test strip methods

[Torquemada]

Why does the majority of people still use the test strip method that is the negative projected onto a sheet of paper, and the card sheet used to block it into sections?

Just looking at videos, its the most commonly done and most commonly abuse method in that people will overlook how critical detail in the boat house on the lake is perfect and crip and visible, in order to use a different time section that shows the lake slightly better, but leaves the detail a solid black..

Lambrecht with way beyond monochrome, i have seen bits and pieces of pdf files hes loaded to photrio, went with a localized test strip. Featured on the most critical component of the print. In the book he used a photo of a woman in a shaft of light inside a barn. did a test strip sheet just on the woman, found the bestest time for her, did a work print, it was almost there, made an adjustment and voila, third sheet was a good final print.

I dont understand the reasoning behind the whole image chopped into portions as a means.

[Tin Can]

I dare you to read the entire Beyond tome

You cannot dodge and burn in tubes

[Michael R]

There are good/useful test strips/prints and useless ones (often the ones that prioritize minimal paper use). It depends on the image, obviously. You do what you need to do.

John Sexton has an interesting test strip method for images with many different exposure areas. He likes to do various exposures and arrange them like puzzle pieces, so that he has the whole image to look at but can swap the various pieces of the "puzzle" with darker or lighter versions. Everyone has their own preference but in the end it's all by eye.


Why does the majority of people still use the test strip method that is the negative projected onto a sheet of paper, and the card sheet used to block it into sections?

Just looking at videos, its the most commonly done and most commonly abuse method in that people will overlook how critical detail in the boat house on the lake is perfect and crip and visible, in order to use a different time section that shows the lake slightly better, but leaves the detail a solid black..

Lambrecht with way beyond monochrome, i have seen bits and pieces of pdf files hes loaded to photrio, went with a localized test strip. Featured on the most critical component of the print. In the book he used a photo of a woman in a shaft of light inside a barn. did a test strip sheet just on the woman, found the bestest time for her, did a work print, it was almost there, made an adjustment and voila, third sheet was a good final print.

I dont understand the reasoning behind the whole image chopped into portions as a means.

[jnantz]

There are good/useful test strips/prints and useless ones (often the ones that prioritize minimal paper use). It depends on the image, obviously. You do what you need to do.

John Sexton has an interesting test strip method for images with many different exposure areas. He likes to do various exposures and arrange them like puzzle pieces, so that he has the whole image to look at but can swap the various pieces of the "puzzle" with darker or lighter versions. Everyone has their own preference but in the end it's all by eye.

and if the final print isn't flipped and submerged and agitated developed the same as the test strip the test strip is useless ..

[Chuck Pere]

I use a home-built test strip maker that slides a 4x8 piece of paper under a one-inch slit. Let's me see that same point in the image with various exposures. Downside is it takes more time because you do a full exposure for each one. Works for me but everyone has their way to do it. You just have to find yours.

[ic-racer]

I do one little piece at a time. I don't know the next one to try until the first is processed and dry. I have a little frame that I put on the baseboard so the little test prints all come from the same place.

What "test print" gives 1/4 stop resolution? I guess if one has never been in a darkroom you can do that 'whole sheet test print', otherwise, after a few decades printing with the same materials, the first guess is within a stop or half of the final.

244746

244747

[Michael R]

and if the final print isn't flipped and submerged and agitated developed the same as the test strip the test strip is useless ..

Yes and particularly with FB prints don't neglect dry-down especially when evaluating highlights and upper midtones. All my test strips and test prints go into the microwave for a quick dry for that purpose.

[neil poulsen]

Test strips are just a beginning to homing in on paper contrast and exposure. Once I have a beginning exposure and contrast grade that seems appropriate, I jump to whole sheets of paper, and optimize exposure/contrast, and dodge/burn.

E v e n t u a l l y, I end up with the print that I like.

[Torquemada]

I dare you to read the entire Beyond tome

You cannot dodge and burn in tubes

And some people still like to harp on the evils of developing tubes. Guess some do it because they dont understand they are only for developing, and all the fun stuff with the enlarger is already done by the time a person grabs the print tube

[Vaughn]

Test strips are just a beginning to homing in on paper contrast and exposure. Once I have a beginning exposure and contrast grade that seems appropriate, I jump to whole sheets of paper, and optimize exposure/contrast, and dodge/burn.

E v e n t u a l l y, I end up with the print that I like.

Pretty much what I did back in the silver gelatin days. One can learn to judge a test strip pretty easily...and to determine the range of exposures to use for one's negatives for the paper type and amount of enlargement. Placement is important -- capturing a representational 'slice' of the image.

One small source of error (that can get confused with dry-down) is looking at one's test strip (or full prints) with a bright light straight from the darkness of the darkroom. Eyes dialated, one can get a false first-impression of the light values of the print. And by viewing tests and prints under too bright of a light.

[jnantz]

And some people still like to harp on the evils of developing tubes. Guess some do it because they dont understand they are only for developing, and all the fun stuff with the enlarger is already done by the time a person grabs the print tube

I don't think anyone said develping tubes are evil, but for someone learning how to print they are unhelpful at best

)added after I thought about it(

the best photography how to book I have ever read was zen and the art of archery, so maybe developing blindly in ilford developing tubes might not be such a bad idea.
I hope you find success with it.

[Todd Barlow]

I made a Fixed Image Test Strip printer. Just another tool in the tool box to choose from depending on the negative I am working with.

[Pieter]

I made a Fixed Image Test Strip printer. Just another tool in the tool box to choose from depending on the negative I am working with.

There are plans and instructions for one of those in Way Beyond Monochrome.

[Drew Wiley]

There's nothing primitive about simple test strips. Evaluating them is another matter, and will improve with experience. I don't state this as a default method. I do have very sophisticated options, including a very precise easel densitometer, full feedback colorhead circuitry, and tons of experience doing densitometer plots and even inventing special math formulas related to all this. These did have a purpose with respect to sophisticated color printing strategies using multiple precisely matched steps. But for simple silver gelatin printing, or even basic RA4 color neg printing, test strips are the straightest route from Point A to Point B. And I'm about as nitpicky as they get when it comes to print quality. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

I just slice off a strip of the printing paper two or three inches wide, place it in an appropriate position in the easel, and then section off the increments using a big sheet of cardboard. A typical example might be 9 / 12 / 15 / 18 seconds at f/11 - all depending of course on the specific paper, enlarger lens choice, degree of enlargement, and particular light source I'm using. Then after development, I squeegee off the strip, and dry it for about 20 second in a little nearby toaster oven, and examine it in what is equivalent to display lighting. And I factor in the supplemental contrast deepening due to post-toning. But due to sheer experience working with particular papers, often I bypass the dryer step. The real litmus test is the following day, seeing with fresh eyes the full air-dried print itself, toned n' all.

[Tin Can]

Many use tubes for FILM


I tested film in tubes, OK! Not for me

Prints must be damn perfect for tube


and would be fine if every neg was perfect...possible for a series

I prefer the 'Laying of Hands' dodging as it were on flat paper

as posted yesterday I sometimes make up to 25 identical PRINT s

I know I torqued you off!

calm down

not many of us left or right



And some people still like to harp on the evils of developing tubes. Guess some do it because they dont understand they are only for developing, and all the fun stuff with the enlarger is already done by the time a person grabs the print tube

[MartinP]

I use standardised contacts as a 'sort of' metering, then a partial print at the estimated values, then adjust from there. Approaching every negative as though you have never printed before, as per a lot of tutorials, seems like something which should be very quickly forgotten.

[paulbarden]

There's nothing primitive about simple test strips.

You could have just left it at that! LOL

[Vaughn]

Drew mentioned RA4...I was taught that its color balance shifts with length of exposure, so for test strips, pick a time and change the aperture. I never made enough prints to get good at it, but a lot of fun...120 film only. Many 10"x10" prints of my boys. I used the 8x10 for the B&Ws.

A friend on a photo trip up the Oregon Coast...this is on 8x10 paper...maybe 30 years ago, give or take 5 yrs. He is wondering why I am tilting the Rollei.

[Torquemada]

There's nothing primitive about simple test strips. Evaluating them is another matter, and will improve with experience. I don't state this as a default method. I do have very sophisticated options, including a very precise easel densitometer, full feedback colorhead circuitry, and tons of experience doing densitometer plots and even inventing special math formulas related to all this. These did have a purpose with respect to sophisticated color printing strategies using multiple precisely matched steps. But for simple silver gelatin printing, or even basic RA4 color neg printing, test strips are the straightest route from Point A to Point B. And I'm about as nitpicky as they get when it comes to print quality. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

I just slice off a strip of the printing paper two or three inches wide, place it in an appropriate position in the easel, and then section off the increments using a big sheet of cardboard. A typical example might be 9 / 12 / 15 / 18 seconds at f/11 - all depending of course on the specific paper, enlarger lens choice, degree of enlargement, and particular light source I'm using. Then after development, I squeegee off the strip, and dry it for about 20 second in a little nearby toaster oven, and examine it in what is equivalent to display lighting. And I factor in the supplemental contrast deepening due to post-toning. But due to sheer experience working with particular papers, often I bypass the dryer step. The real litmus test is the following day, seeing with fresh eyes the full air-dried print itself, toned n' all.

Have a shot of one of these simple test strips on the finished print? Id really like to see how they compare from test to final print for you.

[Michael R]

It might be worth highlighting something Vaughn said earlier which I think is an important part of making test strips/prints and work prints, which is not to rush in evaluating them. Particularly if you aren’t experienced or are out of practice (but even if you’re a pro), it can really help to slow down a little, let your eyes adjust, look carefully, watch out for snap judgements based on bright/dim lighting etc.

[Michael R]

There's nothing primitive about simple test strips. Evaluating them is another matter, and will improve with experience. I don't state this as a default method. I do have very sophisticated options, including a very precise easel densitometer, full feedback colorhead circuitry, and tons of experience doing densitometer plots and even inventing special math formulas related to all this. These did have a purpose with respect to sophisticated color printing strategies using multiple precisely matched steps. But for simple silver gelatin printing, or even basic RA4 color neg printing, test strips are the straightest route from Point A to Point B. And I'm about as nitpicky as they get when it comes to print quality. Why make it harder than it needs to be?

I just slice off a strip of the printing paper two or three inches wide, place it in an appropriate position in the easel, and then section off the increments using a big sheet of cardboard. A typical example might be 9 / 12 / 15 / 18 seconds at f/11 - all depending of course on the specific paper, enlarger lens choice, degree of enlargement, and particular light source I'm using. Then after development, I squeegee off the strip, and dry it for about 20 second in a little nearby toaster oven, and examine it in what is equivalent to display lighting. And I factor in the supplemental contrast deepening due to post-toning. But due to sheer experience working with particular papers, often I bypass the dryer step. The real litmus test is the following day, seeing with fresh eyes the full air-dried print itself, toned n' all.

Drew, I agree completely B&W tests strips/prints made using basic/simple methods tell us all we need to know. But what are these fancy math(s) things you invented? I hope they were not based on the work of that friend of yours who figured out how to accelerate particles to >c ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Well, my friends up at LBL have all retired, and had some staggeringly fancy equipment to worth with. Just solid gold target in that >C case was the size of a brick - so go figure the overall budget. I don't personally have any interest in counting muons or quarks or Mr. Higg's mini-bisons. But I do have a densitometer that reads as precisely to .01 density, along with a basic ten buck log calculator. That kind of stuff was all used in relation to establishing certain very tight lab film protocols. But once thoroughly plotted and accustomed to, it didn't need to be used again every time. I have less math memory than a Planaria having trouble dividing into two, so wisely wrote my own little owner's manual. It's helpful when I actually need to go analytic, mostly in relation to sophisticated color printing controls. I never bother with that stuff in ordinary black and white work.

But it does explain another reason for me touting TMax100, due to its excellent highly-predictable batch to batch quality control.

I presume you are contemplating a new career in quantum computing now that the air temperatures up there are approaching absolute zero. Or has global warming spoiled at that?

[Fred L]

Test strips are just a beginning to homing in on paper contrast and exposure. Once I have a beginning exposure and contrast grade that seems appropriate, I jump to whole sheets of paper, and optimize exposure/contrast, and dodge/burn.

E v e n t u a l l y, I end up with the print that I like.

yup, pretty much describes my process. Sometimes I may adjust contrast if the full print needs it. but otherwise...

and I always place the test strip on the most important part of the image.

[Doremus Scudder]

Test strips are just a means to get a ballpark exposure for a test print.

It's really the first full straight print (or one with an initial trial dodge/burn scheme) that tells the tale.

So, find an important highlight area, place your test strip there, make strip with wide-enough and evenly-spaced-enough increments to give you the information necessary to decide on base exposure for your test print.

Some things that help me:

I make proper proofs of all my negatives (that's minimum exposure for ~max black for the film rebate at my chosen "standard" paper contrast). These give me information about starting contrast setting for the test strip. They also serve as a control on my film exposure and development.

If my test print isn't the contrast I want, I change contrast settings and make a new test strip. Trying to save time by guessing the exposure change needed when switching contrast settings significantly just wastes paper. Similarly, if my initial test strip doesn't have full information and a too dark and a too light stripe, I'll make a new one at a different exposure instead of guessing.

I hang up my test print made with the contrast setting I want (close, at least). Let it dry completely and spend time examining it under the viewing lighting (a mix of daylight and tungsten lights at an illumination level I consider average gallery lighting). My motto here is "waste time, not paper." I sit with my legal pad and come up with a strategy for dodging, burning, exposure changes, split-grade manipulations, etc. Maybe I'll even bleach an area of the test print to see if that is something I want to work into the mix. When that's all done and decided...

...I'll make my first work print. This one with all the manipulations and changes I've planned. From there on, it's dry, view, strategize, make another work print, till I've reached the stage of fine prints.

Then I'll make a couple slightly different in contrast/exposure/whatever so I can choose the best. This is a bit of a ring-around to home in on the best of the best. Often, more than one of these will be keepers. Then I'll make another one or two (more if the print's really difficult, so I have some stock) to keep in storage.

The test strips, get me quickly to the work print. The time is spent after that step.

FWIW, I make strips by leaving the enlarger light on the whole time and progressively covering parts of the strip. I time with a metronome and keep count in my head (trained musician here; used to counting). My test strips are in 30% increments (kind of like f-stop timing, but without the pesky calculations). I like exposures in the 15-30-second range, so my test strip looks like: 10 sec., 13 sec., 17 sec., 22 sec., 29 sec., 38 sec. (count is: 10-3-4-5-7-9, approximate but close enough and easy to remember). I'll extrapolate intermediate exposure from this if one stripe isn't exactly right.

On a peripheral note: I don't understand all the negative comments about developing in tubes. I develop in trays, but certainly don't do any manipulations to the print while it's in the developer; just agitate and develop for the proper time. Tubes will do the same thing. There's not much you can do with a print while it's in the developer except extend or shorten development time, and that's really not a good solution nor a substitute for getting print exposure right. Tubes should work just fine, even for beginners.

Best,

Doremus

[Pieter]

Test strips are just a means to get a ballpark exposure for a test print.

There's not much you can do with a print while it's in the developer except extend or shorten development time, and that's really not a good solution nor a substitute for getting print exposure right.

+1

[Drew Wiley]

I have a high rate of success going straight from test strip to final. "Work prints" are what I would otherwise term trashcan "duds". A few are inevitable, especially if a complex dodging/burning sequence is called for. But for me, they're more the exception than the rule. Good paper is getting darn expensive. "Inflation" is an understatement. ... So, I'm perfectly happy to break the "rules" in order to conserve paper, like recognizing variable development time for what it really is - another highly useful tool.

[Doremus Scudder]

I have a high rate of success going straight from test strip to final. "Work prints" are what I would otherwise term trashcan "duds". A few are inevitable, especially if a complex dodging/burning sequence is called for. But for me, they're more the exception than the rule. Good paper is getting darn expensive. "Inflation" is an understatement. ... So, I'm perfectly happy to break the "rules" in order to conserve paper, like recognizing variable development time for what it really is - another highly useful tool.

I think variable development time is, indeed, a useful tool. I just can't seem to plan on it from viewing a test strip :)

It's not often I can arrive at a final fine print on the first take after the test strip. If you're doing that consistently, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

My trash can is my best tool.

Doremus

[Torquemada]

I think variable development time is, indeed, a useful tool. I just can't seem to plan on it from viewing a test strip :)

It's not often I can arrive at a final fine print on the first take after the test strip. If you're doing that consistently, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

My trash can is my best tool.

Doremus

enlarger paper makes wonderful kindling paper.

[Tin Can]

I learned test strip MUST be from same box of paper.

Slowly

[Michael R]

I think variable development time is, indeed, a useful tool. I just can't seem to plan on it from viewing a test strip :)

It's not often I can arrive at a final fine print on the first take after the test strip. If you're doing that consistently, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

My trash can is my best tool.

Doremus

I think you’re in good company, Doremus. Anyone interested in making great prints ought to familiarize him/herself with the trash can. In fact I’m surprised no one has yet decided to sell split grade or f-stop trash cans.

I sort of agree regarding print development “controls” - not that I agree it’s a useful control but the part about how to use it. Look at a test strip and decide it needs adjustment, make the decision the adjustment will be via altered print development, and then what? What change do you make? Unless beforehand one has done some sort of controlled, comprehensive series of “tests” of a particular paper/developer combination, how do you know what to do?

[Michael R]

Slowly

Agree.

[Doremus Scudder]

I think you’re in good company, Doremus. Anyone interested in making great prints ought to familiarize him/herself with the trash can. In fact I’m surprised no one has yet decided to sell split grade or f-stop trash cans.

I sort of agree regarding print development “controls” - not that I agree it’s a useful control but the part about how to use it. Look at a test strip and decide it needs adjustment, make the decision the adjustment will be via altered print development, and then what? What change do you make? Unless beforehand one has done some sort of controlled, comprehensive series of “tests” of a particular paper/developer combination, how do you know what to do?

The standard paper developers I use most (I'm thinking MQ/PQ neutral tone like D-72 and ID-62) with modern neutral-tone papers (the ones I use regularly) really only change effective paper speed with extended developing time. I've not observed a true increase in contrast with the papers I use when developing longer. So, the only use extended development has in this case is to tweak print exposure a bit. Helpful when small changes are needed and manipulations are complicated and already worked out. To get more contrast, one needs to switch developers or alter the developer one is using. I have sodium carbonate, potassium bromide and BTA on hand to do just that, but I'd not be able to determine what to add or how much to try from viewing a test strip. Sometimes the carbonate/BTA combination added to a developer makes a real difference.

With warm-tone papers, developing time affects image tone, so those changes could, indeed, be estimated from the image tone of a test strip. I don't use warm-tone papers or developers, so that kind of adjustment doesn't concern me.

I haven't printed with Ansco 130 or other Glycin paper developers for a while, but I can't really see them affecting contrast much with extended development on, say, Ilford Multigrade Classic or Bergger NB. If I'm wrong here, and someone can document the effect convincingly, I would likely try them out again. I've never used amidol developers; maybe they work differently, especially with contact papers.

I'm pretty happy with my roughly 50% average when printing; half of the paper I use ends up in the trash, the other half is keeper prints.

Best,

Doremus

[Neal Chaves]

The only way I have found that an incremental test strip can provide accurate information is with a continuous exposure, the card being moved every set increment with an audible timer.
No other method accounts for the bulb or tube warm up at the start of each exposure and cool down at the end. LED heads may be different. I have no experience with those.

[Drew Wiley]

I have another secret tool : the little toaster oven I dry my test strips in. DMax can be dramatically increased just by leaving the strip in there a little too long!

Doremus - if you need "documentation", that is what I call, "the proof is in the pudding". I've got hundred of prints that prove MGWT especially, but also Berrger NB, and numerous other papers, can in fact be contrast controlled to a distinct extent by length of time in 130. I prove that to myself every single printing session. But if you want some web link or silly video, or 1939 darkroom chemistry manual affirming that, well... don't expect me to waste my time on that kind of fishing expedition.

That also worked especially well with the old premium graded papers like Oriental Seagull and Brilliant Bromide. But it didn't have similar punch with more garden variety papers like MG IV, which bottomed out pretty fast.