Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Test Strips |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Test Strips
I was thinking the other night about test strips (I know, I’m sad) and how useless they can be as it’s almost impossible for anyone other than a very skilled printer to select the best area to make the strip from and then to interpret the results to take account for exposure changes required to the untested areas.
I used to use a Quadro easel to make a series of whole frame test prints which has to be the best non-automated way to go, but in recent years have moved to making a test strip across a 10x8 sheet, followed possibly by a couple more to home in on the range of exposures for the picture area that I have selected. If I’m going to make a bigger print, say on 12x16 then I will follow the same procedure on that size paper. Anyone else go this way or do you all use strips of paper and guess the missing bits? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
After test strips I usually count my first print as a work print and fine tune from there. I have never printed just one print of a subject and in college I often did anywhere from 3-10 prints before I was happy often with very subtle changes, not the cheapest method but for me I often would see a slight improvement I wanted to make.
Neil |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I much prefer a whole sheet as a test and then straight to work prints.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Sometimes I estimate what the exposure time will be and expose a 2" square piece of paper in a suitable place for this time. Often I am close enough that a second piece or even a whole sheet at a time worked out from viewing the 2" square piece is correct.
Steve |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I have never tried this but I think you can get close to the whole range of exposures required across a print with the test strip printer in Way Beyond Monochrome.
Once you have establshed the important highlight section's exposure, you can look at the bits that might require much more or less exposure and run tests on these. Each 5x7 allows 7 one inch strips so you end up with a lot of wide ranging exposures and all on the same piece of the neg if required. It is a good piece of kit. I tend to use it for the highlight which then I use to calibrate my Philips probe for highlights which then tends to get me good highlight exposures on most of the rolls negs and on the same kind of paper. I must admit that I wouldn't want to be without some form of analyser and have to rely on strips and my eye alone. The analyser placed on other parts of the neg tells me how much dodging and burning might be required. Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Similar to you, Dave, I have a couple of the quartered type masking frames (now gathering dust) that I have used for 10x8 test prints, but find that the quartered layout isn't as useful as adjacent strips across the paper for evaluating exposure time. I use the test strips to determine a base exposure and subsequent work prints - 1,2,3 (or more if I'm out of tune ) - to get the highlights, shadows and grade(s) to my liking. If I am printing on some particularly nice paper (i.e. expensive) at 12x16 ,I will cut it into quarters for the evaluation prints after the test strip (which I do on a half sheet). This way I can usually get a 12x16 to my liking with one and a half to two test sheets. Of course there are times when I can get what I want almost immediately, other times I seem to not be able to pin down what I want and end up wasting paper because I have misjudged the negative density and the information it holds. I wonder if the analyser would be a good investment ?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Whole sheet 10x8 for me. Quicker in the long run, I find. Then from the subsequent 'work print' I can start making decisions looking at the whole in one look, rather than trying to 'assemble' the image from a handful of test strips. It works for me.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Don't do test strips as all my neg are about the same base exposure so go straight in without filters at print size. With this first print I can assess how I need to print it and most importantly check the neg perfectly clean.
I used to find it really irritating go through doing test prints then making a full size one only to find white spots. J.
__________________
JB-Creative Imagery Jon Butler. http://real-silver-prints.com/ "I Prefer it in the Dark" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Haven't done test strips since I got my analyser pro, it is there or thereabouts first time, maybe just a small adjustment, best piece of darkroom kit I ever got,Richard
__________________
jerseyinblackandwhite.blogspot.com |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
test strips
I don’t claim to be a master printer, but the way I would use test strips (time permitting) is to first use 3 test strips, in the brightest highlight, a mid-tone and darkest shadow, testing only with time (contrast switched off). When I think I have the best average for these, I may then if needed use contrast filtration and test again at longer times to compensate for filters. If I need to change filtration again, I may do this only using magenta or yellow. I use to use the magenta/yellow combination to keep exposure time the same, but found it never really worked that well in practice. Generally, I think if you are exposing and developing negs to print on a diffuser or condenser, then exposure time is more important than contrast variation. If I am making a large print, I would always make a 10" X 8" first to get the feel of it.
|
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 |
Do you like doing test strips? | MartyNL | Darkroom | 24 | 8th September 2010 06:47 PM |
Test printing | Alansworld | Monochrome printing techniques | 10 | 13th April 2010 08:27 PM |