Zone I SET

[Doremus Scudder]

Everyone...my apologies for sending you down the wrong path. See, I warned you this was new territory for me. What I should have said was Standard Enlarging Time (SET). I was trying to find the proper printing exposure to determine the first noticeable tonal separation from black. ...

See my post above for finding minimum time for maximum black.

As for "Standard Enlarging Time": I certainly don't have one. I do find a "proper-proofing time" for finding the minimum exposure it takes to render a clear area of the negative "maximum black" on the paper, but it varies with film and development time (and film developer, enlarger bulb life, etc., etc.). I usually do a quick test before proofing a batch of negatives to find the right time (or times, if I have different films, for instance) for that batch.

Note that this is only for proofing. Proofs give me lots in information, but when making a fine print, I start from scratch with a guesstimate about contrast derived from the proof and a test strip. Whatever enlarging time I end up with for any particular print isn't any "standard" at all; rather the exposure I need at the contrast I want to get the print I like.

Best,

Doremus

[Fred V]

My best guess is the SET might be useful for eliminating the enlarging time as a variable when determining film development times for N+ and N-.

[Doremus Scudder]

My best guess is the SET might be useful for eliminating the enlarging time as a variable when determining film development times for N+ and N-.

Since changing development time changes the film-base+fog density, any standard enlarging time derived from one development scheme will not automatically transfer to another. Ideally, E.I. should probably be adjusted for expansion and contraction developments as well (in practice, it's really only the contractions that we have to watch out for). Still, I'd do a separate test strip to find minimum time for maximum black if I increased or decreased development by 20% or so.

Regardless, the window of acceptable exposure and development is generous enough that one should be able to get in the ballpark fairly quickly for a "Normal" scheme of exposure and development. These days, it is less important that we have a lot of different development schemes, since the contrast controls in printing are greater and more flexible. And, even the classic Zone System as practiced by Ansel Adams never got closer than a "Zone," which means a stop, one way or the other.

Getting enough exposure so you have the information you need on the negative and then developing enough to get the print contrast you want (i.e., between the extremes of possibilities offered by VC paper) is all that we really need to do. Sure, dialing things in is great, but we shouldn't get lost in the rabbit hole of testing everything to perfection when it's not necessary and doesn't make any difference in the final print.

Best,

Doremus

[Fred V]

Since changing development time changes the film-base+fog density, any standard enlarging time derived from one development scheme will not automatically transfer to another. Ideally, E.I. should probably be adjusted for expansion and contraction developments as well (in practice, it's really only the contractions that we have to watch out for). Still, I'd do a separate test strip to find minimum time for maximum black if I increased or decreased development by 20% or so.

Regardless, the window of acceptable exposure and development is generous enough that one should be able to get in the ballpark fairly quickly for a "Normal" scheme of exposure and development. These days, it is less important that we have a lot of different development schemes, since the contrast controls in printing are greater and more flexible. And, even the classic Zone System as practiced by Ansel Adams never got closer than a "Zone," which means a stop, one way or the other.

Getting enough exposure so you have the information you need on the negative and then developing enough to get the print contrast you want (i.e., between the extremes of possibilities offered by VC paper) is all that we really need to do. Sure, dialing things in is great, but we shouldn't get lost in the rabbit hole of testing everything to perfection when it's not necessary and doesn't make any difference in the final print.

Best,

Doremus

Good point Doremus about getting lost in the rabbit hole. At my level of experience I should probably take a more lenient approach initially instead of trying to fine tune things prior to going out and taking photographs.

However, I am still puzzled regarding my 2 second enlarger exposure time...

Thanks to all for your help.

[Doremus Scudder]

... However, I am still puzzled regarding my 2 second enlarger exposure time...

Well, certainly two seconds is way to fast for a manageable exposure time.

A quick photo of the negative (e.g., smart phone and using computer screen for back-light) would help us to see where the problem lies - neg or enlarger.

If the fault is not with the negative, then the first thing is to check that everything is really working properly (are the aperture blades in your lens really closing? Is there an adjustment for the condensers that you are missing, etc.).

The next is to see if there is anything you can do to adjust the light output of the enlarger (lower wattage bulb, condenser adjustment, ND filters in the light path, etc.)

At any rate, it certainly should be a solvable problem.

Best,

Doremus

[Michael R]

Was a contrast filter used in the light path or just plain white light?

[Kevin Crisp]

As Fred Picker commented in one of his newsletters, people often get carried away with "maximum black," giving way too much exposure to get black, black, black, which can be overdoing it.

[ic-racer]

As Fred Picker commented in one of his newsletters, people often get carried away with "maximum black," giving way too much exposure to get black, black, black, which can be overdoing it.

Excellent point! Back in undergraduate school, striving to be the best in my class, I put my paper strips on a light table to find the darkest one...BAD! BAD! BAD!
In fact there was a paper on tonal reproduction that looked at many 'excellent prints' and determined almost none of them actually had a maximum black density by reflection densitometry.

[Doremus Scudder]

As Fred Picker commented in one of his newsletters, people often get carried away with "maximum black," giving way too much exposure to get black, black, black, which can be overdoing it.

Excellent point! Back in undergraduate school, striving to be the best in my class, I put my paper strips on a light table to find the darkest one...BAD! BAD! BAD!
In fact there was a paper on tonal reproduction that looked at many 'excellent prints' and determined almost none of them actually had a maximum black density by reflection densitometry.

This is an important point, and why I almost always put "maximum black" in quotes. There's something like four Zones between "really black" and "maximum black" even visually under bright light (e.g., sunlight). I learned very early that evaluating the test strip I was using to determine which fb+fog density matched maximum paper black (exposed without a negative in the carrier - so probably really close to Dmax) needed to be done in more subdued lighting and that an exact match was not the point, rather a black that would represent the Zone I print density well in a fine print.

Still, until I started making proper proofs and concerning myself with getting a nice, solid black in my prints from clear areas of the negative and then exposing enough so that I had the values in Zones II and III that I wanted (i.e., adjusting E.I. till I got that), I never made a really good print. Fortunately, I discovered that early on, with the help of AA's and Minor White's books. And, when I first started making proper proofs, I really learned about "black."

I think that in lieu of examination with a densitometer, working visually with proper proofs is the best thing for evaluating both exposure and development times and getting both these parameters solidly in the windows of acceptability. It takes the whole system into account (the full cycle of tone reproduction) from negative exposure through to print value including flare, etc. That's why I recommend it. However, if you find yourself exposing at four stops more than box speed, you're likely working to hard to get "maximum black" in your proofs

Best,

Doremus

[Alan9940]

As Fred Picker commented in one of his newsletters, people often get carried away with "maximum black," giving way too much exposure to get black, black, black, which can be overdoing it.

I will second the importance of this point, as Doremus said above. Fred told me to pick what I thought was the "maximum black" strip, then back off one step. What you're looking for is convincing black, not something that stars get lost in! I use the white viewing light as setup in my darkroom figuring that its this amount of illumination that I'm going to judge my final prints by.