I was excited to start printing some new Delta 400 negs (35mm) and in my initial haste forgot to stop down my enlarger lens to my usual F8. Using an aristo cold light head and Forte fibre VC paper I got some remarkable results around a grade 3.5. I then realized after closer inspection that the prints were not quite as razor sharp as usual but the tonality was wonderful. I'm almost condidering printing wide open for all my portrature at this point. Anyone else use different stops instead of just doing the set it at "two clicks down from wide open" ?

-- bill zelinski (willy226@yahoo.com), September 17, 2001

Answers

Bill, a few years ago Ana Barrado exhibited some fine infrared prints at our Arts Center Gallery. She told me at the time that she used very short enlarger exposures with the lens wide open, and felt that she was getting better prints that way. I don't remember her technical explanation, but aside from the wide open lens she felt that the short exposure had some impact. Anyhow, I anxiously await some more input to your question.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), September 18, 2001.

Bill, I do. The only problem is the precise alignment film/lens/easel. After I bought Apo-Rodagon 50/2.8 I noted that image structure is different at f/4 and f/8. It is pretty visible in focusing aid device (my is 10x). At f/11-16 the difference relative to f/4 is huge. If the image close to edges of the frame is not important (portraiture) I usually use f/2.8+1/2. For landscapes I use f/4, f/4+1/2, f/5.6.

After I switched to this "near wide open" printing it seems to me that my prints do look better; I'm not 100% sure, may be it is a sort of wish-seeing. But the difference in the magnifier put some thought into my mind. Finally, it is not a hard job to calculate that the diffraction in the enrarger lens adds a "second level" of softness.

Another point: I heard some time ago that the narrower the aperture, the higher the contrast assuming the exposure is the same. May be this is the cause?

-- Andrey Vorobyov (AndreyVorobyov@mail.ru), September 18, 2001.

Simply closing the lens to f8 is no where near the same as using the optimum aperture. Some lenses will be sharpest one stop down, some two stops, some at f8 and a very few wide open. I was surprised to see, in Ctein's "Post Exposure", that most lenses were sharper at f5.6 than f8! I had been raised on printing at f8. Of course, when printing at wider apertures, enlarger alignment and lens construction become much more important.

-- Ed Farmer (photography2k@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001.

Interesting, I went back and re-read Ctein. The issue is not really one of sharpness (as this is a portrature project) and the sharpness so far is adequate. I don't think its wishful seeing either as I did some of the same negs wide open (2.8 at 3 to 5 sec) and some stopped down to my ususal 5.6, of course at 5.6 my printing times were longer, more in the 6 to 8 sec range. Its always made sense to me that the "correct eposure" in printing is the shortest one you can get away with ;).. The shorter exposure prints do have a difference in contrast/image "quality" . It seems the high and mid tones are effected the most. A more "luminous" appearance perhaps? Then again maybe Im just gaining more experience in printing and actually just started printing "better" ;).. (I'm fairly new at this) I'm not much for hard testing so I will just go with this for now and think about this more..thanks everyone.

-- bill zelinski (willy226@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Are you using a glass carrier? If not, it may be that you've had some subtle film shifting going on. Not an out-and-out "pop", but just a bit of wander during the exposure. If you are using a glass carrier, than it may well be something to do with the lens. It's almost too basic to mention, but do a proper safelight test too- with partially exposed paper for maximum sensitivity. With short printing exposures, you're probably decreasing safelight exposure time, unless it's plugged into the timer (the most annoying arrangement I can think of!).

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), September 18, 2001.

Thanks conrad, i was considering a glass carrier but the cold light heat does not appear too bad and I have not had problems with neg pop before this. I have done a safelight test and Im ok. I guess what Im really wondering about is that there might be some added effect on contrast at each particular Fstop given that all other printing parameters are the same. Could this be something related to the difference in results we get when we use a variable contrast paper vs a "true" graded paper? With the little amount of graded paper I have used I seem to feel that I actually have more of a grasp over "control" of contrast available. I know that to some extent even graded paper is "variable" and I just wonder is variable paper too variable? Or am I just off my medications here?

-- bill zelinski (willy226@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

Conrad;

The main advantage where having your safe light on the timer is for metering. My meter is very sensitive to all colors and must be used under the enlarger with the safe light out. This rules out LED's and other types of safe lights that do not restart instantly.

-- Gene Crumpler (hassieguy@att.net), October 02, 2001.

I was thinking of getting an LED safe light, but was not aware that it does not turn on and off instantly. How much of a delay is there with LED's. I know that sodium vapor lights take several minutes to get up to full output, but was not aware of this problem with LED's.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), October 02, 2001.