Darkroom – Dave's Place

Dry: the 2023 Update

This one is especially for Dean who very kindly enquired as to whether there would be an update on my “Dry” adventures.

My experiments with dry glass plates began in 2021 and whilst I did expose a few plates in 2022 I didn’t post about it at the time. One of the last things I commented upon in my series of posts in 2021 was how “dry plate season” in the UK could be said to extend from March to September. Having missed the bluebells this year due to poor diary management I was determined not to miss the, admittedly larger, window of opportunity for dry glass plates.

First off was a trip into Halifax with the Chroma Snapshot 5×4 camera and a bag of film, paper and two glass plates. I noticed the expiry date was March 2023 but was hopeful that there would be plenty of latitude especially as I was only seven weeks past the date. I must go and check the dates on the other twenty plates whilst I remember!

With an ISO of just two I knew I’d need a tripod so I followed my usual pattern. Find the composition, tweak it and then expose a sheet of film. Without moving the camera I then popped in the plate holder and photographed the same scene with the dry glass plate.

Chroma Snapshot | 65mm lens | f32 | 60 seconds

The first composition (above) required an exposure time of sixty seconds and as can be seen there appears to be a light leak to the right of the plate which runs top to bottom. I suspect that some stray light entered through the side of the holder during the sixty seconds the dark slide was out. An easy enough thing to remedy for the future by shielding the holder during the exposure. Light leak aside I was very pleased with how this one turned out.

Development of both these plates was using the tried and tested routine in the darkroom that I developed back in 2021. Tray development in HC-110 (1+31) for five minutes followed by stop and a four minute fix before washing. I’m lucky that I can create a workable darkroom space in a few minutes but whilst stood there I did wonder if I could tank process the plates using the Stearman 5×4 tank I develop sheet film in.

Just about to go into the wash … these plates are things of beauty in their own right (excuse the pink porcelain)

Chroma Snapshot | 65mm lens | f32 | 16 seconds

I came away from the trip with two exposed plates which both produced lovely images as you’ve seen. There were two more plates left in the box and I vowed to use those this week too. My opportunity came two days later.

The location for the second pair of dry glass plates

I took my tripod, the Chroma Snapshot and the final two dry glass plates from the box and headed to a location I’ve photographed many times as it’s on one of my regular walking routes. Tripod up, camera in place, composition sorted, exposure checked and dialled in … where the heck is the cable release? Sixty second exposure, no cable release and no T-mode on the lens. I swore quietly. And held my breath for sixty seconds as I held the lens open in bulb mode.

Back home it was time to develop the two plates. I was using a new double plate holder this time, one I bought with adapters for developing tintypes, and included with the holder were two plate holders for use in the Stearman 5×4 tank. It was therefore time to try tank development. I figured that as the plates were potentially spoilt by my lack of a cable release then this was a perfect opportunity to try a different way of developing.

One of my aims back in 2021 was to produce a standard development process that could be repeated and thus ensure greater consistency and a greater chance of success for each plate. I am not a fan of development-by-inspection but it came in useful when I was first experimenting and after some trial and error I came to use a fixed five minutes immersion in HC-110 for tray development. It was logical therefore to use this as a starting point for tank development and to also use the same agitation regime (initial thirty seconds then ten seconds every minute). The plate holders were easy to load and sat nice and snug in the Stearman tank. I was then able to turn the lights on and take the plates downstairs to develop in the comfort of the kitchen.

Long story, short. It was a success, I followed my usual tank processing workflow including washing and brought the processed plates back up to the bathroom for drying. I made one small change and substituted water for the usual acidic stop bath but otherwise proceeded as if it were two sheets of Fomapan rather than two glass plates. A quick look with a loupe suggested that the dreaded camera movement had been avoided too so I was a happy boy. Not only could I develop two plates at a time in the tank but I now had two working dry glass plate holders to double my productivity in the field.

The ultimate aim for me is to print some of my negatives in the darkroom and I felt a good place to start would be to contact print a couple of the glass plates onto photographic paper. I was well pleased with the outcome (above) and will look now to create a 10×8” print with the antiquated enlarger that occupies one corner of my darkroom. More on that in due course.

Digitally scanned: Chroma Snapshot | 65mm lens | f16 | 20 seconds

Digitally scanned: Chroma Snapshot | 65mm lens | f32| 60 seconds

So, there you have it, an update on my dry glass plate adventures. I’ve four more plates loaded ready to go so watch this space!

To crop or not to crop

To the left (possibly below if you’re on a mobile device) is a sheet of 10×8 photographic paper. I laid a strip of 35mm negatives across the top from which you can see that the 35mm negative needs to be enlarged by a factor of over 35x to fit on the paper.

With such a large surface area to cover it makes sense to use as much of the negative as possible without cropping in and losing valuable real estate.

I do like to get things right in-camera but am no purist as at the end of the day the final result is the most important thing. As we’ve seen though the enlargement of a 35mm negative to a 10″x8″ print is quite a jump. So, when printing the negative below my initial thought was to print the full frame.

Left, the test wedge and right the first print

Now, this image is 100% reflection in a restaurant window. There are no external elements, everything is on or beyond the glass frontage of the building. Once I had the first print on the desk in front of me my eye was constantly being dragged to the top of the frame. Firstly, it’s bright so naturally attracts the eye. Secondly, that part is sky as you can see and the filth on the window rendered as a not-so-nice texture on the print. I decided therefore to crop the image to eliminate both distractions. I could of course have burnt in the sky but with that jagged roofline the pragmatic choice was to crop.

In the end I think the pragmatic decision to crop also gave a stronger composition too so win-win.

Sometimes I will find myself in a situation where I cannot make the composition I want directly in-camera so then I compose with a view to cropping later. The scene below is a case in point although I did include the whole negative when making the first full test exposure just in case. I was using a Bronica SQ-A which produces negatives 6cm x 6cm on 120 roll film. These are considerably bigger than a 35mm negative so the enlargement required is not as large, nevertheless I try to avoid cropping where possible.

Taken expecting to crop, I did however print the full negative before deciding my gut instinct was sound

So, there we have it. Two images strengthened by cropping, one a 35mm negative and the other 6x6cm on medium format film. What’s your thoughts? If you are a digital worker does the question of cropping become a moot point owing to the large sensor sized in modern digital cameras? Perhaps cropping considerations are greater for us folk who still insist on printing in a darkroom*.

for transparency I also use digital cameras and print on an inkjet printer from time to time which includes film images that have been digitised with one of my digital cameras. I therefore embrace all three “camps” – digital, hybrid and traditional.

Take a negative …

… and print it.

I make no bones about embracing the so-called hybrid approach to film photography. I love the tactility of working with film and particularly old cameras. However, in order to share my images with friends scattered around the world, I’m lucky that the internet and digital photography make the process a practical and, to a large degree, a relatively straightforward one. However, when I get the chance I also like to take a negative into the darkroom and print it in the traditional way.

The irony is that I then have to scan my darkroom prints in order that these friends, scattered as they are, can share in the results of these labours.

Over the past weekend I did manage a rare darkroom session and as it was the first for a while set myself to making a couple of 7”x5” prints. Here’s the story of one of them.

I did my now-usual test wedge (above) but in hindsight I could’ve placed the sheet better. The focal point of the image, indeed the only part in focus, was the plant growing out of the wall. I should really have placed the centre of the test sheet over the plant so it appeared in each wedge. In terms of the starting exposure I wasn’t worried about the background, getting the exposure right on the plant was most important. Anyway, rather than retest, I decided to make an educated guess based on the information in front of me and opted for a starting point of 14 seconds. However, before making the print I also had a think about contrast. Sitting in the chair cogitating is an important part of being in my darkroom! The test wedge was unfiltered and looking at the negative and this set of test exposures I thought a grade 3 filter, just to add a little more contrast, might be useful.

Rather than retest with grade 3 dialled in however I pulled out a tool I’ve had for years, the Ilford Multigrade Calculator (see below). This suggested that my initial unfiltered 14 second exposure needed increasing to 20 seconds. So, setting the enlarging lens to f16 I dialled 20 seconds into the electronic timer and pulled out a sheet of Kentmere VC (fine lustre) paper. I use this calculator fairly regularly and on the whole find it a very useful aid.

The resultant print is shown below. It’s a straight print, no dodging or burning, and as I keep notes of all my settings it can be replicated in a future session should I decide to have a play.

I might reprint this and make the large mill to the right a little brighter

So, there you have it. One print and a peek behind the scenes at my methodology.

35mm Lucky Dip – Adox HR-50

The third roll of film in my 35mm Lucky Dip was a gift from Jevon and it wasn’t until AFTER I’d used the roll that he expressed his view:

Best of luck. I have rarely managed to get a clean negative but when I have the detail is phenomenal
Jevon C

He’s not wrong of course!

I used the roll on a wander around my local patch with Andy (@Holga_Pics) and sadly the weather was rather overcast and wet; indeed we got a good soaking once we reached the farthest point of the walk from the sanctuary of my front room.

There’s a few on the roll where I’ve clearly misjudged the exposure and these have very blocked up shadows but where I’ve got the exposure right the negatives sing almost. Looking at them on a light pad the detail, even in the 35mm format, is incredible. The base of the film is also exceptionally clear which perhaps enhances this perception when the sheet of negatives is laid out on the light pad.

I’ve “scanned” the roll with my mirrorless camera and also printed one negative in the darkroom so far (more will follow) and the negatives have been very easy to work with in both scenarios.

Printed straight at grade 3 … I’m going to reprint at grade 2 and also dodge a little detail into the windows particularly above Andy’s head.

The darkroom print above, consciously printed a little darker to emphasise the wet conditions, has lots of detail and also lots of potential for further manipulation (tinkering with images didn’t start with Photoshop you know). This was a straight print and when I look at the negative it’s clear that there’s more detail in the shadows. I don’t want to change the overall mood of the finished print but I think there’s room for a little more detail in those shadows; it’s certainly available in the negative as the comparison below shows. The digital version has been fully processed to bring out detail in the shadows.

So, would I use this again? Short answer is that I’d have no qualms about using it. So long as it’s exposed correctly it will reward you with loads of detail and extremely sharp negatives. However, it is a 50-speed film and this couple with its lack of tolerance of poor metering doesn’t lend itself to my style of handheld, urban photography on the hoof.

This time, pleased as I am with the outcomes, I can at least say that it has not deflected me from my “three film” goal. That said, if Jevon wants to send me some more …

In the meantime here’s a few more digital versions from this roll.

The only image here taken with the Jupiter 11 (135mm) lens – all the others are Jupiter 12 (35mm)

The film captured a full range of tones … the key is careful metering

Probably my best exposure … detail throughout in a very contrasty scene

I know my favourite … what’s yours?

A test print

I first made a darkroom print in the mid-1970s and marvelled at the wonders of a test strip. An off-cut of darkroom paper, a series of exposures at five second increments to give a starting point for the first “real” print.

© Dave Whenham — Test Strip – Marlborough Downs

I’ve been happily using this method ever since.

Until recently.

I was introduced to an alternative way and decided to give it a try.

A little smaller than a 5×7 piece of paper this is a clear acetate sheet printed with a circle of wedges of different densities (see above). After composing and focusing the negative, the sheet is placed on top of the paper, enlarger stopped down to the required aperture and an exposure of sixty seconds is made. The paper is then developed, stopped and fixed in the normal way.

The end result, see above, gives a test “strip” in one take without having to fiddle with a piece of card, slowly revealing each segment. The numbers around the outside indicate the equivalent exposure time. In this case I thought somewhere between 16 and 32 seconds would be about right. The resulting print is below.

This came out nicely. It was raining when I took the photograph and that comes across well. I printed it at grade 3 and there have been no local adjustments. I will reprint this in the next day or two at grade 2 and with some dodging to the windows above Andy’s head.

So, there we are. A short post to introduce my latest “toy”.

Best of Both

Since I returned to using mainly film for my photography I’ve established a small darkroom in the corner of my office and have enjoyed reacquainting myself with the “dark arts”. I’m no more than a competent darkroom printer, at best, but it’s a thoroughly enjoyable aspect of the hobby. It’s also an aspect which provides lots of opportunities for problem-solving which is something I enjoy, not least because it keeps my brain engaged.

Of necessity though I have also had to learn some digital ways, mainly so that I can share images on social media. Even if I darkroom printed everything I’d still have to scan the prints! So, I have had to embrace the so-called hybrid approach and I have to say I’ve enjoyed the challenge. It was also good to refresh some of my digital skills and apply them to a negative-based media.

I was musing on this over the weekend as I was working on a 5×4 negative in the darkroom. I had made the image earlier in the week with my wooden Zero Image 5×4 pinhole camera and after developing the sheet had done a very quick copy with my digital camera. As much of my social media bound images are, this was quickly processed in Snapseed on my iPad and uploaded to Twitter.

5×4 film negative, scanned and converted with Photoshop

The response was, for a post from me at least, phenomenal.

I had already made up chemicals for a weekend in the darkroom but hadn’t decided which negatives to print. I usually only print one or two negatives in a session and, allowing for domestic duties, I expected to get two sessions over the weekend which meant I would usually have earmarked three or four negatives. However, the response to my Brighouse pinhole image meant that there was no need to think too hard … it had been selected for me by my friends and colleagues on the Twitter-verse.

Saturday morning, I set up the trestle table for the developing trays, moved the safelights into position and blacked out the study cum office which as I’ve mentioned before also serves as my darkroom. I positioned the negative in my aged Johnson V5 enlarger, composed and focused the image ready for a sheet of 8×10 paper. Everything was ready for when I could escape the domestic chores. I’d only need to pour out the chemicals and don my apron and I’d be away. As is my usual practice I looked at the negative projected onto the easel for a few minutes before turning off the focusing lamp and heading downstairs.

Something was nagging at me as I walked downstairs and it was whilst I was folding the washing that I realised what it was. Whilst the digital camera had pulled every last bit of detail from the negative and the localised adjustments applied in Snapseed had created a lovely result the negative itself was horribly underexposed around the bottom and very overexposed in the centre particularly. This would be a huge challenge for my basic skills.

After my usual test strips to get a feel for the negative I quickly realised that my concerns were real, the bottom left and the centre of the image were going to be tricky. I made a test strip from the whole negative and used this as the basis for a printing plan … which got overwritten numerous times.

Long story short, I had three sessions in the darkroom over the weekend and ended up working with just the one negative and with just one “finished” print hanging to dry overnight. I’m definitely not finished with the negative however as I’ve not yet created a final print I am totally happy with. I went to bed a little low but woke up reminding myself that it was a tough negative to print and that I am by no means an expert darkroom printer. There will be another day!

It also reminded me of the importance of getting it right in-camera, something I do strive for and always have, but brought home very forcibly over the weekend. Could I have done much more at the taking stage? Possibly, possibly not. I was using an ambient light reading as I rarely take my spot meter out when working with pinhole cameras. On this occasion I might have made good use of a spot meter though to accurately place the shadows on zone III but without filters the central portion would still have been over exposed. However, there’s no mileage in playing “could’ve, should’ve” at this stage, simply add it to the store of knowledge and experience and move on.

On this occasion then, my hybrid workflow will eventually* provide me with a nice print from this negative. I learnt a fair bit from trying to print it in the darkroom and I will no doubt learn plenty more from playing further with the negative in the darkroom; I’ve already started scribbling notes to guide my next attempt.

I’m enjoying this hybrid approach although have to say I’ve also enjoyed being in the darkroom this weekend.

Which, all leads me to conclude that there is a lot to be said for my approach. Part-hybrid and part-traditional, I am at least able to complete my vision with a print and to me it’s not a photograph until you can hold it in your hand.

*as my regular reader might remember I do not have a digital photo-printer at the moment. I have however ordered a small printer for this purpose and you can be sure that this will be the first image I print on it!

Dry: successful start to phase 2

This is just a quick update following yesterday’s post. It comprises of just a few images – the negative, positive and “final” version of one of the two plates I exposed on the canal. Both were successful but I’ve only used one for this update as they are very similar and this was my favourite compositionally of the two.

One thing I do need to keep in mind is that owing to the nature of the emulsion detail in skies is probably going to be a rare commodity. The composition that I rejected was in the vertical format with a large amount of sky which was simply a dark block on the glass.

I metered for the shadows in the black area at the bottom of the building and looking at this part of the plate I’ve got exactly the amount of shadow detail I was anticipating. This is good news as it confirms that my exposure calculations, which include spot-metering and a touch of applying my nascent experience, are working out well thus far.

What is very apparent, even in these scans, is the amount of detail in the plates. Of course, I was using a good quality 180mm lens, stopped down to f32 with everything rock solid on a tripod. Nevertheless, the detail, especially in the wall and vegetation in front of the building, is lovely.

For the “final” image I cropped to 16×9 to exclude some of the sky and also gave the image a sepia tone which seems to suit both the subject and the conditions quite nicely. Your mileage may vary of course.

Onwards and upwards (when I get some more plates of course)!

Dry: Seconds out … round two!

Back to the canal today with a couple of J Lane Speed plates (the last in the box) along with the Intrepid 5×4 and a bag full of optimism. I’m using the new ChromaGraphica double dry plate holder. When I used it for the first time last week there was a suspicion of a light leak but I suspected then that it was probably me loading the holder for the first time and in a hurry. So, I had a few dry runs this morning with one of the earlier “failed” plates before loading the two new plates in a changing bag. I realised that the dark slide needs an extra final push to fully seat it in place. This probably explains the slight light leak I experienced a couple of days ago. The slides are currently very tight and need a good push but I suspect they will get smoother with use.

Back to my “muse” location and unfinished business

I headed for Elland Wharf, scene of the previous disappointment but also a favourite location. I also regularly test cameras out here so it was, and is, a logical place to head for as I started phase 2 of the dry plate project. I’ve used the Intrepid a fair bit recently and have got much quicker at setting it up on location so it wasn’t long before I was taking spot readings and determining exposure. I will share the notes I made in a separate blog post – suitably tidied up of course!

The double plate holder is quite a bit thicker than my usual film holders and stretches the Intrepid to its limit. It also needs a little persuasion to sit properly but once it’s in place you know it’s going nowhere. I exposed two plates choosing two slightly different compositions rather than one composition and bracketing the exposures. I chose to do this on the basis that despite all the issues I’ve had, obtaining correct exposure hasn’t been one of them.

Back home, I prepared 500ml of HC110 (dilution B) and headed for the darkroom. Thirty minutes later I had two successful glass plates in the print washing tray. Both look well exposed, sharply in focus and not a light leak to be seen – fingers crossed.

They are now drying and tomorrow I will copy them and share the results in a new blog post and no doubt on Twitter too! The new holder also worked well and I’m keen to crack on with the project. I am however awaiting delivery of a new box of plates but it’s good to know that a corner has been turned and it’s full steam ahead.

Dry: An Update

If it’s been rather quiet on the dry plate front it’s not because I’ve not been busy. Indeed, I’ve used most of a box of the Speed plates in the last ten days or so. So, why the silence? A picture might help here.

The example on the left of the three is something I’ve seen before as it happened on my first plate and I’d put it down to user error. However, chatting to Andy who owns the plate holders I was using, revealed he had a similar plate so unless we were both making exactly the same error, be it with loading or seating the holder, then the likely culprit was the holder. We were certainly not using the same camera and lens!

The issue with the other two is different to the first plate, suggesting perhaps that one holder was used for the first and the other for the second two examples? The shape of the light leak, whilst not exactly the same, is very similar too. There’s clearly an issue so some more thinking and testing was called for.

In the case of all three glass plates, used on two different days, each was exposed using exactly the same set up and at the same time as a sheet of 5×4 film. The sheets of film were all absolutely fine. Looking at the scans above shows that the exposures used for these plates were good too which is a small positive from this. I’ve plenty of experience with 5×4 and whilst it’s not impossible I think I can rule out loading errors. To be sure, I used one of the failed plates to load both holders in daylight and could find no way to mis-load them without it being very apparent.

I’ve even tested the plates from the current box themselves. Taking a fresh plate from the box in the darkroom, staying at least six feet from the safelight and putting it straight into the developer gives a perfectly clear plate. What we would expect. Later that morning I used a plate in an Ilford Obscura pinhole (no holder required) which also confirms the plates are probably fine. The other factor in favour of the plates not being the issue is that my first fail was with one of the plates that Andy gave me initially and not from those that I bought for this project.

As a final test I exposed a further plate with a newly-purchased double plate holder. It was a very bright, sunny day and the holder was positioned with the slide pointing upwards as is my norm for vertical compositions. There is the suspicion of an ingress of light, perhaps from where the slide goes, but nothing like the pattern on the earlier plates. I will remember to cover the plate holder in future just to be on the safe side, although that’s something for another day. Taken with everything else though this final test does seem to suggest that there is an issue with the holders I’ve been using.

Speaking to Andy last night he thinks he can see a split in one of the holders so we’ve both spoken to the manufacturer and explained our respective experiences. He is sending replacements to Andy and is going to test the original holders. I have to say the response from him has been first class and very refreshing.

So, a disappointing end to this phase of the project not to say an expensive one as I’ve used one and a half boxes of plates getting to this point. Undeterred though, my new double plate holder arrived last week and I am going to be ordering another box of plates today, I go into the next phase with some confidence.

Despite the issues I’ve demonstrated that I can accurately calculate exposure and I’ve had valuable hands-on experience in handling the plates. The developing methodology I’ve adopted is working well and I’m pleased with the results from the HC-110 too. So, loads of positives and I genuinely believe that despite the setbacks and disappointments I’ve learnt a lot so far. The next stage is to concentrate on compositions and locations that will utilise the glass plate aesthetic to its full.

That’s gonna be the tough part!

Dry: impatience

Ever since my first, only partially successful, foray into the world of dry glass plates I’ve itched to put into practice my thoughts on solving the practical issues I identified. It’s been at least a day for goodness sake! What was holding me back? I am awaiting delivery of the smaller trays and the bottle of HD-110 developer. Due Monday, although I’m away until Thursday next week and will be childminding that day so it’s going to be Friday at the earliest before I can get back in dry glass plate action.

This Friday I made up a fresh 5 litre batch of my usual ID11 film developer in order to develop that days roll of 35mm panoramic goodness. As I agitated the tank back and forth my mind was busy thinking whatever it thinks when my hands are absorbed in a task which no longer needs the full attention of my aged system. I rarely know what it’s coming up with until a fully formed thought pops into my consciousness.

Simultaneously I was putting away crockery and the like (I can develop film on autopilot) so I was fully occupied and not paying any attention to what my mind was doing. Until it popped!

The small ceramic baking dish in my hand clearly needed liberating from the confines and heat of the kitchen and was being called by the cool, darkness of the darkroom. Where did that come from? Once it had arrived however it wasn’t going anywhere (apart from upstairs) and thus after I’d hung the 35mm film to dry I was stood in the darkroom working out how I could develop a dry plate with one ceramic dish that was AWOL from the kitchen. It was a simple solution really.

Four jugs, ready to hold developer, stop, fixer and clean water respectively were arranged in order along the bench. The empty dish would first be filled with developer to the required depth to fully immerse the glass plate. Once it’s time was up I would remove the plate with my left hand and pour the developer back into the jug with my right. The dish would then be moved along the bench, the stop would be added and the plate returned to the dish for the required time. Repeat until plate sat in the clean water. It takes longer to type/read than actually do in practice.

That didn’t solve the lack of HC-110 though. But I could spare some of the new batch of ID11. But of course I hadn’t any plates awaiting development. I did have two loaded though into the holders Andy had loaned me.

You’re ahead of me of course. Ten minutes later I was lugging a tripod, 5×4 Intrepid camera, a handful of loaded film and plate holders together with cable release, dark cloth, lens etcetera into the back yard. Earlier in the day I’d hung a mirror on the garden wall above some flowers. That, together with the reflection of a strategically opened shed door might make a suitable subject.

I decided that along with exposing two dry glass plates I would also expose a couple of sheets of 5×4 film using the same set-up. This would be my way of determining if any failures were down to the way I had set up the camera or whatever. The only variable would be the shutter speed – everything else would be locked in and locked down.

I decided to use the lens at its smallest aperture of f45 and after metering and evaluating the scene I chose 1/8th second for the first sheet of Fomapan 400 (this film stock was chosen simply because it was the only loaded film holder). A second exposure at 1/4 of a second was also captured for insurance purposes although it turned out that my initial choice was the correct one.

With the two sheets of film exposed it was time to load the first of the dry plate holders into the camera. Extra care with putting the holder into the back of the camera revealed what had gone awry with my first plate – on the plate holder I was using there is a small ridge across the full width of the holder and this formed a natural stop as the holder was pushed in. Inspection revealed however that it needed to go a touch further for the holder to be properly seated. I’d (hopefully) corrected the first issue that I had encountered on my maiden outing.

Time to calculate the required exposure time. I was staying at f45 as I’ve already noted and these plates have a nominal 2ASA rating. It was middle of the day and consulting the graph of UV sensitivity I calculated that the sensitivity would be between ASA 2 or 3. The meter suggested 5 seconds and as reciprocity doesn’t kick in until 45 seconds that should logically have been my chosen shutter speed. Except. I had a hunch that the scene might need a touch more so I went for 10 seconds. No logic, just put it down to experience perhaps? The second holder was soon in place and I was deciding whether to try the original exposure calculations of 5 seconds or to increase the exposure by a stop and go for 20 seconds.

What would you do?

I went for 30 seconds. Yes, no rhyme, no reason, just instinct. Spoiler alert: both gave good negatives but 30 seconds gave a lot more detail in the reflection of the green shed in the mirror.

The developing went exactly according to plan and it was with a feeling of immense relief that I later took two glass plates out of the wash and placed them onto a drying rack. I’ve compared the film and glass plate images in Dry Comparisons so won’t repeat that here.

So, I successfully applied all the lessons from my first attempt and ended up with two very nice negatives. What is interesting is that despite the differences in the exposure times the garden plants are very similarly toned in both plates, the main difference is to be found in the reflection of the green-painted wooden shed which has really benefited from the extra exposure. It’s clear that experience is going to be a key ingredient in determining the correct exposure with these plates. Good metering technique will get me well on the path to the correct exposure, years of using film will help further but I suspect that experience with the dry plates will also be an important factor.