Using a Stouffer 21-step wedge in enlarger printing

[cyrus]

Does anyone regularly use a step wedge in assisting getting the right contrast/exposure when printing using an enlarger?

[Mark Woods]

In Tim Rudman's Toning Book a wedge is SOP. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the Agfa one that he uses, but I do have the Stouffer wedge and it works well.

[cyrus]

Thx how do you use it? Do you enlarge it by putting it in the negative stage, perhaps next to the actual negative being used? (That would probably require using a 4x5 Stouffer step wedge..)

[bob carnie]

I see absolutely no reason to use a step wedge when enlarging . Unless of course you want to hang on your walls a bunch of step wedges.

[cyrus]

I see absolutely no reason to use a step wedge when enlarging . Unless of course you want to hang on your walls a bunch of step wedges.

I was just thinking that it would provide an objective way of seeing how different exposure settings are affecting your prints. If I'm using a 10x10 enlarger, the glass neg space gives me room to add a step wedge next to the negative, thus allowing me a way to compare how different contrast filters/exposure times are working out.

And, step wedges can be beautiful?

[Drew Wiley]

You use a step wedge in place of film. If you are enlarging, you place it in the negative
carrier; if contact printing, in the contact frame, etc. Step wedges are extremely useful for objective testing using a densitometer to plot sensitometric curves. I use them for setting up formal parameters for silver masking and color separation negatives. A good idea if you're trying to calibrate for certain alternative processes too. But just for ordinary enlargement onto VC papers, completely unnecessary. A simple test strip or two will tell you what you need to know.

[Drew Wiley]

Cyrus - a step wedge is precisely made on a special type of film, and would not give you objective results unless it matched to same kind of film you were enlarging from,
with the same degree of fbf and dev stain, etc. You would ideally want to make your
own step wedge shooting a printed Kodak gray scale, using your own film and dev method. Old step wedges were made for Kodak Sep Neg film (similar to Super XX) and
had quite a bit of yellowing to the film base. New step wedges are much cleaner and
probably made from TMX on a film recorder.

[ic-racer]

I use my step wedge on photographic paper quite a bit. Here are some examples. You have to contact it or project it (or both) depending on what you want to test:

1) Making a M/Y printing table for multigrade paper (contact)
2) Calibrating a Green/Blue two-exposure (so called 'split') printing system (contact)
3) Comparing graded paper for its ISO(R) (contact)
4) Testing just the the filters' ISO(R) on different enlarger heads (contact)
5) Comparing best contrast obtained between different enlargers, testing lens, flare, and filter (projection)
6) Testing for flare in the system (ie compare the projected ISO(R) to the contact ISO(R))

I have used #6 above both for testing lenses and testing stray-light masking around the edges of negatives.

Quick-and-dirty ISO(R) without a reflection sensitometer: Throw out the 'almost white' and 'almost black' bands, then count the number of gray bands inbetween. Multiply by 15 and you get a reasonable estimate of ISO(R).

Like Bob, pointed out, unless you like testing paper and equipment, you don't need one with usual enlarging. I will mention, though, that there are so many threads that start out like this "Lost my contrast..." that many enlarging problems can be isolated with a step wedge.

[Bill Burk]

...there are so many threads that start out like this "Lost my contrast..." that many enlarging problems can be isolated with a step wedge.

Good point!

A step wedge already contacted and processed can be a handy reference when judging test strips or work prints. You can look at a part of the print that came out too dark or light. Find a similar patch on the printed reference strip, see how many steps away it is from a patch you would have liked.

A step wedge contact printed with your negative can tell you the range of your negative.

Then you can compare that test contact print with your collection of printed test strips at different grades or papers to get a good idea which would be good for the negative.

[Brian Ellis]

Not when making the enlargements. But you can learn a lot about how a particular paper allocates the limited range as among the shadows, midtones, and highlights by printing a 21 step wedge at various different contrasts.

[cyrus]

That's kinda what I was thinking

[bob carnie]

Reading the original question again I still feel the same way.

Lots of reasons for using step wedge for technical reasons, but if you are printing a negative for enjoyment, sale , commission.. you do not need a stinkin stepwedge you are printing a piece of film you exposed to different levels/intensity of tones and this piece of film is unique to your potential ability to lay down tone on paper where you decide.

I have been experimenting with alt processes quite heavily recently , yes we used a step wedge to set process parameters. Once that is done and you have your process under control then its a matter of printing the image.

[Jim Michael]

Also, I think Bob recognizes that in analog printing your starting point is pretty close to where you need to be density- and color-wise, and the challenge is more in getting the final nuances correct.

[bob carnie]

Maybe I have been doing this for too long,

For any given negative, I will put it on the light table , look at it consider the scene, consider how well the exposure development has captured that scene, then pick a contrast filter that I think is appropriate for printing... Since I split print the first choice of filter is pretty easy.

Once on the enlarger I will examine the easel and judge overall density using the densitometer in the back of my cranium. Close down the lens two stops if the neg is not too thick.

Expose a full sheet of paper and watch the print in the developer for emergence times.

After a period of times and neg's this method works pretty well . Judging negatives and history on the enlarger makes printing this way a breeze.

[cyrus]

Maybe I have been doing this for too long,

For any given negative, I will put it on the light table , look at it consider the scene, consider how well the exposure development has captured that scene, then pick a contrast filter that I think is appropriate for printing... Since I split print the first choice of filter is pretty easy.

Once on the enlarger I will examine the easel and judge overall density using the densitometer in the back of my cranium. Close down the lens two stops if the neg is not too thick.

Expose a full sheet of paper and watch the print in the developer for emergence times.

After a period of times and neg's this method works pretty well . Judging negatives and history on the enlarger makes printing this way a breeze.

Well, sadly I haven't been doing this as long as you. :)
The attraction to having an objective source of info rather than personal experience, in addition to the fact that I don't have the personal experience, is that the human eye is a tricky thing when it comes to judging relative shades like this. In the famous optical illusion illustrated in this image below, the boxes labelled A and B are the actually the same shade - not that we can tell.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/checkershadow_illusion.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

I liken it to practicing the chords when you are trying to learn piano (which I was very
reluctant to do with a real piano). A step wedge and densitometer or even visual
inspection can save a lot of time and money when you are trying to do something tricky. And it can make even basic printing skills easier to conceptualize for some people, especially with color darkroom work. A decent step tablet doesn't cost very much either and will probably find a use if you have one around.

[bob carnie]

Ok I have seen this chart many times.

But if you are using a different film stock as the step wedge then how do you figure this will help you. The step wedge has no relationship to the film / developer/ lighting conditions you are using to create the image..

Unless like I mentioned you are really into step wedges and that's your subject preference.

If you are putting a 21 step reflective tablet into your original scene on the edge of the frame with every lighting , condition you are finding, then including the step wedge into your print , then I would say the step tablet would be a good reference.
This would then work but I think you see how difficult this would be.

Lots of workers hit an exposure of a step wedge to get a white and grey balance for a lighting scene when using digital capture, but I think it is pretty difficult to include a reflective 21 step card when shooting film with various lighting scenes, then printing this step wedge as part of your image.

I am not against step wedges for technical purposes , but it sound like you want to print images.

Well, sadly I haven't been doing this as long as you. :)
The attraction to having an objective source of info rather than personal experience, in addition to the fact that I don't have the personal experience, is that the human eye is a tricky thing when it comes to judging relative shades like this. In the famous optical illusion illustrated in this image below, the boxes labelled A and B are the actually the same shade - not that we can tell.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/checkershadow_illusion.jpg

[bob carnie]

A & B square both read L - 57.762 with 0 in the A channel and 0 in the B channel

this is one of the really cool samples.


Well, sadly I haven't been doing this as long as you. :)
The attraction to having an objective source of info rather than personal experience, in addition to the fact that I don't have the personal experience, is that the human eye is a tricky thing when it comes to judging relative shades like this. In the famous optical illusion illustrated in this image below, the boxes labelled A and B are the actually the same shade - not that we can tell.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/checkershadow_illusion.jpg

[cyrus]

A & B square both read L - 57.762 with 0 in the A channel and 0 in the B channel

this is one of the really cool samples.

Yeah and you'd be amazed at how many people absolutely refuse to believe it!

[cyrus]

Ok I have seen this chart many times.

But if you are using a different film stock as the step wedge then how do you figure this will help you. The step wedge has no relationship to the film / developer/ lighting conditions you are using to create the image..

Unless like I mentioned you are really into step wedges and that's your subject preference.

If you are putting a 21 step reflective tablet into your original scene on the edge of the frame with every lighting , condition you are finding, then including the step wedge into your print , then I would say the step tablet would be a good reference.
This would then work but I think you see how difficult this would be.

Lots of workers hit an exposure of a step wedge to get a white and grey balance for a lighting scene when using digital capture, but I think it is pretty difficult to include a reflective 21 step card when shooting film with various lighting scenes, then printing this step wedge as part of your image.

I am not against step wedges for technical purposes , but it sound like you want to print images.

I don't know for sure yet - does the tablet have to match the film, or is it good enough that the same tablet is being used for comparison purposes between different prints? For starters, it just seems to me that if you run a test print, and try to compare it to another test print which was made using different exposure settings, having some sort of objective reference would help to see what effect any changes in contrast/exposure have had, and so putting a step tablet next to your neg on the neg holder would be a way to do that. Like you said, you're doing this by eyeball anyway, why not use a step wedge to introduce a bit more objectivity?

[Drew Wiley]

You can do both, Cyrus. Sorry to confuse you. A standard Stouffer step tablet will be
useful for rapid comparision of different papers etc or for more formalized plotting using
a densitometer. But you can also make your own step tablets for fine-tuning certain
situations. I don't think they're really necessary for basic b&w printing skills, but once
you get to certain types of problem-solving, step tablets can be useful indeed.

[bob carnie]

Ok I will go out on a limb here, and probably be hit hard.

I never, and I mean never look backwards when printing, I do not compare test prints, I do not make test strips,,, I use a microwave for heating my lunch and that is it, ,,, I do not take a few days to reflect on a print.

I do most of my evaluation of a print as it is emerging in the developer and use a very quick evaluation of the full test print with lights on to verify my next move{ this evaluation is done within 30 seconds}, the print if not to my standards goes in the round bucket never to be viewed again.
The most important step IMHO is looking at the print as it emerges in the developer, are you seeing tone in the highlights?, are the blacks blocking up? am I in the density range I need for this print?
This I learned from Lith Printing and has helped me tremendously.. With Lith you need to snatch the print, therefore you need to look constantly.
It is actually very freeing in ones work when you start working this way.

With all of this in mind, I think you can see a step wedge would be useless to me.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob, I guess if you're working with the same paper and developer all the time you might
get good at judging wet prints, but I alway dry them down. And if you work with a variety of papers, developers, and toners in all kind of ways like I do, a lot of things
can change between a wet print and a dry one. Some toners don't really go to completion until well into the wash cycle. Printing color too makes it even more complicated. So I have all four: a densitometer, a heat gun, a microwave, and most important, drying screens, because ultimately it is air drying of the final prints which counts. And in this foggy climate, it may take two or three days of air drying before all the subtle tone and detail comes out in a print. But I have interest in imposing my own
customs if some other workflow works better for you.

[cyrus]

Thanks Bob & Drew. I think I'll give a try to printing the Stouffer step wedge along with my prints, just to see if it helps me. After all, there's no harm.

Actually Bob that brings up another point I wanted to make: Thank God for amber LED safelights. I've got two hanging right over my sink, bright as heck, and they cause no fogging at all. With these, it becomes pretty easy to judge a print while it is developing.

[Drew Wiley]

Sorry Bob, I meant to say, "I have NO interest in imposing ..." Darn, I can hardly wait
until I can retire from this damn carpal tunnel machine!

[bob carnie]

Actually I do use the same paper dev combo for most of my silver printing.
Also what I did not mention I always make three versions when printing, just to see a variation when dry.

Sorry Bob, I meant to say, "I have NO interest in imposing ..." Darn, I can hardly wait
until I can retire from this damn carpal tunnel machine!

[Jay DeFehr]

I don't consider myself a great printer, but I think I'm pretty good at calibration. A step wedge is a calibration tool. I think Bob was making the distinction between calibrating and printing. In calibration, objectivity is essential, but it has no place in printing. Don't try to print while calibrating, or to calibrate while printing, or you'll do neither well.

[Nathan Potter]

I see absolutely no reason to use a step wedge when enlarging . Unless of course you want to hang on your walls a bunch of step wedges.

Well Bob, I must confess that some of my images of the Stouffer wedge are better than some I've taken of subjects. But they are relegated pretty much to the darkroom walls out of sight from the wife - who I fear would be appalled to see where all that photo money goes.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Bill Burk]

Back in the days when I was doing traditional pre-press, severe tongue lashings were delivered to those poor souls who had a neg or plate turn out wrong if they didn't have a step wedge. If something went wrong and you _had_ a step wedge, the advice doled out was much kinder (and accurate).

So _that's_ why I use a step wedge or a densitometer to see what I've got.

Doesn't mean I do what they tell me though. Sunday's set of three prints, by the numbers, should have gone on Grade 2 but I decided to go for Grade 3 with a third-stop burn and a third-stop dodge. One of the three prints didn't get the dodge. The trees plunged into black. Unlike Bob, I'm going to keep the bad one to illustrate why the other two of the set are better. You never know, I've had people say they prefer the "worse" print.

With my diffusion light source, contact prints and enlarging should come out the same. I think the advice that you can't predict how an enlargement would look based on a contact print applies more to condenser heads.

And no, I don't have a way to reconcile that I do my test strips in 1/3 stop increments but the Stouffer scale is 1/2 stop.

[Bill Burk]

... I guess if you're working with the same paper and developer all the time you might
get good at judging wet prints.... And in this foggy climate, it may take two or three days of air drying before all the subtle tone and detail comes out in a print....

Maybe that's working in my favor, I've stuck to one paper/developer. I make test strips and judge them wet. I don't have a dry-down timer though I think it would be cool. I make my highlights a little "hot" and where the shadows already look dense I know I better dodge.

Monday was nice, prints dried in one day.