Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,688   Posts: 1,482,357   Online: 771
      
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 65
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    54
    Images
    1
    I dont have any problems with making multiple 5 second exposures....


    Nlochner
    Where is the art in digital photography?..

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,710
    Images
    65
    Kodak used to recommend a single 60 second exposure with a cardboard covering the print for varying times. Thus the portion of the strip exposed for the full 60 seconds would be darkest and each of the sections would recieve 10 seconds less exposure.

    There are three reasons why you should not use multiple exposures.

    1. Light bulb on and off cycle is unpredictable. (timer error especially at short times)

    2. Light bulb on and off afterglow is uneven and startup changes as the cycles continue. The bulb filament is warmer each cycle and starts differently. Hue changes as well with heat.

    3. Less commonly known, some photo products don't respond evenly to multiple exposures. There is a kind of a reciprocity failure effect that is cumulative. This BTW, was a serious problem with earlier laser color papers as the overlapping scan lines got multiple exposures and the paper response was not the same as with regular white light exposure. That has now been corrected.

    PE

  3. #13
    fhovie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Port Hueneme, California - USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,246
    Images
    92
    I never use a strip - I make a test exposure - usually my first guess is within one stop - then I use the fstop chart to make the next - since film esposure is not linear - I do not use a linear exposure strip - fstop charts are the way to go. You could probably invent one - each stop is twice the exposure as the next - mine is broken down to 1/3 stop steps and goes several stops plus or minus for each exposure time out to about 30 seconds max. Past that - do it in your head - We use stops when exposing the negative - I never understood why we would stop using fstops when printing.
    My photos are always without all that distracting color ...

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterB
    Crikey.

    I am kicking myself

    After all these years [size=3][color=blue]it finally dawned on me[/color][/size] as to why most of the time my test strips didn't match the density of my prints !!!! I'm so stupid. I knew about the enlarger bulb warm up time, but never thought to factor it in.......

    Arghhhhh!

    Is there anyone else out there who has made or is still making this mistake, I need moral support by knowing you at least exist !
    Yes, me too. Now I got a headache. But would this be compensated by a Zone VI compensating timer?

  5. #15
    Dan Henderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,891
    Images
    240
    f stop printing based on non-incremental test strips makes so much more sense to me now that I've adopted the methods. And the bear so much similarity to the way the aperture and shutter speeds work in the camera that they are (or should be) second nature to a photographer. I really don't understand why students are not taught that way from the beginning.


    web site: Dan Henderson, Photographer.com

    blog: https://danhendersonphotographer.wordpress.com/

    I am not anti-digital. I am pro-film.

  6. #16
    Dan Henderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Virginia, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,891
    Images
    240
    oh yeah, I also wanted to say that Ralph Lambert has excellent directions for a test strip printer in his even more excellent book, "Way Beyond Monochrome."


    web site: Dan Henderson, Photographer.com

    blog: https://danhendersonphotographer.wordpress.com/

    I am not anti-digital. I am pro-film.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    You can use a Kodak projection print scale, a pie shaped step wedge, place it over the print and set your timer for 60 seconds and read the print in seconds 2 to 48.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15
    On the subject of multiple short exposures == one longer exposure and the accuracy of progressive test strips:

    With an incandescent enlarger, in my case a Beseler 45 and #212 enlarger bulb, several small exposures do indeed equal one long exposure.

    Using a grade 5 polycontrast filter ten 2-second exposures produce exactly the same shade of grey as one 20-second exposure. Ditto test strips of the sort where 1:1:2:4:8:16 ... second exposures are made as cardboard is used to progressively cover up the paper.

    If the total exposure time gets to be greater than 45 seconds then reciprocity failure will begin to factor in and short exposures won't sum
    in a linear fashion. At 45 seconds reciprocity failure is only just noticeable
    in normal printing.

    If you use a cold-light head this won't be the case unless you use a compensating timer [better known as an 'exposure integrator']. Even with a compensating timer errors will occur because the spectral sensitivity of the light sensor will not be the same as that of the paper: the spectrum of the light will change as the lamp warms up and a non-spectrally-matched sensor will not track the response of the paper.
    Nicholas O. Lindan
    f-stop enlarging timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Mojave Desert
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    19
    Is there anyone else out there who has made or is still making this mistake, I need moral support by knowing you at least exist !
    Chalk one up for stupidity on me! My only excuse is I just started in a darkroom class about a month ago, and we were taught to use multiple exposures for test strips. Now I see why my test strips were always slightly off...
    James Denney

    "(Insert witty/meaningful/inspirational/silly comment here)" - J. Denney

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Eastern, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,020
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Lipka View Post
    Just a simple observation and a question. If I tested printing times and the result was 7 three second exposures, why would I want to make the print another way?

    Or another way, if you make a test (experiment) and it gives you a result you want why would you change it when you make the full print?

    It does not make sense to test one way and print another.
    beause Joe, 7x3sec is harder to control than 1x21sec, ie once you start the exposure you'll lose count of how many 3secs you've done

    it is correct, and easily demonstrable, that 7x3 is a lot shorter than 1x21, my procedure in such a situation is to redo the test strip as say 15+5+5, so if the 'correct' exposure is actually something like 18 the new test will soon prove it, then 1x18 is much more accurate

    don't worry about wasting paper on test strips, better to waste strips than waste whole sheets, do as many tests as you need to be confident of a good result

    a further consideration si not to change aperture to alter time, because when enlarging it's more important to have the lens stopped down to the middle of it's aperture range than it is to keep to a particular range of times

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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