Print consistency

[Kirk Gittings]

Because of the demands of my commercial business, my B&W art printing time is rare and must be very productive. This week I was in the darkroom again printing a small portfolio for a museum and ran into some old demons. I have struggled for years to remove all the variables so that I can do a very consistent print edition of say 12 prints from the same negative in one sitting. Some of the variables I have worked with include: switching from a Zone VI stabilized head (with all the do dads which only help amrginally) to a voltage stabilized Beseler color head, temperature controling the room and the developer, replenishing the developer after each print, going to longer dve. times, 4-6 minutes, (there are other good reasons for this too), and carefully testing the safelight (threshhold test) so that I have at least twice the time I need to run a print. What am I missing here? I still occasionally get about a 5% variation (lighter or darker density in non dodged or burned areas) in the middle of a run out of nowhere. Is the problem in the timer? I use an old Beseler timer which when I test it is always consistent, but I swear in the middle of a run with long exposures (60 seconds plus) that it shorts me a few seconds. I'm ready to replace it. Any suggestions for a really accurate enlarging timer? What other variables might I be missing?

[Merg Ross]

Kirk,

Have you considered a metronome?

[Bill_1856]

Amazing, isn't it. The only solution seems to be to print twice as many as you need, and select the ones nearest each other. I remember George Tice, who may be the best printer in America, saying that no two prints ever come out the same -- NEVER!

[Jim_3565]

Read Michael A. Smith's paper entitled "On Printing" at his website. I'd put a link here, but you can't bookmark anything at that site due to those infernal framesets.

Using his techniques, which absolutely require a metronome, BTW, you can churn out print after identical print all day long with very little effort. I've come to regard the metronome as every bit as essential for printing as a negative is.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As a pt/pd printer I have not made 2 prints that look the same in years, they are close, but never the same. Yet when I was printing with fiber base paper, I remember changing from VC to graded paper was the solution. You dont mention what paper you are using, but this might help.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for the input. I didn't mention a few particulars because the problems are universal. I currently do split filtration printing on VC Berger and Ilford papers in various vc developers with amendments, but the problems were present and in some ways worse when I was printing on graded papers (primarily Zone VI Brilliant and Elite [a terrible paper but I had a grant] from about 1978 thru 1998).

I have tried a metronome. I think the key sylable in that word for me is "nome". I have very complex burning and dodging patterns with filtration changes (sometimes three filters). I simply cannot keep track properly with a metronome. I space out and lose count. I need an accurate timer with my aging nomish brain.

So there are a couple of things I am not interested in changing here. One is the use of a timer and the other is VC papers. Split filtration has enabled me to turn many of my old "unprintable" negatives into beautiful saleable prints. It is the best tool i have mastered in years.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jim, Thanks for the reference.

I went and read Smith's article on metronomes. I am familiar with the procedure, have tried it and didn't like it for the reasons mentioned above. But in particular it doesn't work with my split filtering technique as I have to set my instruments down with the light off, turn on a red filtered flashlight so I can change the filtration, turn off the flashlight pick up the tool and go again repeating this maybe three times. I need an accurate timer. Help!

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

There is a compesaiting timer METROLUX. I bought mine through CALUMET because I needed it 220 volts. There is a probe put into the enlarger light and 4 different memory channels for different exposures through different filters. I have had a much better consistency when printing an edition since I got it four years ago. We can only hope it is still made.

[Henry Ambrose]

Kirk, I have an Saunders ET500 digital timer which offers times divided as fine as tenths of a second and can switch 500 watts. As far as accuracy goes it seems to be great. I wonder if you're getting something besides timer inaccuracy though. Have you checked your timer with a stop watch? If it checks OK then thats obviously not the problem.

I have always wondered about cold light heads and the inconsistencies that might be associated with them. I know they are well thought of but have always wondered about how they start and stop emitting light and how that starting and stopping is not instantaneous and probably not consistent. I've always thought that the only way to turn them on and off instantly was with a card blocking the light path. An incandescent lamp turns on and off pretty darn instantly and seems lots easier to control. But I might be all wrong as there are plenty of folks who consider cold lights the best thing going. The only one I've used was an old style Aristo and I was never pleased with it. My LPL Saunders 4500 is a much superior light source in my opinion. As far as I can tell my set-up gives consistent times/exposures if I do my part. Printing good negatives that don't need much/any manipulating which I can screw up, with paper from the same box, the prints look the same to me.

I burn/dodge by blocking the light path, starting the timer and counting -- even though I have the nice timer. I get the base exposure with the timer and then the fine adjustments come by "one thousand one, one thousand two, etc" which is kinda like the metronome idea. But a metronome ticking would make me pull my hair out so counting is it for me. A courser adjustment like what I'd call in my head in the dark a "one stop edge burn" I do with the timer. The fine adjustments I time by counting and the course ones by timer--logically backwards as far as the need for exact timing but I don't know how to do a 4 second burn with a timer - it'd never work!! For burns at different filtration I start my timer with the light path blocked and adjust the dial looking at the lighted grade window on the enlarger head, then do the counting thing. This I wish I could change about my enlarger so that the grade dial was always lit and I guess I could do that but its not that important to take the time to figure out how to do it. At least I can hit the button on the timer and check it without a flashlight.

I've been tempted to buy one of the Heiland Splitgrade units and I might if I could try one first to see it at work. It just seems like a load of money to spend but I think it can automate the process so that you can program in your times and grades but you still have the problem about how to start all that crap and have your card/hand in the right place to burn in the measured time. And its too much like a computer anyway which I want no part of in the darkroom. But it could be a good answer for production work.

Disclaimer: There are plenty here who know more than me and you're one of them and I'm not claiming anything I wrote is factual, just relating my thoughts and experience.

[Ralph Barker]

While I understand your frustration, Kirk, I'm not sure that an analog system exists that will come any closer that what you're already producing. It sounds like you've dealt with the electro-mechanical elements reasonably well, except that an electronic timer might give more consistency. My guess is that the variation is coming in through the human-factors door. It's virtually impossible to dodge and burn, particularly with split filtering, across multiple prints with absolute consistency. We just aren't made that way.

If you're producing prints for sale, I'm of the opinion that over-printing is the only solution. Then, edit out the ones you wouldn't be willing to sell, and go from there. After all, isn't the "no two prints precisely the same" element part of the non-digital marketing appeal?

[Bill_1856]

Make a good print, and a copy negative, like Eugene Smith.

[Kirk Gittings]

And how exactly would a "copy negative" solve any of the problems mentioned above? Since the original negative is fine. W. Eugene Smith is an important photographer but alas doesn't make my list as a great printer.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think the Metrolux timer isn't a bad idea, since it compensates for variations in light output. I've been thinking of getting one for my cold light head.

Have you tried factorial development? I've experimented with it a bit, particularly with amidol, but not for large print runs. Ansel Adams describes it in _The Print_. The idea is that instead of using an absolute development time, you develop for a multiple of the time it takes for the image to emerge. For instance, Michael Smith recommends exposing Azo grade 2 to get a 1 minute development time in his amidol formula. If you do this with fresh developer, the image comes up in about 20 seconds, so the total development time is three times the emergence time. As the developer ages, the emergence time should lengthen, so by Adams's factorial method, you would increase the total development time to compensate. If the image emerged in 25 seconds after, say, the 15th print, the total development time would be increased to 75 seconds. Adams claimed that this approach improved consistency with large print runs.

[John D Gerndt]

Kirk, the copy negative is made with all the burning and dodging done to it. Somewhere in your process there is an inconsistency, do you think it is likely to be a machine or a human?

That said, a commercial endeavor would suggest an overproduction just as it does an over-shoot in some circumstances. Just add it to the cost. It is part of doing business.

Cheers,

[Andrew O'Neill]

"have always wondered about cold light heads and the inconsistencies that might be associated with them. I know they are well thought of but have always wondered about how they start and stop emitting light and how that starting and stopping is not instantaneous and probably not consistent. I've always thought that the only way to turn them on and off instantly was with a card blocking the light path"

Henry, you should try the new versions of cold light. I have Aristo's 45VCLH and it turns on and off just like an incandescent light. They also have a thermostat to keep the temperature of the tubes constant.

Kirk, have you ever tried the "blast exposure" method? Lets say your main exposure is 9 seconds. You break this down to 3, 3 second exposures. This also really helps towards precise dodging and burning using the 2 card method. I learnt this from a Fred Picker article a few years ago. It works really well with consistent results print to print with very subtle differences.

[Donal Taylor]

"W. Eugene Smith is an important photographer but alas doesn't make my list as a great printer"

thankfully it's the photographer part that is important

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks for all the comments.

John, A negative is a constant. How does making a copy negative change that? As I said above, there is a variation in the density in the non burned or dodged areas of the print. I have contemplated copy negatives for different reasons however, but the logistics of making an accurate burned and dodged 4x5 are absurd for enlarging or an identical 16x20, 11x14 and 8x10 for contact printing very daunting.

David, As I said above, I replenish the developer which in my experience is far more consistent than factorial dev.

Andrew, The issue is not in the burning and dodging. As I said before there is a variation in the density in the non burned or dodged areas of the print. I have not tried the new cold light heads. I've owned the old ones both Arista and Zone VI (with the stabilizer etc.) and had ultimately decided their inconsistency was a huge insurmountable problem.

[Doremus Scudder]

Kirk,

Let me chime in on this one as well, even though there are lots of good responses above.

I find that several things help me keep consistancy from print to print when I have a lot of manipulations and many to make. (By the way, I use the Zone VI stabilizer and find if amazingly consistent.)

First, I keep careful notes of exactly what manipulations I am doing and how. These are written large on a notepad next to the enlarger. Many times I have to refer to the record several times during a print. This is done by means of one of those yellow LED keyring lights. I have several, and they all test safe (at least on the graded paper I use, I can shine the LED for 10 seconds directly at a spot on the paper with no fogging).

Second, and perhaps most useful for repeating manipulations from print to print: I express all manipulations in units of a percentage of the basic print exposure, usually 10% of the basic print exposure (or 5% if really fine control is necessary). I try for a 15-20 second basic exposure (longer is better for consistancy, since errors are then a smaller percentage of the actual exposure) and can then break down dodging and burning movements for say a 20 sec exposure into one (5%) or two (10%)second movements (ocasionally I use three seconds for, e.g. 20% of a 15 sec exposure). I know this sounds a bit complicated in writing, but it is extremely simple in practice. Let's say an area need a 45% burn. For a 20 sec basic exposure I would then simply make 4 two-second passes and 1 one-second pass. This is expressed in my notes as "4x10% +1x5%". This is also very useful when scaling prints up and down, as the proper manipulations can be derived easily from the new basic exposure.

I also find a metronome indispensable. Mine is set on 120 beats per minute (i.e. two per second) and I count (for a four second exposure) " 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & OFF". On "1" the light is uncovered, on "OFF", the light is covered or switched off. Having a metronome instead of a timer allows me to keep my eyes on the print and concentrate on the "dance" necessary for all the dodging and burning.

Some other tips for maintaining consistency at the enlarging stage:

Keep your basic exposure times long so that small errors are not a significant fraction of the total exposure.

Organize your manipulation scheme so that there is as little dodging as possible. It is much easier to burn than dodge, since one can relax between manipulations and collect one's wits.

Choreograph your movements into an easily repeatable "dance". Do each print the same way.

Take your time and check your records. My most common mistake is leaving out a step. At the end of the entire process, check the records again to make doubly sure you have left nothing undone.

Now, on to the developing part of the process, since this is where many of the inconsistencies show up.

Make sure you have plenty of fresh developer. Temperature is critical, even a couple of degrees difference at the same time can make a noticable difference in density (I swear by my Zone VI compensating development timer!). Since areas that were burned got a lot more exposure than other areas in the print, they will develop differently. Temperature differences from print to print can often look like inconsistencies in dodging and burning. Always develop for exactly the same time. 10 seconds can also make a significant difference in relative print density. Again, longer times reduce the effect of small variations.

Develop your prints either singly or in small batches. There can be a noticable difference between a print developed by itself and a group of five shuffled prints developed together in the same developer for the same amount of time. I find that three prints shuffled rapidly in the developer is the most I can do and still have them identical to a single print developed with constant agitation (I keep track of how long it takes to get all three in the developer and immerse them in the stop bath in the same order for the same period of time). The differences mentioned above are due not only to agitation, but to temporary developer exhaustion and by-product build up when larger amounts of prints are developed at once. For very sensitive prints, I develop singly, with constant agitation.

Keep an eye on the capacity of your developer and change it before it exhausts.

Finally, keep in mind that each print, no matter how hard you try, will still have "a life of its own". One can minimize differences, but not eliminate them completely. My goal is to come as close to an ideal performance of my negative as possible. I liken this to performing a piece of music (I am a professional classical musician as well). No two performances of an aria or a piano piece are identical, but they may be equally good. The same applies to prints. You must simply critically ask yourself "is that a take, or shall we do it again?" for each print you make. I'm not talking about mistakes here, I am referring to variations in the print that would be equivalent to holding a note a little longer, or taking a slightly different tempo in a piece of music, i.e. "interpretation". Think of your ideal as a "bull's eye" that you will most likely never hit and then "aim" for it. If all your prints are in the "10 ring" you are doing well, and they are close enough to consider "consistent".

Hope this helps,

[Chuck_1686]

The older Beseler Audible Repeating timer actually uses analog RC circuits to determine time. It is probably not as accurate as a newer digital based timer. Not sure if you would ever see these small changes in a print but your timer may have a component aging problem causing some drift. Anyhow getting an upgraded timer is something to try.

[lee\c]

I vote for the metrolux II for all the obvious reasons.

leec

[Bill_1856]

W. Eugene Smith was, in fact, a master printer, and recognized as such by his peers. The only problem was that he was such a perfectionest that he was known to spend a week getting a single print from a difficult negative which the lab guys at Life said was unprintable. For an interesting read, see his section in Lustrum Press's "Darkroom (vol 1)." His prints are absolutely Superb!

[Steve Arnott]

I vote for the compensating development timer. Fluctuations in development temperature are probably more significant than density differences caused by voltage fluctuations.

[tim atherton]

"John, A negative is a constant. How does making a copy negative change that? As I said above, there is a variation in the density in the non burned or dodged areas of the print. I have contemplated copy negatives for different reasons however, but the logistics of making an accurate burned and dodged 4x5 are absurd for enlarging or an identical 16x20, 11x14 and 8x10 for contact printing very daunting. "

Kirk,

I think you are missing the point - you make you "master" print with all the dodging, burning, bleaching and everything else - then you make a copy negative from the PRINT.

Then you make your prints from that negative - with all the adjustments built in. It's a tired and tested option used for generations of photographers

[tim atherton]

"And how exactly would a "copy negative" solve any of the problems mentioned above? Since the original negative is fine. W. Eugene Smith is an important photographer but alas doesn't make my list as a great printer."

maybe that's part of the problem - Gene Smith was indeed a superb (if obsessive) printer. If you have trouble seeing how good his prints are, that may be reflected inyour own workflow?

[Donal Taylor]

" I have struggled for years to remove all the variables so that I can do a very consistent print edition of say 12 prints from the same negative in one sitting."

the whole idea of "hand made" prints is their variables - it has been long held on this list that it is what makes them unique. The inconsistencies are important - otherwise yes, just go the copy neg route or get them scanned and run off identical digital prints.

Let the inconsistencies fall where they will (I bet no one else could notice them anyway? 5% - who cares!) Be a little looser with it all. The idea of a series of photographs in some form of edition is that they AREN'T all exactly the same.

[Kirk Gittings]

Tim, No, you are missing the point. The new copy negative must still be printed! and it is in the printing process where the inconsistency is!!!! Plus a copy print from a copy negative will never have the life of an original. I used to make 8x10 copy negatives of historic prints for a local museum. They will not match the originals. You are kidding yourself. The prints I am printing are for a prestigious museum collection not a newspaper ad.

[tim atherton]

"Tim, No, you are missing the point. The new copy negative must still be printed! and it is in the printing process where the inconsistency is!!!! Plus a copy print from a copy negative will never have the life of an original. I used to make 8x10 copy negatives of historic prints for a local museum. They will not match the originals. You are kidding yourself. The prints I am printing are for a prestigious museum collection not a newspaper ad."

I didn't say they would math the originals in the same way - you just appeared not to grasp the idea of the copy negative - perhaps I was wrong on that. But if it's consistency you want, it's one way to go.

But why the obsessing over consistency? As has been said - a 5% fluctuation - that's insignificant. The prints are going to vary - what's the problem? Surely they should vary? If you've made a good print, then you've made a good print. It doesn't matter if it looks 100% like the last one or the next one - isn't that what it's about?

You appear to be spending a lot of time and energy focussing on something that's unimportant? Or the prints that "vary" bad prints in some way?

[Mark_3899]

Hi Kirk, Kearsarge Model 301. You won't be disappointed!

[wfwhitaker]

Have you done a safelight test?

[Kirk Gittings]

William,

Yes I have, the threshold test. Some years ago I switched from graded to VC and found out very quickly how incredibly sensitive the new VC papers are, especially the Berger, compared to the VC papers of twenty five years ago when I first used VC papers. You are right that is a major source of inconsistency and lack of separation in the highlights. I have been surprised how often that is a problem with people's darkrooms that I have taught in. For the past five summers I have been a visiting artist at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago teaching a class in architectural photography. Last summer I decided to do the threshold safelight test after seeing greyed highlights in students work. The results were horrid-significant fogging on Berger after just 30 seconds and Ilford after just a minute! The group darkrooms were very bright and pleasent to work in but bad really bad for quality work. But getting habits changed was very challenging as the group darkrooms became very dark after the Thompson lights were adjusted properly. How many years of greyed-out highlights had come out of those darkrooms, one of the leading undergraduate programs in the country?

[Henry Ambrose]

This is a great thread!

On safelight fogging - I am surprised that you have trouble with fogging at 30 seconds to one minute. I'd say your safelight filters were/are bad. That story about the Art Institutes darkroom is scary!

I've had Thomas safelights, Osram Duka (also sodium vapor) assorted Kodak bullet types and the Calumet Zone VI LED safelight. The Thomas was nice but the humming it made drove me up the wall and it was not that safe-old filters maybe. The others were hard to get much light that did not fog prints. The Zone VI is nice but not all that bright on VC setting and when set brighter it fogs paper too quickly in my 6X8 foot darkroom. It was also kinda expensive. I most recently had a Kodak bullet over the sink and the Zone VI over the enlarger pointed at the ceiling and switched with the timer. I could go seven minutes with no fogging with this set up but it was a bit dim. If I needed something under the counter or dropped something I had to turn the lights on.

What I found recently is an LED lamp that screws into a standard household socket and is made with very sharp cutting LEDs which are rated to emit within a band about 10 nm either side of the nominal rating. In size and shape its like a household bulb so it will screw into any standard fixture. I bought a little accent light fixture at Home Depot for $8.95 and have it sitting on a shelf in my darkroom (and another in the entry way to my darkroom). Currently this new LED lamp is aimed into the far corner (not very far in a 6X8 foot room) of my darkroom added to the two other lights. I can literally "read the newspaper" in the darkroom - or the Ilford or Bergger instruction sheets that come in the paper box. I am amazed how bright it is in there!! Its hard to focus on the easel its so bright. I've never been in a brighter darkroom. I've tested it out to seven minutes and stopped there. Bergger VCCB, Ilford RC and Fiber MGD, Agfa RC 310 all showed no fogging. (Yes, I did a proper threshold exposure on the test papers first) I love these lights! Look for the "Festival" model from http://www.optiled.biz -- $30 something each - get the red or orange. The red one takes a bit of getting used to as all color goes away. The orange one looks more like normal OC safelight. I've tested them both - they are equally safe and bright. I've been meaning to write about these for a while and keep putting it off but this thread woke me up - so here it is.

So, you can have a very bright darkroom that is totally safe, just buy a couple of these lamps. Absolutely the best I've found. The OptiLED folks don't sell them as safelights, they are for signage and display use I think. Buy 'em anyway.

[Kirk Gittings]

Henry, Thanks for the reply. Actually I did change the filters. I even doubled them up. The short times may be do to the fact that it is a small darkroom, but still larger than yours! Maybe I have lower ceilings. These LEDS sound very promissing. Who sells them? I have never heard of them.

[Henry Ambrose]

Kirk,
When safelight filters go bad they are bad and I think doubling them up does not work - as you have found they are just bad. Like an old Wratten gel, when they're gone they're gone.

LEDs make great safelights as they can be manufactured to emit only certain wavelengths of light so filters aren't needed. The red OptiLED is listed as 627 nm with a spectral half-width of 20nm. Which translates to very red and very far away from anything that would expose photo paper which is sensitive down in the blue and green range at 450 to 500 nm.

You can find them here:
http://www.optiled.biz/products/products.html
(http://www.optiled.biz/products/products.html)

Scroll to the bottom, the third product down is the "Festival" model. I have two of these; one orange/red, one red.
You can download a .pdf file from this page with specifications. I was looking for parts to try to make an LED safelight when I stumbled across these. I immediately realized these might work and I didn't have to make cobble up something with a power supply and wire running everywhere, just screw them in a household socket.

[Kirk Gittings]

Henry, That is a great find! Maybe the best tip I've seen on here. Thanks.

[Kirk Keyes]

HI Kirk (great name by the way!),

I want to suggest like others that a digital time should help greatly with repeatability and precision. And not only that, but look for one that is programmable. You can program in your base exposure time, and then add burns into the programmable times. Let the timer autostep from one time to the next - no need to reset times or press buttons. You can have your hands or card or wand ready to do your dodging or burning.

I started with an Omega CT-40 in the 80s and I'll never be without a programmable timer now. The CT-40 had 9 or 10 programmable steps, 1/10th of a secong resolution up to 99m 99.9 second I believe, can auto step from one program step to another. The Omega can still be found on ebay occassionally, but they really aren't that robust for switching a large format enlarger off and on. For something more modern, try a Gralab 900 - around $125-150 or so used, $265 new at B&H. Kearsarge also makes a programmable I think, but it is pretty spendy new. You can get a footswitch also for the Gralab.

I've got a Gralab 900 for the enlarger, and then I use the CT-40 for timing development. Program in developer, stop, two bath fix times, and it will autoadvance from one to the next. I only have to start the timer, put the paper in the developer, watch the display count down, and move to the next bath when the time is up. It then counts down the next time... You can set these to beep at you if you like, every second, every minute, 15 seconds fromthe end of the time as a warning...

If you can't repeatable reproduce the timing in making your print, you probably will not be able to achieve the quality you want.

Kirk

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,

"repeatable reproduce" is a magnificent phrase. I will find a use for it somewhere. Thanks for the tip on the timers. That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

Kirk

[Kirk Keyes]

Hi Kirk,

Glad you liked the idea AND the phrase. I'm also glad you got it even though I have a typo and I meant to say "repeatably reproduce" or perhaps using better English "repeatedly reproduce".

Kirk

[Harold_4074]

I hesitate to enter such an involved discussion, but have you considered the uniformity of the paper that you are using? It is coated in wide rolls and then cut down into sheet sizes, so any variation across the master sheet or along its length will end up as a periodic variation through the various marketed boxes, and possibly within one box. I understand that some of the bargain re-branded films are/were from the edges of the master rolls where the uniformity was unacceptable for the manufacturer's brand brand label; perhaps this occurs with paper as well.

You could consider making your own control strips by step-exposing a full sheet of paper before cutting it into strips; process one of these every few prints and compare at the end of the session. If the strips are identical but the prints vary, then your paper is at fault; if the strips vary in proportion to the prints, then it is a processing issue.

Incidentally, I use a Metrolux timer, which is very nice for doing split filtration and even better for test stips. Its stabilization is good (not perfect), but it will reliably do exposures with fractional-second repeatability.