Dollar Cost Averaging... (Huh?)
In the financial world, dollar cost average is the process of buying more, often, at regular intervals, basically averaging out the price.. Does the same hold true for printing??
Sorry for the anology but is it better to have a small aperture and longer times or if you can get it done wider and quicker, does it matter....?
I prefer 20 - 30 second times for each my black (#5) and White (#0) time. It gives me more time for dodging and burning and I just seem to come out with a better print...
Is there any technical reason or am I just doing what I do, with good results?
You've got a few issues I think.
The lens will have a sweet spot it's best at. Often two stops down from wide open.
Times that are too short cause problems. harder to dodge/burn. Timing errors matter more.
Times that are too long have problems. Go really long and risk recpricoity failure. You're enlarger really needs to be stable.
If you're happy with your results be happy. I wouldn't call 20 seconds a long time. Not really short either.
Can you (or someone) explain?? When you achieve "recpricoity failure" What does it look like?
Originally Posted by Nick Zentena
It's not a look it's how things react.
Normally if you double the amount of time then you've increased the total light by 1 stop. [Or is that 1.4]. At some point you'll increase the time and the paper/film won't react. Film usually comes with some info on this. You might see 1 stop for 1 sec. 2 stops for 10. 3 for 100. If you did and your meter told you 1 second was the "right" time you'd add one stop. Using what the meter told you would mean an underexposed negative.
B&W paper can handle much longer times then film.