But actually there is one big mistake in there. It's not very clever to expose by fixed increments. Because 10 sec from 5 sec is one f-stop, a huge jump in exposure. 10 to 15 is only a 1/2 f-stop, a much smaller jump. And from 15-20 it's only 1/3 f-stop. So the longer you expose, the smaller the gaps become. With exposure times over 30 seconds that gets useless very fast. It's better to expose in 1/3-stops: 6-8-10-13-15-20-25-30.... This way of exposing also gives you more control over multigrade filtering, because you need .5 harder filter per 1/3 f-stop less exposure in the highlights.
Did this very process just yesterday in a Darkroom with sturdy, ancient equipment (70's) :). Was a bit clumsy and pressed the wrong button and all of a sudden instead of 2 second setting , it was a lot longer. Phew! three of the images in the strip were okay. You live, you learn.
To valutate the negatives e the images usually I expose the paper to the maximum black exposure time for the film base. So I can see immediately the right negatives, the problematic negatives and the mistakes. So the first thing to do is to find the max black exposure time with the film that you'll use.
since this is a series about the basics, that is not something needed in this video. that would be covered in a more advanced video. and its not entirely needed for a beginner that is just getting started.
Wouldnt it make more sense and be more economical to do one test strip of negatives and find maximum black off that instead of wasting an entire sheet to do the same thing?
Would you recommand to do a test print for each negative ? Or can we use the proprieties of other prints/negatives to deduce the exposure time of the others ?
If you have a very methodical approach to making your images, such as the zone system, you may be able to deduce variations in exposure and contrast. However, I would say it''s easier to start over for each negative. It may the case that you need to make local corrections, doging and burning, that aren't obvious from the small contact prints.
@@steveliddle8417 with practice and chance, I have been able to know wether negatives required quite the same exposure time. But you’re right, as I’m not a professional, if I see a slight variation I prefer to do new test prints. Thanks for the answer !
The light will be more even across the paper if closed down one or two stops from wide open, so with an f/2.8 lens I'd use f/5.6 or f/8 for contracts and the final prints.
The reason for starting off with a filter (eg. a No.2) is that if you need to change to a different filter (eg. a No. 1.5, 2.5 or 3 or some other degree of filtration) then you will have already worked out a roughly correct exposure time with the very first test. If you start with no filter and then decide you need one, then your basic exposure will be unknown and very different because of the new filter’s filter factor. So it’s better to start your initial testing process with a filter in place, so you build a filter factor into the testing process right from the beginning. Hope this makes sense!
@@Ilfordphoto my own ,Omega colour enlarger the government was selling,it’s been a while but like riding a bike I remember how.I even had the chance to work on photostat camera’s
Making a contact sheet from a roll of 35mm negatives is a silly waste of time and materials too. The 24x36mm format is a miniature format and its tiny images really need to be enlarged substantially in order for one to be able to read, examine and assess them, especially if trying to decide what to print further. These days if you have a smartphone or a tablet (and who doesn’t?) then you’re smarter to examine each negative image directly on its screen in inverted form, thus as a positive image, using the tablet or phone’s inbuilt viewing facility, which gives you individual brightness, contrast and magnification controls, and lets you look right into each image in enlarged size. The screen image appears noisy and rough but is still vastly superior to the tiny, usually too-dark or too-light images of a contact print, and you will see things in them which you will completely miss in a contact sheet. You can also flip the negative over and see how it looks when viewed back to front. From this quick, instant, daylight viewing process you can make up a shot list ready for enlarging in the darkroom. Better to save your sheets of paper for the enlargements instead!
That's one way of doing it, but i've always found contact sheets to be a quick way of looking at all of my negatives at once and seeing which catch my eye. I also store them in the front of my negatives so I can see at a glance what's on each film.
HAHAHA!!! that is what I did as I read your comment Andrew.....contact sheets a waste of time?? really? I would love to see you tell that to every professional photographer that has ever shot film.... they would slap you around and then toss you out on the street by your rear end because you know nothing. Contact sheets are ESSENTIAL to fully inspect your images and make choices about which ones get a final printing. your comment is so dumb its just funny.
@@orion7741 Back in the days before digital photography, smartphones and computers, professional photographers contact printed their 24x36mm negatives because there was no other option. However, you may be interested to know that back then the most desirable way to ‘contact print’ a roll of 24x36mm negatives was to lay out the roll of cut strips between two plates of 8x10” glass and then stick the whole thing into an 8x10” enlarger and print an ‘enlarged contact sheet’ onto a much larger sheet of paper. That worked extremely well. Grow up, kid, and realise that the 35mm format is a miniature format which depends on enlargement for further production.
@enLARGE.darkroom "35mm is a miniature format which depends on enlargement for further production" ie, *every* format, Andy. 8x10 isn't the be all end all. You'd think the "inventor" of a basic iOS app for 35mm scanning would be less dismissive towards the format.
I'm glad to see the basics being taught by the masters. Thank you!
But actually there is one big mistake in there. It's not very clever to expose by fixed increments. Because 10 sec from 5 sec is one f-stop, a huge jump in exposure. 10 to 15 is only a 1/2 f-stop, a much smaller jump. And from 15-20 it's only 1/3 f-stop. So the longer you expose, the smaller the gaps become. With exposure times over 30 seconds that gets useless very fast. It's better to expose in 1/3-stops: 6-8-10-13-15-20-25-30.... This way of exposing also gives you more control over multigrade filtering, because you need .5 harder filter per 1/3 f-stop less exposure in the highlights.
@@dimitrijvolcov but the curve of photo paper is non-linear
Thank you for showing this. Making contact sheets is an important thing to do and makes deciding which negatives to enlarge much easier.
Did this very process just yesterday in a Darkroom with sturdy, ancient equipment (70's) :). Was a bit clumsy and pressed the wrong button and all of a sudden instead of 2 second setting , it was a lot longer. Phew! three of the images in the strip were okay. You live, you learn.
To valutate the negatives e the images usually I expose the paper to the maximum black exposure time for the film base. So I can see immediately the right negatives, the problematic negatives and the mistakes. So the first thing to do is to find the max black exposure time with the film that you'll use.
Thanks! I've only done this once, and I needed a refresher!
Glad you found it useful. Did you manage to get your contact sheets printed?
@@Ilfordphoto yes! Thanks again!
Very nicely made video, Graham!
Reminds me how lucky (lazy) we are with digital printers!
Graham? Glad you enjoyed the video Tom!
I always make a contact sheet of the negatives. And I attach the contact sheet with the negatives in a book that I keep of the negatives.
LOVE this! Thank you so much.
Film photograph forever!!!!!!
No explanation of finding maximum black?
since this is a series about the basics, that is not something needed in this video. that would be covered in a more advanced video. and its not entirely needed for a beginner that is just getting started.
leaving the negs inside the sleeve would soften the image quite a bit?
It will, but this is just using for using it as a record so it wouldn't really matter in this instance
@@Ilfordphoto ok. thanks for that
Wouldnt it make more sense and be more economical to do one test strip of negatives and find maximum black off that instead of wasting an entire sheet to do the same thing?
Would you recommand to do a test print for each negative ? Or can we use the proprieties of other prints/negatives to deduce the exposure time of the others ?
If you have a very methodical approach to making your images, such as the zone system, you may be able to deduce variations in exposure and contrast. However, I would say it''s easier to start over for each negative. It may the case that you need to make local corrections, doging and burning, that aren't obvious from the small contact prints.
@@steveliddle8417 with practice and chance, I have been able to know wether negatives required quite the same exposure time. But you’re right, as I’m not a professional, if I see a slight variation I prefer to do new test prints. Thanks for the answer !
. . . what are the settings of the enlarger's lens? wide open at F2.8 or F8
The light will be more even across the paper if closed down one or two stops from wide open, so with an f/2.8 lens I'd use f/5.6 or f/8 for contracts and the final prints.
Hey! I bought an ILFORD EM10, how can I use it?
Thanks.
Have a look at these instructions from our website www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ILFORD-EM10-Exposure-Monitor.pdf
I have a question: why did you use filter 2 if that paper without filter is already filter 2?
Good question! Any answers?
The reason for starting off with a filter (eg. a No.2) is that if you need to change to a different filter (eg. a No. 1.5, 2.5 or 3 or some other degree of filtration) then you will have already worked out a roughly correct exposure time with the very first test. If you start with no filter and then decide you need one, then your basic exposure will be unknown and very different because of the new filter’s filter factor. So it’s better to start your initial testing process with a filter in place, so you build a filter factor into the testing process right from the beginning. Hope this makes sense!
Buena gracias!!!😀👍👍👍
What is the music in these videos?
same i want to know too it’s great
Love this
Maximum black?
is not mentioned but it's the basic, strange,
@@GigiDAmico yup definitely need to know that when making contact sheets
Time to get back to the darkroom
That's a comment we can get behind! Do you have your own set up or do you use a community space?
@@Ilfordphoto my own ,Omega colour enlarger the government was selling,it’s been a while but like riding a bike I remember how.I even had the chance to work on photostat camera’s
Making a contact sheet from a roll of 35mm negatives is a silly waste of time and materials too. The 24x36mm format is a miniature format and its tiny images really need to be enlarged substantially in order for one to be able to read, examine and assess them, especially if trying to decide what to print further. These days if you have a smartphone or a tablet (and who doesn’t?) then you’re smarter to examine each negative image directly on its screen in inverted form, thus as a positive image, using the tablet or phone’s inbuilt viewing facility, which gives you individual brightness, contrast and magnification controls, and lets you look right into each image in enlarged size. The screen image appears noisy and rough but is still vastly superior to the tiny, usually too-dark or too-light images of a contact print, and you will see things in them which you will completely miss in a contact sheet. You can also flip the negative over and see how it looks when viewed back to front. From this quick, instant, daylight viewing process you can make up a shot list ready for enlarging in the darkroom. Better to save your sheets of paper for the enlargements instead!
That's one way of doing it, but i've always found contact sheets to be a quick way of looking at all of my negatives at once and seeing which catch my eye. I also store them in the front of my negatives so I can see at a glance what's on each film.
HAHAHA!!! that is what I did as I read your comment Andrew.....contact sheets a waste of time?? really? I would love to see you tell that to every professional photographer that has ever shot film.... they would slap you around and then toss you out on the street by your rear end because you know nothing. Contact sheets are ESSENTIAL to fully inspect your images and make choices about which ones get a final printing. your comment is so dumb its just funny.
@@orion7741 Back in the days before digital photography, smartphones and computers, professional photographers contact printed their 24x36mm negatives because there was no other option. However, you may be interested to know that back then the most desirable way to ‘contact print’ a roll of 24x36mm negatives was to lay out the roll of cut strips between two plates of 8x10” glass and then stick the whole thing into an 8x10” enlarger and print an ‘enlarged contact sheet’ onto a much larger sheet of paper. That worked extremely well. Grow up, kid, and realise that the 35mm format is a miniature format which depends on enlargement for further production.
are essentials, also here unfortunately is not mentioned the maximum black
@enLARGE.darkroom "35mm is a miniature format which depends on enlargement for further production" ie, *every* format, Andy. 8x10 isn't the be all end all.
You'd think the "inventor" of a basic iOS app for 35mm scanning would be less dismissive towards the format.
They're doing it all wrong, lol
Same, I never did a faded contact sheet. Like how you do a test strip. Why would they do it like that?
@@Fairychild432 to figure out the correct exposure for the whole contact sheet?