Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,540   Posts: 1,544,336   Online: 969
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    118

    First enlargements

    So... I did my first enlargements tonight. Forgot about some pretty obvious things due to the excitement. Such as filter grades and aperture ( ). After finally digging out what was wrong got some successful prints.

    I only saw one vid about enlarging so mostly trial and error. Took only 7 tries to get a good exposure on the paper. But I have some questions.

    What I was using
    I was using Adox MCP 312 10x15 matte paper (variable contrast), love the blacks!
    Durst M305 Cls with a Schneider Componon-S 50/f2.8
    Ilford Multigrade kit (grade 3 for a particular photo, which I knew needed a little bit more contrast)
    Adox Adotol NE
    Adostop
    Adofix

    What I did
    Put a piece of paper, and exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such. I found a sweet spot on about 7 seconds (aperture: f11) for my picture and some other pictures I did. (which had correct exposure)
    Now how can I find this time without trial & error. How do I add some extra stops, (logaritmic ?). Is there any logic in the "base" time?

    My actual questions
    - (answered) What is the best way to find the correct exposure for a shot?

    - (answered) So Adox says, Adotol NE needs 60 seconds of development for PE paper in 20°C... Does it vary on what paper is used (like developer times changes on film type)? As I used 60 seconds and it worked fine

    - (answered) The vid I saw of the darkroom, the guy had exposure times of about 20-30 seconds, also on f/11.. How is that achieved? I'm not sure but I think he used Ilford paper with ISO 6 (possible?)

    - (answered) What is the ISO of the Adox MCP 312 paper? And how does the grade filters affect the ISO speed?

    - (answered) The developer acts different is I thought it would do. The first 10 seconds basically almost nothing, then from 10 tot 20 seconds I can see the picture appearing, and from 20-60 I can't see any other differences in the development process. Pretty weird actually. Thought it was going to fade in smoothly from 1 to 60.

    - I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?


    Here are some prints I made, sorry for the crappy iPhone shots (weird color balance & noise), I dumped all my digital gear for analog
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails wetprint2.jpg   wetprint.jpg  
    Last edited by Jessestr; 06-21-2014 at 08:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Jesse - 21 years - Belgium
    Leica M6 - Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 T*
    www.jessestr.be

  2. #2
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,389
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessestr View Post
    So... I did my first enlargements tonight. Forgot about some pretty obvious things due to the excitement. Such as filter grades and aperture ( ). After finally digging out what was wrong got some successful prints.

    I only saw one vid about enlarging so mostly trial and error. Took only 7 tries to get a good exposure on the paper. But I have some questions.

    What I was using
    I was using Adox MCP 312 10x15 matte paper (variable contrast), love the blacks!
    Durst M305 Cls with a Schneider Componon-S 50/f2.8
    Ilford Multigrade kit (grade 3 for a particular photo, which I knew needed a little bit more contrast)
    Adox Adotol NE
    Adostop
    Adofix

    What I did
    Put a piece of paper, and exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such. I found a sweet spot on about 7 seconds (aperture: f11) for my picture and some other pictures I did. (which had correct exposure)
    Now how can I find this time without trial & error. How do I add some extra stops, (logaritmic ?). Is there any logic in the "base" time?

    My actual questions
    - What is the best way to find the correct exposure for a shot?

    - So Adox says, Adotol NE needs 60 seconds of development for PE paper in 20°C... Does it vary on what paper is used (like developer times changes on film type)? As I used 60 seconds and it worked fine

    - The vid I saw of the darkroom, the guy had exposure times of about 20-30 seconds, also on f/11.. How is that achieved? I'm not sure but I think he used Ilford paper with ISO 6 (possible?)

    - What is the ISO of the Adox MCP 312 paper? And how does the grade filters affect the ISO speed?

    - The developer acts different is I thought it would do. The first 10 seconds basically almost nothing, then from 10 tot 20 seconds I can see the picture appearing, and from 20-60 I can't see any other differences in the development process. Pretty weird actually. Thought it was going to fade in smoothly from 1 to 60.

    - I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?


    Here are some prints I made, sorry for the crappy iPhone shots (weird color balance & noise), I dumped all my digital gear for analog
    Well done for a first try.

    In response to your questions .....

    Your approach isn't a bad one. You will find that as you do this more, you will get better at choosing the start time for your test prints.

    The standard development time is dependent on the paper and developer, but most papers and developers give suggested times, and those times are usually quite similar. It would be worth your while to try the same print with 60, 90 and 120 seconds of development, so as to see how they might be subtly different.

    The video you watched involved a different enlarger than yours, a different bulb and a different paper. All those variables affect the exposure time. You can add neutral density filters to most enlargers to cut down the light intensity, and lengthen the time.

    The ISO numbers for printing papers are actually measured on a different scale then film. The manufacturer's data sheets usually include that sort of information. Filters don't affect the sensitivity of the paper, but do affect the intensity of the light.

    I'll leave the rest of the questions for now.

    Isn't it fun?!
    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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,836
    There are three stages to printing.

    I The induction period where there appears that nothing is happening.
    II During this second period density in increasing rapidly.
    III In the third period density increase slows but contrast continuues to increases.

    It is very important that the print not be pulled during stages II as this will result in muddy prints lacking in contrast. This is a problem that newbies often have. They see that the print is becoming too dense and pull it. In this case exposure needs to be reduced. Prints need to remain in stage III until the contrast suits you.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    118
    Wow thanks guys, almost all the questions are solved already! Thanks, clear answers!

    Only this left:
    I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?

    Jesse
    Jesse - 21 years - Belgium
    Leica M6 - Carl Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 T*
    www.jessestr.be

  5. #5
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,218
    Ilford filters are NOT simply mixtures of Magenta and Yellow. I think they are a little more narrow band and only they know the exact composition of filtration. The contrast achieved can be duplicated with Yellow and Magenta dichroic filters but the printing times are usually longer than the Ilford filters in my experience. The shortest printing times are obtained with sole Yellow or Magenta filtration, but, of course, this defeats the advantage of constant printing times across grades.

  6. #6
    omaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    362
    Images
    6
    Those sure look a lot better than my first-shots did last year! Very nice!
    I shoot digital when I have to (most of those shots end up here) and film (occasionally one of those shots ends up here) when I want to.

  7. #7
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    596
    > exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such

    Yor images are quite good.
    It is easier to find a correct exposure time if you use a geometric row, for instance third stops: 8 10 13 16 20 25 seconds (rounded to full seconds). I don't recommend times below 10 seconds. They are to short to make manipulations like dodging.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,966
    Images
    1
    is the 10x15 paper 10x15 centimetres?

  9. #9
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,389
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by piu58 View Post
    > exposed 5,10,15,20,25 seconds and such

    Yor images are quite good.
    It is easier to find a correct exposure time if you use a geometric row, for instance third stops: 8 10 13 16 20 25 seconds (rounded to full seconds). I don't recommend times below 10 seconds. They are to short to make manipulations like dodging.
    The geometric (actually logarithmic) progression is a good idea, but if you want an easier to remember example, you might recognize this:

    8, 11, 16, 22, 32 seconds

    Each step in that series provides, logarithmicly, 1/2 stop more exposure. And photographic paper responds logarithmicly, so a test strip will show more even gradations - it will be easier to choose the right step.

    And with respect to using the Ilford filters vs dichroic filters in a colour head, you need to realize that:
    a) photographic paper is not sensitive to red light, but your eyes are;
    b) the magenta filters don't add magenta, they hold back varying amounts of green, and the green sensitive emulsion in the paper controls the low contrast rendition of the image;
    c) the yellow filters don't add yellow, they hold back varying amounts of blue, and the blue sensitive emulsion in the paper controls the high contrast rendition of the image;
    d) any difference in the visual appearance of the light is likely due to how much red light is being transmitted through the system.

    When you use the dichroic heads, you can use the "grade" charts as a general guide, but you really benefit more if you pay more attention to the effect of increases of, for example, 20 units on the dial, rather than what constitutes the equivalent of a half grade on the filters.
    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

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    460
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Jessestr View Post
    Wow thanks guys, almost all the questions are solved already! Thanks, clear answers!

    Only this left:
    I used the Ilford filters from a friend. But I'm using a color head and I want to be able to use the color head instead of the filters. I was checking the datasheet and found out about the settings. But when I compare the actual grade filter vs. the color head settings (that corresponds to the grade filter for a durst color head). It looks like a different kind of color. Is this normal?

    Jesse
    Using the Ilford filters, you can use the following approach, which doesn't work for colour mixing heads:

    You can start basically with any filter from 0 to 3.5, but I recommend starting with 2. When you determine the exposure time for your print, look particularly at the highlights that you want to preserve. If you get detail in the highlights where you want, then changing the grade will not affect them. Then at that exposure, assess the shadows and decide where you want the black point. This is done with filter grade, not exposure time (otherwise you mess up the highlight detail). Your Ilford filters will have clear instructions. If they are like mine, for grades 4-5 you double the exposure time.

    Don't use a full sheet of paper for testing. Take scissors (or a guillotine) and cut test strips about 1,5 cm (half-inch) wide, and store them in the envelope BEHIND the full sheets so they don't scratch the emulsion side, or put them in an empty paper envelope which you keep with the full one. Because different papers have different exposure indices, you must know which test strips go with which paper.

    Use a step wedge approach, i.e. take a piece of cardboard and move it along in 2-3 cm increments, at 3-5 sec intervals or whatever makes sense in terms of your expected exposure. Start at about half of full exposure and then step it up from there, ending at about twice the expected exposure. Sometimes you will have a very dense or very thin neg, and in that case it will take more than one or two test strips to get it right.

    A tip Andrew Sanderson gave is to record a metronome at 1 sec intervals onto an mp3 player, then play it back in your ear and use that to shift the wedge. This is because enlarger bulbs have a warm-up period of up to a second or more, during which the light is weaker and possibly yellower. So to stop-start the bulb and add up the incremental exposures does not give you the same exposure and contrast than a full uninterrupted exposure.

    BTW, excellent first attempt. Not many of us can boast that we did that well at first.
    Last edited by dorff; 06-22-2014 at 02:13 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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