rabbit hole of F stop printing

[Michael R]

saw a video on the filmomat and ran into various things...

film like a boss.. he did standard test strips and came out with a given time of 15 seconds.. then he did the old style cardboard sheet on a sheet of ilford on the easel, came up with 15 seconds again. Then he used the filmomat and somehow came out with 20 seconds overall burn, but a 10 second base burn.. it was darker in the finished prints... but he said it was the same.

Ditch the YouTubers. Use your eyes like John Layton said above, and work at it.

None of these gadgets, calibrations or systems are going to give you good prints without you working on your prints, doing test strips, work prints etc. There’s no way around that unless you look at a mediocre print and convince yourself it’s good because you used some kind of system (that sort of bias/delusion is very common in film/darkroom photography).

You make great prints with or without any of this stuff if you work at it and are good at it. And you make crap prints with or without any of this stuff if you don’t work at it and aren’t good at it.

[Robert Bowring]

Don't believe any of the crap on you see on You Tube! Read what Michael R. says. There are no short cuts or matches or consistency. I have tried several exposure calculators and never found one that really worked. I have always found that it is easier and more accurate to make test strips. Learning to print is like any other art. You need to practice it and then practice it some more.

[Pieter]

I you are having trouble doing f-stop printing, then don't. It is just another method that may have advantages if you get the hang of it, and using an f-stop timer really can make a big difference. But in the end, wonderful prints are made timing conventionally, too. Don't sweat it.

[Doremus Scudder]

F-stop timing has the advantage of giving even changes in density. A half stop looks like a half stop whether it's 5 seconds or 15 seconds. The problem with f-stop timing for me is that pesky inverse square law that makes you calculate changes using the square root of 2. Yes, you can make tables or you can get an f-stop timer, but you're always working with times in multiples of 1.4...

An alternate method, with the same advantages and none of the wonky numbers is to simply use percentages. They are easy to figure and easy to get used to. A 20% change is a 20% change, except it's a lot easier to figure 10% of your base time than it is to find the factor for a third of a stop or whatever. Even 25% is easier to figure. It works exactly the same way. No need for timer or calculator or tables.

Same for test strips. I like 30% intervals for my test strips. Easy to figure (10 sec., 13 sec., 17 sec., 22 sec., ...), even exposure increments, no f-stops.

I note my dodging and burning in percentages of the base exposure as well. Makes it easier to find a starting point when scaling up or down or making a print with a different base exposure (different paper, enlarger, etc.).

One learns to see what a 20% or 30% change in print exposure will do just as easily as seeing what a stop or a third of a stop change will do. Besides, when changing contrast settings, all bets are off anyway.

Low-tech, cheap, intuitive, simple... what's not to like

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

How to make an easy problem complicated seems to entice some people, but not me. Simple test strips tell me everything I need.

[Renato Tonelli]

An alternate method, with the same advantages and none of the wonky numbers is to simply use percentages. They are easy to figure and easy to get used to. A 20% change is a 20% change, except it's a lot easier to figure 10% of your base time than it is to find the factor for a third of a stop or whatever. Even 25% is easier to figure. It works exactly the same way. No need for timer or calculator or tables.

Doremus

I attest to this method's simplicity; it's so simple and straightforward to work with.

I have no doubt that F/Stop printing is a wonderful system but it's just another way to skin a cat, and don't get me started on those silly youtube videos; very, very few are worthwhile. I strongly suggest that you get Horenstein's books: "Black & White Photography, A Basic Manual" and "Beyond Basic Photography". "The "Elements of Black & White Printing by Carson Graves" is another one .It's all there, clearly explained and always at your fingertips. Gradually, you'll find your own way.

[Louis Pacilla]

Ditch the YouTubers. Use your eyes like John Layton said above, and work at it.

None of these gadgets, calibrations or systems are going to give you good prints without you working on your prints, doing test strips, work prints etc. There’s no way around that unless you look at a mediocre print and convince yourself it’s good because you used some kind of system (that sort of bias/delusion is very common in film/darkroom photography).

You make great prints with or without any of this stuff if you work at it and are good at it. And you make crap prints with or without any of this stuff if you don’t work at it and aren’t good at it.

Clap hands & agree!

[Peter De Smidt]

F-stop printing is yet another of those things... Skip it.

I'm going to disagree here. At least for me, switching to f-stop printing led to a significant improvement in the ease and quality of my printing. I use a StopClock Pro.

[ic-racer]

1.4, 1.26, 1.19.

Memorize those or put them on your calculator. (1/2 stop, 1/3 stop, 1/4 stop).

Now, using multiplication or division, you can go backwards or forwards in terms of stops from any initial base time.

This is the similar to what DS posted (#14) which could easily be rounded to 30% (26%) and 20%(19%) if so desired.

[John Layton]

The problem I have with those “fixed” numerical values, with the spread between them is that, while they might be perfectly applicable to capturing a photograph on film (given further controls offered in processing and printing) - the print itself is the “final” product…and as such will likely need something other than a previously fixed value to succeed. The further problem with such pre-established values when applied to printing is that folks might tend to choose one of them, thus always (unless they are very lucky) be settling for a less than ideal result - and eventually this methodology becomes habitual.

In other words…there is likely some fractional value, well in between those you’ve listed, which would be necessary for a final print, as the only “control” which exists to any degree after its done would be (perhaps) a bit of toning, and/or adjusting the nature of light falling on the print itself.

Consider my own example of a print whose success was completely dependent on my “reading between the lines.” The subject was a yucca plant at White Sands in full sunlight. Film was FP-4, souped in PMK. My enlarger lamp (5x7 model) is a very sophisticated Heiland VC - LCD unit…which gives me contrast grades from 00.0 (a grade below 0.0) to 5.0, stepped in 1/10th grade increments…which means the entire spread is divisible by 60 (measured) steps.

The “white on white” delicacy of tonal shifts within the yucca pods demanded that I do a split-grade print - not with my more typical ratio of minimum to maximum contrast settings…but with 40 percent of the exposure utilizing the 2.5 (contrast grade) setting, and the remaining 60 percent set at 2.6. Nothing but my eyes could ever tell me that I’d need a slightly asymmetrical spread of exposure times…and this between the closest possible (set-able) numerical equivalents…splitting some very fine hairs even finer- but to me, it makes a difference! Makes me wish that my Heiland unit would just do away with click stops altogether and provide values to the 1/100ths!

And I guess that last sentence says it best for me…that while measured steps work fine for everything prior to creating the final print, it is in the creation of the final print (IMHO) that one needs to do away with “given” values…and find that very special place on an ideally stepless continuum of controls offered in that final gasp of effort required to pull off a successful print. Make sense?