Really short exposure times for printing...

[mooge]

Hi everyone,

I've just started printing and I'm having a hard time with 6x6 negatives- an exposure of 5 seconds (f/16, 50mm lens, ilford multigrade 5x7 paper cut to 5x5...) resulted in a slightly dark print. I guess this is because there's a lot of light going into that 5x5 bit of paper.

5 seconds is really short... and the proper exposure might be shorter. is there any way I can make this longer? the lens is stopped all the way down, and I am using contrast filters.

cheers,
Eugene

 

[Rob-F]

your enlarger bulb may be too big. Check the wattage, and consider getting one with about half that wattage. For instance, it might be a 150 watt bulb; in which case you could get a 75 watt one instead.

 

[tlitody]

Lee neutral density lighting filter sheet. Heat resistant as its used in hot lights. Comes in 0.3 (1stop) density. Very cheap for approx 3 foot square sheet. You can cut to size and place in lightpath above the lens. It's not optical quality so must go above lens. Use as many layers as you need to get the print times you want. If you don't have filter drawer above lens you can usually put it on top of or under mixing box.

You are right that printing that small does give very short print times.

 

[Melvin]

6x6 neg on 5x7 paper with a 50mm lens? Yeah, right.

 

[tj01]

I think 135mm is ideal.
50mm is definitely no deal.

 

[mooge]

would a lens change the exposure time though? wouldn't that just change the enlarger height required to cover the paper?

thanks guys.

 

[underbyte]

I shoot 35mm, 6x6 and 6x7, and 4x5. You definitely want to move to a 80mm lens or longer for 6x6. My exposure times typically range from 15 to 40 seconds at f8 to f11. I like to aim for 20-30 seconds. That gives ample time for dodging and burning without making the exposure unnecessarily long. You have too much light. Most books that I have read have recommended 15-25 second exposures, and lenses should be used in the middle of the range for best sharpness.

 

[tlitody]

would a lens change the exposure time though? wouldn't that just change the enlarger height required to cover the paper?

thanks guys.

think of a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. The image circle it projects only has to cover a 36x24mm piece of film at infinity focus. It won't cover 6x6cm film unless it is a wide angle design for that format. A 50mm enlarger lens is designed to only cover 24x36mm film. You will get heavy vignetting of the negative with a 50mm enlarging lens.

Think of the enlarger as a macro camera photographing the negative which is exactly what it is. The bigger the enlargement you want the closer the lens has to be to the negative. In your case, because you are only making small prints the lens isn't too close so infact it will cover more than 24x36mm of film but it won't cover 6x6 without vignetting. For 6x6 film an 80mm to 105mm lens is ideal but you could go upto 135 but I wouldn't unless you have plenty of column height.

Changing lens to longer focal length will change the brightness because it will be further from the print but you may still need some neutral density for 5x5 prints.

 

[philosomatographer]

Hi everyone,
I've just started printing and I'm having a hard time with 6x6 negatives- an exposure of 5 seconds (f/16, 50mm lens, ilford multigrade 5x7 paper cut to 5x5...) resulted in a slightly dark print. I guess this is because there's a lot of light going into that 5x5 bit of paper.

Hi Eugene,

Not many people print medium format this small, but when done right, the prints can have a jewel-like quality to them. The resolution will look as good as large-format contact prints to most experienced eyes, as I am sure you have noticed by now!.

Are you sure you are using a 50mm lens for those 6x6cm negatives? That's extreme wide-angle, I did not know a 50mm enlarging lens existed that could cover 6x6cm, unless you are cropping a small area out of those negatives.

Secondly, your lens will be jamed right up to the paper. As everybody else here says, you should try a longer lens (for reasons other than just your overexposure!)

Most moderately modern enlargers (especially colour ones) I have ever used have a built-in neutral density filter, usually a switch or lever marked "Low --- High" or something like that.

Otherwise, for 5x7in prints, you could print at f/90 and the diffraction probably wouldn't show up on a small print like that, so this would be another reason to get a lens that stops down further than your current one. When I print that small from medium format, I used my LF enlarging lens (EL-Nikor 135mm), and that stops down to f/45 or so. Diffraction will never shop up on such a small print, so don't be afraid to stop down.

I would be hesitant to follow the advice of getting a dimmer light bulb, unless you don't mind swapping them out. A bright light source is useful for large prints!

Trivia: The widest angle enlarging lens I use (and have ever used) is a Schneider WA-Componon 80mm that covers 6x9cm - I use it for larger prints form 6x7cm negatives. I know Schneider made an exotic and rare Biogon-based enlarging lens, a 25mm capable of huge 35mm prints provided the negatives can stand up to it.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Eugene, don't the edges of the finished print come out fuzzy when printed with a 50mm lens? 75mm or 80mm is best for 6X6.

I must admit though that I used an 80mm Durst Neonon for 6X9cm negatives. The lens had a really wide coverage- the other 80mm lenses I tried didn't quite deliver the same quality in terms of edge resolution.

 

[mooge]

I'm making 6x6 prints on 5x7 paper cropped to 5x5 because the 8x10 paper was kinda pricy for me, I'm just starting out after all.

You guys are right about the corners... they're fuzzy and dark and it looks like there's pincushion distortion too. it kind of goes away when I stop down, and the only print I've made in 6x6 so far had either out-of-focus bits or light leaks in the corners anyways.

So I guess it's Holga-style (Noctilux style? 😀) until I get a longer lens then. This could be the start of a new trend.... nah...

Thanks everyone!

 

[Vince Lupo]

Um, another goofy question: Is it possible that the neg is a bit thin (underexposed) as well?

 

[x-ray]

My Durst 5x7 enlarger is extremely bright even for large prints. I use a dimmer between the timer and the enlarger. You can pick up an extension cord with a built in dimmer at the hardware store or buy a dimmer and electrical box and make one. My dimmer is an old Variac with a voltage meter on it so I can go back to the same voltage / output at any time but the meter isn't necessary.

I like printing times of 20-45 seconds and don't like to stop down beyond two to three stops from wide open. with high quality lenses this is the sweet spot for performance.

 

[graywolf]

The only reason the 50mm is working for him at all is that he is making such small prints and the bellows is very extended giving better coverage. Normal would be a 75-80mm for a 6x6 negative. Strangely I have just been looking for a enlarging lens for 6x6 and had to buy the expensive 80/5.6 El-Nikkor because they are going for 1/3 what the cheap 75mm/4.0 is on eBay. I found on on a web store for $33 with shipping, not bad for a $250 lens.

The suggestion of using a dimer is good, because one can use the brighter light for focusing, but one also has to watch out about turning it too far down and the light going too red, as enlarging paper is not panchromatic. Also the dimmer will effect variable contrast papers.

BTW, for those who do not know, you can contact print a whole roll of 120/620 film on a 8x10 sheet of paper.

 

[dfoo]

As mentioned before get a 75/80mm lens (or 135mm if you want to continue to print so small) for medium format. It will raise the head height and therefore give you longer printing times. When I print 135 on 5x7 paper I use a 75mm lens (instead of the normal 50mm lens) otherwise the very low head height is a pain and exposure times are very very short.

 

[ZorkiKat]

I'm making 6x6 prints on 5x7 paper cropped to 5x5 because the 8x10 paper was kinda pricy for me, I'm just starting out after all.

You guys are right about the corners... they're fuzzy and dark and it looks like there's pincushion distortion too. it kind of goes away when I stop down, and the only print I've made in 6x6 so far had either out-of-focus bits or light leaks in the corners anyways.

So I guess it's Holga-style (Noctilux style? 😀) until I get a longer lens then. This could be the start of a new trend.... nah...

Thanks everyone!

One way which could explain why the 50mm appears to have worked is the enlarging scale used in printing 5X5: The enlarger head was held low and the attendant bellows extension needed was quite long. As such, the lens would have been far from the negative, and did not cause extreme focus fuzz or vignetting.

With bigger prints, the enlarger head would have been positioned farther from the paper and the bellows retracted. This would create serious vignettes.

 

[Tim Gray]

Get a longer lens. If you are doing smaller prints, even an 80mm might be too short. In my brief foray into MF, I had a real hard time doing 5x7s off of 6x6 with an 80mm. Exposure times short, the enlarger head was really low, and I couldn't even use my easel properly (it was too large to center the print properly). Since I tend to gravitate towards small prints for a variety of reasons, I decided MF wasn't for me...

In fact, when I print small prints from 35mm, I typically use the 80mm lens because it gives me more working distance.