40oz
...
Just successfully printed my first photos!
However, after my test strip came out almost all black, I find myself wondering how to get more reasonable exposure times. I'm using a Beseler 23C, and was reduced to roughly 2 second exposures (counted out with the classic 1001, 1002, 1003, etc) at F16. Seems kind of short. I was expecting exposure times in the range of 15 seconds of so.
The paper was Ilford MGIV, if that helps.
I quickly abandoned the "test strip" process and just started shortening the time until I got something workable.
OK, I was using 5X7 paper, so the enlarger was closer to the paper than would be than case with an 8x10. I'm guessing this played a large factor in the short times. Is that assumption correct?
BTW, it is FAR easier than I thought. So far lol.
Another question for those who have done this before: With film, development is a time-sensitive thing. With my prints, it seems that all development is "done" by about 30 seconds or so, and leaving it in the developer longer doesn't really have any effect. Is this true, or did I just get lucky with a timed development of 45 seconds and trying to judge changes by the safelight?
When printing at 8x10 or larger, does stray light from things like the safe light, VCR across the rom, etc (I print in my kitchen table, and my kitchen/dining room is in the same room as my living room) have a greater effect, even with exposures and dev time of less than a minute? It's dark enough that I can't see except by "eclipse," when things block the little LED's, even after several minutes of adjustment.
However, after my test strip came out almost all black, I find myself wondering how to get more reasonable exposure times. I'm using a Beseler 23C, and was reduced to roughly 2 second exposures (counted out with the classic 1001, 1002, 1003, etc) at F16. Seems kind of short. I was expecting exposure times in the range of 15 seconds of so.
The paper was Ilford MGIV, if that helps.
I quickly abandoned the "test strip" process and just started shortening the time until I got something workable.
OK, I was using 5X7 paper, so the enlarger was closer to the paper than would be than case with an 8x10. I'm guessing this played a large factor in the short times. Is that assumption correct?
BTW, it is FAR easier than I thought. So far lol.
Another question for those who have done this before: With film, development is a time-sensitive thing. With my prints, it seems that all development is "done" by about 30 seconds or so, and leaving it in the developer longer doesn't really have any effect. Is this true, or did I just get lucky with a timed development of 45 seconds and trying to judge changes by the safelight?
When printing at 8x10 or larger, does stray light from things like the safe light, VCR across the rom, etc (I print in my kitchen table, and my kitchen/dining room is in the same room as my living room) have a greater effect, even with exposures and dev time of less than a minute? It's dark enough that I can't see except by "eclipse," when things block the little LED's, even after several minutes of adjustment.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
What wattage bulb are you using? That's about the only thing I could think of.
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
First off, let me suggest that you find a timer for your enlarger. It'll be far more accurate and precisely repeatable in the long run than your counting method. These days timers can be had for a song. Last year I bought a digital timer which sold at B&H for $125.00 off of eBay for $30.
As for the short times you are getting, this is a problem. You really want exposure times longer than 5 seconds to be sure you are getting even exposure, never mind the full range of detail your negatives could yeild. I suspect that it's a combination of factors. Are you sure you are stopping the lens down correctly? Some enlarging lenses have open/closed levers, which can be tricky to get right, leaving you thinking you working stopped down, while the lens is in fact still wide open. Are you sure the enlarger has all it's parts, and all in the right places? I've taken apart a fair share of enlargers to find that condensers were in the wrong spots (or missing altogether!), found filters missing or in wrong, mirrors where they shouldn't be, all sorts of things. Find a manual for your Beseler if you don't have one. Stephanie's point about the bulb is good too- is it the right one? You can probably get a lower watt bulb, which would help. Making small prints with head low and close to the easel, your times will be shorter, and this is at least part of what you are experiencing. If you get more reasonable times with larger prints, then maybe you could just use a filter or something to cut the light output for smaller prints.
Finally, your question about paper. Your papers need more time in the developer, even though you can't see the activity. If you pull prints too early, you are not fully developing all the silver in the emulsion. The biggest problems you will likely run into as a result will be inconsistent results and loss of shadow depth. RC papers should get a minimum of one minute in the developer. Most fiber based papers will need at least two minutes, and some will require longer times. I always give RC papers 90 seconds, and fiber papers all get 3 minutes in the developer, unless they need more (or less, for some specific techniques). Even though you can't see the action after the first 30 seconds, doesn't mean it's not happening. Never judge prints by how they look in the tray- always judge by the timer. Leave them in until they've had the right amount of time. If they are too dark, reduce your exposure time, but don't snatch prints early unless you don't care about getting repeatable results. Remember- consistency and repeatability should be your mantras in the darkroom. Without them, you'll never be able to predict and achieve the results you are after.
As for the short times you are getting, this is a problem. You really want exposure times longer than 5 seconds to be sure you are getting even exposure, never mind the full range of detail your negatives could yeild. I suspect that it's a combination of factors. Are you sure you are stopping the lens down correctly? Some enlarging lenses have open/closed levers, which can be tricky to get right, leaving you thinking you working stopped down, while the lens is in fact still wide open. Are you sure the enlarger has all it's parts, and all in the right places? I've taken apart a fair share of enlargers to find that condensers were in the wrong spots (or missing altogether!), found filters missing or in wrong, mirrors where they shouldn't be, all sorts of things. Find a manual for your Beseler if you don't have one. Stephanie's point about the bulb is good too- is it the right one? You can probably get a lower watt bulb, which would help. Making small prints with head low and close to the easel, your times will be shorter, and this is at least part of what you are experiencing. If you get more reasonable times with larger prints, then maybe you could just use a filter or something to cut the light output for smaller prints.
Finally, your question about paper. Your papers need more time in the developer, even though you can't see the activity. If you pull prints too early, you are not fully developing all the silver in the emulsion. The biggest problems you will likely run into as a result will be inconsistent results and loss of shadow depth. RC papers should get a minimum of one minute in the developer. Most fiber based papers will need at least two minutes, and some will require longer times. I always give RC papers 90 seconds, and fiber papers all get 3 minutes in the developer, unless they need more (or less, for some specific techniques). Even though you can't see the action after the first 30 seconds, doesn't mean it's not happening. Never judge prints by how they look in the tray- always judge by the timer. Leave them in until they've had the right amount of time. If they are too dark, reduce your exposure time, but don't snatch prints early unless you don't care about getting repeatable results. Remember- consistency and repeatability should be your mantras in the darkroom. Without them, you'll never be able to predict and achieve the results you are after.
40oz
...
Thanks for the quick responses.
The enlarger has a 25W bulb. I know the lens is stopping down because I went through more than one dry run beforehand to make sure I wasn't fumbling around in the dark. It's an EL Nikkor 50/4, BTW.
Yes, a real enlarging timer would be nice
Soon, perhaps. Until then, I have a watch and digital kitchen timer that will do the job. I was only counting at first because I was trying to get a single image to print decently. When it finally worked, I just went with it
OK, so it seems that I don't need to worry about leaving the paper in the developer too long. That was bothering me - it seemed there were too many variables at first. I left each exposure in the developer for at least 45 seconds, but I don't remember where I grabbed that time. The prints look good, and I was able to get three very close to identical, but obviously there is a bit of inaccuracy with my exposure timing. I can easily set the dev timer for 1:00 the next time.
I bought the 5x7 paper to have something cheap to practice on, and it seems to be doing the job. I thought it would be a good idea to get the basics down on RC paper just because of the quicker processing time and lower price. I think I'm ready for 8x10, and it might be easier to keep things repeatable with longer exposure times.
The enlarger has a 25W bulb. I know the lens is stopping down because I went through more than one dry run beforehand to make sure I wasn't fumbling around in the dark. It's an EL Nikkor 50/4, BTW.
Yes, a real enlarging timer would be nice
Soon, perhaps. Until then, I have a watch and digital kitchen timer that will do the job. I was only counting at first because I was trying to get a single image to print decently. When it finally worked, I just went with it OK, so it seems that I don't need to worry about leaving the paper in the developer too long. That was bothering me - it seemed there were too many variables at first. I left each exposure in the developer for at least 45 seconds, but I don't remember where I grabbed that time. The prints look good, and I was able to get three very close to identical, but obviously there is a bit of inaccuracy with my exposure timing. I can easily set the dev timer for 1:00 the next time.
I bought the 5x7 paper to have something cheap to practice on, and it seems to be doing the job. I thought it would be a good idea to get the basics down on RC paper just because of the quicker processing time and lower price. I think I'm ready for 8x10, and it might be easier to keep things repeatable with longer exposure times.
markinlondon
Elmar user
I'll second everything Drew said. Paper is developed to completion, it is pretty hard to overdevelop in the way we can with film. I'm not familiar with the Beseler, what kind of head does it have? Do you use multigrade filters, they'll add a stop to the print time? Oh, and get a timer, even a crude mechanical one is better than counting.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
40oz said:
It would not suprise me greatly if you are actually "pre-flashing" your 5x7 paper from the stray light in your dark room. Or from an unsafe safe light.
Try one more test strip with 10 coins on the paper. Leave the paper out on your enlarger baseboard in your darkened room for ten minutes. During this ten minutes remove one coin each at one minute intervals. At the end of ten minutes develop your test strip for at least one minute in developer. If your test strip is completely white then you have a very safe darkroom. I am betting that you will have visible outlines of the coins at some points along the test strip.
Wayne
Last edited:
40oz
...
this looks pretty much exactly like my enlarger: http://www.oresteen.com/23C Blue.jpg
I think you'd call it a condensor head. I don't have any filters other thanthe red one for composing.
I think you'd call it a condensor head. I don't have any filters other thanthe red one for composing.
Max Power
Well-known
I use the same enlarger. If you haven't got an instruction manual, let me know; I think I have on in .pdf somewhere. The bulb for the 23C is a number 111 or 111A 75 watt bulb. Are you using MG Filters? Not using them drastically reduces the times necessary for exposure. Filters will help you to gain greater control over your exposure times, burning, dodging etc.
For contact printing, try the head up above 12 inches, and close the lens up. This will also increase exposure times. Finally, try to find yourself a digital enlarger/darkroom timer on eBay if you can. It will also help you to maintain strict control over your times.
Kent
For contact printing, try the head up above 12 inches, and close the lens up. This will also increase exposure times. Finally, try to find yourself a digital enlarger/darkroom timer on eBay if you can. It will also help you to maintain strict control over your times.
Kent
VinceC
Veteran
By stopping down, you mean you're focusing and framing wide open at f/4, then stopping down to f/8 or f/11, right?
It's been a decade since I've been in a darkroom, but my system was to count in my head instead of using a timer. Counting "one-thousand one, one-thousand two ... " and so on. Using enlargers of the calibre of a 23C, the correctd exposure of a correctly exposed and developed negative was usually in the 12 to 20 second range. I like that range because it's enough time to do burning and dodging.
It's been a decade since I've been in a darkroom, but my system was to count in my head instead of using a timer. Counting "one-thousand one, one-thousand two ... " and so on. Using enlargers of the calibre of a 23C, the correctd exposure of a correctly exposed and developed negative was usually in the 12 to 20 second range. I like that range because it's enough time to do burning and dodging.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
A couple of more thoughts to add to my previous post.
On the right hand side of your 23C condensor head there should be a little pointer that points to 110, 35mm, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4, or 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. Do you have the pointer on 35mm (assuming you are printing 35mm negative)?
If you have an unsafe safe light you can effectively be exposing the paper until it is almost to its thresh hold limit, exposure is additive so that your paper has been "pre-cooked" so to speak. So that when your "pre-cooked" (flashed) paper is placed under the enlarger light source it needs very little time to complete its "cooking" cycle. You really should be in the longer than 5 second range with f16.
With VC paper and no filtration in your enlarger you should be at about a grade 2 contrast.
Is all of this clear as mud?
Wayne
On the right hand side of your 23C condensor head there should be a little pointer that points to 110, 35mm, 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, 2 1/4 x 2 3/4, or 2 1/4 x 3 1/4. Do you have the pointer on 35mm (assuming you are printing 35mm negative)?
If you have an unsafe safe light you can effectively be exposing the paper until it is almost to its thresh hold limit, exposure is additive so that your paper has been "pre-cooked" so to speak. So that when your "pre-cooked" (flashed) paper is placed under the enlarger light source it needs very little time to complete its "cooking" cycle. You really should be in the longer than 5 second range with f16.
With VC paper and no filtration in your enlarger you should be at about a grade 2 contrast.
Is all of this clear as mud?
Wayne
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
What Wayne said, but developing prints longer than necessary doesn't do anything beneficial and might increase fog, i.e. make lower values muddier. The bulb seems to bright, so try using a 15watt bulb or lower.
I like a minimum of 10 sec. exposures. A change of 1 second is 10% at 10 seconds, which is barely acceptable as an incremental change, IMO. My practice is 15 ~ 20 seconds. This give better control and allows for more refined dodge and burning if required.
I like a minimum of 10 sec. exposures. A change of 1 second is 10% at 10 seconds, which is barely acceptable as an incremental change, IMO. My practice is 15 ~ 20 seconds. This give better control and allows for more refined dodge and burning if required.
40oz
...
thank you all for the continued responses. I appreciate your assistance, and hope that one day I can help someone else as you all are helping me.
I don't know where I pulled the "25W bulb" thing from. I just checked, and it is a small white painted bulb with no marking. Came in the enlarger, which was purchased used from a very helpful local dealer.
Yes, I focused at F/4 and stopped down the lens to actually print. F/8 gave me black paper with only a bit of detail in what was "normally" blown out highlights. F/11 was where I had the first identifiable image, and F16 gave me satisfactory results at roughly 2 seconds.
I had the enlarger set to the proper 35mm marking on the rig. The lens is roughly 11-some inches off the paper when focused.
I am using no filters at all, which combined with the small image size I'm sure is the reason for the short exposure times. I am picking up some 8x10 paper tomorrow, and will look for a filter set.
I'm pretty sure my safe light is "safe." It was used, and the filter in it is roughly orangish-brown. I saw no noticeable difference between prints made with it on and prints made with it off. The resulting prints are fantastic IMHO, coming from my hands, and the highlights are absolutely white, and the blacks are perhaps not quite an absolute black. The borders under the easel match the highlights, and the highlights are exposed to ambient light far longer than the borders given my slow work pace at this point. None of the little LED's are facing towards my printing set-up, and it would take quite a while for your eyes to be able to actually see by them alone. Most are red or orange, and a few are green. I'll cover them next time. We'll see.
I still feel like a magician
I don't know where I pulled the "25W bulb" thing from. I just checked, and it is a small white painted bulb with no marking. Came in the enlarger, which was purchased used from a very helpful local dealer.
Yes, I focused at F/4 and stopped down the lens to actually print. F/8 gave me black paper with only a bit of detail in what was "normally" blown out highlights. F/11 was where I had the first identifiable image, and F16 gave me satisfactory results at roughly 2 seconds.
I had the enlarger set to the proper 35mm marking on the rig. The lens is roughly 11-some inches off the paper when focused.
I am using no filters at all, which combined with the small image size I'm sure is the reason for the short exposure times. I am picking up some 8x10 paper tomorrow, and will look for a filter set.
I'm pretty sure my safe light is "safe." It was used, and the filter in it is roughly orangish-brown. I saw no noticeable difference between prints made with it on and prints made with it off. The resulting prints are fantastic IMHO, coming from my hands, and the highlights are absolutely white, and the blacks are perhaps not quite an absolute black. The borders under the easel match the highlights, and the highlights are exposed to ambient light far longer than the borders given my slow work pace at this point. None of the little LED's are facing towards my printing set-up, and it would take quite a while for your eyes to be able to actually see by them alone. Most are red or orange, and a few are green. I'll cover them next time. We'll see.
I still feel like a magician
Last edited:
Max Power
Well-known
40oz said:I still feel like a magician
Hey 40oz...
You are a photographer who uses a darkroom to produce prints...You ARE a magician.
Regards,
Kent