 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / June 2006Print Time too long ?
yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest need to get the papaer's maximum black exposure. but, even i exposed about 30s, the maximum dark part of the result is merely gray, it means 30s is not enough! before i change the time and experiment again, i want to ask, is it normal? i just need to mark sure there is nothing wroing. below are some relative info about the printing: 1, Omega D5-XL 4x5 enlarger, 80mm lens, 35mm negative, 8x10 print size 2, enlarger head was set to about 42cm 3, lens apperture was set to f/11 4. developed 1.5 min in D-72 1:2 solution thanks in advance. - woody > yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a > blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 3, lens apperture was set to f/11 > 4. developed 1.5 min in D-72 1:2 solution additional information: 5, that's a color printer with FUJI 250w/24v lamp 6, paper is ILForld's multigrade RC. >> yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a >> blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >5, that's a color printer with FUJI 250w/24v lamp >6, paper is ILForld's multigrade RC. This would be about what I'd expect on my D-5. Of course I don't use f/11 for most of my printing. Tight apertures are only of value when making larger enlargements than the 6.5 X 9.5 I limit my 35's to. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net > >> yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a > >> blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > value when making larger enlargements than the 6.5 X 9.5 I limit my > 35's to. Dear John, do you know why D-5 enlarger need so much exposure time longer than a normal darkroom text recommended? i knew for some enlarger, if using 250w lamp, 10 seconds exposure is enough. and, would you please suggest me a start point of exposure time to use for my case? i've visited your web page, clearly you're a D-5 expert, nice to 'meet' you :-) my D-5 enlarger was got from used market and no manual comes with it, i was always being confused by a function of D-5 enlarger and think you can tell me: the lamp-house has three lighting mode: low, high, and white, i've already known that the low mode used to retracts some light from the lamp, but i've not managed to figure out what's the difference between high mode and white mode. i noticed there is not light changing when i switched the between the two modes. last, the enlarger comes with a negative carrier which has an opening sized of 6.8x5.5cm, what kind of film it is for? thank you very much. - woody >do you know why D-5 enlarger need so much exposure time longer than a normal >darkroom text recommended? i knew for some enlarger, if using 250w lamp, >10 seconds exposure is enough. and, would you please suggest me a start >point of exposure time to use for my case? For 35mm I would use a 62mm Nikkor at f/5.6 for about 8~12 seconds. >i've visited your web page, clearly you're a D-5 expert, nice to 'meet' >you :-) Greg ( www.gregblankphoto.com) and a few others on this forum are actually more knowledgeable about the D-5 than I am. I just use it when I need to print RA-4 color materials. It's an excellent enlarger and I will certainly recommend it to anyone needing a 4X5 or smaller enlarger. Unfortunately since migrating to 5X7, I don't use it much. There was a time when it was cranking out 100 8X10's a day with ease. That's its forte actually. It's consistent. > my D-5 enlarger was got from used market and no manual comes >with it, i was always being confused by a function of D-5 enlarger and >think you can tell me: the lamp-house has three lighting mode: low, >high, and white, i've already known that the low mode used to retracts >some light from the lamp, but i've not managed to figure out what's the >difference between high mode and white mode. There is about a 1 stop difference between high and low output. It's a neutral density filter that cuts the light being transmitted to the print. This allows several capabilities such as : 1) Enlarging to high speed materials such as film. 2) Extended exposure times for image manipulation. 3) The use of APO lenses at very wide apertures. 4) Adjustment of light for different formats of films. The color filter retraction mechanism is handy when printing color and you don't want to tamper with the color settings. > i noticed there is not >light changing when i switched the between the two modes. Are you saying that the light output doesn't vary ? If so then I'd imagine the neutral density filter is missing. >last, the enlarger comes with a negative carrier which has an opening >sized of 6.8x5.5cm, what kind of film it is for? 6X7 cm 120 format such as that produced by an RB/RZ67 (my favorite medium format camera) or a Pentax 67 which is a favorite of many hobbyists. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net > >do you know why D-5 enlarger need so much exposure time longer than a normal > >darkroom text recommended? i knew for some enlarger, if using 250w lamp, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Are you saying that the light output doesn't vary ? If so then I'd > imagine the neutral density filter is missing. thanks for the answer. light does change when switch from 'low' to 'high' mode, but the light does not change when switch between 'high' and 'white'. opened the lamphouse, i saw a multi-hole filter just in front of the lamp, which makes light change between 'low' and 'high'. what i don't understand is why there is no change between 'high' and 'white'. > >last, the enlarger comes with a negative carrier which has an opening > >sized of 6.8x5.5cm, what kind of film it is for? > > 6X7 cm 120 format such as that produced by an RB/RZ67 (my favorite > medium format camera) or a Pentax 67 which is a favorite of many > hobbyists. good news! thank you John. i also wanna know, can i use the 6x7 carrier for 6x6 negatives? thanks. > == > John S. Douglas > Photographer & Webmaster > www.legacy-photo,com > www.xs750.net Do you have any filtration dialed in? If not there won't be any filters to retract when switching from high(filtered) to white(no filters). Mike > > >do you know why D-5 enlarger need so much exposure time longer than a normal > > >darkroom text recommended? i knew for some enlarger, if using 250w lamp, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > www.legacy-photo,com > > www.xs750.net > Do you have any filtration dialed in? If not there won't be any filters to > retract when switching from high(filtered) to white(no filters). i begin to understand :-) this night i will go home and check it. when i use variable contrast papers i will need thoese filters as well as the white level, right? thank you for you help. > Mike > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > > www.legacy-photo,com > > > www.xs750.net "Steven Woody" <narkewoody@gmail.com> wrote in message >> 1, Omega D5-XL 4x5 enlarger, 80mm lens, 35mm negative, 8x10 print size >> 2, enlarger head was set to about 42cm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 5, that's a color printer with FUJI 250w/24v lamp What 'that' is it that is the that that is referred to? > "Steven Woody" <narkewoody@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> 1, Omega D5-XL 4x5 enlarger, 80mm lens, 35mm negative, 8x10 print size [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What 'that' is it that is the that that is referred to? Nicholas, 'that' refers to the D5-XL enlarger. - woody I may have missed something in your original post, are you using the mixing chamber for small format? Mike > > yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a > > blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 5, that's a color printer with FUJI 250w/24v lamp > 6, paper is ILForld's multigrade RC. > yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a > blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > - > woody Try opening up to f'8 then the print time will be 15 seconds, or around 20-25 for a more dense print.  SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > > yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a > > blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Try opening up to f'8 then the print time will be 15 seconds, or around > 20-25 for a more dense print. thanks for the sugestion. do you get any idea of how much difference on exposure time will be produced for one stop difference on len apperture? and, because people say that f'11 produces better image quality than f'8, so should i use f'11 to get the quality but sacrifice exposure time? is ther any other drawbacks other than time wasting? sorry for such many questions. - woody Steven Woody spake thus: >>>yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip using a >>>blank negative, i want to see how many seconds of exposure i at lest [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > quality than f'8, so should i use f'11 to get the quality but sacrifice > exposure time? is ther any other drawbacks other than time wasting? It's not a matter of "any idea": the difference in exposure time of a one-stop difference is *exactly* double (or half). f/11 doesn't produce "better image quality" than f/8, necessarily. The smaller aperture does increase depth of focus, which means less chance of parts of the image being out of focus, but other than this, there's no better quality. f/8 may actually be better in some lenses. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) >f/11 doesn't produce "better image quality" than f/8, necessarily. The >smaller aperture does increase depth of focus, which means less chance >of parts of the image being out of focus, but other than this, there's >no better quality. f/8 may actually be better in some lenses. Exactly. At some point, depending on the lens design, diffraction starts degrading the image. I've never really seen a visible difference but then I run most of my lenses at the 2-stop down and I probably couldn't see a difference in the printing any case/ == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net > > Try opening up to f'8 then the print time will be 15 seconds, or around > > 20-25 for a more dense print. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > - > woody Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in alignment. Each stop approximately halves or increases the exposure by 2x of the stop above or below it. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at > any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in > alignment. Those are two big "ifs." The OP hasn't said what sort of lens he's using, other than it being an 80mm lens. Many inexpensive lenses produce noticeably worse images when wide open. The rule of thumb I've always heard, though, is that most lenses produce their best results closed down by 2-3 stops from their maximums. I've never tried to verify this experimentally with my own lenses, though. As another comment, enlargers vary substantially in brightness. I'm not familiar with the Omega D5, so I can't comment on it specifically, but the same negative at the same lens aperture and filtration could take very different times to print on two different enlargers. If you don't like your printing times, and if you hear they're normal for your enlarger, you might want to consider another enlarger, or perhaps an upgrade to its light source, if this is possible. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > > Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at > > any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > might want to consider another enlarger, or perhaps an upgrade to its > light source, if this is possible. thanks for so many suggestions. thank you all! BTW: my lens is a Rodenstock 80mm F4 >thanks for so many suggestions. thank you all! BTW: my lens is a >Rodenstock 80mm F4 Possibly an excellent lens though Rodenstock does make some "economy" lenses but frankly none of them are actually bad in my experience. You might want a better lens if printing color or making large (more than 9X) enlargements though I doubt you'll notice a difference in a "blind taste test". Bob and others would be better to ask on this issue as I generally don't enlarge a negative more than 6X on rollfims and 2X on sheet films. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net > > Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at > > any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in > > alignment. > > Those are two big "ifs. Maybe for you. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com >> > Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at >> > any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe for you. What's important (in this thread) is whether they're important for the OP. The fact of the matter is that you don't know the condition of his equipment or what his lens is. (Well, we now know what his lens is, as he posted that information elsewhere, but at the time I made my post he hadn't clearly identified it.) These may not be important factors for you, but they MIGHT be important factors for the OP, so casually dismissing them is inappropriate, IMHO. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > >> > Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at > >> > any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > but they MIGHT be important factors for the OP, so casually dismissing > them is inappropriate, IMHO. Note by actually rereading my response you will see that I stated "IF The Enlarger Lens is a GOOD One". SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com >> >> > Despite what some people say, there should be NO quality difference at >> >> > any F stop,...if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Note by actually rereading my response you will see that I stated "IF > The Enlarger Lens is a GOOD One". Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an attempt to emphasize the importance of those very conditions -- an attempt that you dismissed with "maybe for you." I stand by my original comment: The conditions you tossed out in a way that could be (mis?)-interpreted as an afterthought are very important ones. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those > are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an > attempt to emphasize the importance of those very conditions -- an attempt > that you dismissed with "maybe for you." I stand by my original comment: > The conditions you tossed out in a way that could be (mis?)-interpreted as > an afterthought are very important ones. I question why they are big IF's, spend the money buy good or decent glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves little to chance. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com Greg "_" spake thus: >>Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those >>are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves > little to chance. Your language (and perhaps comprehension) skills could use some attending to. SignatureAny system of knowledge that is capable of listing films in order of use of the word "f.ck" is incapable of writing a good summary and analysis of the Philippine-American War. And vice-versa. This is an inviolable rule. - Matthew White, referring to Wikipedia on his WikiWatch site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) >> Note by actually rereading *MY* response you will see that I stated "those >> are two big 'ifs.'" I certainly saw your conditions and my post was an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves > little to chance. I think I see where you're coming from now: I believe we're basically in agreement on the real issues; you've just been using the conditionals ("if the enlarger lens is a good one and the enlarger is in alignment") as if they were questions of whether or not one should use good equipment, whereas I've been treating them as simple logic conditionals, which is the more common use of such phrases in this sort of context. IF the OP has a sub-par lens or an out-of-alignment enlarger, I agree that this issue should be corrected; however, that's an IMPLICATION of your original conditional statement (in full context), not its literal meaning. It was the literal meaning I was intending to emphasize in my post ("those are two big 'ifs'") to which you objected. I believe you misinterpreted my objection as being to the implication of your earlier post, rather than to what it said explicitly. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >I question why they are big IF's, spend the money buy good or decent >glass, invest some time and align the enlarger. Seems to me, that leaves >little to chance. Don't sweat the details. Some people just have too much time on their hands. == John S. Douglas Photographer & Webmaster www.legacy-photo,com www.xs750.net Even a high qualtiy lens (not a $2000 APO) will have a "sweet spot" where it produces the best resolution, contrast will not vary in a modern lens of high quality. Whether you can see the difference is questionalble unless you are into really big enlargements or use a microdensitomer. ;) Mike > > > Try opening up to f'8 then the print time will be 15 seconds, or around > > > 20-25 for a more dense print. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Each stop approximately halves or increases the exposure by 2x of the > stop above or below it. > Whether you can see the difference is questionalble unless > you are into really big enlargements or use a microdensitomer. ;) > > Mike Exactly, most fairly good to excellent lenses won't be hugely apparent. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip > using a blank negative ... If you film strip your 35mm center the clear area twixt two frames in the carrier. That way you'll have some of two frames print plus the clear area. A comparison can then be made twixt your max black and what to expect of that amount of exposure when making some actual prints. Likely you'll find a max black that is more or less black than needed. A change in contrast or some other method may be needed to place all the grays to their proper density. Dan > > yesterday night, i did my first printing, that's a test strip > > using a blank negative ... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > may be needed to place all the grays to their > proper density. Dan yes, it's exactly what i did. but not what i question for :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.