Topic: Oh The Learning! Especially the Hurty Bits

[Adam Doe]

I've got my newly acquired Omega B22 enlarger all set up in the laundry room, hoping the wife won't notice it as I've cleverly draped a sock over the top to disguise it as a pile of laundry. Trays, tongs, easel, red light and a GraLab timer are all there as well, the result of an ebay purchase and a batch of darkroom equipment kindly given to me yesterday by a photographer friend who works in digital (Now there's a reason to appreciate digital). After two nights of trying to print I have come to the realization that printing, like most things in life, will require a lot of time, study and effort for me to attain any degree of proficiency. I find my self staring at a range of possibilities and options, interwoven with questions and not sure of any of the answers. Not a daunting prospect by any means, as a matter of fact I enjoy having so much ahead of me to learn. I've managed to figure out which end of the camera to point at the subject, I should be able to figure this out as well.

My first night was spent largely trying to figure out why my prints were insanely overexposed. The culprit was me forgetting to tighten the aperture after focusing. Also, the thudding noise was distracting but once I quit banging my head against the wall in frustration the noise ceased. I did wind up with one print of marginal quality.

Last night was better. I worked on focus (I'd like to get a grain focuser soon), proper exposure and trying to get into the swing of a workflow and the result was two prints that I would deem almost half reasonable. Onward and upward!

But I have a few immediate questions about which I hope the collective Filmwaster print masterminds will be able to enlighten me.

Currently I'm working with a box of Ilford MGIV RC Deluxe Pearl finish paper and Ilford Multigrade developer at 1:14 dilution. Is this a good combination to start with?

I also inherited a couple of old safelights, but the glass filters are amber, not red. The red-light that I am currently using is an led light that I have pointed at the ceiling to reflect and that seems to do OK, but not quite enough for me to see the image with any clarity on the paper as it's developing. Can I use the amber lights?

I am developing for 1:30, stop bath for 0:30, Fix for 5:00, Rinse Aid for 2:00. Then rinsing in water. I'm not sure of the rinse time I should be doing since I am using a rinse aid. Any suggestions?

Thanks!

[Fluminian]

I laughed out load at the "thudding noise" section. You're so funny, Adam. 
Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for your question. 

[Francois]

You really should use duct-tape to hold a cushion on the wall... it's much quieter that way 

But joking aside, I don't use Multigrade developer so I can't say if you're using the right dilution or not. Personally I favor the more concentrated variants.
Fixer wise, I use the Rapid Fix and it will get my print OK within a minute for RC paper. Then I wash for 2 minutes. No rinse aids are really useful for RC paper since the chemicals don't seep into the paper base like FB papers.

Developing, as long as you get it between 1 minute and 1½ minute, you should be OK. Believe me, this is not rocket science.

For the exposure, what I ended up doing is making a first test print that I look at in OK light. Then I think in f/stops, just like on my camera. This is a bit too dark, divide the exposure by 2 (-1 stop). If it's much too dark, divide by 4 (-2 stops). Stove black... divide by at least 8 (-3 stops) and re-test.

Same thing for too light. Multiply by full stops. Once you understand that the paper is limited to a 9 stop range with middle gray in the middle, it becomes easy to get something decent in a short time. It also becomes easier to dodge and burn.

As for the safelights, I use amber safelights. Make sure they're at least 4 feet away from the work table. Also, take a small test strip sized piece, put it on the easel with a coin on top of it and let it exposed to the safelight for 10 minutes. If after processing you don't see a round coin on the paper, the place is OK.

[gsgary]

Are you using test stips ? i use to cut them about 1" wide and place across the most important part of the pint cover all but about 1" expose then move another inch an so on so the exposure build up across the test strip then you can pick the best exposure and make a print

[Francois]

I used to do log based strips until I got an exposure meter. It's not reliable but it gets me into the ballpark pretty fast.
I usually nail the exposure on the second print. I usually think I'm going to get it right on the first but it rarely works out like that.

I noticed that the first exposure you do isn't as important as you might think. The goal is to get an image that is average. Once you see how it comes out, it's easy to add or remove stops accordingly.

I know Leon makes a test print for the highlights and then fits the shadows in (if I remember) which is a good way of working precisely. But I just eyeball it. For me these days, close enough is good enough.

[mcduff]

Wow Francois. I never did log based strips. It hurts my head I just do 5-10-15-20-etc even tho I know that we are having the stop difference not be consistent between the times. Also, sometimes (if I have too many times) I have a hard time seeing where the demarcations are between the times (I can see the 5-10 demarcation easier than 15-20). But trying do a test strip with half stop differences (or whatever) would surely screw me up! I am sure someone has made a stepped gradient piece of glass or plastic that would replicate a proper logarithmic difference but I have not seen one. 

[Francois]

Here's the easy way to do them when you don't have the Kodak print scale:

Expose the entire sheet to the base time, lets say 2 seconds.
Then cover the first block and add 2 seconds. Cover the second block and add 4, then 8... and so on.
So, the first chunk will be 2 seconds, second 4, 8, 16....

It's that easy.

[Adam Doe]

Thanks for the tips. It's back in this weekend!

[Peter84]

I use Multi grade developer but mine is 1:9, 1 min. for RC paper and 2 for Fiber, then 3 min in rap fixer. Then washing in demerinalised water. When I started printing I too forgot to set the correct apperture the whole time. I cranked it wide open to focus but then forgot to put it back. I started with a Durst 300 series with a schneider-kreutznach 50mm lens (f4) then an meopta that should be able to do MF as well but I it has only got a 50mm lens and it isn't half as sharp as the schneider. So for 35mm film prints I tend to stick with the Durst. Also the schneider lens has got twice as much aperture blades as the other lens in the meopta, which has only got 4 which makes it quite square if you stop it down.
Exposures times is more guessing with me. Last evening/night I was making prints for the postcard exchange on Ilford MG 5X7 and after stopping the lens down 3 stops I ended up with a 2-3 sec. exposure time. I write that sort of stuff down and next time I make a print on that format of paper I start with those settings and work from there.

[mcduff]

Here's the easy way to do them when you don't have the Kodak print scale:

Expose the entire sheet to the base time, lets say 2 seconds.
Then cover the first block and add 2 seconds. Cover the second block and add 4, then 8... and so on.
So, the first chunk will be 2 seconds, second 4, 8, 16....

It's that easy.

Thanks Francois for giving a name (Kodak Print Scale) to the gizmo which I was talking about.

You say the 2,4,8,16 thing is but I fear I would screw it up. I am probably just being lazy not wanting to reset my timer, haha. I will give it a try next time.

I think I also had reservations about it as I was thinking that my arithmetic scale was giving more precision. For example, if I am doing 5,10,15,20, then I have only have a full stop between the first two blocks. Granted, the increasingly small stop difference (eg between 15 and 20) makes discerning the blocks hard and does not give a huge range (I could totally be off the mark as 5 to 20 is only 2 stops).

But instead of thinking about it too much I will just shut up and give it a try next time I am in the darkroom!

[Francois]

I learned to print using the arithmetic linear scale. It's only years later that I discovered the log scale.
Once I managed to get my brain around the fact that my enlarger could work the exact same way my camera does, things became easy pretty fast.

When I look through my camera, I can usually tell if I'd like some scene element lighter or darker than middle gray. I then set my aperture and speed accordingly.
Same thing with the enlarger. I always print at either f/5.6 or f/8. I always try to get exposures in the 24 second range. If I get times that are too fast because the negatives are thin, I use a dimmer to bring the light down. I also try and keep exposure times an even number... it's easier to double or halve even numbers. I also keep the grade 2 filter from the Ilford Multigrade pack in the filter tray at all times. That way, I don't need to redo a test strip when I change grades.

[Adam Doe]

Had a much better printing session tonight as compared to last week's. Followed Francois' tips (and here's a tip of the hat to you Francois. OK I'm not wearing a hat but I do have a cat sitting on my lap as I type this so a tip of the cat it will have to be) and wound up with two prints that I'm pretty pleased with. Found a red bulb to use for a safelight, did test strips, started with a #3 Polycontrast filter, took notes, adjusted times, filters, aperture as needed. I may be getting a handle on the basics! So thanks again.

[Francois]

You're welcome

[irv_b]

It took me a while to find it but I knew I had read an article on F-stop printing a little while ago. I do it in my darkroom now but I'll warn you it takes a bit of getting used to.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/f-stop-printing-4638

[Francois]

This is the kind of thing that feels so un-natural at first yet manages to be the simplest thing to do once your brain gets accustomed to the logic and the simple math involved.