Horatio
Masked photographer
This opinion was posted in another, recent thread. For those wet printing, how do you determine proper exposure without testing in some way? How do you determine what to dodge/burn without making a test print? If you're making test prints, why not test strips which use less paper?
Please enlighten me.
Please enlighten me.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
retinax
Well-known
I imagine that if one prints a lot, one can just estimate grade and exposure from looking at the negative or contact sheet. I can't. But comparing the current and the previous negative does help me getting close. So I can believe the poster who wrote that he learned to do completely without test strips, although I suppose one would still need them for especially difficult negatives, or those where a precise placement of certain values was necessary. And I imagine a paper with a long toe helps a lot (modern multigrade papers seem short toed to me). Highlights look good with those over a larger range of exposures.
twvancamp
Thom
I will use test strips, but for many images I find it difficult to gauge exposure without seeing the full negative represented.
I used to cut thin strips but in many cases I don't think it saved that much paper.
I used to cut thin strips but in many cases I don't think it saved that much paper.
Corran
Well-known
When I am printing a lot, like 2-4 hours a day or more for weeks, I get into a groove and can judge a negative pretty close. I also use a darkroom meter to assist in placing the shadows/highlights.
But I definitely have to do some test strips at the beginning, when I am getting back into that groove after not printing for a while (often months go by between these long weeks of printing).
I imagine a professional printer from a good lab back in the day would not need test strips as much. For the rest, and certainly today where darkroom printing is more of an art and not a "job," test strips are pretty important and an integral part of printing.
But I definitely have to do some test strips at the beginning, when I am getting back into that groove after not printing for a while (often months go by between these long weeks of printing).
I imagine a professional printer from a good lab back in the day would not need test strips as much. For the rest, and certainly today where darkroom printing is more of an art and not a "job," test strips are pretty important and an integral part of printing.
PKR
Veteran
Well, if you have a Transmission Densitometer you can read the negative's range. Gossen, i think, made an attachment for the old Lunapro that read an enlarger's projected light.
I always used test strips. My negatives were always in the Ballpark so the first strip was usually enough info for a test print.
I always used test strips. My negatives were always in the Ballpark so the first strip was usually enough info for a test print.
brothernature
Established
Sounds like a pompous thing to say.
After all, what's wrong with being an amateur?
Some of the greatest photographers were amateurs.
From what I've seen of the work that experienced darkroom printers do, they still use test strips, how they use them and the frequency probably differs greatly from how someone with less experience does.
The way I see it, it's like using a light meter while photographing. The more experience you have the less you have to rely on one, but not using one at all does not necessarily make you a better photographer.
After all, what's wrong with being an amateur?
Some of the greatest photographers were amateurs.From what I've seen of the work that experienced darkroom printers do, they still use test strips, how they use them and the frequency probably differs greatly from how someone with less experience does.
The way I see it, it's like using a light meter while photographing. The more experience you have the less you have to rely on one, but not using one at all does not necessarily make you a better photographer.
punkzter
Established
The person who made that comment worked in a professional studio. Is it possible that, at the level he was working, which would be somewhere in between amateur and Ansel Adams (or some other well-known great), that they simply didn't care if the final print was perfect? Maybe they could get 80-90% of the way there with a simple evaluation of the negative, and that was all that was needed for their clients.
I am very much the amateur here, but every book that I have read on darkroom printing talks about test strips or test prints. Ansel Adams surely used them, or at least he did multiple test prints. Perhaps that is what the poster meant? Though the post implies that both strips and prints would be useless.
I am very much the amateur here, but every book that I have read on darkroom printing talks about test strips or test prints. Ansel Adams surely used them, or at least he did multiple test prints. Perhaps that is what the poster meant? Though the post implies that both strips and prints would be useless.
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
A Test Strip will in the end SAVE you paper...
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
"Perhaps that is what the poster meant?" (punkzter) Good question.
Horatio, you isolated a phrase from a very long, back and forth discussion/difference of opinion in the thread on "Darkroom Secrets" which had context to it.
Erik "It is physically impossible to burn and dodge on various parts on the image in this way. First: many, many test strips are necessary."
brusby "Multiple test strips? Test strips are for amateurs. Nothing against amateurs, but if you know how to print and do so on a regular basis they are rarely if ever needed.
Whether you're an amateur or professional there are many different ways of arriving at a solution. Is any one way necessarily better than an other? How do musicians expertly play music without reading the notes off the page? How did we get to places before the invention of the GPS? Use whatever tool or method works for you. There was a time when ultimately the proof was in the successful print.
Horatio, you isolated a phrase from a very long, back and forth discussion/difference of opinion in the thread on "Darkroom Secrets" which had context to it.
Erik "It is physically impossible to burn and dodge on various parts on the image in this way. First: many, many test strips are necessary."
brusby "Multiple test strips? Test strips are for amateurs. Nothing against amateurs, but if you know how to print and do so on a regular basis they are rarely if ever needed.
Whether you're an amateur or professional there are many different ways of arriving at a solution. Is any one way necessarily better than an other? How do musicians expertly play music without reading the notes off the page? How did we get to places before the invention of the GPS? Use whatever tool or method works for you. There was a time when ultimately the proof was in the successful print.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Back in the day in Art School, I was like PKR and would only require a first test strip, and then I pretty much went from there.
My training in Art School taught me about consistency so my negatives got to a point where I was directed to move from multi-contrast paper and was told to optimize my negatives to be straight printed on a number 2 graded paper.
One thing I did was squint when stopping down the enlarger lens. My eye got trained to recognize the right density and range of contrast. I used work prints to guage where I would have to manipulate exposure, and development, so no paper was really saved.
At a certain point I could just straight print on that number 2 grade fiber paper. At most many times I would add extra agitation locally in the developer. No dodging or burning required.
Realize that I would spend entire weekends in the darkroom and I could burn though a box of 100 8x10's in one night.
I was trained to develop and print like two deadly Kung-Fu moves. Let's see if I get my chops back now decades later now that I bought a house and will have a darkroom again after many decades.
Cal
pesphoto
Veteran
I use test strips if/when im printing important stuff or large prints.
For 4x5 test prints...they are pretty much just to see the image or for Flickr, etc
Most of the negs I like or print test prints of I pretty much know the exposure by looking at the neg.
For 4x5 test prints...they are pretty much just to see the image or for Flickr, etc
Most of the negs I like or print test prints of I pretty much know the exposure by looking at the neg.
KenR
Well-known
Test strips
Test strips
I always use test strips, sometimes several. If I change paper grades or if I have problems with a particular area of the negative, I will use another test strip. I think it saves paper in the end.
Test strips
I always use test strips, sometimes several. If I change paper grades or if I have problems with a particular area of the negative, I will use another test strip. I think it saves paper in the end.
brusby
Well-known
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.
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.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
To make a successful split grade print, test exposures are necessary, first to find the exposure for the first exposure (normally with the 00 filter) so that the highlights do not become too dark or too light and for the second exposure (with the 5 filter) so as not to let the darkest parts become too dark or to light. The procedure is too complicated for guessing. Gambling is for Las Vegas and not for the darkroom.
I'm not curious about the prints of people who say not to make test strips.
Erik.
I'm not curious about the prints of people who say not to make test strips.
Erik.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm taking small piece of same paper and placing it where important part of the photo is. Not a strip, just a small piece.
Do control exposure of this part of the negative on small piece of same paper. Sometimes it is two attempts or even more.
Then I print entire negative and see where else I have to d&b. Sometimes I'm using this print as mask. Instead of fingers for test piece, I'm using scissors.
This is for 8x10 or larger.
5x7 or less I'm just making guess, based on how dark negative is then projected on the easel.
I like old singe grade FB paper. It is way less finicky than fresh MG RC. I have tried split printing for RC MG and it is mind boggling for me. But results are better for RC MG.
I think if I practice more with split printing, I would be able to guess exposures more.
Do control exposure of this part of the negative on small piece of same paper. Sometimes it is two attempts or even more.
Then I print entire negative and see where else I have to d&b. Sometimes I'm using this print as mask. Instead of fingers for test piece, I'm using scissors.
This is for 8x10 or larger.
5x7 or less I'm just making guess, based on how dark negative is then projected on the easel.
I like old singe grade FB paper. It is way less finicky than fresh MG RC. I have tried split printing for RC MG and it is mind boggling for me. But results are better for RC MG.
I think if I practice more with split printing, I would be able to guess exposures more.
Arved
Member
An engineer's solution to print exposure - I call it the Zone Zero method. Requires a test strip but only a very small one. That is you can make many strips from a single sheet of paper.
To acheive Zone Zero, I want to find the minimum exposure for maximum black. For this, I use the unexposed margin around the frame, as that's not been exposed and should be printed black. Of course, it does have some density. We called that "film base plus fog."
Any more than that minimum exposure, and you're shifting other zones into black. Any less exposure, and you'll fail to produce maximum black.
I hope this helps.
To acheive Zone Zero, I want to find the minimum exposure for maximum black. For this, I use the unexposed margin around the frame, as that's not been exposed and should be printed black. Of course, it does have some density. We called that "film base plus fog."
Any more than that minimum exposure, and you're shifting other zones into black. Any less exposure, and you'll fail to produce maximum black.
I hope this helps.
brusby
Well-known
Can't resist a chance to insult someone who doesn't do it as you profess it should be done, can you?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
This is no insult, only a statement. I do not mean you. You have no recent prints you said.
Erik.
brusby
Well-known
It's not gambling when it's based on experience.
But I guess if everyone did as you suggest and only made one print each day it would be difficult to gain enough experience to take it out of the realm of gambling.