Taking that first jump, and wanting some reasoning behind this video

[gord]

No two people will interpret the same negative in exactly the same way; your aesthetic choices are different from everyone else's, so you can't expect someone else's printing decisions to align with yours.

Quite right. Glad you posted this.

[gord]

There are quite a few folks I know, myself included, that shoot Foma 400 at box speed. I also develop it in Rodinal 1:50 because I like the gutsy qualities of the emulsion/deveper combination. I often contact print the resultant 5x7 negatives, and only enlarge the 4x5 negs to 8x10. Quite retro.

[jnantz]

But im really curious why his 3 second print,,, came out DARKER then the 6 second section of the test strip. Its just mind bending

the tray might have rocked more when he developed it or / and he might have pulled the print at different times instead of waiting 1 min.
his dense negative was much nicer then the other 2... thin negatives are a drag.

[Michael R]

the tray might have rocked more when he developed it or / and he might have pulled the print at different times instead of waiting 1 min.
his dense negative was much nicer then the other 2... thin negatives are a drag.

Ya and also he’s probably not actually a boss.

[jnantz]

Ya and also he’s probably not actually a boss.

I don't know man, he has members only content, maybe he is ...

[Torquemada]

Is anyone actually talking about only 2 or 3 seconds of cumulative exposure? That's ludicrous. How does anyone effectively dodge and burn in almost the blink of an eye?
Reluctantly, I did view the video. About all I can say, is that is negatives are that far off, in terms of being hopelessly too thick or too thin, that's why every darkroom should be equipped with a trashcan. Don't even bother trying to print them.

Sometimes its not the negatives being at fault. Sometimes its the enlarger set up like i found out after burning through perhaps 140$ of paper. FOr a quick reference at that time, i was needing to keep almost any negative under 5 seconds, otherwise everythign would turn out looking like his 8 second test strip.

However there is too much indoctrination on the forums, and youtube that an anlarging lens needs to be kept at f/8 or f/5. Alot of negatives would have had better luck with an aperture of say f/18

[Vaughan]

Forums like these have been around a LOT longer than YouTube: some date back the earliest web sites, and some are older and have links to pre-web text based USENET groups.

The information found on forums is in my experience a much better quality, and has a better chance of being accurate than YouTube. On a forum, if a post is not accurate then corrections are quickly added so at the very least it can be seen that opinions are divided.

Forums don't usually have "likes" or "subscribers" (or advertising revenue that goes to forum contributors) so people are posting to learn or share experience, not gain a following or "influence" or make money. That makes a huge difference.

[jnantz]

Sometimes its not the negatives being at fault. Sometimes its the enlarger set up like i found out after burning through perhaps 140$ of paper. FOr a quick reference at that time, i was needing to keep almost any negative under 5 seconds, otherwise everythign would turn out looking like his 8 second test strip.

However there is too much indoctrination on the forums, and youtube that an anlarging lens needs to be kept at f/8 or f/5. Alot of negatives would have had better luck with an aperture of say f/18

the reason people set their enlarger to 3 clicks closed past wide open is because it is the optimal fstop for enlarging, that's not indoctrination, its facts. if you have a public darkroom near you it might be worth it to visit it and learn from someone who knows what they are doing because if your negative required such a short exposure time it was probably poorly made ( like most people who are learning ). in person beats online any day of the week.

[jim_jm]

Most enlarger lenses are designed to provide optimum results when closed down 2 or 3 stops. Like many camera lenses, they do not perform at their best wide-open or at their smallest apertures. This is especially critical when printing 35mm negatives at a high level of magnification for larger prints. This is the experience of many folks on this forum, many of whom have been printing for a half-century or more. We don't like wasting paper either.
Having very short exposure times can be the result of a thin negative or incorrect enlarger bulb, among other causes. Making small prints can also require short exposures since the enlarger head is closer to the easel. Using contrast filters for B/W printing helps to extend exposure times. Even if you want "normal" contrast, a #2 filter will give the same results as no filter for many papers.
Effective and efficient printing skills are something that only come from lots of practice and lots of errors. YouTube videos can be helpful, but there's no fast track to becoming a good printer. It's not hard to become competent if you follow consistent processes and use properly exposed negatives.

[Drew Wiley]

I still don't get it. Why does anyone need to use only two or four seconds of printing time? Haven't they ever heard of neutral density filters, or of combining all three, C,M,Y, on a colorhead to attain some neutral density? Heck, I've worked with enlarger light sources hundreds of times brighter than that toy thing in the video, and never needed to go below 10 seconds or so.