How do you know exposure time for paper when making print

[Steven Ruttenberg]

From negative? Like base exposure without wasting paper? I assume it will be different for each nevative and f-stop of enlarging lens. I have not done this beforedoes an exposure table come with paper when you buy it?

[jp]

If you have a consistent batch of negatives, it will be fairly close, but you will still end up wasting some scraps of paper fine tuning or doing test strips. Things will dry down somewhat darker than they look in the tray too. There are a few different ways of making test strips; visit youtube or read an old photo instruction book. Use smaller pieces of paper for test strips and you really won't be wasting much. Enlarger lens aperture is predicable with doubling or halfing the exposure.

You can gain a ton of experience with this making contact print proof sheets of your negatives to get a feel for the paper and process. I'd recommend starting there.

And when you make good test on a piece of scrap, fix/wash/save it and they make stunning bookmarks. I feel like my book marks of scrap paper with photos get more viewing than most of my prints.

[drewf64]

JP:
Love your use of "good" test strips as bookmarks !!!
Drewf64

If you have a consistent batch of negatives, it will be fairly close, but you will still end up wasting some scraps of paper fine tuning or doing test strips. Things will dry down somewhat darker than they look in the tray too. There are a few different ways of making test strips; visit youtube or read an old photo instruction book. Use smaller pieces of paper for test strips and you really won't be wasting much. Enlarger lens aperture is predicable with doubling or halfing the exposure.

You can gain a ton of experience with this making contact print proof sheets of your negatives to get a feel for the paper and process. I'd recommend starting there.

And when you make good test on a piece of scrap, fix/wash/save it and they make stunning bookmarks. I feel like my book marks of scrap paper with photos get more viewing than most of my prints.

[esearing]

There are exposure analyzers/meters for under the enlarger that get you in the ball park. The RHDesigns model even plots your measured points on a grey scale. I can usually get close in one test sheet because it even has a test strip mode. Fine tuning with that system is a little harder for me since my head uses partial blue and green light for the entire exposure.

Experience is still key because every image is different.

[Tin Can]

Yes, test strips and test corners.

I do a lot of testing with RC not FB. Way quicker wash and dry down.

250 sheet boxes of 5X7 for economy and larger sizes for final.

The 5X7 can be placed in 4 corners and center to check exposure, contrast and sharpness/focus.

I keep a lined trash can by the sink for quick disposal of tests.

[Peter Lewin]

I do a lot of testing with RC not FB. Way quicker wash and dry down.
The 5X7 can be placed in 4 corners and center to check exposure, contrast and sharpness/focus.
I keep a lined trash can by the sink for quick disposal of tests.

Randy: I have always made my test strips from the same paper I'm printing on, usually using half of an 11x14 sheet of FB. You comment intrigues me, since I also have a big box of 8x10 RC. I know I can test this myself, but do you find that your RC test "sections" expose the same as the final FB? If I get the correct exposure and contrast on the RC will it transfer directly to the FB?

Steve: As I just mentioned, like almost everyone, I start with a test strip, in my case I use 3-second increments. I use a half-sheet for the test strip, because you get more from a test strip than just the base exposure. For example, if your strip is positioned to get some ground and some sky in a typical landscape or architectural image, you may see that the exposure you like best for the ground is not the best exposure for the sky. But you have learned how much to burn or dodge from the exposure you choose as your base to the exposure you like for the other area (because in my case I count how many 3-sec intervals the two are apart). After this my approach is very similar to Doremus's, the test strip gives me a base exposure, the next step is a full sheet at the base exposure with no manipulation (marked "straight print" in pencil on the back), the next print gets whatever dodging and burning seems obvious from the straight print, and after that as many iterations as necessary to refine the manipulations until I have a final 11x14 FB print I'm pleased with. Usually by the 4th full size print I'm either there, or very close. I write all my manipulations on the back of each print in pencil so that I remember what I did, and I can track the improvements from print to print.

Now 5 11x14 (or a few more) FB sheets isn't cheap, but I'm only printing the images I really like, which is nowhere near all the 4x5 film I expose. I usually proof my negatives digitally by scanning and printing PrintFile sheets holding 4 4x5 negatives; from those proof sheets I often re-scan the few negatives that interest me and print those on my desk-jet, just to see what they look like as 8x10s. From those, the really interesting ones (negatives) go down to the darkroom for real work. All my digital proofing is not even photo-grade, just a scan and an ordinary multi-purpose printer.

[Tin Can]

As Bernice just wrote paper varies. RC vs FB and batch.

When I get a good final print I now always make 3 and soon 5 exact copies.

I save ‘good ones’ as backup.

I vastly prefer wet printing to Inkjet. Cheaper!

[Oren Grad]

If I get the correct exposure and contrast on the RC will it transfer directly to the FB?

In general, the answer is an emphatic NO.

It's not primarily a matter of minor differences in ISO speed; one could easily adjust for that.

The Ilford line, which is what I know best, is a terrific example of how branding creates "false friends", to borrow a term from language studies. You might think that Ilford Multigrade IV RC Deluxe is the "RC version of" MG FB Classic, and similarly with the Ilford Warmtone and Cooltone RC/FB pairs. But in each case, the RC and FB versions have substantially different characteristic curves (tonal scales). If you tune for the FB or the RC version, in general you'll have to start again if you want to move to the other.

If you're primarily an FB printer, it can make sense to use a less expensive RC paper sometimes if you're just trying to do a lot of quick-and-dirty work printing to get a feel for which negatives are worth more effort. But in general, it will only be by sheer luck that an exposure and contrast tuned for an RC paper will transfer directly to an FB paper.

[Bernice Loui]

Been there tried this decades ago. Never able to make a RC print transfer to FB.. they are just that different.

If variable contrast paper (filters or adjust the color head) is being used, that is another serious variable to consider.



Bernice

But in general, it will only be by sheer luck that an exposure and contrast tuned for an RC paper will transfer directly to an FB paper.

[Jim Jones]

I agree with easering (post 4). Intelligent use of inexpensive enlarging meter is a quick way to get close to the right exposure, often close enough to permit fine=tuning the print in the developer. Enlarging meters vary widely in precision and convenience. My last one was an Ilford EM-10. It was faster and more convenient than test strips. I had to establish my own procedure for using it, though. It relies on varying enlarging lens aperture for adjusting exposure, while I prefer to use a lens at optimum aperture and vary exposure time.

If you compare the difference between the density of the film rebate and image areas of each negative, it will help you to guess at the proper exposure. However, this does take practice. I eventually could get the right exposure most of the time without metering.

When making two 5x7 prints from a sheet of 8x10 paper, those 1x5 strips of scrap paper do make good test strips.