Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,645   Posts: 1,481,248   Online: 798
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43
  1. #11
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,697
    I think you can still get it pretty cheaply as a used book on amazon. I got mine for like 2 bucks. Lots of good illustrated processes and solid printing advice.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    One great thing about APUG is that when someone asks a question that might be contained in one of those volumes, rather than say "go find it in that book"... We have the opportunity to tell what we think the answer might be. It's great fun.
    Yes, I think what happens is that several people have a long-distance collaborative adventure in getting to the bottom of things. (I notice that you and Michael sometimes work at that.) I appreciate the fun of that, so if I already know the answer, I try to keep my mouth shut. Plus, as I'm fond of telling people, "You learn it better when you learn it the hard way." (This has been my traditional way of learning things.)

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    37
    Everything below written in my own humble opinion.

    The teststrip is something you resolve to from an economic POV when starting out. After a few good months of work you can land the first print fairly close to the correct exposure by looking at the negative and by using a full piece of paper you get the added benefit of seeing all the details in the first go which needs correction. Depending on the negative and what level of quality your are printing for the second or third print will be pretty close to an "OK".

  4. #14
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,906
    Images
    46
    Tom Richard,

    Maybe it's my inability to learn something very specific, but I have never reached that point. More humbly, anytime I make a print on a full sheet of paper... without first checking with a test strip... I am disappointed with the outcome and the best I can salvage of the situation is that the second print will be OK.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    134
    So, my question is . . . Why does Looten stress using a 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 second method? I've convinced myself that the method I've used forever is equally as useful . . . but I would be curious to hear Looten's explanation. I surely don't need to invest in another book if it's loaded with hog wash. ;-)

    Many thanks.

  6. #16
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,906
    Images
    46
    DannL.

    To reveal in the test strip above and beyond too light and too dark... So you might know all the possibilities.

    Secondarily, because it's an f/stop-like sequence.

    It's NOT loaded with hogwash, though you might easily know everything it offers to teach. Unique in the book is his coverage of retouching with New Coccine, flashing to darken paper edges dramatically and silhouette your subject, combination printing, borders and cut-and-paste montage.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    DannL.

    To reveal in the test strip above and beyond too light and too dark... So you might know all the possibilities.

    Secondarily, because it's an f/stop-like sequence.


    It's NOT loaded with hogwash, though you might easily know everything it offers to teach. Unique in the book is his coverage of retouching with New Coccine, flashing to darken paper edges dramatically and silhouette your subject, combination printing, borders and cut-and-paste montage.
    Granted his book is probably very valuable in many areas, and I will probably grab a copy regardless. Of course the "hog wash" statement was tongue-in-cheek. But, nevertheless the highlighted statements in your reply above are exactly what interests me. What aspect of those statements make a difference in the final print when compared to another number sequence when used. If I determine that a print deserves 17.5 seconds exposure, does it matter what number sequence was used? Does it matter if the sequence was f/stop-like? And if so, why? I hope those are fair questions.
    Last edited by DannL.; 11-12-2013 at 12:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,906
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DannL. View Post
    Granted his book is probably very valuable in many areas, and I will probably grab a copy regardless. Of course the "hog wash" statement was tongue-in-cheek. But, nevertheless the highlighted statements in your reply above are exactly what interests me. What aspect of those statements make a difference in the final print when compared to another number sequence used. If I determine that a print deserves 17.5 seconds exposure, does it matter what number sequence was used?
    I think I know what you were thinking regarding hogwash - some photo books might be a waste of your time.

    But I don't know how familiar you are with the whole idea of f/stop timing when enlarging. I swear by it, and find it makes me MORE confident with the times I finally decide, because the differences are visually evenly spaced. When I use third of an f/stop times and Grade 2 paper, I find each step to be practically the "least noticeable difference". I don't often feel any compelling reason to choose a time between steps - either one or the other is right. But in a "Goldilocks" situation, I WILL set the dial between the marks.

    So when Lootens talks about test strips from 5-80 seconds, in f/stop times, he's not telling me anything I don't already appreciate regarding the doubling of each successive step.

    But he reminds me of a nagging suspicion... that because my usual sequence is a tight series (third-stops down from 40 seconds)... I might be overlooking dramatic possibilities. So my prints might be dramatically different than they might otherwise be because my skies are printed at 40 when they might have looked amazing at 80.

    He advised adjusting the enlarger lens aperture to make the 5-80 seconds test strip appropriate because it's a good range of time that gives you time to dodge and burn. But he also spent some time back-pedaling that hard-and-fast rule when circumstances require longer or shorter exposure series.

    Since starting this thread, I haven't had the chance to turn on the water... but I have a negative lined up that I plan to print. The negative is one of my "failures," for which I don't have a pre-conceived idea how I would like it to turn out.

  9. #19
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,719
    Quote Originally Posted by DannL. View Post
    . . . does it matter what number sequence was used? Does it matter if the sequence was f/stop-like? And if so, why? I hope those are fair questions.
    It does matter. Even Ansel Adams suggested a simple arithmetical progression in both the 1950 and 1968 editions of The Print. On page 63 of both editions, the test print example shows greater contrast between the 20 and 25 second exposure, and the 35 to 40 second exposure. A wider range of exposures would show even more contrast differences. Once a photographer feels at home with the progressive f/stop number series, it is almost as simple to use as a numerical progression.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    OK, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    It does matter. Even Ansel Adams suggested a simple arithmetical progression in both the 1950 and 1968 editions of The Print. On page 63 of both editions, the test print example shows greater contrast between the 20 and 25 second exposure, and the 35 to 40 second exposure. A wider range of exposures would show even more contrast differences. Once a photographer feels at home with the progressive f/stop number series, it is almost as simple to use as a numerical progression.
    Sorry Jim, I hope I'm not making things confusing. I learned the "standard progression" years ago, and have never found fault with it. And I still use it today, with some additions. Some years back having purchased a copy of "The Print", I noticed that Mr. Adams advocated the same method, as did so many others. I do have a book on enlarging by Kodak, and it informs how to use "doubling of exposures" as a sequence. But I prefer the standard progression for example . . .

    First Strip: 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40

    Second Strip: 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25, 27.5, 30, 32.5, 35, 37.5, 40

    For example, if I learn from the first strip that the window I want to be in is between 20 and 30 seconds, I'll run a fine progression in that window. And obviously, there's no need to run all the times on a test strip if you know they are out of range. Notice how the progression (intervals between doubling of exposure) become more defined as you approach the working zone.

    I also give credit to those who can invent new methods for progression, whether it be by f/stops, doubling of time, logarithmic, a gut feeling, etc. If it produces the results you desire, that's what counts.

    Oh, the Kodak book is titled: Bigger and Better Enlarging in Color and Black & White (ISBN 0-8174-0579-8)

    Another book that I have really enjoyed, and also describes the progression that Mr. Adams wrote about: The Craft of Photography by David Vestal (ISBN 0-06-014497-1) In this book Mr. Vestal demonstrates using entire strips per exposure test. Not very conservative, but very revealing.
    Last edited by DannL.; 11-12-2013 at 03:04 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 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