The BTZS Paper Test, Do I compensate for Ilford filters?

[Larry Gebhardt]

It looks like the flare is starting to show on the whites around two stops beyond maximum black on a fairly contrasty paper/filter. That's not surprising and not something I'd focus much on.

I'm not a fan of trying to set the exposure just by the meter, but a meter reading can get you a decent starting point for a test strip for the highlight exposure and help you get a rough contrast range for a starting contrast grade. Even at it's best it saves just a tiny strip or two of paper and a few minutes of processing.

The difference in contrast between your two prints is possibly based on the cold light head vs the effectively collimated light from the enlarger. I don't know for sure that the Callier effect pertains to contract prints made this way, but it seems like it might. I'd bet that's the primary reason for the background difference and not flare. You could test that with the same lens and a condenser head.

Remember with printing you expose for the highlights, then assess contrast. The multigrade filters are designed to keep the highlight exposure fixed (or with the one stop jump) as you found earlier. So you should be able to make contrast jumps with the same exposure if it was really based on a zone 8 or 9 highlight (in practice I usually end up with another test strip with 1/10th or 1/20th of stop gradations after contrast changes). I think if you tried to match contrast between the two prints there would be very little difference.

[m00dawg]

Ah some good thoughts. Indeed I don't think it will eliminate strips completely but even reducing them by a few seems worthwhile. Maybe I'm over-complicating the move to fiber prints but seems like washing and well as the longer fixing times can really slow down the process.

Yeah at first glance the enlarger step tablet kinda freaked me out a little. One thing I didn't mention is that contact print was at a #2 and the projection print at a #3. #3 was the best of all the results I tried. #4 I liked more on the kiddos face (more contrast than the contact print for sure) but it just obliterated the shadow around his ear and the background was full black while providing enough detail on the highlights. With a #2 it ended up being much too flat. I tried #1 and even tried a split-grade. With split-grade I think I could get it close but part of the exercise was not to have to mess about with that if the negative is properly exposed. Sort of an aside, I was testing perhaps too many things at once as I was always testing strobes.

Dry, the projection print and the contact print as closer to each other than it initially appeared, but there's still loss of detail on the top of his head in the projection. It was crazy how much I was throwing darts at it versus the contact print, which I nailed without doing hardly any work. That's why I was thinking it may have been flare. But in fairness, I need to test the neutral tone paper like I did with the cool tone.

To my eye, backdrop aside, the contrast is about the same between the #2 contact and #3 projected. Which hmm actually is a little odd - I would have expected the opposite since the Callier effect I thought affect diffusion and condenser enlargements (just the latter a lot more). Might need to re-read that chapter on BTZS.

Either way, good point on the condensers - I moved from those to the Aristo D2 to help tame contrast and bring it more in-line with the Beseler I was using previous. It's still a little different and I do miss actually having a nice yellow-white light over the torquise when composing, but I get used to it. It considerably changed contrast - I was using a #1 or even #0 filter with the condensers where I now use a #2 with the Aristo but tend to go to a #3. This matches my Beseler pretty close (though I don't have paper tests on it to show any of these combinations).

Might be interesting to see what the print looks like through the condensers. I recall in the past I had a similar issue (the backdrop renders much darker than I expected).

[Larry Gebhardt]

There's no need to fix the test strips completely, or really to wash them for more than a few seconds to rinse the surface fixer off. Just keep them in the sink so you don't contaminate any work surface.

I haven't used a fluorescent cold light head, but they are reported to have warm up time issues and ideally need a light integrating timer to compensate fully (though heaters should mostly fix the issues). That could be some of the variability you experienced.

Consider trying a different negative as well, ideally one with a full range of tones to let you see changes more easily.

[m00dawg]

Ah maybe I'm over complicating my concerns with fiber then. I still need to make some sort of washer. I was thinking about just putting a spout on the bucket I use (I have a bathroom darkroom so it's my holding area for prints since the sink itself is small).

The Aristo itself yes does have a warm up time but honestly it was pretty quick to get used to - when I do test strips I just leave the light on and just uncover eat test every 3 or 5 seconds. More complicated if I'm trying to do a geometric series but otherwise it's fine. I'm sure voltage also plays a role but I haven't had inconsistencies print to print when using the same settings - nothing I could notice anyway.

It's a bit of a stop gap until I can get an LED head. If those are built right (where the switch is on the DC, not the AC side), they have basically no warm-up.

[Larry Gebhardt]

You can get by with soaking prints in a tray and changing the water periodically. I usually soak my prints in the vertical washer too in order to save water and cut the flow into my septic tank. Several changes early on and then an over night soak tests as clean.

The LED head I built has proven to work very well for me, and as you say with DC control the switching time is effectively instant.

If I were in your shoes I'd probably use the condenser as my stop-gap solution. You could easily switch the lamp out with a few high power LEDs which is easier than a full diffusion setup.

[m00dawg]

Ah that's good to know! I tend to soak my RC prints after fixing. I use my bucket as a holding tank until I can give them a rinse in the sink. Better setup than I had back in high school and my prints back then still look like the day I made them so I haven't worried about it much.

For FB good to know I can soak also. I was thinking of trying to make a stand of sorts inside my bucket so the chemicals can sink down. Then I can have a spout on the bottom if I want to cycle water through it. I did something similar for an outdoor watering bucket of sorts and it's a couple bucks worth of parts at the hardware store for that. The stand I need to figure out still though. Just something to keep prints off the bottom. Something like a screen with some feet attached to it would be all that is needed I think.

As far as the condensers, it may be worth trying them again now that I know how to do paper tests to see how it goes. I wasn't a fan of the results I was getting with those, although I did really enjoy being able to use above the lens filters. Dust was a real nightmare and sometimes, though I never saw it in prints, my grain focuser would show all the plastic layer imperfections making it hard to focus. It was strange.

[Larry Gebhardt]

The idea that fixer sinks in wash water has been proven to be a myth made to sell fancy print washers. Fixer goes into solution and is therefore evenly distributed. You just need to allow water access to all parts of the print - don't stack prints in the wash. What ever you do I recommend getting a residual hypo test and ensuring your fixing and wash process is good. Then fix and wash that way consistently.

Some condensers seem better than others, but usually just in the degree of how collimated the light is. I've found the bulb surface and dirty condensers to be a source of odd artifacts, but so far not the film base. Dust is certainly more of an issue.