Taking that first jump, and wanting some reasoning behind this video

[Torquemada]

Out of the box.

Seriously, i have been re reading some of the things youve said in my other threads and have realized something.

I need to cherry pick the information that works with what im trying to do. That is make a photograph become a print.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbhQTLeKqRw

got some decent visual help from this little video. Its nice to see an honest negative of thin and nomal density on someone elses easel. Very helpful. And ironically, despite what the naysayers else where feel,, my Foma 400 days shooting at box speed, are about 80% overall identical to that NORMAL NEG..

When he did the DENSE negative i do not understand what left field of thinking he was coming from when he decided on an exposure of 3 seconds.. looking at his test strip, the initial base exposure of 2 seconds was the best one.. it had the best sand and cliff detail.

But im really curious why his 3 second print,,, came out DARKER then the 6 second section of the test strip. Its just mind bending

[MartyNL]

But im really curious why his 3 second print,,, came out DARKER then the 6 second section of the test strip. Its just mind bending

I believe, you're mistaken. Take a look at the tone of the sky.

[Vaughn]

...

I need to cherry pick the information that works with what im trying to do. That is make a photograph become a print.

...

But im really curious why his 3 second print...

Your first bit explains your last bit. It is his photograph, not anyone else's.

[Torquemada]

The sand and cliff face is much better at the plain base 2 second burn. The cliff edges do indeed seem sharper against the sky in the 3 second burn, but you have no detail in the cliff face itself. Everything went to dark black for shdows, and the highlights went from a crummy white to MUD grey.

The beach has lost all detail, and the 4 second test strip actually had DETAIL in the small secton of beach. Pretty much black but it still has some highlight detail.


Ive tossed out bundles of prints that looked as bad as that 3 second burn because i wanted better. And going from various spots online, the sky could have sinmply been burned in for the 2 second test strip exposure.

[paulbarden]

No two people will interpret the same negative in exactly the same way; your aesthetic choices are different from everyone else's, so you can't expect someone else's printing decisions to align with yours.

[Peter Lewin]

There are lots of negatives which will not give you the print you want simply based on a single enlarger exposure. You have to learn a bit about "burning" and "dodging." Burning means you make your base exposure, and then add additional exposure to the area of the print which needs to be darker, shielding the rest of the print from the extra light using cardboard or your hand curved to the correct shape. Dodging is the reverse, while you are making your base exposure, you use "something" to shield the area which needs to be lighter. In your example, if you like the sky and water in the second print, but the beach and cliff face has lost all detail, you dodge the beach and cliff face so that they look like the first or second strip in your test, while the sky and water resemble a longer strip. And your times are much too short. Shut down your enlarger lens so that the base exposure is more like 10 or 12 seconds, which gives you much more time to control the amount of dodging.

[Pieter]

Maybe you should get some prints under your belt first. Taking a class if possible, getting hand-son experience under supervision. Then maybe you might understand the process better than watching YouTube.

[MartyNL]

The sand and cliff face is much better at the plain base 2 second burn. The cliff edges do indeed seem sharper against the sky in the 3 second burn, but you have no detail in the cliff face itself. Everything went to dark black for shdows, and the highlights went from a crummy white to MUD grey.

The beach has lost all detail, and the 4 second test strip actually had DETAIL in the small secton of beach. Pretty much black but it still has some highlight detail.


Ive tossed out bundles of prints that looked as bad as that 3 second burn because i wanted better. And going from various spots online, the sky could have sinmply been burned in for the 2 second test strip exposure.

The video is clearly expressed as being made in response to questions about short enlarger times.

If it were the intention of the video to make the 'best' print of the scene, then he would have used the correctly exposed negative!

[Willie]

Remember when making decisions on how a print will look you don't always want a literal interpretation of what is on the negative. Dodging, burning, paper & chemistry choices all give us a lot of leeway as we interpret what is on the negative.

[Drew Wiley]

Is anyone actually talking about only 2 or 3 seconds of cumulative exposure? That's ludicrous. How does anyone effectively dodge and burn in almost the blink of an eye?
Reluctantly, I did view the video. About all I can say, is that is negatives are that far off, in terms of being hopelessly too thick or too thin, that's why every darkroom should be equipped with a trashcan. Don't even bother trying to print them.

[gord]

No two people will interpret the same negative in exactly the same way; your aesthetic choices are different from everyone else's, so you can't expect someone else's printing decisions to align with yours.

Quite right. Glad you posted this.

[gord]

There are quite a few folks I know, myself included, that shoot Foma 400 at box speed. I also develop it in Rodinal 1:50 because I like the gutsy qualities of the emulsion/deveper combination. I often contact print the resultant 5x7 negatives, and only enlarge the 4x5 negs to 8x10. Quite retro.

[jnantz]

But im really curious why his 3 second print,,, came out DARKER then the 6 second section of the test strip. Its just mind bending

the tray might have rocked more when he developed it or / and he might have pulled the print at different times instead of waiting 1 min.
his dense negative was much nicer then the other 2... thin negatives are a drag.

[Michael R]

the tray might have rocked more when he developed it or / and he might have pulled the print at different times instead of waiting 1 min.
his dense negative was much nicer then the other 2... thin negatives are a drag.

Ya and also he’s probably not actually a boss.

[jnantz]

Ya and also he’s probably not actually a boss.

I don't know man, he has members only content, maybe he is ...

[Torquemada]

Is anyone actually talking about only 2 or 3 seconds of cumulative exposure? That's ludicrous. How does anyone effectively dodge and burn in almost the blink of an eye?
Reluctantly, I did view the video. About all I can say, is that is negatives are that far off, in terms of being hopelessly too thick or too thin, that's why every darkroom should be equipped with a trashcan. Don't even bother trying to print them.

Sometimes its not the negatives being at fault. Sometimes its the enlarger set up like i found out after burning through perhaps 140$ of paper. FOr a quick reference at that time, i was needing to keep almost any negative under 5 seconds, otherwise everythign would turn out looking like his 8 second test strip.

However there is too much indoctrination on the forums, and youtube that an anlarging lens needs to be kept at f/8 or f/5. Alot of negatives would have had better luck with an aperture of say f/18

[Vaughan]

Forums like these have been around a LOT longer than YouTube: some date back the earliest web sites, and some are older and have links to pre-web text based USENET groups.

The information found on forums is in my experience a much better quality, and has a better chance of being accurate than YouTube. On a forum, if a post is not accurate then corrections are quickly added so at the very least it can be seen that opinions are divided.

Forums don't usually have "likes" or "subscribers" (or advertising revenue that goes to forum contributors) so people are posting to learn or share experience, not gain a following or "influence" or make money. That makes a huge difference.

[jnantz]

Sometimes its not the negatives being at fault. Sometimes its the enlarger set up like i found out after burning through perhaps 140$ of paper. FOr a quick reference at that time, i was needing to keep almost any negative under 5 seconds, otherwise everythign would turn out looking like his 8 second test strip.

However there is too much indoctrination on the forums, and youtube that an anlarging lens needs to be kept at f/8 or f/5. Alot of negatives would have had better luck with an aperture of say f/18

the reason people set their enlarger to 3 clicks closed past wide open is because it is the optimal fstop for enlarging, that's not indoctrination, its facts. if you have a public darkroom near you it might be worth it to visit it and learn from someone who knows what they are doing because if your negative required such a short exposure time it was probably poorly made ( like most people who are learning ). in person beats online any day of the week.

[jim_jm]

Most enlarger lenses are designed to provide optimum results when closed down 2 or 3 stops. Like many camera lenses, they do not perform at their best wide-open or at their smallest apertures. This is especially critical when printing 35mm negatives at a high level of magnification for larger prints. This is the experience of many folks on this forum, many of whom have been printing for a half-century or more. We don't like wasting paper either.
Having very short exposure times can be the result of a thin negative or incorrect enlarger bulb, among other causes. Making small prints can also require short exposures since the enlarger head is closer to the easel. Using contrast filters for B/W printing helps to extend exposure times. Even if you want "normal" contrast, a #2 filter will give the same results as no filter for many papers.
Effective and efficient printing skills are something that only come from lots of practice and lots of errors. YouTube videos can be helpful, but there's no fast track to becoming a good printer. It's not hard to become competent if you follow consistent processes and use properly exposed negatives.

[Drew Wiley]

I still don't get it. Why does anyone need to use only two or four seconds of printing time? Haven't they ever heard of neutral density filters, or of combining all three, C,M,Y, on a colorhead to attain some neutral density? Heck, I've worked with enlarger light sources hundreds of times brighter than that toy thing in the video, and never needed to go below 10 seconds or so.

[Torquemada]

I still don't get it. Why does anyone need to use only two or four seconds of printing time? Haven't they ever heard of neutral density filters, or of combining all three, C,M,Y, on a colorhead to attain some neutral density? Heck, I've worked with enlarger light sources hundreds of times brighter than that toy thing in the video, and never needed to go below 10 seconds or so.

have a beseler chart that shows combinations that include all three colors in the mix? I only see for multi grade printing of black and white paper as single setting for yellow or magenta each. Or mixture of yellow and magenta.

Only time ive seen REFERENCE to use of the blue filter in a dichroic head was for COLOR prints.. and i havent seen much talk on those settings being applicable.

[Corran]

I pretty regularly use 3-5 second exposure lengths (with multiple exposures). If the length prevents easy burning or dodging I have a little device that lowers the output to the light by a percentage and I get the exposure to a good length for the print needs.

For example, I might have 6, 3-second exposure 'clicks' for a given print, with two of them needing dodging and then 3 needed for burning. If that's an issue I can set it to 50% output and use 6 second exposures.

I don't particularly like thick negatives. Some might see my negs and think they are a bit thin but I've found TMX to work better (for me) with thinner shadows than perhaps FP4.

[Drew Wiley]

Torq - when all three are mixed it creates neutral density. Then in ADDITION to that, you can selectively tweak filters for sake of VC paper contrast. I was stating that in relation to lowering the overall amount of light in order to increase exposure length.

And what on earth do blue filters by themselves have in common with color printing?

[Vaughan]

have a beseler chart that shows combinations that include all three colors in the mix? I only see for multi grade printing of black and white paper as single setting for yellow or magenta each. Or mixture of yellow and magenta.

Because variable contrast b+w paper is orthochromatic the red light doesn't matter and controlling it does nothing except make the image lighter or darker to our (panchromatic red-sensitive) eyes. The two-filter Y+M combination introduces neutral density because the yellow blocks a bit of blue light and magenta blocks a bit of green light.

[Peter Lewin]

Corran, what you describe in post #22 (multiple 3-5 second bursts) is the method Fred Picker taught me over 50 years ago, and which I have used ever since. He (and I) make test strips typically with 3 second intervals, count up to the strip we want, and print using “x” 3 second bursts. I also use his ZoneVI light head and timer, which allows me to dial down the brightness if otherwise I would need a much higher f-stop or end up with too short an overall exposure time.

[Vaughan]

... make test strips typically with 3 second intervals, count up to the strip we want, and print using “x” 3 second bursts.

Ah, that technique avoids (or takes into account) the intermittency effect. Having said that, I prefer to use continuous exposures but whatever works.

[Drew Wiley]

What is meant by a "burst"? Triggering an ordinary head every three second? - in that case, you're swamped with warm-up and afterglow issues unless there is a shutter in the light path. Xenon flash burst systems exist, and even fancy halogen ones with feedback loupes. But those options were way out of Fred Picker's league.

With colorheads, I recommend all three - CMY - to attain neutral density, even with VC papers. That's because there's always a certain amount of white light spillover getting past, and the less the better. It's a bigger problem with old colorheads rather than newer ones. I happen to have a couple RGB additive enlargers, but that's a different story.

[Corran]

I have two b&w enlarger heads, one condenser and one diffusion. The diffusion needs and has a heater to keep the bulb warm. Neither gives any issues with "warm-up" or "afterglow" and I've made hundreds if not thousands of prints now in my 10 years of darkroom printing. This technique was also taught to the college BFA students by a friend and mentor who was the photography professor at a large university, with equally normal results.

[Peter Lewin]

Drew: Semantics. I should have simply said a series of 3-second exposures. I used the word "burst" thinking of each exposure as a burst of light. As Vaughn said, Picker was avoiding any intermittency effects, and whether or not that is still an issue, the methodology has worked well for me.

[John Layton]

...extremely embarrassed here - having taught literally thousands of students, ages 5 to 81, elementary school through graduate (MA) level...what the heck is the "intermittency effect?" Perhaps (probably...hopefully) it is something with which I am already familiar but with another label? Hmmm...:confused:

(Darth Vader chiming in..."you are a Fraud...an IMPOSTER - HA HA HA HA...!)

[Peter Lewin]

John, I in turn feel like a fool explaining anything to you, sort of like explaining something to Ansel! Picker maintained that even with lamp warmers and timers, the amount of light being emitted from the enlarger was not exact, I.e. a few milliseconds of turn on might be lost due to lamp warm-up or turn on. If this was true, 5 3-second exposures would be slightly different from a single 15-second exposure. So he eliminated a possible variable by replicating the test strip procedure, and those (possible) milliseconds are what he called intermittency effects.

[nolindan]

Paper exhibits no intrinsic intermittency effects -

http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotereciprocityandintermittency.pdf

Compensating for lamp warm-up time (I'm sure there is another timer that does this, I just don't know of one, in any case the procedure will be the same) -

http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/AppNotePH212LampDelay.pdf

[Michael R]

...extremely embarrassed here - having taught literally thousands of students, ages 5 to 81, elementary school through graduate (MA) level...what the heck is the "intermittency effect?" Perhaps (probably...hopefully) it is something with which I am already familiar but with another label? Hmmm...:confused:

(Darth Vader chiming in..."you are a Fraud...an IMPOSTER - HA HA HA HA...!)

It’s not an intermittency effect having anything to do with the emulsion. It’s more like shutter efficiency. When the enlarger goes on and off the bulb isn’t necessarily “instantaneously” on/off. So the idea is simply that say two 3-second exposures is a little less than one 6-second exposure.

Whether or not it makes any meaningful difference depends on the light source and the ramp-up/ramp down time relative to the measured time.

[jnantz]

the original omega E enlarger, I think it was the E3 had a light source that remained ON the entire time and there was a shutter at the lens stage. not so hard to do something like that today if someone just wants to leave the light on and put a wollensak studio shutter or a Packard or whatever between the lens and camera. probably LEDs these days would easily mime a traditional enlarger bulb and cost pennies compared to the E3's fluorescent (cold cathode ) light bank. either way, I've never really noticed that much of a light change, or exposure change when just setting the timer ( and traditional enlarger bulb or aristo cold head ) and clicking the button, besides there's always burning and dodging or whatever so it really doesn't matter too much anyways ...

[John Layton]

Peter you're setting way too high a bar...but thank you just the same!

And yes indeed, this (intermittency) effect...is exactly why (even with my amazing Heiland LED VC light source) I never depend on split tests on which to base a final print - but will do an undivided "final strip" (or strips) first, and dry them and check with a mix of 3500 and 2800 K lights.

Thing is, my 69 year old eyes aren't what they once were. They're still sharp enough, for which I count myself lucky...but assessing relative brightness gets trickier as the years pass. Anyone else notice this?

[ic-racer]

Shorter times are better if one's workflow involves mostly burning. I actually do very little dodging. Some, but not a lot. I'm going through a phase where I like bleach better than dodging.

Some of my images might need 10 burns or more. This is where it is nice to have a 2000W head for 15 second base times.

[ic-racer]

Cold lights are notorious for changing intensity based on temperature or duration. And this one has a correctly functioning thermostatic heater (notice baseline temp 40C, per thermostat, before the lamp is turned on).

244885

[nolindan]

Cold lights are notorious for changing intensity based on temperature

Interesting result. Normally light output increases with lamp temperature - viz the time it takes a fluorescent or cfl lamp to come up to full light output as it warms up.

Having had an Aristo cold light head, though, I would not put any sort of strange behavior past the beast.

You really need an light integrator to get consistent output with a gas-discharge/fluorescent light source. Additionally, the integrator's light sensor has to have appropriate filtering that matches the material being exposed. With VC paper that can be a real problem as by rights the integrator sensor filtration needs to change to match the contrast filtration used for exposing the paper.

Most systems don't get that elaborate. The simple light integration / timer compensation done by some timers seems to be "good enough." As the saying goes - "Good enough is best."