Test strips are for amateurs - please discuss

Now I remember that I would take a full 8x10 and put it in developer and turn on the light.

The idea was to have a sheet of black floating in the developer as a reference when developing other prints. 45 years have elapsed since I last wet printed, meanwhile I just made mucho negatives with a total disregard to wet printing. Never wanted to scan. I kept analog-analog, and digital-digital...

When developing prints under safe light I would then have a reference for timing development fully to get my blacks.

When I did no test strips it was generally a down and dirty where I would tear a small piece of paper and expose an are of interest like say a person's face in a body shot, or an eye and surrounding area of a head shot.

Just to add to the discussion I never did split grade prints. Pretty much I was consistent enough to be able to straight print on a straight grade number 2 paper.

Cal
 
I do use test strips.

I will place it on the easel so as I get the various lighting on the negative. Sometimes the test strip goes diagonally. The test strip dows vary in width and length.

I’ve never done split grade printing. And hardly any dodging or vignetting.
 
Calzone said:
Pretty much I was consistent enough to be able to straight print on a straight grade number 2 paper.

Cal
Click to expand...


That is good. I started photography in 1969, but since then the emulsions of the films changed from time to time. Now I am printing a lot of old negatives (with often have very cloudy film bases) and it is really difficult to guess the exposure times. HP5 nowadays has also a much darker film base than 400TMY-2. This basic tone of the film has lot of influence on the exposure time when making prints. One sheet of 8x10 Ilford MGFB costs about $2. Isn't making no test strips not a kind of gambling?

Erik.
 
brusby said:
I made the statement. I also said there is nothing wrong with being an amateur. We were all amateurs at one time and I am one now, save for the occasional times I'm asked to do portraits for people I know or maybe something like a recording session shoot.

My point was that it's often (not always) possible to print without test strips if one has a lot of experience. It's very similar to photographers who shoot a lot -- like commercial magazine photographers - and who often don't need to use a meter for familiar lighting situations, such as sunny 16.

Many years ago I was fortunate to work at a professional architectural/commercial studio where I spent the first two years, all day, every day in the darkroom, printing all our b&w. Things were often for publication in magazines like Better Homes and Gardens and for national art and auction brochures. So the quality of the prints had to meet commercial standards of the day.

When you print a lot and are often dealing with properly exposed and developed negatives, it's easy to judge exposures. For example, you get to know that a typical exposure of a medium density negative is say 20 or 30 seconds at f8. Then, just by looking at the next negative, you can see it's roughly a stop over or under exposed and can adjust accordingly. Normally you set development times to give yourself some leeway so you can develop a bit longer or shorter to compensate for minor errors in exposure.

The goal at many commercial studios was to be able to make very good prints quickly and to be able to repeat the process as many times as needed with almost no perceptible variation between copies of the same print, compensating on the fly for exhausting chemicals.

So, the normal procedure with a good negative was to make one full print at what I thought was a correct exposure based on the density of the negative. It was often correct. But if not, usually the next print was the final.

By doing it that way it's possible print very quickly, which can be important in a commercial setting where one's time is much more valuable than paper. That may not be true today with increased paper costs, and where it's a hobby (nothing wrong with that), done more for fun than to generate revenue.

Again, just to be clear, I'm not denigrating amateurs (we were all one once and I am one again today), just making the distinction regarding the ability to judge print exposures on the fly versus wanting/needing to make test strips.

edit: The above applies to 8x10 and smaller size prints where the paper costs were low. 8x10 was by far the most common print size. But If we were making much larger prints, we would do tests before exposing the full sheet because of the increased paper costs and because exposure times change drastically with larger print sizes.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying and expounding on your points. I now have a better understanding of what you were getting at, having no personal experience of commercial operations.
 
Erik van Straten said:
That is good. I started photography in 1969, but since then the emulsions of the films changed from time to time. Now I am printing a lot of old negatives (with often have very cloudy film bases) and it is really difficult to guess the exposure times. HP5 nowadays has also a much darker film base than 400TMY-2. This basic tone of the film has lot of influence on the exposure time when making prints. One sheet of 8x10 Ilford MGFB costs about $2. Isn't making no test strips not a kind of gambling?

Erik.
Click to expand...

Erik,

I see your point.

I have a totally different style.

I am a researcher and I do controlled experiments.

I don't have that much deviation to deal with as you. Also because I'm a self proclaimed lazy-slacker there is a certain efficiency to how I work.

I tend to do the same thing again and again. Like I stated above, "Like a deadly Kung-Fu move."

Cal
 
Hi Cal,


I am certain that using LR and optmizing the exposure,contrast, clarity, using curves to max out printable darks and highlights using quad tone rip and sending it to the NJ barrier tricked out with Piezography inks, you will reach a stunning quality print. Achieving something comparable by wet printing will be a nut job.;)
 
icebear said:
Hi Cal,


I am certain that using LR and optmizing the exposure,contrast, clarity, using curves to max out printable darks and highlights using quad tone rip and sending it to the NJ barrier tricked out with Piezography inks, you will reach a stunning quality print. Achieving something comparable by wet printing will be a nut job.;)
Click to expand...

Klaus,

After decades of delayed gratification since art school I will finally build out my darkroom.

My 1912 Baby-Victorian does not have any good space for a nice darkroom, so I'm going to take half of the two car garage (10x20) and build an addition that will be another (10x20). The garage already has an 80 amp service. I now have a nice car.

I'll add plumbing and a Mitsubishi heat pump for HVAC.

You and the wife should come for a stay when it gets built out.

A large vacuum frame and contact printing like large format. Also from what I understand the digital prints using Piezography is so turnkey that the digital prints act as proofs, and you know the I.Q. gradations, and tonality we get from that.

Jon Cone allows an average Joe like me to do a Salgado without the best lab in Paris to do his printing.

Tell me this is not the ultimate for wet printing editions.

So delayed gratification is finally happening. Don't tell my boss, but I am only working now for medical insurance. 11 months from now I will drop the bomb and retire at age 64.

You should see the "Monster" workbook I created, and then I used the "Jersey Barrier" (Epson 7800) with roll paper to make a "Book Of Proofs" that is even bigger.

When Covid settles down and gets tamed you have to come by to play and stay. By then the guest room should be set up.

For us test strips are our digital prints. Also know that I did a "Klaus" and I abandoned the K-7 inkset and am committed to Piezography Pro. I did a comparision where I made a K-7 HD using the black from Piezography Pro. I have more control with PP.

Also I thought K-7 HD had a better midrange and PP was more contrasty, but this was a matter of tweaking PP curves slightly for a bit less contrast and the mids really filled out.

The newer encapsulation developed for PP also are more clog resistant. The Jersey Barrier is now currently loaded with Piezoflush and has a brand new set of dampers. When I begin printing again I'll have all new fresh inks. Last summer I burned though all my inks and tried to burn though my stash of paper.

"Brutal," I say. Now I have think about getting a 44 inch printer. When and if Leica ever builds a SL2 Monochrom I will be ready for it. APO 35 Cron and 50 Lux SL is glass future proofed out 3-4 generations of sensors.

I thank Jon Cone for doing all the heavy lifting.

Cal
 
A proper test strip is 1x8” and should contain both light and dark areas of the image.

If you expose properly, a base exposure will be the same say 25 sec, F8, #2 filter, 8x print. 11x14 is double, 16x20 is double again, 5x7 is half.

Now if you screw around with different developer, film, paper etc you will never get a predictable print and will spend hours testing. Standardize.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom