- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute and reply to posts and download the resources.
Creating The Proper Proof - Fred Picker
- Thread starter Ian-Barber
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
Not to nitpick, but it's interesting that there is a mistake in there. The correct Proper Proof exposure through clear film was 21 secs, yet, when doing the Proper Proof of the portrait only 18 secs was given.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
I saw that when he found his proper proof exposure 21 seconds, he exposed the full sheet at 7 x 3 intervals instead of 1 x 21 seconds. Would it have made that much different to the exposure if he had of done 1 x 21 ?
Theoretically, yes. Though I've never seen it for myself--mostly because I don't care enough to test the theory--there is an intermittency effect whereby 7 exposures for 3 secs each will not match...exactly...21 exposures of 1 sec each nor a solid 21 sec single exposure. As Fred used to always harp on us: DIFFERENT IS NOT THE SAME.
Therefore, for nearly 40 years of darkroom printing I've always exposed test strips, work prints, and the final print via the same sequence; in my case, I use mostly 3 secs and will adjust aperture if the amount of light needs to be changed.
I follow Alan's system of leaving the timer alone and using the same settings throughout. It seems to me to be at the very least, more convenient than re-setting again and again, with the extra possibility of errors.
Another explanation for the intermittency effect is that some lamps may take time to reach maximum brightness and/or may not switch off instantly when power is removed. Consequently the number of switching operations affects exposure. An obvious suspect is that not all timers are perfect. All this doesn't contradict the idea that intermittency is inherent in the characteristics of the emulsion.
Another explanation for the intermittency effect is that some lamps may take time to reach maximum brightness and/or may not switch off instantly when power is removed. Consequently the number of switching operations affects exposure. An obvious suspect is that not all timers are perfect. All this doesn't contradict the idea that intermittency is inherent in the characteristics of the emulsion.
Especially when using cold light enlarger heads, which I still use to this day. These heads do have a heater in them in an attempt to maintain more consistent light output, but it still varies. Exactly why Fred Picker developed his compensating enlarger metronome and the cold light stabilizer unit.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
Do you have to go through this procedure for every size of film.
For Example
Let's say that you find the proper printing time to reach Max Black for FP4 Roll Film.
Would you have to to the test again if using FP4 Sheet Film.
I also presume that the test needs to be done for each type of film such as FP4, TMAX, Delta100 etc etc.
For Example
Let's say that you find the proper printing time to reach Max Black for FP4 Roll Film.
Would you have to to the test again if using FP4 Sheet Film.
I also presume that the test needs to be done for each type of film such as FP4, TMAX, Delta100 etc etc.
If you imagine you had several digital cameras, each with a different sensor, and you were doing some kind of similar calibration exercise, then each would need an individual test
So, for the very very pick(er)y, you'd need to do an individual proper proof test for each film.
In practice, unless you are using films with radically different film base plus fog levels, it probably doesn't matter much. I suspect that different films would come out much the same, but I've not done the test. In any case, it's not onerous.
The purpose of the Proper Proof is to establish that your exposures are consistent and give you a good idea of any controls you may need to apply in the printing. It will give you an idea of the level of contrast too, so that next time, if necessary, you can adjust it. It's a once-only measurement, establishing a repeatable standard height, aperture and time. Development and paper grade should be standardised too, of course.
We are all human, so a Proper Proof might reveal that we need to make another proof to compensate for any inadvertent deviations from the One True Exposure.
Were you proposing to use several kinds of film?
So, for the very very pick(er)y, you'd need to do an individual proper proof test for each film.
In practice, unless you are using films with radically different film base plus fog levels, it probably doesn't matter much. I suspect that different films would come out much the same, but I've not done the test. In any case, it's not onerous.
The purpose of the Proper Proof is to establish that your exposures are consistent and give you a good idea of any controls you may need to apply in the printing. It will give you an idea of the level of contrast too, so that next time, if necessary, you can adjust it. It's a once-only measurement, establishing a repeatable standard height, aperture and time. Development and paper grade should be standardised too, of course.
We are all human, so a Proper Proof might reveal that we need to make another proof to compensate for any inadvertent deviations from the One True Exposure.
Were you proposing to use several kinds of film?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
These days, I seem to use only FomaPan 200 and FP4 but I do use them in different formats, 5x4 and 6x6 so I wasn't sure if the Film Base and Fog would be the same for both formats
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2016
- Messages
- 261
Will different developers also have an effect on fog levels? So in an ideal world you would need to test for those as well.
There are so many variables involved it's best to test for each combination you use. The major reason for locking down the Proper Proof and maintaining consistency in that process is that it gives you control over your results. If the film manufacturer tweaks the emulsion slightly, you'll see this in the PP if it changes anything. If the film developer changes without your knowledge, you will see this in the PP. Meter acting up? Again, the PP tells all. I could go on and on listing variable, but I'm sure you get the idea. The PP is your control! Use it well.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,723
But is it not important reach a point whereby one is not guessing as much and wasting materials
It seems to me that it's certainly useful to reach that point, but surely, it's all in the service of the image and not an end in itself?
Some waste seems inevitable; we all make exposures that don't result in prints and sometimes we bracket. We most often make several versions of a print because we are dissatisfied with its aesthetics, not because our exposure was 0.005 above or below FB+F or the developer was 1°C too hot or cold. I believe it was Dr Johnson who said: Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
Sooner or later, any variations in process will be small enough be dealt with by the huge amount of control available, both in the darkroom and on the screen. An example might be that difference between eighteen and twenty-one seconds – a fraction of a stop, perhaps a third at most. It seems very unlikely that Mr Picker was unable to make a decent print because of this.
When we consider the difficulties of operating a wet-plate camera in a converted mule-drawn van in the middle of a badly-run war in the Crimea, we can see that we ourselves are dealing with only the most luxurious of problems.
Some waste seems inevitable; we all make exposures that don't result in prints and sometimes we bracket. We most often make several versions of a print because we are dissatisfied with its aesthetics, not because our exposure was 0.005 above or below FB+F or the developer was 1°C too hot or cold. I believe it was Dr Johnson who said: Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.
Sooner or later, any variations in process will be small enough be dealt with by the huge amount of control available, both in the darkroom and on the screen. An example might be that difference between eighteen and twenty-one seconds – a fraction of a stop, perhaps a third at most. It seems very unlikely that Mr Picker was unable to make a decent print because of this.
When we consider the difficulties of operating a wet-plate camera in a converted mule-drawn van in the middle of a badly-run war in the Crimea, we can see that we ourselves are dealing with only the most luxurious of problems.
A second post of yours came in while I was typing mine so I read that first. I think you may be missing the point. I totally agree with you that making images is the real concern here. Following a few simple tests, as outlined by Picker and others, frees you from the technical part of photography! Many get bogged down on the technical side of photography and never make a meaningful image. That's just sad IMO. Fred used to say that most photographers spend tremendous amounts of time on the 1% of photography that's easy (the technical side) and very little on the 99% of photography that's hard (making meaningful images.)
Can you make good photographs and, by extension, prints following loose technique? Sure! But, IMO your "hit rate" is probably going to be low. Lock down some basic procedures, then go out into the world and make wonderful images!
Alan,
I agree entirely.
But we seem to be scurrying away from "a few simple tests" and erecting an intricate superstructure of probable and possible problems.
We might even argue that storage conditions affect the response of film and propose another set of Proper Proof tests involving different brands and sizes of film stored in a freezer, a fridge, at room temperature and in a car in the sun.
My point was that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be entangled by these matters and that once our technique will deliver dependable results most of the time, further refinement is a diversion. I don't think we can reasonably anticipate 100% success in any human endeavour.
So a few tests – yes; simple ones – yes, yes. I've found the proper proof to be a very helpful idea. Perhaps its greatest advantage is the way it engineers our attitude to exposure and development. With these we are not trying to be clever and exciting: with negatives, we are trying to be predictable and dull.
I agree entirely.
But we seem to be scurrying away from "a few simple tests" and erecting an intricate superstructure of probable and possible problems.
We might even argue that storage conditions affect the response of film and propose another set of Proper Proof tests involving different brands and sizes of film stored in a freezer, a fridge, at room temperature and in a car in the sun.
My point was that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be entangled by these matters and that once our technique will deliver dependable results most of the time, further refinement is a diversion. I don't think we can reasonably anticipate 100% success in any human endeavour.
So a few tests – yes; simple ones – yes, yes. I've found the proper proof to be a very helpful idea. Perhaps its greatest advantage is the way it engineers our attitude to exposure and development. With these we are not trying to be clever and exciting: with negatives, we are trying to be predictable and dull.