PDA

View Full Version : Enlarging for max black



SpeedGraphicMan
3-Jan-2013, 15:31
Hello all,

Why do we run test strips when making enlargements?
If we contact print for max black, why don't we configure our enlargements in that manner as well?

Erik Larsen
3-Jan-2013, 15:56
Hello all,

Why do we run test strips when making enlargements?
If we contact print for max black, why don't we configure our enlargements in that manner as well?
Edit
Many do just that to get in the ball park for initial exposure but only works accurately if using the same f stop and height on the enlarger.

Daniel Stone
3-Jan-2013, 16:03
sometimes I have photographs that have NO BLACK whatsoever, just greys(and discerning tones and contrast in those greys, but still getting "snap" can be a pain).

Personally, I've adopted Michael Smith's method, and have made slight adaptations to fit my working space at the time of printing(since I use a "communal" darkroom area at a local photo center, since I don't have a darkroom space of my own, yet). This is for both contact printing AND enlarging.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html

-Dan

Pawlowski6132
3-Jan-2013, 16:15
The maximum black refers to the max black you will try to get through the film register only.


sometimes I have photographs that have NO BLACK whatsoever, just greys(and discerning tones and contrast in those greys, but still getting "snap" can be a pain).

Personally, I've adopted Michael Smith's method, and have made slight adaptations to fit my working space at the time of printing(since I use a "communal" darkroom area at a local photo center, since I don't have a darkroom space of my own, yet). This is for both contact printing AND enlarging.

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html

-Dan

SpeedGraphicMan
3-Jan-2013, 17:01
The maximum black refers to the max black you will try to get through the film register only.

Exactly... What I meant was if we have our own tried and true methods of negative exposure and development methods wherein our negatives always print well on a grade 2... Wouldn't it be in our favor to just expose for max black from FB+F and use that as our printing time?

Drew Wiley
3-Jan-2013, 17:06
Guess that would work if you only take photographs inside a cave where everything is supposed to look completely black.

SpeedGraphicMan
3-Jan-2013, 17:10
Guess that would work if you only take photographs inside a cave where everything is supposed to look completely black.

I said max black from FB+F... Which should render the lighter tones where they are supposed to be!

Kirk Gittings
3-Jan-2013, 17:18
Exactly... What I meant was if we have our own tried and true methods of negative exposure and development methods wherein our negatives always print well on a grade 2... Wouldn't it be in our favor to just expose for max black from FB+F and use that as our printing time?

Only true for general purposes, calibration and realistic interpretation of tones. This provides a basis for a good negative for an expressive print but for many expressive prints this is only a starting point.

Chuck P.
3-Jan-2013, 17:57
Wouldn't it be in our favor to just expose for max black from FB+F and use that as our printing time?

Not really, IMO........exposing for the maximum black and just using that for the enlarging time may not at all be the best exposure for the most desired highlight in the print. Print exposure times should be determined by the best time for the most important textured high value to be had in the print, IMO.

However, I do have a standard MTMB exposure for 4x5 (throught fb+f) at specified enlarger heights for 8x10 or 5x7 RC to expose an "enlarged proof". It's just a quick way to get the negative in positive form to explore the possibilities for a more expressive print at the time of my choosing. I don't do it for every single negative I make, just the ones that I feel really good about.

jk0592
4-Jan-2013, 07:29
Wouldn't it be in our favor to just expose for max black from FB+F and use that as our printing time?
Well, the statement is not precise, because max black is easy to obtain, as any overexposure from the light source over the negatives will produce max black. I learned many years ago that, given your light source, the minimum time required to produce a max black is the correct way to contact print, also known as the proper proof. You use this contact sheet as a starting point for your prints, and it helps you decide dodging, burning in, whatever manipulations required to express your interpretation of the image.

Drew Wiley
4-Jan-2013, 10:00
How do you know where the lighter tones are "supposed to be", and all the midtone gradation etc until you start printing the thing? Getting a usable negative with correct
exposure range is only getting to first base, not to home plate. And even different papers
and paper developers, developint time, toning, etc etc etc, affect the final look of a print.
That's even BEFORE we factor in esthetic evaluations, which is really 90% of the game
anyway. It's just so damn simple to do a test strip early on. Once in awhile I do in fact bag a hole in one print, but that's the exception, and it's based on many years of experience with analogous lighting situations and darkroom supplies, and very methodical
technique. But I never count on it.

Henry Ambrose
4-Jan-2013, 12:49
Once you get your exposure and development process nailed you can skip any kind of strip test - the first print is your test. Then the Smith flanking method (referenced earlier in this thread) really makes sense if you need it. Without defining flanking too tightly it makes the most sense to me to say that I make deliberate and definite moves - no faint variations. Do this a while and unless you lose control of your process you're gonna start getting a reasonable first print most (lots) of the time. If not, you do not have your process nailed and you need to work on that some more.

Also, I work from a set contact printing regime so that I can make judgements from the contact print. I always use f8 at 16 seconds at a certain height. If that looks good, I know what to do next for a given size print.

You're wasting a lot of time and materials if every time you start a darkroom session you have to re-invent the wheel (your process). Figure out what it takes to make a good printable negative every time and stick to that.

The other thing to remember is that prints are good if they look good - it is not necessary that a particular tone is achieved or not. It does matter that the print look good. This is an expressive medium, so express your intention. To express your intention takes a little discipline in nailing your process.

This is certainly not a claim to be a master printer, but I can get to a good (good is not a frightfully high standard) print as fast and as well as just about anyone. Then the real work starts.

ic-racer
4-Jan-2013, 14:11
Hello all,

Why do we run test strips when making enlargements?
If we contact print for max black, why don't we configure our enlargements in that manner as well?
For lithography and posterization, thats one way to do it. For continuous tone processes, the mid tones are essential to be correct. Even at the expense of the highs and lows. I match the film and paper curves in the center and adjust the paper contrast as needed for the correct effect.

Drew Wiley
4-Jan-2013, 14:38
The corollary is equally true, Henry ... Why waste time making the contact? A two
inch wide test strip is a helluva lot cheaper than using up a full sheet of premium paper,
unless your final print is damn small. I'm not an alt printer, but figure I can make as good
a silver print as anyone living or dead. And I have about a 99% success rate doing precise
neg exp and dev. But I never know what the hell I want the print to look like ("previsualized" or not) until I get into the darkroom. Way too many nuances to choose
in-route. I'll print the neg several different ways, and maybe even on different papers.
If I want a xerox, I'll buy a xerox machine. Otherwise, half the magic of this business is
in all the unplanned options.

ROL
4-Jan-2013, 15:44
SGM, I'm reading your responses and not getting where you're coming from. Are you referring to some sort of automated exposure system, perhaps like f-stop printing?

Drew Wiley
4-Jan-2013, 16:33
I aim for a versatile neg without reproduction headaches in either the shadows or highlights. There is obviously some previsualization involved with choice of film and dev
regimen, affecting curve placement, midtone expansion, etc. But there's plenty of evidence
that the Great Bearded Guru of the Zone System and "previsualization" would spend an
entire day or so tinkering with a given negative before settling in on a preferred rendition
of it - and even then redoing things from time to time. Hence the analogy to a flexible
score in music. I'm all for control when that is needed. But there are indeed a helluva lot
of ways to interpret a given negative.

Chuck P.
4-Jan-2013, 20:47
Having some Dmax lends a sense of depth and richness, there is no doubt of that, but to say you need one? Not really. But I fail to see how not having any opens more options in making fine prints.

neil poulsen
4-Jan-2013, 21:04
Exactly... What I meant was if we have our own tried and true methods of negative exposure and development methods wherein our negatives always print well on a grade 2... Wouldn't it be in our favor to just expose for max black from FB+F and use that as our printing time?

For me, the "problem" with this is, it's the highlights that make the print! Blacks are important, but if I don't nail the highlights, the print won't sing. It makes no sense (to me) to set the priority on the lesser important (but still important) blacks.

With that said, with proper exposure-development tests, one can get pretty close to having good blacks, when the highlights are at their optimum value. If the blacks aren't quite where they need to be, then a minor adjustment of paper contrast can bring the highlights and shadows to their optimum values in the same print. For example, if the blacks are too light, increase the contrast a bit, and then optimize for the highlights. The blacks will be darker, hopefully dark enough.

I really like Ansel Adam's comment that, he'd rather have two sheets at the correct exposure, versus two sheets at an incorrect exposure. (That is, two sheets at the same "correct" exposure, versus three sheets at different exposures in an attempt to bracket.) It's relatively easy at the scene to pick out where one wants to expose for the shadows. By having two sheets of film at this exposure, one can later adjust contrast by moderately under- or over-developing the second sheet of film, so that both highlights and shadows can be at their optimum values.

In my view, this leads to an important point. There's a big difference between having the correct contrast in the negative, versus attempting to use paper grade (e.g. variable contrast paper) to obtain correct contrast. My experience is that, if the contrast isn't correct in the negative, no amount adjusting paper contrast (after the fact) can make up this deficit. Contrast has gotta be right in the negative, and this makes proper zone system testing paramount in obtaining the best advantage of black and white film photography.

Henry Ambrose
5-Jan-2013, 19:04
snipped a whole bunch.....

If I want a xerox, I'll buy a xerox machine. Otherwise, half the magic of this business is
in all the unplanned options.

I think we agree on this. What I'm getting at is that getting to a "xerox" is basic craft and is tied to a well learned and controlled process. The "art" part comes afterwards. Trying to make "art" in the darkroom without having the basics nailed is just a shot in the dark. (pardon the pun)

SpeedGraphicMan
7-Jan-2013, 11:59
I understand the reasoning behind the test strip, as it is how I have printed for years.
It has always been recommended while shooting to, "expose for the shadows and develop for the hi-lights".
With enlarging it has always been, "expose for the hi-lights and adjust contrast for the shadows".

But recently I have been tinkering with enlarging for max black from FB+F and it usually gets me right about where I want it, at least as a staring point, I never suggested that it be intended as a "be all end all" for an expressive print.

Mind you, I expose and process my negatives in a very controlled way, previsualization is done with an enlargement in mind.
I rarely have to change paper grades, (except when striving for an effect) because I expose and develop my negatives to print the way I previsulized the photograph to be.

It just makes sense to me to enlarge for max black, dry the work print, and then plan out my dodging and burning, etc.

Captain_joe6
15-Jan-2013, 00:52
I think that this all really boils down to the following summary:

If all values in the process from capture to final print are held the same, then there would be no need to produce a test strip. Change anything, though, and reliably expected results go out the window.

To expand: if you had your personal film speed figured out as precisely as possible, and controlled your exposure and development accurately enough to yield a negative that had a known and finite range of densities, and if those densities fit perfectly the range of densities your paper was able to reproduce (and assuming you developed that paper to completion as you should), and your light source never varied, and your enlarger height never changed, then yes, it would, in theory, be possible to produce consistent, repeatable results throughout your photographic endeavours, using a constant aperture and time on your enlarger.

I am, at the moment, attempting to figure out this very system, with the addition of a metering and measurement component that will allow me to change height and filtration values while retaining maximum black with calculated changes to exposure time.

Drew Wiley
15-Jan-2013, 09:36
Whatever works for you works for you ... but I find all this a bit too mechanical, and I can
be as nitpicky as they come when it comes to using a densitometer when it's actually needed. In conventional silver printing, I'm a lot more concerned about the midtone gradation, how the highlights dry down, the overall feel of the image. The final punch to
the DMax is the last thing my own process, and is tweaked both by development time and the nature of toning involved, or sometimes with a little extra selective blue light. I might
start with blacks generically in split printing per se, but always leave some wiggle room
for fine tuning at the end.