Negative Density Range = 1.28Unsharp Mask Density Range = 0.26SCIM using litho film (inter positive first)Dodge/Buge mask was Mylar sheet with pencil shadingMain exposure (negative + unsharp mask + D/B mask) at 170 magentaEdge burning at 170 YellowUsed card with a hole to burn certain areas at 170YSCIM exposure at 170MUsing a "special" mask, flash certain areas
Jack, if you're not looking for comments, feel free to disregard this. I'm looking at these images and wanted to ask if this is truly the "look" you wanted in the prints, or if you're practicing masking techniques. I'm asking this because the extensive masking you're using (particularly the fairly heavy unsharp and SCIMs) is very heavy-handed, which makes the pictures look very obviously masked (or over-masked). Heavy SCIMs can give the shadows so much contrast the look approaches what we typically associate with digital HDR. Similarly, when using strong unsharp masks the entire image typically takes on a pronounced "wired" look. In addition, when using multiple masks care is required so that they don't work against eachother. for example I'm noticing despite all the masking there are lots of blank white highlights in which one would normally expect to see some detail. If this is the artistic intent I have no issues and just forget about everything I wrote. However if the goal is to use the various masks for control of values, the technique needs to be far more subtle and transparent so that the prints don't scream MASKED. Since these are natural landscapes, while the prints don't have to be realistic per-se, if the intent is to render them somewhat naturally, usually the tonal relationships should remain logical (to quote Adams). As they currently look, the overall impression I get is the prints are overly amped in relation to the relatively quiet subject matter and compositions. Take this for what it's worth. Just one guy's opinion - without knowing the intent of the artist.
I do welcome critique and appreciate you taking the time to provide your opinion and insight. The real print is a 20x24 and does not look as 'artificial' as the scan I uploaded to this site. I do appreciate your comments and will keep an eye on making sure that the masking is subtle (vs. obvious). Thank you very much for your comment.
I'm probably wrong here, I have been doing this for 40 years but isn't masking only used when you can not get a straight print to work. I just feel you are working to hard to get a print. using filters and the right film very little manipulation should have to be done to the print. Developing the film in Pyrocat or any other Pyro developer by inspection should give you a outstanding negative that can be enlarged or Contact printed with the right exposure and development time. Just my thoughts which are not worth much. Mike
Michael: with 40 years of printing experience, your thoughts are surely worth plenty. I have enormous respect for people who have had the fortitude to stick with something they like for a long period of time. I do print my negatives 'straight' first. In fact, when I expose and develop, I always aim for that "perfect" negative with a density range of between 1.0 and 1.2 ~ ample shadow detail and 'controlled' highlights.I used standard dodging and buying in with reasonable success. Then one day I did an unsharp mask and became addicted! Don't know why, but (in my eyes) the look of the print achieved with a sandwich (neg+unsharp mask) appeals to me much more that the straight neg.I also discovered the use of Mylar dodge/burn masks. I use these mostly for dodging and love the ability they give you to dodge the smallest, most-intricate little areas to perfection.I print without a SCIM first and then with an SCIM. In some cases, I like the look without the SCIM but in some cases, the "punch" I can add with the SCIM makes the print richer.