Neutral density filters for darkroom prints

4 days ago by OneCardboardBox to c/analog

First off: I hope discussion posts are OK? I don't see any rules except for tagging photo posts.

I have an old beseler B&W enlarger, no color filters or brightness configuration. I have a set of gels for contrast control.

When I'm printing 5x7 and I have my lens at the manufacturer's recommended aperture size, exposure times are very short (4-6 seconds). It's hard to get a good dodge/burn in such a short period. I can dial my lens down to f16, but even then I'm starting around 8 seconds for exposure, I'd like maybe 12-16.

I was thinking 1 or 2 stops of neutral density filter could slow down my exposure and give me more time to execute the print. Is that a thing people do?

saltesc 3 points 4 days ago

It's obvious but worth raising just in case; you're not using paper with too high ISO, right?

Is it a thing at 8×10 too?

Otherwise, bulb. They need replacing often enough and high chance someone's put a brighter one in there for faster exposures. They're relatively cheap, so get a few, test, pick your fav that gets you around 15s like normal. Remember what that bulb is for next time too.

The only other thing that could cause it is it's broken, but you'd likely easily know that based on the quality of the prints.

You can go down the filter route, but paper and bulb are your cheap and obvious things to test first. Well, paper not so much, but it's still cheaper than good filters.

save

path: 0 26376284, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

OneCardboardBox 2 points 3 days ago

Paper is Arista Edu Ultra VC RC. I got a seriously good deal on 500 sheets of 5x7 and an additional 250 sheets of 8x10, so have been practicing with them. And when I compare to 8x10 Ilford multigrade RC, exposure times are the same. The film ISO equivalent of Ilford multigrade is 3-6, per their data sheets.

On 8x10 I need a higher enlarger height, so the inverse square law gives me more time, 10-12 seconds.

I'll give a look at the bulb next then. Thanks.

save

path: 0 26376284 26381601, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

solrize 2 points 4 days ago

I don't remember doing that back in the day, and don't see ND filters on bhphoto.com right now, just multigrade. Maybe you can use a less bright enlarging bulb, or a longer focal length lens with higher f-numbers that you'd use at greater height. Typical enlarging lenses are set up for 8x10 prints so if you're printing smaller, the extra focal length can help you anyway.

If you're having fun enlarging then hey, go for it, but it's a very retro, expensive process with nasty chemicals and stuff, that's hard to justify unless you're trying to make serious art prints with high-silver, fiber based paper and all that. Of course that's even more expensive and uses a ton of water. Next stop after that is probably platinum prints ($$$$$$$$). Otherwise, you can do really well with monochrome ink jet materials.

save

path: 0 26373186, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

OneCardboardBox 1 point 3 days ago

Hmm, I didn't think about the lens, but that makes a lot of sense. A dimmer bulb seems like a cheaper place to start though.

For me, the fun of prints is the fully physical process. I want fewer hobbies that involve a screen in front of my face, and each print feels like a puzzle to get lost in. When I take a photo, knowing that my editing options are limited to what I can achieve with two hands and a timer, has helped me to slow down and try to get things right before I open the shutter.

save

path: 0 26373186 26381918, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

solrize 1 point 3 days ago

You didn't mention what kind of camera you're using, but if you want real control and slowdown, get a 4x5 view camera! I've never used one but have a buddy who did that for a while. I think you can get that stuff super cheap now. They also exist in 6x9 cm so you can use 120/220 roll film.

save

path: 0 26373186 26381918 26387148, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0