pere Casals]

apples and oranges

Each paper has its speed, like films. In the Ilford datasheets you will find the speed of your paper, tone is also related to the chloride vs bromide mix, and this has an impact in the speed.

189773

Datasheets tell the paper speed in "ISO P" terms, in the example image you see that without filteres speed is P200, with filters 00-3.5 speed is P100, and for filters 4-5 it is P50.

With that paper we see that grade 4 and 5 do deliver nearly the same exact curve !!!


This would give a good start point, but you should make a calibration for each paper you are using.

If you want to spot meter on the projection to calculate exposures and to predict densities then you need accurate procedures. You may check if the predictions are good and refining your methods until your predictions nail the obtained densities.

It can be debated if this is worth or if test strips are straighter. IMHO calibrations and spot metering in the projections help to obtain better results, faster and wasting less paper, but here, clearly, YMMV.

[m00dawg]

It can be debated if this is worth or if test strips are straighter. IMHO calibrations and spot metering in the projections help to obtain better results, faster and wasting less paper, but here, clearly, YMMV.

Oh I'm definitely in the camp of doing metering now that I've had a glimpse of it. Turns out I was chasing flare I think (more on that below) but for some compositions it's hard to find a good place to place the test strip so I have to make big strips or multiple and it still takes some fiddling. So yeah this is the route I'm going. For fiber prints I bet it's even more worth it.

On the note of flare, huh, yeah I guess I have some:

189807

It's bad in the areas that were well beyond max black but even so this sure points to why the background was so much darker on my projection versus my contact print:

189811189810

The scan was still better than the contact print but not by much and I could have perhaps dialed that in. You can see better definition in the top of his head on the contact print for sure and it just feels sharper. Given the above, now I know why.

Contact print was also way easier to do. As noted earlier I did a test strip but found the right exposure (using the negative mask), made a print and bam, it was pretty much where I wanted it. That flare really got me off track with my projection prints I think.

I finally found my 3 stop ND so tried to make an equivalent projected print with a more open aperture but ended up with the same result. I'll have to perhaps read up on flare but sounds like there isn't really much I can do about that short of getting another lens (one I used for 4x5 is a Schneider Componon S 5.6/135). Or maybe the lens is dirtier than I think it is *shrug*

The BTZS book as I recall talks about flare so I need to re-read those sections as well.

[Larry Gebhardt]

It looks like the flare is starting to show on the whites around two stops beyond maximum black on a fairly contrasty paper/filter. That's not surprising and not something I'd focus much on.

I'm not a fan of trying to set the exposure just by the meter, but a meter reading can get you a decent starting point for a test strip for the highlight exposure and help you get a rough contrast range for a starting contrast grade. Even at it's best it saves just a tiny strip or two of paper and a few minutes of processing.

The difference in contrast between your two prints is possibly based on the cold light head vs the effectively collimated light from the enlarger. I don't know for sure that the Callier effect pertains to contract prints made this way, but it seems like it might. I'd bet that's the primary reason for the background difference and not flare. You could test that with the same lens and a condenser head.

Remember with printing you expose for the highlights, then assess contrast. The multigrade filters are designed to keep the highlight exposure fixed (or with the one stop jump) as you found earlier. So you should be able to make contrast jumps with the same exposure if it was really based on a zone 8 or 9 highlight (in practice I usually end up with another test strip with 1/10th or 1/20th of stop gradations after contrast changes). I think if you tried to match contrast between the two prints there would be very little difference.

[m00dawg]

Ah some good thoughts. Indeed I don't think it will eliminate strips completely but even reducing them by a few seems worthwhile. Maybe I'm over-complicating the move to fiber prints but seems like washing and well as the longer fixing times can really slow down the process.

Yeah at first glance the enlarger step tablet kinda freaked me out a little. One thing I didn't mention is that contact print was at a #2 and the projection print at a #3. #3 was the best of all the results I tried. #4 I liked more on the kiddos face (more contrast than the contact print for sure) but it just obliterated the shadow around his ear and the background was full black while providing enough detail on the highlights. With a #2 it ended up being much too flat. I tried #1 and even tried a split-grade. With split-grade I think I could get it close but part of the exercise was not to have to mess about with that if the negative is properly exposed. Sort of an aside, I was testing perhaps too many things at once as I was always testing strobes.

Dry, the projection print and the contact print as closer to each other than it initially appeared, but there's still loss of detail on the top of his head in the projection. It was crazy how much I was throwing darts at it versus the contact print, which I nailed without doing hardly any work. That's why I was thinking it may have been flare. But in fairness, I need to test the neutral tone paper like I did with the cool tone.

To my eye, backdrop aside, the contrast is about the same between the #2 contact and #3 projected. Which hmm actually is a little odd - I would have expected the opposite since the Callier effect I thought affect diffusion and condenser enlargements (just the latter a lot more). Might need to re-read that chapter on BTZS.

Either way, good point on the condensers - I moved from those to the Aristo D2 to help tame contrast and bring it more in-line with the Beseler I was using previous. It's still a little different and I do miss actually having a nice yellow-white light over the torquise when composing, but I get used to it. It considerably changed contrast - I was using a #1 or even #0 filter with the condensers where I now use a #2 with the Aristo but tend to go to a #3. This matches my Beseler pretty close (though I don't have paper tests on it to show any of these combinations).

Might be interesting to see what the print looks like through the condensers. I recall in the past I had a similar issue (the backdrop renders much darker than I expected).

[Larry Gebhardt]

There's no need to fix the test strips completely, or really to wash them for more than a few seconds to rinse the surface fixer off. Just keep them in the sink so you don't contaminate any work surface.

I haven't used a fluorescent cold light head, but they are reported to have warm up time issues and ideally need a light integrating timer to compensate fully (though heaters should mostly fix the issues). That could be some of the variability you experienced.

Consider trying a different negative as well, ideally one with a full range of tones to let you see changes more easily.

[m00dawg]

Ah maybe I'm over complicating my concerns with fiber then. I still need to make some sort of washer. I was thinking about just putting a spout on the bucket I use (I have a bathroom darkroom so it's my holding area for prints since the sink itself is small).

The Aristo itself yes does have a warm up time but honestly it was pretty quick to get used to - when I do test strips I just leave the light on and just uncover eat test every 3 or 5 seconds. More complicated if I'm trying to do a geometric series but otherwise it's fine. I'm sure voltage also plays a role but I haven't had inconsistencies print to print when using the same settings - nothing I could notice anyway.

It's a bit of a stop gap until I can get an LED head. If those are built right (where the switch is on the DC, not the AC side), they have basically no warm-up.

[Larry Gebhardt]

You can get by with soaking prints in a tray and changing the water periodically. I usually soak my prints in the vertical washer too in order to save water and cut the flow into my septic tank. Several changes early on and then an over night soak tests as clean.

The LED head I built has proven to work very well for me, and as you say with DC control the switching time is effectively instant.

If I were in your shoes I'd probably use the condenser as my stop-gap solution. You could easily switch the lamp out with a few high power LEDs which is easier than a full diffusion setup.

[m00dawg]

Ah that's good to know! I tend to soak my RC prints after fixing. I use my bucket as a holding tank until I can give them a rinse in the sink. Better setup than I had back in high school and my prints back then still look like the day I made them so I haven't worried about it much.

For FB good to know I can soak also. I was thinking of trying to make a stand of sorts inside my bucket so the chemicals can sink down. Then I can have a spout on the bottom if I want to cycle water through it. I did something similar for an outdoor watering bucket of sorts and it's a couple bucks worth of parts at the hardware store for that. The stand I need to figure out still though. Just something to keep prints off the bottom. Something like a screen with some feet attached to it would be all that is needed I think.

As far as the condensers, it may be worth trying them again now that I know how to do paper tests to see how it goes. I wasn't a fan of the results I was getting with those, although I did really enjoy being able to use above the lens filters. Dust was a real nightmare and sometimes, though I never saw it in prints, my grain focuser would show all the plastic layer imperfections making it hard to focus. It was strange.

[Larry Gebhardt]

The idea that fixer sinks in wash water has been proven to be a myth made to sell fancy print washers. Fixer goes into solution and is therefore evenly distributed. You just need to allow water access to all parts of the print - don't stack prints in the wash. What ever you do I recommend getting a residual hypo test and ensuring your fixing and wash process is good. Then fix and wash that way consistently.

Some condensers seem better than others, but usually just in the degree of how collimated the light is. I've found the bulb surface and dirty condensers to be a source of odd artifacts, but so far not the film base. Dust is certainly more of an issue.