Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,224   Posts: 1,532,645   Online: 851
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Martin Aislabie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Stratford-upon-Avon, England
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,413
    You need to give yourself enough time to dodge parts of the print during the exposure

    Almost all prints can be improved with a bit of dodging during the exposure followed by a bit of burning in as secondardy exposure(s).

    Depending on how much dodging a print needs will affect your printing time - but 20s is not an unreasonable place to start - its not too short (not enough time to get all the dodging steps completed) or too long (needlessly wasting valuable darkroom time)

    I dial in equal amounts of Y, M & C into my colour head, in conjunction with the mid ranges of appature (i stop down from wide open to 1 stop up from minimum) to get to about where I want to be with exposure

    Good luck and have fun

    Martin

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Trier, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    98
    Ctein gives test results for some lenses in his Post Exposure. According to the table on pp 88-89, one stop down seems to be optimal, at least for the lenses tested. There are reasons to stop down more, of course.
    Post Exposure is now free, get it from http://ctein.com/booksmpl.htm.

  3. #13
    billie williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6
    wow! i love all this input. i'm going out to print this morning - but first i'll check the bulb strength and then i'll run a few tests to see how the images look at different exposures. after reading all of your comments, i think my time issues come from not enlarging my 6x6 negs very much. only to 6"x6". Anyway, you all have given me lots of food for thought and i will go print and let you know how it unfolds. many thanks for the help!!!

  4. #14
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,170
    Printing f22 on that lens should not produce objectionable diffraction. You can test it easily by making a pirnt a f11 and see if you can see any difference.

  5. #15
    billie williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6
    hi all - okay, for starters, it was a 150 watt bulb! when i switched it over to 75 watts, things improved dramatically. i also print rather small - or i should say, don't enlarge all that much, sometimes. so that is a factor as well. now i'll make some tests. i sure appreciate all the input! billie

  6. #16
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    723
    Quote Originally Posted by billie williams View Post
    hi. i have an omega d2 and use a 135 lens for my medium format negs. but in order to get more time to deal with dodging and burning, i tend to close down the aperture to f16 or even f22. is this okay? it feels like a dumb question, but as a newbie, i feel uncertain of myself. thanks for the help!
    I use the same: Omega D2 and a 135mm (Rodenstock Rodagon) for medium format negs. When I watch the grain through my Paterson grain magnifier I see it is sharp with a tiny bit of flare at f5.6, very sharp at f8 and f11, soft at f16 and essentially unresolved at apertures smaller than that.

    It makes no difference if the enlargements are small and the grain structure is too fine to see anyway. Big enlargements, where the grain structure has to carry the impression of sharpness and detail, will suffer at small apertures.

    Another subtle problem with very small lens apertures is that the depth of field of the enlarging lens reaches up into the condenser system and any spots of dust up there will be imaged as out of focus blobs; usually in skies and faces, naturally.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  7. #17
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,174
    Images
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    I use the same: Omega D2 and a 135mm (Rodenstock Rodagon) for medium format negs. When I watch the grain through my Paterson grain magnifier I see it is sharp with a tiny bit of flare at f5.6, very sharp at f8 and f11, soft at f16 and essentially unresolved at apertures smaller than that.
    And I use an Omega D5XL and a 150mm (80s-vintage Schneider Componon-S) for medium format negs, and can confirm this observed progression exactly as described above, when using my 25x Microsight grain magnifier. I have performed this examination more than once with very consistent outcomes.

    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,919
    I said this before but in case you missed it....

    When you print, do you use multi-grade paper? If so, do you use contrast filters? If you aren't using any filters, you get grade 2 equivalent but your exposure time will be awfully short.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  9. #19
    billie williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    I said this before but in case you missed it....

    When you print, do you use multi-grade paper? If so, do you use contrast filters? If you aren't using any filters, you get grade 2 equivalent but your exposure time will be awfully short.
    hi - sorry i didn't respond sooner....yes, i do use contrast filters. the problem seems to have been the wrong bulb and it was exacerbated by my tendency to print med format negs rather small. thanks for the follow-up.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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