Arvay
Obscurant
Yesterday I made an attempt (I can not call it in other way) to print some photos myself after 23 years of being out of printing process.
I must say that in the USSR we had not too many choices for common people in equipment. There certainly were Dursts and Shneiders but for me it was another planet at that time. I did non know anything about the variety of papers, enlarging lnses, contrast filters, etc.
The most important thing is that I had MINE EVALUATION OF QUALITY based on that equipment I had at that time.
That's why when I made up my mind to start again I came up to some problem of choice.
This is the pre-history.
I made 14 prints yesterday and I was completely p**sed off with the bad quality I got...
Two facts I understood:
- I can not quite understand the usage of aperture on enlarger lens. Is it the same as on the camera's?
- I can not control the time of developing. Few of mine prints were underexposed and few - over-...
These are first basic questions and I'm very interested in community experience.
Surely the questions will come soon again as I made a step forward and I am not going to make one or two steps back and will definitely continue to print.
Bad or good but myself.
Anyway its better to do something than to sit and dream of something. Experience comes with hard work
I must say that in the USSR we had not too many choices for common people in equipment. There certainly were Dursts and Shneiders but for me it was another planet at that time. I did non know anything about the variety of papers, enlarging lnses, contrast filters, etc.
The most important thing is that I had MINE EVALUATION OF QUALITY based on that equipment I had at that time.
That's why when I made up my mind to start again I came up to some problem of choice.
This is the pre-history.
I made 14 prints yesterday and I was completely p**sed off with the bad quality I got...
Two facts I understood:
- I can not quite understand the usage of aperture on enlarger lens. Is it the same as on the camera's?
- I can not control the time of developing. Few of mine prints were underexposed and few - over-...
These are first basic questions and I'm very interested in community experience.
Surely the questions will come soon again as I made a step forward and I am not going to make one or two steps back and will definitely continue to print.
Bad or good but myself.
Anyway its better to do something than to sit and dream of something. Experience comes with hard work
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, the aperture on the lens works in exactly the same way.
Don't make a whole print, make a test strip maybe 25mm x 125 mm -- 100mm for test, 25mm to hold it down with your thumb or a bit of tape. Begin with the lens at f/8 and the whole strip uncovered. Give 5 sec.
Cover 25mm. Expose for another 5 sec; you now have 5 sec + 10 sec.
Cover another 25mm. Expose for 10 sec. You now have 5 sec + 10 sec + 20 sec. areas.
Cover another 35mm so only 25mm is incovered. and give 20 sec. You now have 5 sec + 10 sec + 20 sec + 40 sec.
Develop FOR THE FULL TIME (usually 2-3 minutes at 20C). Fix. Rinse for a minute or two: no need to wash too carefully as you're only going to throw it away anyway.
One of the test areas should look about right. If they're all too dark, repeat at f/11; if they're all too light, repeat at f/5.6. If (say) 20 sec is too light and 40 sec. too dark, make a work print at 30 sec. Process as above.
Look at the work print. It will be slightly darker and less contrasty when it is dry, so if it looks right, give about 10% less exposure and about 1/2 grade more contrast for the final print.
If it doesn't look right, change exposure time or contrast grade: exposure time for lighter/darker, higher contrast grade (3-4-5) if it looks 'flat', lower contrast grade (2-1-0) if it looks to contrasty.
Repeat until you're happy: wash the final print(s) properly. Better to use 6 sheets to make one good print than 6 bad ones!
Cheers,
Roger
Don't make a whole print, make a test strip maybe 25mm x 125 mm -- 100mm for test, 25mm to hold it down with your thumb or a bit of tape. Begin with the lens at f/8 and the whole strip uncovered. Give 5 sec.
Cover 25mm. Expose for another 5 sec; you now have 5 sec + 10 sec.
Cover another 25mm. Expose for 10 sec. You now have 5 sec + 10 sec + 20 sec. areas.
Cover another 35mm so only 25mm is incovered. and give 20 sec. You now have 5 sec + 10 sec + 20 sec + 40 sec.
Develop FOR THE FULL TIME (usually 2-3 minutes at 20C). Fix. Rinse for a minute or two: no need to wash too carefully as you're only going to throw it away anyway.
One of the test areas should look about right. If they're all too dark, repeat at f/11; if they're all too light, repeat at f/5.6. If (say) 20 sec is too light and 40 sec. too dark, make a work print at 30 sec. Process as above.
Look at the work print. It will be slightly darker and less contrasty when it is dry, so if it looks right, give about 10% less exposure and about 1/2 grade more contrast for the final print.
If it doesn't look right, change exposure time or contrast grade: exposure time for lighter/darker, higher contrast grade (3-4-5) if it looks 'flat', lower contrast grade (2-1-0) if it looks to contrasty.
Repeat until you're happy: wash the final print(s) properly. Better to use 6 sheets to make one good print than 6 bad ones!
Cheers,
Roger
Arvay
Obscurant
Thanks, Roger,
I can see my first mistake. I tried to control the developing print visually instead of making few tests and than develop based on dev. time.
Am I right?
Second mistake I thought the aperture helps to control detalisation on tha print
I can see my first mistake. I tried to control the developing print visually instead of making few tests and than develop based on dev. time.
Am I right?
Second mistake I thought the aperture helps to control detalisation on tha print
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Arvay,
Absolutely! Prints should ALWAYS be developed to completion. Trying to vary dev time is never a good idea: that way, madness lies.
Cheers,
Roger
Absolutely! Prints should ALWAYS be developed to completion. Trying to vary dev time is never a good idea: that way, madness lies.
Cheers,
Roger
