fulvio
Reged: 29/10/2001
Posts: 170
Loc: london
|
|
I'ved read, I think, that an enlarging lens ideally should be used quite open - F5.6 to F11. But why? What exactly does stopping it down do, apart from give you more time to dodge and burn? I can't see any difference in the printing I have been doing over the last few days. I've used a 10 pack of 16x12 Ilford warmtone fibre paper (which is wonderful), printing at F8 and F11. I've done quite a few snaps and a few prints on resin coated, some at F5.6. I can't see any qualitative difference at all. I've just done a tricky 16x12 that has taken me four hours (all my tests were pointless as I did them in ordinary fibre paper, not warmtone, which needs considerably longer.
I could have done the final print in F8, but chose F11 and 34 seconds instead. It's going on the wall and I can't believe it could have been better printed. But am I wrong?
The other thing is: am I taking risks with the fix. I mix up new dev everytime, but the fix I will use over and over for some months. I usually pour in fix used for films, just to perk it up a bit. But my rule is, if it smells vile enough to make you gag, it's probably strong enough. I also wash my prints in the bath, often in cold water and give them a show down in warmish water at the end. No have faded so far and some of my prints are 15 years old now.
Final gripe: am I right in thinking that exposure monitors are almost valueless? I wonder whether I should try to use mine again, at least for test prints. But with the enlarger at different heights, different papers and dev losing potency, is there any substitute for laborious test printing?
I've finally finished a load of printing, but I started at 5pm and ended at 2.30am. But when you have a dry warmtone fibre print in you hand the next day, you do feel you have done something worthwhile.
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
The story goes that all lenses have an optimum aperture- too wide open, they'll be soft at the edges. Closed too much a thing called 'diffraction' reduces sharpness (basically, light gets a bit bent squeezing through too small a hole). However, as you're finding, the importance of these things can be overstated. When printing you should aim for a printing time which is not too long (as the heat build up can make the negative move, or 'pop'), and not too short (to eliminate small errors in timing and bulb warm-up)
If you're getting good results at 34 seconds, stick with it.
Now, fixing. This is crucial to making prints last. All fixer has a 'capacity'. As you fix more and more prints, silver ions builds up in the solution. The image will fix less well and be prone to staining later.
Fibre paper is beautiful, but fixing/washing need care. If you fix too long, it gets hard to wash out all the chemicals. Go to www.ilfordphoto.com and check the information pages.
Basicaly, fix in fresh fix for a couple of minutes, running water wash, soak in wash-aid, wash again. OR- soak prints in a tray, change water, soak again, change, etc. Half a dozen changes over about an hour will work.
Lastly, exposure meters do help. Usualy you have to do a calibration test to match meter/paper/enlarger. After that if you're lucky the meter will give you a printing time, or at least get you in the ball-park, so you only need a test strip to 'fine-tune' your print time. I bought a cheapo Paterson meter on ebay, and it's paid for itself times over in saved paper
|
taxor
Reged: 09/07/2004
Posts: 569
Loc: Lancaster, UK
|
|
Good advice from Skellum. I would also add that exposure meters are as foolproof as the person using them. They require varying degrees of user input and interpretation. I use my Gossen lightmeter with a lab attachment and in general it gives acceptable results for work prints. For more ambitious work I use a Zonemaster II analyser, which gives me a readout of how any measured neg density will look in the final print. It will use all the density info to recommend a time and grade of paper also.
--------------------
"I wanna hold your gland". Lemming & McCartney
|
fulvio
Reged: 29/10/2001
Posts: 170
Loc: london
|
|
I am sure you are right and I have become slapdash. I have never noticed any problems with the fix however and it seems to last a long time. Is there a good B&W darkroom book to learn about advanced printing? I have an ancient one by Michael Langford, which has lots of colour stuff, as well as incredibly convoluted tips to produce wacky effects, which Photoshop will give you in a couple of key strokes these days.
Also, I use a Durst 605 colour enlarger. The negative holder is sandwiched beteen glass, which sometimes I feel is especially designed to trap dust. Would you advise taking the glass out?
|
Gordon_McGeachie
Joke Historian
Reged: 19/01/2007
Posts: 4085
Loc: East Yorkshire,
|
|
When I was in the RAF in the photographic trade, we were taught that we should use the lens at 2 stops down for best results, in those days we used Rodenstock lenses.
--------------------
She (Avro Vulcan XH558)Took To The Sky Like A Lovesick Angel.
|
Garry McNamara
Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo
Reged: 16/08/2006
Posts: 2079
|
|
Working, and not many do anymore, as a pro printer 30+ second exposures would seriously cut down the number of prints you could knock out in a day (hundreds!)
On the other hand very short exposures make dodging a burning a nightmare - trying getting in and out with your hands in 2 seconds.
I would ideally settle at a 10-12 second exposure which ever aperture that takes.
Being able to stop the lens down is handy when making very small prints - Passport ones for instance without having fraction of second exposures.
Wide apertures make composing and focussing easier.
Long exposures with hot light sources in condenser enlargers can make the negative 'pop' during an exposure as it heats up – giving an unsharp print.
So there are lots of reasons to change the aperture on your enlarger lens but most lenses are giving good sharpness edge to edge at two stops down from the maximum,
Garry
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
Garrry- just looked at your home page. Concorde photos (and a couple of ohers) look like lith. Yes? If so, what paper? I'm using fotospeed, and some of the printing times are 45 to 60 seconds, wide open, at 12x16.
|
The Circle Of Confusion
veteran
Reged: 01/03/2006
Posts: 1383
Loc: The Big Smoke
|
|
I can whole heartedly recommend "The Photographer's Master Printing Course" by Tim Rudman. If you want to get really fancy and try lith printing then his book "The Master Photographer's Lith Printing Course" is pretty much the bible.
--------------------
www.thecircleofconfusion.com
"They're just photos after all"
|
Garry McNamara
Snr Tutor/Bongo Banjo
Reged: 16/08/2006
Posts: 2079
|
|
Hi, they're entirely digital but unlike some dreadful Photoshop Lith recipes that you see on the web I came up with my own based on a plentiful supply of Kentmere Art Classic lith prints sitting by my side for reference.
I sampled the colours to use as the basis for the colour of the lith image and created a low and high contrast versions that I could blend between – that way you control to virtual infectious development. Most of the guys who do them in Photoshop seem to have never seen a lith print and just end up with contrasty sepia!
I've heard Art Classic has been discontinued but Silverprint suggest FOMA 'Chamois' is a good replacement but I haven't tried it. Yes the times are long - but so long that that popping is not such a problem as the neg settles down - I've had minutes! One way round it is to use a 10x8 and make contact prints but that is a bit much!
Garry
|
skellum
member
Reged: 25/02/2007
Posts: 109
|
|
Thanks for the info Garry. At the moment I'm trying to cut down on the number of papers I carry in the darkroom
Tough though- every time I visit Silverprint or Retrophotographic they seem to have just one more thing that sounds too good not to try . . .
|
DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 250
|
|
If you look through your focus finder while stopping the lens down, you will see the grain becoming sharper until you reach the "sweet spot", then getting softer again as diffraction takes its toll. Be very wary of fix that is old and full of silver. I went from fix to selenium once (As I had often done), thinking to avoid the intermediate wash, and got not just a horribly stained print, but precipitated all the selenium out of the bath ARGH!
Regards,
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
AJUK
Reged: 22/03/2005
Posts: 2679
Loc: UK
|
|
When should I replace the fix bath, I have been using mine a while now, I tested it last time I used it with a tiny bit of film and it cleared it ok.
--------------------
Al
[Insert clever comment here]
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
I put a bit of film in the fresh solution and time how long it takes to clear, then periodically do the same test and replace the fix just before that clearing time doubles.
--------------------
David.
|
DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 250
|
|
I tend NOW to replace fix regularly on a "just in case" basis, based on the number of prints, and how long the fix has been made up. Difficult to give hard and fast ruls as I tend to go by gut feeling.
Oh yes 10 x 8 contacts are brilliant and dead easy!
Cheers,
DAve
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
taxor
Reged: 09/07/2004
Posts: 569
Loc: Lancaster, UK
|
|
I used to replace fix on a 'just in case' basis, but found that it can be unnecessarily expensive. I made up some 'fix usage' charts and (using the manufacturers recommended capacity info) work out how many FB prints can be fixed to archival standards in any given amount of working strength solution. Once that amount is reached, the fix is then used for less critical applications such as RC printing, work prints, contact prints etc and discarded once the overall capacity is reached. For Ilford rapid fixer/Hypam, archival capacity is roughly 1/2 that of the total recommended. After a printing sesh, the total amount of prints fixed (expressed as 10x8s) are entered on the chart. Sounds ridiculously complex, but it ain't. If anyone wants a copy, let me know.
--------------------
"I wanna hold your gland". Lemming & McCartney
|
DaveS
enthusiast
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 250
|
|
Good points, thanks.
Tetanal used to make fixer test strips, not sure if they still do, havn't checked silverprint for a while.
My print throughput probably isn't as high as yours, so I can afford to be less stringent, still, when I up my printing I'll keep it in mind.
Cheers,
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
taxor
Reged: 09/07/2004
Posts: 569
Loc: Lancaster, UK
|
|
Yeah, I heard about those test strips. Sounds very easy to do. You can make (or buy) fixer test solutions. I think the key ingredient is pot. iodide or something else (how about that for vague!)
--------------------
"I wanna hold your gland". Lemming & McCartney
|
Woolliscroft
veteran
Reged: 23/08/2005
Posts: 1253
|
|
You don't need to buy test strips, just keep part of a film leader when you cut it off to get the film on a spiral.
--------------------
David.
|
zx9
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 994
Loc: London
|
|
The easy way to time a fixer's clearing time is as follows
1. Take an exposed leader and add a drop of fixer, leave to fully clear.
You should now have a strip of leader with a clear dot where the fixer has worked.
2. Place prepared film (above)in bath of fixer and time untill cleared area can no longer be seen.
This method avoids the 'is it done yet?' question as you have a cleared sample to compare with.
Regards
zx9
--------------------
ZX9 (Keith)  
My Flickr Pictures
|
mart1st
Walt
Reged: 09/05/2007
Posts: 60
|
|
The sign of a good lens is "does it focus Ok from centre to edge when fully open" I have a lot of lens, so printing at 16*12 fully open sorts the men from the boys. The best SCHNEIDER COMPONEN S, the worst was RODENSTOCK. Condenser or diffuser makes no difference except for contrast.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
