Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Equipment > Darkroom

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10th September 2014, 12:16 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SanMiguel View Post
Interesting that most articles I've read advocate setting the print time based on the highlight tone (as per Argentum) and using the grade choice to settle the shadows, while David Kachel's article (thanks MartyNL) suggests the opposite.

And its reassuring to hear that getting the print time/contrast balance is tricky.
Well I'm not actually advocating that a highlight tone MUST be used to determine print time, I'm pointing out that the speed point of your contrast control system is the tone to use to get to a starting print time.
For example the speed point on my Durst L1200 using dichroic filters is around 0.7LogD in the print which is a mid tone. So when using that setup I use a midtone and not a highlight tone to arrive at a base print time.

Its just makes life a lot simpler and easier to predict what effect a change in contrast is going to have if you know the speed point of your contrast control system. If you don't know what it is you are going to extend the trial and error time/effort to arrive at the optimal balance of print time and contrast.

And also knowing what the speed point tone is tells you that giving any more exposure than required for that tone is over exposing/fogging your print. And that will kill highlights which are critical to retaining good "Local contrast". Those little highlights in the shadows usually do not want over printing.

This is one reason why Ilford filters are good. They are extremely well speed matched with grades and half grades being very evenly spaced. I can only speak for the enlargers I have tested and I can guarantee you that the speed points of them all vary and usually not all the recommended grade settings for VC paper cross at the same speed point meaning you cannot reliably predict what effect a contrast change is going to have. And that extends the trial and error time/effort required to get to a decent print.

What I am advocating is that knowing and/or taking the trouble to find out what the speed point of your contrast system is will make printing easier and more predictable for you. In your case, because you are using Ilford Filters you now know. If you were using dichroic head filters you wouldn't and would find it useful to test your system to find what it is.

Note: The LogD value of speed point of paper reduces as it ages. Always use fresh paper when doing system calibration tests.

You can get far too hung up on all this technical stuff but in the case of Ilford Filters its so simple because we know they are speed matched on a highlight value and know what that value is.

Last edited by Argentum; 10th September 2014 at 12:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10th September 2014, 12:31 PM
Adrian Adrian is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yateley in Hampshire
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argentum View Post
Getting the absolute correct balance between print time and print contrast is very tricky. The more you practice, the intuitive it becomes.
Intuition! Argentum as so often does, has nailed it. That's what it's about. The technical stuff is interesting - but at the end of the day I personally have found it boils down to understanding your gear, materials and processes really well and developing an artist's intuition - an intuitive "feel" about what grade to use for a particular negative/scene and a feeling about how the numerous variables affect what you're doing and how you can achieve your vision for the print.

That said, a set of density/speed curves for the MG paper is useful. It gives a guide as to what densities in the print are going to do when you dodge/burn with various grades. The trick is to develop this into intuition. Some printers don't bother with test strips. They are so good they just know what they need to do to get a good working print because they know their materials so well.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10th September 2014, 12:52 PM
Argentum's Avatar
Argentum Argentum is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sceptred Isle
Posts: 3,066
Default

I would suggest that you just try what I have suggested next time you go into the darkoom.

Take any negative, assess what should be a highlight with texture in it. Do a test strip across that area and pick the strip/patch which shows that as being the required time and then adjust contrast to taste. My bet is that you will need to do less and/or smaller print time adjustments to get to a decent print.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10th September 2014, 07:37 PM
cliveh's Avatar
cliveh cliveh is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Coornwall
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsallen View Post
Sorry, a silly omission on my part.

The general rule of thumb has always been that

a) when you are using a light source that has either has condensers or a point light source, you should do your tests with a #2 filter.

b) when you are using a diffuser light source (either a colour head, or an enlarger with a diffuser in the light path or a multigrade head) you should do your tests with a #3 filter.

The reason for this is that films are developed for less time (lower contrast) for a condenser/point light source because these light sources are inherently more contrasty. Films intended for diffuse/colour/mulltigrade light sources are developed for longer (higher contrast) because these light sources are inherently less contrasty.

Although this has been the accepted norm for a very long time, many printers that I know use a #3 filter for their tests irrespective of the type of light source as they feel that testing and standardising at #3 is more flexible as this is the mid-point in the range of grades generally available (i.e #1 - #5).

As you are using below the lens filters, I presume that you may have either a standard condenser light source, a diffused condenser light source or a diffuser light source. So based on the accepted norm, you will need to choose the appropriate filter for your light source.

However, I personally would choose to use the #3 filter for all of your tests as you will have the widest possible range of options of interpreting your negatives as you move forward.

Let us know how you get on.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de
I would respectfully disagree with this and suggest that if using a condenser or diffuser enlarger you print initially with no filtration. In this way it will help you develop your exposure and negative development technique to require no filtration for the given enlarger of your choice.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10th September 2014, 07:37 PM
SanMiguel SanMiguel is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Portstewart, Northern Ireland
Posts: 341
Default

Thanks for that clarification Argentum - and yes i will try that out next time I print which i am sure will aid my understanding of the print time/contrast relationship. Good to know about the Ilford filters - one less thing to think about.

Adrian I'm itching to get printing again to develop my skills - armed with all the great information I've had from the responses to my original question. A big thanks to all who chipped in - a great welcome to the forum.

Michael
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 10th September 2014, 08:07 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
I would respectfully disagree with this and suggest that if using a condenser or diffuser enlarger you print initially with no filtration. In this way it will help you develop your exposure and negative development technique to require no filtration for the given enlarger of your choice.
Ilford Multigrade Deluxe paper is often too soft with no filtration, its R-speed for 'grade 2', no filtration, is 110. For example Ilfospeed grades are 120 for grade 1, 100 for grade 2. ADOX/AGFA MCP variocontrast paper is even harder where 110 represents grade 1 only. MCP with no filtration is already 90.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10th September 2014, 08:21 PM
cliveh's Avatar
cliveh cliveh is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Coornwall
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miha View Post
Ilford Multigrade Deluxe paper is often too soft with no filtration, its R-speed for 'grade 2', no filtration, is 110. For example Ilfospeed grades are 120 for grade 1, 100 for grade 2. ADOX/AGFA MCP variocontrast paper is even harder where 110 represents grade 1 only. MCP with no filtration is already 90.
Miha, that depends on the type of negative you are printing on a given enlarger with developer time/temperature permitting.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10th September 2014, 08:28 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
Miha, that depends on the type of negative you are printing on a given enlarger with developer time/temperature permitting.
Sure, but in my experience I prefer to dial in some magenta when printing on Ilford papers from normal negatives.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10th September 2014, 08:42 PM
cliveh's Avatar
cliveh cliveh is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: West Coornwall
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miha View Post
Sure, but in my experience I prefer to dial in some magenta when printing on Ilford papers from normal negatives.
Then I would suggest your normal negative exhibits a contrast too low for your printing technique.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10th September 2014, 08:46 PM
Miha's Avatar
Miha Miha is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
Then I would suggest your normal negative exhibits a contrast too low for your printing technique.
Not really. Too low for Multigrade 'grade 2' which it isn't.
Reply With Quote
Reply
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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello from newbie Chefdon Introductions 13 22nd January 2014 11:36 AM
a newbie with a Darkroom Guille Zoom Darkroom 31 27th June 2013 09:58 AM
Newbie AaronEmmett Introductions 7 29th April 2013 05:31 PM
Hello from a complete newbie SarahP Introductions 23 28th January 2013 10:39 AM
Wanna know more newbie. JimW Introductions 11 1st September 2009 05:52 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.