Re: [Leica] Evaluating drydown

["Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>]

Actually the fluorescent was an improvement over the pantograph-style bench
light that I was using.  I think I will go and get a ceiling light that I
can control from the enlarger position and that should solve the problem.

I guess wet-times for RC prints are another subject that may generate much
controversy.  I'm fixing for two minutes in Kodafix, print dilution, and
washing for five.  Sometimes I hold the prints in a tray of water.  I know
you are supposed to limit the wash times, but running up and down the stairs
was getting tiring.  Am I washing this whitener out?  Boy do I miss the old
FB Brovira!

(Actually my prints aren't bad, just difficult.)

Mike D

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Saturday, January 08, 2000 3:23 PM
Subject: [Leica] Evaluating drydown


>>>>I made a few prints this week, and I was able to make some
>observations.
>
>I have a small fluorescent fixture about two feet over the fixer<<<
>
>
>Mike,
>You should never use a fluorescent light to evaluate prints. Virtually
>all papers use brighteners in the baryta layer (even papers whose
>marketers claim they don't ). Fluorescent lights excite the brighteners
>and make the highlights look brighter, or just different. That's
>probably why you're having to move your print so far from the light to
>evaluate it.
>
>We evaluate brighteners in papers by looking at wet prints under a black
>light. Also, most brighteners (Ilford papers seem to be one exception)
>wash out of papers gradually--and unevenly--over long wash times. (The
>old Ilford Galerie was one of the worst with this--I really had to
>severely limit wet times in order to keep the brighteners from
>streaking. This may be one reason why Ilford's scientists had to
>address--and solve--this problem.)
>
>A good viewing light is critical to evaluating prints. You can actually
>recognize the effects of bad evaluation lighting when looking at prints
>in galleries! If you see prints with highlights that look too much like
>paper-white, and weak, unsupported blacks, it usually means the printer
>was working with an evaluation light setup that was too dim. When you
>see prints that have heavy, dark highlights and/or inky blacks lacking
>in shadow detail too far up the value scale, it's usually an indication
>that the person was using too powerful an evaluation light in the
>printing stage--shine more powerful lighting on the print and it will
>often look all right again! (However, prints optimaized for average
>lighting look the best under the widest range of conditions.)
>
>You can get quite fancy about it, but I find the following simple
>procedure almost always works well:
>
>1. Use an oversize, 1/4-inch-thick piece of glass (available easily from
>any glass supplier) with sanded edges, leaning against the back of the
>sink or the wall, and sitting in the sink or in a catch-all tray. 2.
>Either from the fixer or after a brief rinse, put the print on the glass
>and squeegee it. 3. Use a plain incandescent light bulb of 75-100 watts
>hanging above the viewing glass at an oblique angle and about 4-5 feet
>away, usually on pull chain for convenience.
>
>
>
> o   <---light bulb hanging from ceiling
>
>
>
>
>
>
>(4-5 ft.)
>
>
>                    /
>                   /
>                  /       <---print on glass
>                 /
>                /
>
>and the most IMPORTANT thing (well, besides squeegeeing the print, which
>is essential)...4. take a few minutes to really look at the print. Don't
>glance at it and rush to a decision. This allows your eyes time to
>adjust to the print, but it also allows you some time to let the values
>register and to "calibrate" your brain.
>    This was absolutely the hardest thing for me to do when I was a
>custom printer, so I got myself a comfortable stool and 3-minute egg
>timer. At least once during the printing process, I'd force myself to
>sit staring at the print for 3 minutes--timed--either at the "guide
>print" stage, or the finished print stage, or both. It sure feels like
>it slows down the work when you're working hard--but it DOESN'T. It
>saves time, errors, and paper in the long run.
>
>--Mike
>
>