Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,720   Posts: 1,483,130   Online: 1243
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24

    First print. Questions:

    So I figured out the bad connection that was causing my enlarger to not turn on properly. I made my first print based off of the test strips I made. There's only one problem....

    I set the color head to match what should be "grade 1" filtering as a starting point. The thing that worries me is that the exposure was 45 seconds at f/5.6 and it looks like it could have used a healthy dose of more exposure. The timer only goes to 60 seconds and I'm thinking 60 seconds would be almost right or just a little underexposed. Using Dektol 1+2. I developed for 1min 30sec.

    Now I realize I'm a beginner but.. isn't that WAY too long? Any suggestions on what I should check?

    (thanks for your patience with these beginner questions, everyone)

  2. #2
    jmdavis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    504
    Images
    6
    If its a really high contrast negative, maybe not. Are you sure that the shutter speeds on your camera are correct? I'm assuming that you had high contrast if you chose a 1 for your filter factor. Also, what type of timer do you have? They normally go well over 60 seconds?

    I like exposures in the 30-45 second range. This gives me time to modify things and reduces the chance of a second or two making a print unusable.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Natron
    Now I realize I'm a beginner but.. isn't that WAY too long? Any suggestions on what I should check?
    Maybe. Maybe not-) How dense is the negative? How easily can you see through the negative? If it's very dense then it might not be too long.

    What did you set the enlarger filters to? What kind of paper are you using? How big was the print?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    It's really not that dense at all. Honestly average.

    Filters were set to: Yellow - 47, Magenta - 80, Cyan - 0. Actually, that calculates out to a grade of 1.5, yes?

    Paper is Ilford Multigrade IV Pearl at 8x10.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    119
    Is your negative from conventional B&W film or is it from C-41? I have had to use longer times with C-41 films that have an "orange" mask. Often my times are in the 45 to 60 second range with these negatives.

    Wayne

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    WI
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne R. Scott
    Is your negative from conventional B&W film or is it from C-41? I have had to use longer times with C-41 films that have an "orange" mask. Often my times are in the 45 to 60 second range with these negatives.

    Wayne
    Standard B&W. Kodak Tri-X. Shot at 400, developed in Xtol 1:1.

  7. #7
    geraldatwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hicksville, NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    414
    Images
    24
    What size enlargement are you making. Ideally for an 8X10 enlargement from a 35mm negative the exposure time should be 15-20 seconds at about f8. I don't think you said what negative size you are using. I assume the Pearl is RC paper so 1 1/2 minutes should be fine but again you didn't say. So 45 seconds at 5,6 seems rather long especially if it looks like it could use more time. jmdavis said he like 45 sec exposure times and he is not the only one I've heard this from but generally as I mentioned most people like much shorter times. Maybe your bulb isn't getting full output.
    "When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers"
    African proverb

    IRAQNAM is Bush's legacy

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    415
    Images
    11
    Boy, my first enlarger was a 23c but that was 20 years ago. I seem to recall that you can position the light source closer to the negative carrier. A small amount of movement closer makes quite a difference (inverse square law). Could it be that you have the light source too far from the neg carrier?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,933
    I'm going to head off on a tangent...

    You're using 'dual filtering' most likely in a bid to maintain exposure times when changing grades. I've never used that method (for various reasons) but maybe someone else can say whether it truely works? I have a VCCE head on one enlarger that's supposed to stay constant but in reality it doesn't (pretty good, but requires fine tuning of the exposure... having said that, your 'vision' fine tunes too as you get closer to the print you want) On my colour head enlarger I print 'adhoc'... based on no filtration and add either magenta or yellow as I see fit. I have the benefit of a anaylser that gives a good indication of the time variation required, but I still have to test strip my way to a final print. Maybe try a print with no filtration (roughly G2) and see what time is appropiate, then add yellow only to get a lower contrast print to suit your existing print and compare the times for all the prints to see what filtration is doing to the times. Having said that, 45secs isn't too long if you're not in a hurry. Gives you ample time to dodge, but burning in can get longish. f5.6 is fine (and probably the best fstop anyway) for a 50/2.8 lense... what lense are you using?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Natron
    It's really not that dense at all. Honestly average.

    Filters were set to: Yellow - 47, Magenta - 80, Cyan - 0. Actually, that calculates out to a grade of 1.5, yes?

    Paper is Ilford Multigrade IV Pearl at 8x10.
    Those numbers sounded wierd to me. So I went to the Ilford website and downloaded thier pdf on contrast. Ilford suggests 49Y and 23M for grade 1.5. You've got more magenta so it'll be harder. The problem is all those filters are blocking a fair bit of light. Where did you get those numbers?

    Start out with no filters. I'm betting you'll be about 2 stops faster. Then if you want 1.5 try the 49Y and 23M. It'll be slower then white light but should be faster then what you were using.

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