If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
This afternoon, having finally made a negative with proper focus, I decided to make a contact print. I had never done this before, and I've got to say it wasn't a lot of fun at first. I read all the stuff on the web that I could find about making test strips etc..but when I tried it, all I got was solid black prints. Figuring that I was overexposing, I searched with no success to try and find out what size of bulb to use for exposing the paper. In error, I decided that a nice bright bulb would be the way to go, so armed with a 100watt "cool white" gooseneck lamp, I boarded up the bathroom (again!) and started to experiment. It took eight tries to get the first useable print, and that was obtained by flicking the lamp "on and off" twice with no stop in between. That print being a bit too dark still, I tried again, and three tries later I had a very nice useable print (scan to follow). This 100 watt bulb at about 15" above the glass plate that held the negative and paper flat took an exposure time of ??? It was just on and off again as fast as I could flick the switch, almost like a flash bulb. I wonder if any out there has any experience with "wattage" vs "exposure duration" times and could lend some advice? cheers again -- regards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
"John Bartley" wrote in message m... This afternoon, having finally made a negative with proper focus, I decided to make a contact print. I had never done this before, and I've got to say it wasn't a lot of fun at first. I read all the stuff on the web that I could find about making test strips etc..but when I tried it, all I got was solid black prints. Figuring that I was overexposing, I searched with no success to try and find out what size of bulb to use for exposing the paper. In error, I decided that a nice bright bulb would be the way to go, so armed with a 100watt "cool white" gooseneck lamp, I boarded up the bathroom (again!) and started to experiment. It took eight tries to get the first useable print, and that was obtained by flicking the lamp "on and off" twice with no stop in between. That print being a bit too dark still, I tried again, and three tries later I had a very nice useable print (scan to follow). This 100 watt bulb at about 15" above the glass plate that held the negative and paper flat took an exposure time of ??? It was just on and off again as fast as I could flick the switch, almost like a flash bulb. I wonder if any out there has any experience with "wattage" vs "exposure duration" times and could lend some advice? When I did contact prints using a similar setup, I placed a 15watts bulb at about 4 feet from the table and I even added a dimmer switch, so I could dim the bulb even more to get 20 secs or so of printing time (I did some dodging and burning sometimes). With exposure times this long you can count (1, 1001, 2, 2002, 3, 2003, etc or whatever you prefer) and have a good idea of how many seconds of exposure you are giving. Guillermo |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
Nick Zentena wrote:
The problem is you've got at least a third variable. That is the distance the bulb is from the paper. 100 watts is likely going to be way too powerfull unless the bulb is quite distant from the paper. My 4x5 enlarger uses a 150 watt bulb but the lens can easily be stopped down to F/11. Which would cut the light by a factor of 128(I think). Use a smaller bulb. BTW I mean the lens would be F/11 or smaller in use. The lens will stop down further. Fourth variable. The paper. Different papers will have different speeds. I'm assuming you're using an enlarging paper. Nick Hi Nick and Guillermo, Thank you for the replies. They are EXACTLY what I needed. Nick, I don't really know what "enlarging" paper is. I am using Ilford MGIV RC 5x7 in a satin finish. I have never really liked a glossy print, but I may try glossy paper on my next purchase, and reprint some negatives just to compare between satin and glossy. Nick & Guillermo, If I understand what you're saying, the bulb size can be quite small then I guess, and I gather that up to a certain point (that point to be determined by experiment) the diminishing amount of light produced by a smaller bulb can be made up for by increased exposure times. I guess also that the higher (up to a point) that the bulb is above the exposure plane, the more even the light is, and will appear to be perpendicular to the paper/negative combination rather than be at a slight angle which is what would be seen when the bulb is closer to the plane of the paper? I would think that there would be some loss of crispness as you get closer to the paper with the bulb? Last question : Has any one seen any difference between a coated (soft white) bulb and a clear glass bulb in the print quality? cheers -- regards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
John Bartley wrote:
Hi Nick and Guillermo, Thank you for the replies. They are EXACTLY what I needed. Ooops - a scan of the better print can be seen at : http://www3.sympatico.ca/oldrad/Phot...0040702-cp.png cheers -- regards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 ( If you slow down it takes longer - does that apply to life also?) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
John Bartley wrote:
took an exposure time of ??? It was just on and off again as fast as I could flick the switch, almost like a flash bulb. I wonder if any out there has any experience with "wattage" vs "exposure duration" times and could lend some advice? The problem is you've got at least a third variable. That is the distance the bulb is from the paper. 100 watts is likely going to be way too powerfull unless the bulb is quite distant from the paper. My 4x5 enlarger uses a 150 watt bulb but the lens can easily be stopped down to F/11. Which would cut the light by a factor of 128(I think). Use a smaller bulb. BTW I mean the lens would be F/11 or smaller in use. The lens will stop down further. Fourth variable. The paper. Different papers will have different speeds. I'm assuming you're using an enlarging paper. Nick |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
With contact paper like Azo we used a 15 watt bulb only a few inchs away from
the negative for 5 seconds or so. Enlarging paper like Ilford Multigrade, or Kodak Polymax are maybe a 100 times faster than Azo. Usually when making contact prints (contact sheets) with enlarging paper we use the enlarger as a light source running the head up to about where it covers 11x14 or so and setting the f=stop to maybe f/16. If you do not have an enlarger you might want to try a 5-15 watt bulb 2-4 feet from the negative. BTW, when using an enlarger as the light source you can filter the light with a variable contrast filter to adjust the paper grade. All contact paper I ever heard of was graded paper, and most that is still available (very hard to find) is only available in one or two grades now. -- John Bartley wrote: This afternoon, having finally made a negative with proper focus, I decided to make a contact print. I had never done this before, and I've got to say it wasn't a lot of fun at first. I read all the stuff on the web that I could find about making test strips etc..but when I tried it, all I got was solid black prints. Figuring that I was overexposing, I searched with no success to try and find out what size of bulb to use for exposing the paper. In error, I decided that a nice bright bulb would be the way to go, so armed with a 100watt "cool white" gooseneck lamp, I boarded up the bathroom (again!) and started to experiment. It took eight tries to get the first useable print, and that was obtained by flicking the lamp "on and off" twice with no stop in between. That print being a bit too dark still, I tried again, and three tries later I had a very nice useable print (scan to follow). This 100 watt bulb at about 15" above the glass plate that held the negative and paper flat took an exposure time of ??? It was just on and off again as fast as I could flick the switch, almost like a flash bulb. I wonder if any out there has any experience with "wattage" vs "exposure duration" times and could lend some advice? cheers again |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
John Bartley wrote: .... Nick, I don't really know what "enlarging" paper is. I am using Ilford MGIV RC 5x7 in a satin finish. I have never really liked a glossy print, but I may try glossy paper on my next purchase, and reprint some negatives just to compare between satin and glossy. ... John, Ilford MG IV RC is an enlarging paper as are most current photographic papers. A true contact paper is much slower and you might get away with the higher wattage bulb with them. Most of them are fiber-based (not RC) papers. Kodak makes AZO and I believe Bergger or Forte have recently resurrected a contact paper. (Google Michael Smith for AZO info.) Another choice is Centennial printing-out-paper (POP), available in both fiber and RC flavors (from Bostick and Sullivan as well as Chicago Albumen Works). This paper is similar to the old discontinued Kodak Studio Proof paper. It can be printed outdoors using the sun or inside with a strong UV source. The image appears directly with exposure needing no development. To keep the image from further darkening (which eventually renders it useless) the paper is rinsed, toned, fixed and washed. I believe most enlarging papers (developing-out-papers or DOP) will also produce a printed-out image as well if you follow the same general procedure as a true POP material. However, I think they must be loaded/unloaded under safelight conditions into the contact frame because of their higher speed (unlike POP which can be loaded under subdued tungsten lighting) and if you skip the development step and just fix and wash the print, you will have a stable image. I've never tried this so I don't know if the resulting image would have any quality with a DOP processed this way. But, my favorite silver paper is Centennial with AZO second. You also might want to give the Ilford "pearl" surface a try. The satin surface never reaches the same maximum dark tone as the pearl or glossy and thus it appears much lower in contrast and overall weaker in tonal range IMO. Pearl is in-between satin and glossy in terms of apparent maximum density and depth. Many people prefer this surface over glossy since it still has a lustered surface yet lacks the reflecting shiny smooth surface of glossy RC. BTW, an RC glossy paper has a much more distractng surface than a similar air-dried fiber-based glossy paper IMO. Joe (Change the vOwEl in my email address to reply to me directly.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
"John Bartley" wrote in message ... Nick Zentena wrote: Last question : Has any one seen any difference between a coated (soft white) bulb and a clear glass bulb in the print quality? I wouldn't use clear glass bulbs, their light distribution is not even. Guillermo (also in Ontario) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 20:12:20 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote: Fourth variable. The paper. Different papers will have different speeds. I'm assuming you're using an enlarging paper. Nick Try Azo . And that 100 watt bulb won't seem so bright. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
contact print exposure time
"John Bartley" wrote in message m... This afternoon, having finally made a negative with proper focus, I decided to make a contact print. I had never done this before, and I've got to say it wasn't a lot of fun at first. I read all the stuff on the web that I could find about making test strips etc..but when I tried it, all I got was solid black prints. Figuring that I was overexposing, I searched with no success to try and find out what size of bulb to use for exposing the paper. In error, I decided that a nice bright bulb would be the way to go, so armed with a 100watt "cool white" gooseneck lamp, I boarded up the bathroom (again!) and started to experiment. It took eight tries to get the first useable print, and that was obtained by flicking the lamp "on and off" twice with no stop in between. That print being a bit too dark still, I tried again, and three tries later I had a very nice useable print (scan to follow). This 100 watt bulb at about 15" above the glass plate that held the negative and paper flat took an exposure time of ??? It was just on and off again as fast as I could flick the switch, almost like a flash bulb. I wonder if any out there has any experience with "wattage" vs "exposure duration" times and could lend some advice? cheers again -- regards from :: John Bartley 43 Norway Spruce Street Stittsville, Ontario Canada, K2S1P5 For enlarging paper contact printing is most conveniently done using the enlarger for a light source. Exposure time will be whatever you get with the head at the same height for enlarging. If you are using a separate light source it will have to be very low power. I would start with something like a 7.5 watt night light bulb in a small reflector. You can also rig a cardboard holder for variable contrast filters to fit a small reflector or a Kodak "Beehive" type safelight holder. Experiment with distance, start with a couple of feet. Exposure times should run between 15 and 30 seconds to be controlable. Back in the bad old days, when contact printing was routine and done in quantity, each manufacturer of paper had at least one contact speed paper, Kodak had three for pictorial purposes and a couple of others for graphics use. These papers differ from enlarging papers only in speed. A medium speed contact paper is about 1/100th the speed of a medium speed enlarging paper. The only one I know of left on the market is Kodak Azo. This is a neutral tone paper. Its speed is such that a good source is a 60 watt to 100 watt lamp in a diffusing reflector at a couple of feet for 15 to 30 second exposures. When contact printing was done routinely multiple lamp printing boxes were available. The more elaborate ones had individual switches on the lamps for compensating for unevenly exposed negatives. I have a 1950's vingage 10x10 inch printer with 39 Argon lamps, each with its own switch. The usual studio printing box had from four to six lamps in it. Enlarging paper works perfectly well for contact printing provided you have a suitable light source. Despite the reputation Azo has for being "magic" I think equally as good prints can be made on good enlarging paper. Its curious, when I started out in photography contact printing was the introduction to printing, printing frames were cheap, enlargers expensive, so we contact printed. -- --- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TRI-X development time | ATIPPETT | In The Darkroom | 2 | March 5th 04 03:39 PM |
Develper for Delta-100 | Frank Pittel | In The Darkroom | 8 | March 1st 04 05:36 PM |
Extend film development or high grade paper ? | Ming | In The Darkroom | 11 | February 15th 04 05:15 AM |
5 minute FB print washing time?? | CBlood59 | In The Darkroom | 7 | February 8th 04 06:50 PM |
Adjust B&W paper development time when using Uniroller? | Phil Glaser | In The Darkroom | 14 | January 26th 04 11:04 PM |