Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,968   Online: 740
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44
  1. #21
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,734
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    These are 8x8.
    Small prints will print much faster than larger prints.

    As you step up in paper size the times will get longer.

    For example if you moved from 8x8 to 16x16 with the same negative and kept aperture the same, the time would need to quadruple. It's an area thing. 8*8=64 sq.in., 16*16=256 sq.in., 64:256=1:4
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #22
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    None of these are finished prints obviously, but now I know that I can actually get something from them. I'm assuming that I was holding on to the notion that f/8 was the best for enlarging. Somewhere I must have heard that enlarging lenses work their best two stops down from wide open, and I guess I was too scare to try something else. I'm going to continue to read over all the advice given and go back for more practice over the next few weeks or so.
    Thanks again!
    You're definitely making progress, sir.

    However, it *is* normal to use enlarging lenses at f/5.6-f/11. You should not have to stop all the way down to f/22 just to get a usable time. This is concerning to me that even at f/22 you're only around 15 seconds.

    It's been a few months since I've been printing, so slightly fuzzy, but I regularly remember with 8x10 prints, Emaks #2 paper, around 16-32 seconds at f/8-f/11 - depending on negative of course, but with 135. Even with 6x6, I was still somewhere around 16 seconds or so with standard apertures. Never stopped down to f/22. Using a DeVere 504, 250w halogen, dichroic head.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChristopherCoy View Post
    I'll try it. At least I can SEE the House of Voodoo now though! LOL Like I said, these are just preliminary working prints. I'll try tweaking it in the coming weeks.
    Somehow you've got to reign in the right-side highlights, but in general I think the exposure on the left is fine, maybe slightly softer contrast needed.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,965
    Even with a 10 sec burn on the right side in the street scene there is still little in the way of detail. When there is a big difference in the light intensity between sun and shade try pre-flashing. In this scene a correct pre-flash will bring out detail in the sunlit area in a way that burning-in by itself won't

    pentaxuser

  4. #24
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,393
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-D659 View Post
    Adding a #2 or 3 printing filter for multigrade paper will make a huge difference in exposure time if you are using multigrade paper without a filter.
    +1

    If you are using variable contrast paper, my advice would be to almost never print without a filter.

    The only exception would be for prints where the negative density and enlargement are such as to require exposure times that are inordinantly long.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  5. #25
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,196
    Images
    28
    How would you use a printing filter, and a contrast filter at the same time?

  6. #26
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Same thing.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #27
    ChristopherCoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    The Armpit of Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,196
    Images
    28
    Oh. I thought a 'printing filter' may have been like ND filter or something. I've never heard them called that before.

  8. #28
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Well in general since a printing/contrast filter is filtering light it's going to have some form of ND effect on it - which is what people were referring to. Rather than printing straight (which is around #2 grade anyways), instead just use a #2 filter which result in some light attenuation in the process.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #29
    ROL
    ROL is offline
    ROL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    794
    The negatives you've presented do look underexposed (thin) to me. I think you've made fine progress in dealing with them and are looking pretty good. You might have a look at my article, Making a Fine Art Print.

  10. #30
    winger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Page County, IA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,419
    Images
    47
    When I was mainly shooting 35mm, I thought my exposures were fine. When I started shooting MF, I also started getting more critical. I learned that I have a tendency to underexpose and got fairly good at printing thin negs. I've since worked on exposing better to start with and it's gotten a lot easier to print. I think your negs may be on the thin side (tough to tell on the web) to start with, but you'll learn how to print for that. You'll also learn to expose a little more. One thing I do is to make a contact sheet using a "standard" time and conditions - #2 filter, f8, 8 seconds, enlarger height just at the spot so an 8x10 sheet is covered with the light in focus, 50mm lens. I can tell from a contact sheet if I over or underexposed.
    I've also heard the "rule" that you should stop down two stops for the lens to be at its best - I don't subscribe to that. I think it may have been true with older enlarging lenses, but there's a reason they have more than just that one aperture. If I'm making an 8x10 from 120, I usually use f11 or f16. For 11x14s, it will be f8 or f11. Sure, someone with a magnifying glass and measuring devices could probably find "issues" with those using f16, but I seriously doubt anyone actually would be able to see a major difference at normal viewing distances. The smaller the image, the closer the light is to the paper, so the shorter the time needed, too.
    Whether you're using a diffusing or condenser enlarger may make a difference as well (I've really only used a condenser one since I started paying attention to what I was doing). Also, use the contrast filters all the time. I use them for contact sheets, too. If you're using them, you can do a first try with a #2 and be able to try a quick print with a #3 or #1 without starting from scratch.
    The more you print, the more you learn.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin