Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Increasing paper exposure with ND |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Increasing paper exposure with ND
In a sense this is an extension to the need to replace my MG filters.
I am currently using the original Kentmere( from Kendall) paper and as you will all know this paper is fast, especially at 5x7. With what may be some still OK filters in my current set I am getting at best about 6-7 secs at f11 exposure which is OK if there is no dodging or burning to be done but I'd prefer longer exposures. Can I simply add the same amounts of all three filters, YMC, to increase the ND while still using MG filters for the correct grade. I think this will work without affecting contrast but can anyone confirm or otherwise? I could of course go to f16 but maybe this isn't ideal in terms of image quality? The neg is a 645 and the lens an 80mm in case this is of any relevance . I already use a 75W bulb in my dichroic head of my Durst 605M enlarger. This is 25W less than Durst recommend and even if I could, I'd prefer not to replace the bulb with a 50W. Thanks Mike |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I have the Ilford Multigrade head on my enlarger. Back in the day when I used to work commercially, the very bright light that this system gives was a godsend when printing hundreds of 'commercial' quality images.
In the interim time, current papers are so much faster that, even using the 5" x 4" light mixing box and stopping the lens right down, exposure times were becoming far far too short (even at 12" x 16") for adequate control of dodging and burning. My solution was quite simple. I bought a piece of 5mm thick milk opal plexiglass and mounted it under the light mixing box. This reduced exposure times to those that allowed adequate dodging and burning. I am sure that you could do the same and get more useable exposure times - perhaps putting such directly over the negative carrier. I would add to this that, having grown up with the 'received knowledge' that stopping the lens down more than 2 stops would interfere with the quality of the print to be totally false. I did some tests in in 1988 and I found that aperture (after stopping down 2 stops to correct for wide open lens issues) had absolutely no effect when people were asked to judge final prints. Bests, David. www.dsallen.de
__________________
David, d.s.allen, fotograf dsallenberlin@gmail.com http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Yes you can add equal amounts of YMC, that's the easiest. I wouldn't be bothered about using f16 for small prints you won't see a difference.
Ian |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
You can dial in equal amounts of CMY, yes.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks all. Nice to hear from you again, Richard. It looks like a combo of YMC and f16 should work a treat and is certainly the quickest and easiest way.
Mike |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
That's what I do - dial in equal amounts of YMC.
I like to have time to dodge during an exposure. I also have a white light level - with which I can take all the YMC out in one go when I am trying to burn in some really dense bits. I just have to remember to put the YMC back for the next iteration of the print Martin |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
I feel obliged to point out that C is actually minus red and as such has no effect, since paper is not red sensitive. In reality all you need is Y and M.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks Mike - I do lurk here still but I haven't made a darkroom print in years!
True Bill, there's technically no need for the M filter if you're printing mono but it keeps the baseboard image mono too which for some might be preferable. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Richard and billcowan, seeing both your posts has reminded me of something to do with the "ineffectiveness of C that I had seen elsewhere on exposure for B&W paper.
If I can summarise what I think you both said: It is that as B&W paper is not sensitive to red then increased ND is provided by equal amounts of Y and M only, but the added benefit of C comes in maintaining a neutral colour on the easel i.e. the easel looks coloured as a result of the MG filter but to prevent a change in colour when adding additional Y and M for ND effect, add the same amount of C so this will be 5 of C,Y and M; 10 of C,y and M etc until the "comfortable exposure is reached? Is this correct? Let me give two different examples if I may which admittedly moves us away from MG filters but which is useful for my knowledge of filters. Example 1: I am using dual dichroic filtration to get say grade 3 and it is 42M and 32Y. If the exposure needs to be increased but the grade is OK then do I need to simply add equal additional quantities of all 3 filters to 42M and 32Y until I get the exposure I need? So let's say that an extra 20 of each adds enough extra exposure so I then have 20C with 62M(42M +20M)and 52Y(32Y +20M) but the correct combination of Y and M for grade 3 has not altered? In other words an extra 20 of C,M and Y has added ND only but has not altered the correct Y and M for grade 3? Presumably if equal extra quantities of all three filters simply add exposure then the colour of the easel will remain the same but appear darker? Example 2: I am using single dichroic filtration to get different grades. The correct paper grade calls for 60M but this doesn't give me the exposure I want. Do I also add the same equal quantities of C,Y and M as in example 1? Thanks for your answers and patience in this matter Mike Example 2: I decide to use single filtration i.e. Y or M but not both. I have ascertained that 60M give me the correct grade but doesn't give a long enought c |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
I think you are correct in your assumptions, although I am not convinced that equal amounts of Y and M are necessarily equal in effect in all machines. Some of my enlargers have a wider range of one colour over the other and all machines are a little different in their grades of colour. Nevertheless I am sure equal amounts is close if not exact.
I am bemused at the thought of worrying about the neutral appearance of the projected image in an environment of red or yellow or orange safelight. I would have thought that seeing an image more brightly would have been a better bet than using C to keep a neutral projection; but different strokes for different folks. |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Exposure explained | GoodOldNorm | Auctions of Interest | 2 | 30th September 2015 08:04 AM |
Exposure logs | GoodOldNorm | Photography in general | 15 | 19th September 2014 08:16 PM |
RHD Paper Flasher and Analyser Pro exposure calculations. | Gavin | Darkroom | 11 | 13th August 2012 11:29 PM |
Ever increasing prices at Jessops? | Tom Kershaw | Photography in general | 35 | 26th March 2011 11:06 PM |
Increasing Negative Contrast | HopALong | Ask Les | 4 | 17th July 2010 07:21 PM |