I have been using a besler digital timer that only goes up to 10 seconds as the x10 function gives erratic times so it is unusable. I like this timer as it has a foot switch and metronome function so I use it anyway.
Small enlargements can usually be done in less than 10 seconds but 11x14 from 35mm can take multiple 10 seconds exposures plus whatever burning time. As I have gotten used to this odd system I find that I NEVER change the timer and always use muliples of 10 seconds. For less than 10 seconds I use the metronome and a dodging card to completly block the unneeded time.
I have learned to like this system better than changing timer settings and it occurs to me that many others may actually do the same. I think I read the saint Ansel did something similar.
But--- Am I missing something in that 3x10 seconds does not add up to 30 seconds continuous time? I have been assuming that any error is absorbed by my personal system as long as I am consistent. Right??
If anyone knows how to fix a besler I wouldn't mind having a workable unit even if I won't use it.
Fred Picker always set his timer at 3-seconds. He made multiple exposures at 3-second intervals. He liked doing it that way.
While three 10-second exposures is different than one thirty-second exposure (for instance), as long as you are consistant in giving three 10-second exposures, it's what is right for you and your method.
That's and interesting comment. I was never sure if 3 - 10 seconds was the same as 30 seconds.
I use a lux timer and I wonder if that is the same thing, since bulb warmup etc shouldn't be a factor.
hey Bob, I wonder if this is a common problem among the beseler enlargers as my x10 switch also does not work.
we use Picker's method and i have run test just for fun. 3 x 10 does not look the same as 30 sec. This is not to mean that one is better than the other ( i don't want to get into a P*****g contest over which system works).
My feeling is that timers may or maynot be completely accurate. Unless you take a stop watch in and check each timer who cares. Consistency is the important element. My students use the same work station to help control the variables and enhance the opportunity to maintain consistence work habits.
Do you mean quantitatively or qualitatively? I guess what I was concerned about is perhaps a difference in contrast using VC papers as we are dealing with two different emulsions. If others use this method then I guess its good enough.
I also wonder if this is a common problem. I bought this one as owners seemed to report fewer problems than with other digitals. Oh well, even with it's x10 problem I still like it better than my previous two clockwork types.
The trouble with multiple exposures stems from the bulb cycling at each exposure. The bulb must heat up and then cool down on each subsequent exposure. The more small exposures are made, the greater the error if you try to equate the multiples in terms of a long exposure. If you use multiple exposures normally, this is not a problem because you already have a working system.
it's because of this I've been looking for a metrolux or zone VI timer recently.
In the late Barry Thornton's site there's an article re test strips and multiple exposures.
He stated clearly that a set of small exposures do not add to a long one.
It's paper relared, and not lamp related.
Also, I should add that Picker used a Zone VI cold light head that had a sensor inside. The sensor connected to the timer - it actually timed the light output so that each "3-second" exposure put out the same amount of light.
Fred frequently said "Same is the same and different is different." I wondered sometimes if he was being far too picky.
I don't think it matters much what you do so long as you develop a consistent procedure, get good results, the follow that procedure. Although, if you are printing a lot of prints from a given negative, you can run into inconsistent light output. Fred said that problem is what led him to have the Zone VI head developed.