Do you use a test strip or a test sheet when you print in darkroom?

[diversey]

I always cut photo papers into several pieces/strips and use them to do a test strip for printing in darkroom, but sometimes there is not enough information to guide me for next step. A teacher in our local art school suggested to use a whole sheet of photo paper instead of a strip of photo paper to do a test print every time. He uses a whole sheet of photo paper every time for his printing.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks!

[Mark Sampson]

Fred Picker taught the same thing. I think that it's a waste of paper.
What I learned to do (when I was hired as a custom b/w printer in 1981) was to make sure that the test strip covered the high values in the projected image. When I find the proper exposure for those, then I'll try a half sheet of paper, then adjust contrast as necessary to make a full sheet. Dodging/burning will follow that, and hope to make a final print soon after.
Of course every print-maker has their own methods. The one I've outlined above seems to be economical in both time and materials; at least it works for me.

[Oren Grad]

In general, when enlarging I use strips and when contact printing I use whole sheets.

Paper is expensive. If you find strips generally effective in arriving efficiently at your final exposure, there's no reason why you can't use strips as your default but go to whole sheets if you encounter a particularly complex negative that you're having trouble getting right.

[LabRat]

A whole sheet of paper for an exposure test??? Gimme a break... ;-I

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Strip, small print, not much difference. Depends on the final print size. For example, a single sheet of 16X20 b&w will yield me enough width-size test strips on the rotary cutter for four of six different images. Often I need only one per image, but sometimes two. I want the whole range of values present, not just the highlights. Color printing is different since I use drums. So I cut down the paper or big roll into little 8X10 or slightly smaller sheets suitable for the 8x10 drum, my smallest size. I can't imagine foregoing test strips unless one is just intending the final itself to be tiny. How rich are you? Rarely does the first full-sized color print come out ideal anyway, and if you're talking about a 30X40 inch one on polyester, that ain't cheap to make! Premium FB b&w paper isn't cheap either; but often the first full sized one can be tweaked a little in the toning phase to bring it darn near to a hole in one, a keeper at least. I never really know until it's completely dried down, post-toning. With color, a basic heat gun on low setting will tell you in half a minute.

[Martin Aislabie]

I cut a whole sheet in half and use one of those halves.

For years I used to cut sheets of paper into 2 inch wide strips and use those.

But - I never had all the highlights and shadows in the test strip.

So now I just use half a sheet - some may say it is a waste of money - but I think it's a waste of time and effort trying to be that economical.

I'd rather spend a bit more and not waste so much of my own time.

Everyone has their own opinions on what constitutes value for money.

As they say YMMV.

Martin

[Oren Grad]

I want the whole range of values present, not just the highlights.

+1. Usually it's not hard to position a strip to accomplish this.

[Heroique]

I think this is a great question that will generate many useful tips for making better prints.

Here are a few of my personal habits, heavily summarized – and there are, of course, infinite variations to these habits based on my aims, chemicals, paper type, difficulty of negative, and occasional need to conserve paper due to my personal supply or its cost!

To start, I have my field notes handy to determine how to proceed with test strips. The notes show me how wide my light values are, and how they spread across the image.

Typically I’ll create a pre-test strip, estimating time intervals (simply based on experience), to help determine time intervals for a final test strip/sheet.

For 5x7 and smaller, the pre-test strip is usually a full piece of paper (not a strip). But when it’s 8x10 and larger, the pre-test strip is usually a cut strip, often 1/3 or 1/4 of the full size. (I’ll position this pre-test strip where I know I need to make exposure judgments.)

Once my pre-test strip is done, it’s easier for me to choose time intervals for a final test. For example, the intervals might be 10, 12, 15, 20, 28 sec. It’s key to have too little exposure on one side, and too much on the other. Makes it easier to choose a Goldilocks exposure.

If it’s a difficult negative, with a wide range of light values involving important elements across the composition, a full sheet is better than a strip, for all sizes of paper.

If the lighting is flat, I sometimes get by with a final test on a strip, no matter the paper size.

***BTW, AA has a nice, real-world example of a contrasty test print, with time intervals, in “The Print.” Let’s just say it includes sunny snow and black rocks.

[Robert Bowring]

What Mark Sampson says. I use the same method and it also works for me.

[Joe O'Hara]

Can't argue with Martin's sensible advice above.

If I've recently printed a negative that looks similar in contrast and density to the negative in question, I'll dive in and use a whole sheet and set the exposure and contrast at or close to that of the prior negative. If the negative doesn't look much like one I've printed recently, I'll use 1/3 of a sheet of paper cut the long way and just guess the exposure and contrast. Usually within two strips I'll be close enough to use a full sheet.

Certainly, you can't fine-tune exposure or contrast with strips, no argument there.

At the price of Ilford MG Fiber Warmtone 11x14 these days, I prefer to see almost-black or almost-white prints on 1/3 of a sheet rather than a whole one.

[Vaughn]

First, where any test strip is placed is far more important than its size, as Drew mentioned. If you can't a good representation of the image's values in one strip, might as well use a whole sheet.

Enlarging to 16x20 was my standard (4x5 negs) for a long time. Usually a third of a sheet for the test strip, a second if for some reason I could not pull enough info off the first one. Then a full sheet test print at the selected exposure (& contrast), sometimes called a work print, to study in order to judge what exposure, burning/dodging, and/or contrast change will be needed to attempt the first print. I had to be careful not to give up too easily on an image at this point, as there was still a lot of magic to work on it before it matched what I saw/felt.

I can see being concerned about 'wasting' paper by using a full sheet if the paper itself was rare and hard to find.

[Greg Y]

I agree with a lot of Mark S' points as well. All enlarging paper has drastically increased in price. As an example, i used to proof on RC paper & not that long ago it was $35 CAD /100 (8x10) for Ilford....now it's $135. A fifty sheet box of 20x24" Illford WT is $477 USD ($604 CAD !) I have boxes of full size large work prints from back in the day when paper cost a fraction of that.
These days i only use fiber based paper & how much i use depends on the negative. Like Vaughn said, often it's not how much of a test strip, but where you place it. I print much less on 20x24. In aiming at 16x20 (or bigger) prints, i first get an 8x10" work print. I dry & tone it and live with it to see what adjustments i'll make. Then i'll make as ideal an 11x14" as i can and that may end up as an 'artist's proof' (especially if its from a print order).... That makes it less of struggle to make final 16"x20" or 20"x24" because i have a clear sense of what it will take to arrive at the final print in terms of exposure, dodging & burning as well as toning.

[Michael R]

Maybe just me, but I don’t have any rules about this. I use what I need to make the best print I can.

[Heroique]

I might be the only one, but I keep many of my test strips with brief notes on the back about exposure intervals, dodging and burning, chemicals and paper type.

Like a detective collecting hard evidence.

Easier to solve problems the next time.

[Jim Jones]

Test strip? Rarely. When I was making a lot of prints for press releases, the negatives were often consistent and the first print was almost always good enough for that use. Guessing the required paper grade and comparing the average negative density with the rebate density help making the first print good. Experience really helps. Eventually I tried a few darkroom meters. They helped, especially for exhibition prints.

[mmerig]

For test strips, I use a sheet of 5 by 7 paper, with (usually) 1/3 stop time increments between the seven separate strips of the same portion of the negative. But I usually use an RH Designs Analyzer Pro instead of a test strip.

[John Layton]

Probably an age-related thing...but more often than not - even though I can get all of those little bits of paper to look "perfect," the first attempt at a large print typically falls short. I can usually "get it in three" (one sheet cut up, two sheets whole) - but then there are those days when I just can't seem to stop cutting various hairs and just go crazy!

But in my book...the rubber really hits the road when I've come to that great negative - and have one sheet of paper left. The question then becomes - should I risk it all and just do a full print...or pull the size down a bit so I can use part of this paper to test? My answer is usually (yup...been there more than once!) to go as close to "full size" as possible, and slice impossibly thin strips from the margins as tests. Kinda flies in the face of my entry to this post - but it really makes me dig deep! (which is a good thing...right?)

Oh...but those last few precious sheets of Forte - like walking the plank I tell ya!

[Tin Can]

As others, I buy 250 sheet boxes of 5X7 for testing

If making a BIG print, seldom bigger than 16X20, I will use them for center and corners

I keep a 30 gallon lined garbage can under my sink in between fix and wash

[John Layton]

Hey...if that works for you, great - but I've had bad experiences in using paper from a different batch for testing...and would caution against this. Just sayin'!

[Tin Can]

Yes, me too

Then I change my plan




Hey...if that works for you, great - but I've had bad experiences in using paper from a different batch for testing...and would caution against this. Just sayin'!

[Greg]

Interesting question that I think deserves multiple answers:

When I took a printing workshop with George Tice in the 1970s, he never made test strips. His first full sheet prints were very much right on, and they were made from different negatives that we gave him to print.

When I was a professional printer (black & white) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, I pretty much never made test strips because there just wasn't enough time with the daily workload.

Presently when printing Lith using my precious few boxes of 11x14 Portriga Rapid, I always start with making test strips and a lot of the times more than one before printing a full sheet of paper. More than once I have ended a printing session without exposing a full sheet of paper. Then other times when things just were going great, I would just expose full sheets of paper.

In the past few years when printing Platinum/Palladium from carefully made digital negatives, I take a lot of notes and only expose full sheets of coated paper.

Today I plan on enlarging some of the negatives that I shot in the 1970s. Most definitely will be making test strips and probably many of them... my negatives shot back then were anything but consistent in their densities and contrasts.

[Michael Graves]

I use a test strip along a specifically chose area of the print to get close, and then do a full sheet with about 50% up and down from what looks like the correct exposure. On the print, I use two second increments to keep the changes minimal.

[Vaughn]

Good point, Greg. While I use in-camera negatives for platinum prints and carbon prints, I do not do test strips, but take my experienced guess the time/contrast and make a full print. If I guessed right I got a final print, if not, I have a good test print to judge how to get it the next time, hopefully!