Basic help with super dense contrasty negative please.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

I have a negative that is super dense and contrasty that I've attempted printing but haven't had much success.
The sky can be brought in on one exposure length, and the buildings in shadow can look right when exposed separately without regard to the sky.
What I can't seem to get is the buildings looking right but also get sky detail; either the sky looks good but the buildings look darker or more lifeless than I want, or the buildings look good and the sky looks perfectly white.
The first print is the straight (get the buildings right) print and the second print is the print where I burned in the sky but the buildings don't come out bright enough. I can't get both for whatever reason.

Is this impossible or is it just my lack of skill that's stopping me?

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

Would pre-flashing the paper be a good move?

spijker · Oct 25, 2016

Did you mask the buildings in any way while burning in the sky? It looks like you just extended the exposure for the whole picture, not just the sky. Cut a cardboard mask that matches the contour of the buildings and make sure only the sky gets the additional exposure. Use a lower grade for the burn in. In my experience, it's better to lower the mask a bit so that the top of the buildings get a bit darker from the burn in than getting a bright halo just above the building. It takes some practice to get it right. Good luck.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

spijker said:
Did you mask the buildings in any way while burning in the sky? It looks like you just extended the exposure for the whole picture, not just the sky. Cut a cardboard mask that matches the contour of the buildings and make sure only the sky gets the additional exposure. Use a lower grade for the burn in. In my experience, it's better to lower the mask a bit so that the top of the buildings get a bit darker from the burn in than getting a bright halo just above the building. It takes some practice to get it right. Good luck.

I didn't mask the sky I just used a cardboard piece to mask but I could try making a mask. So can I ask: is this a real big deal or am I just a bit inexperienced? Would you call this a difficult negative or not that big a deal?

tedr1 · Oct 25, 2016

This is a good example of the need for manipulation of exposure when making prints that include the sky. I agree with the suggestion of a mask that covers the lower part of the frame where the buildings are, the mask can be something as simple as your hand in the light beam a few inches above the paper, it is sometimes a good idea to vibrate the mask slightly to soften the edges (but don't move the paper). This is called burning-in the sky.

It isn't a question of experience, the sky is too bright, to print the clouds needs much more exposure time. The fundamental problem is that when we see a scene our eyesight makes automatic adjustments to the brightness of the parts of the scene, we are able to see the clouds AND the buildings. However this is a trick of eyesight, and film does not perform this clever trick, it shows what is actually present, a dazzling bright sky and shaded buildings.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

tedr1 said:
This is a good example of the need for manipulation of exposure when making prints that include the sky. I agree with the suggestion of a mask that covers the lower part of the frame where the buildings are, the mask can be something as simple as your hand in the light beam a few inches above the paper, it is sometimes a good idea to vibrate the mask slightly to soften the edges (but don't move the paper). This is called burning-in the sky.

Ok...so the consensus is; this is normal and I need to make a better effort at burning in the sky. No problem, that's part of what I needed to know.

One last question; when burning in for a long time, does it affect the masked areas at all? Do they change? I might have made a mistake but it seemed like mine did.

tedr1 · Oct 25, 2016

Yes if any light "leaks" past the mask the masked area would be affected, it also would get darker. Be prepared to experiment with this, it is a hand skill that is very useful to have, make prints of the same image with different burning in times and mask methods. This is a skill that is learned easily with practice.

tedr1 · Oct 25, 2016

PS it is also a skill that all the master printers use, because paper cannot show the brightness range of some scenes, many famous images include dodging and burning.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

tedr1 said:
PS it is also a skill that all the master printers use, because paper cannot show the brightness range of some scenes, many famous images include dodging and burning.

So, would you say that this is a true statement; if the negative has the information then it can be brought out with enough effort. ?

removed account4 · Oct 25, 2016

rpavich said:
I have a negative that is super dense and contrasty that I've attempted printing but haven't had much success.
The sky can be brought in on one exposure length, and the buildings in shadow can look right when exposed separately without regard to the sky.
What I can't seem to get is the buildings looking right but also get sky detail; either the sky looks good but the buildings look darker or more lifeless than I want, or the buildings look good and the sky looks perfectly white.
The first print is the straight (get the buildings right) print and the second print is the print where I burned in the sky but the buildings don't come out bright enough. I can't get both for whatever reason.

Is this impossible or is it just my lack of skill that's stopping me?

View attachment 165994 View attachment 165995 View attachment 165996

one thing i would suggest is to make a base exposure with maybe a 2 filter and burn in the rest of the print with a different contrast filter
don't bother with cut outs at least with me, a mask tends to leave an obvious "tell". make a few exposures one for the sky and one filter
and the other for the building/ and maybe one for rest of the composition with the other filter use your hands to burn and dodge, it might prove to be easier than
lollipops made of paper and coat hanger. it might take a few tries but i am sure you will make a nice print by the end of it, and learn
how to split grade print at the same time

good luck !
john

ps. be prepared for long exposures and write down how you burned and dodged things because
you might forget betweenprints. you could always make some farmer's reducer and make the negative thinner as a last resort.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

jnanian said:
one thing i would suggest is to make a base exposure with maybe a 2 filter and burn in the rest of the print with a different contrast filter
don't bother with cut outs at least with me, a mask tends to leave an obvious "tell". make a few exposures one for the sky and one filter
and the other for the building/ and maybe one for rest of the composition with the other filter use your hands to burn and dodge, it might prove to be easier than
lollipops made of paper and coat hanger. it might take a few tries but i am sure you will make a nice print by the end of it, and learn
how to split grade print at the same time

good luck !
john

ps. be prepared for long exposures and write down how you burned and dodged things because
you might forget betweenprints. you could always make some farmer's reducer and make the negative thinner as a last resort.

Thanks. I won't let this negative defeat me!

faberryman · Oct 25, 2016

Are you using fresh paper? The border on the print doesn't look white.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

faberryman said:
Are you using fresh paper? The border on the print doesn't look white.

That's just my wonky iphone camera pic.

David Allen · Oct 25, 2016

Hi there,

It is just a question of experience - the negative is perfectly printable but you need to have developed a range of skills to achieve this. However, do not despair, with time you can master such negatives and, in doing so, will have built up your knowledge and skills base ready for other difficult negatives in the future.

So how to proceed?

Firstly, a common mistake that people make is to just try and burn in the sky (with or without a mask) and this leads - in varying degrees - to the buildings in the sky getting too dark and the tonal balance of the print looks wrong.

It is far better to use a combination of dodging and burning. So if the correct exposure for the building is say 10 seconds and the correct exposure for the sky is 20 seconds you should do the following:

Give the whole print an exposure of 15 seconds BUT make sure the you dodge the buildings for 5 seconds. You could try and do them all at once but it is more effective to divide the area containing the buildings in to three areas and then dodge these areas in turn (keeping the dodger constantly moving):

So set the timer for 15 seconds and then dodge area 1 for 5 seconds, then move straight to area 2 for 5 seconds, then move straight to area 3 for 5 seconds.

Now set your timer for 5 seconds and concentrate on burning in just the sky (making sure you keep the piece of card or mask moving consistently).

This will work in many cases but if the sky is just that bit too dense it may not get you to the final print that you want to achieve. In this case you can use the selective pre-flash technique.

In normal use, pre-flashing the whole print is done to achieve a subtle reduction in contrast by ‘helping’ the highlights get ‘a flying start’. ???? - Just to explain (and you do not need to understand this as, by doing some pre-flashing tests, you will see the effect in practical terms - so you can SKIP this paragraph and go on to the next if you wish) a paper has an inertia factor when exposed to light (think of how difficult it is too start pushing a car but how, once it is rolling along the flat, only one person is needed to keep it rolling). This inertia effect means that the silver in the paper only starts to react after it has received a certain amount of light. Obviously, the shadow areas receive more light quicker that the highlights so if we can help the highlights by giving them a bit of extra light it will boost how quickly they react to light and will respond quicker thereby revealing more of the details that they contain.

In practical terms you just need to do the following:

Get a piece of thin opaque perspex (or similar such as opaque ground glass) that is at least four times bigger than the diameter of the front element of your enlarging lens (bigger is better as it is easier to work with).
Place a test strip on the easel, lay a pencil or pen along the centre.
Without removing your negative, hold the perspex directly under the lens and do a series of exposures onto the test strip.
Process as usual and make sure the print is dry before assessing it.
Find the time where you can see a very feint grey tone in comparison to the white created by the pencil blocking all the light.
The correct pre-flash time is the exposure directly before the exposure that produced the feint grey.
So, if you exposed the test strip in 3 second intervals (i.e 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 seconds) and the 12 second exposure created the feint grey your pre-flash time will be 9 seconds.

Now for the final print:

Pre-flash JUST the sky area making sure that you are constantly moving your piece of card (this will ensure that just the sky area is getting the ‘helping hand’ of a bit more exposure)
Now expose for 15 seconds dodging areas 1, 2 & 3 as previously explained.
Now burn in the sky for 5 seconds.
Process as normal.

If any of this is not clear, please do not hesitate to ask.

have fun!

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

David Allen said:
Hi there,

It is just a question of experience - the negative is perfectly printable but you need to have developed a range of skills to achieve this. However, do not despair, with time you can master such negatives and, in doing so, will have built up your knowledge and skills base ready for other difficult negatives in the future.

So how to proceed?

Firstly, a common mistake that people make is to just try and burn in the sky (with or without a mask) and this leads - in varying degrees - to the buildings in the sky getting too dark and the tonal balance of the print looks wrong.

It is far better to use a combination of dodging and burning. So if the correct exposure for the building is say 10 seconds and the correct exposure for the sky is 20 seconds you should do the following:

Give the whole print an exposure of 15 seconds BUT make sure the you dodge the buildings for 5 seconds. You could try and do them all at once but it is more effective to divide the area containing the buildings in to three areas and then dodge these areas in turn (keeping the dodger constantly moving):

So set the timer for 15 seconds and then dodge area 1 for 5 seconds, then move straight to area 2 for 5 seconds, then move straight to area 3 for 5 seconds.

Now set your timer for 5 seconds and concentrate on burning in just the sky (making sure you keep the piece of card or mask moving consistently).

This will work in many cases but if the sky is just that bit too dense it may not get you to the final print that you want to achieve. In this case you can use the selective pre-flash technique.

In normal use, pre-flashing the whole print is done to achieve a subtle reduction in contrast by ‘helping’ the highlights get ‘a flying start’. ???? - Just to explain (and you do not need to understand this as, by doing some pre-flashing tests, you will see the effect in practical terms - so you can SKIP this paragraph and go on to the next if you wish) a paper has an inertia factor when exposed to light (think of how difficult it is too start pushing a car but how, once it is rolling along the flat, only one person is needed to keep it rolling). This inertia effect means that the silver in the paper only starts to react after it has received a certain amount of light. Obviously, the shadow areas receive more light quicker that the highlights so if we can help the highlights by giving them a bit of extra light it will boost how quickly they react to light and will respond quicker thereby revealing more of the details that they contain.

In practical terms you just need to do the following:

Get a piece of thin opaque perspex (or similar such as opaque ground glass) that is at least four times bigger than the diameter of the front element of your enlarging lens (bigger is better as it is easier to work with).

Place a test strip on the easel, lay a pencil or pen along the centre.

Without removing your negative, hold the perspex directly under the lens and do a series of exposures onto the test strip.

Process as usual and make sure the print is dry before assessing it.

Find the time where you can see a very feint grey tone in comparison to the white created by the pencil blocking all the light.

The correct pre-flash time is the exposure directly before the exposure that produced the feint grey.

So, if you exposed the test strip in 3 second intervals (i.e 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 seconds) and the 12 second exposure created the feint grey your pre-flash time will be 9 seconds.

Now for the final print:

Pre-flash JUST the sky area making sure that you are constantly moving your piece of card (this will ensure that just the sky area is getting the ‘helping hand’ of a bit more exposure)

Now expose for 15 seconds dodging areas 1, 2 & 3 as previously explained.

Now burn in the sky for 5 seconds.

Process as normal.

If any of this is not clear, please do not hesitate to ask.

have fun!

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Wow! thanks David, how interesting.
I've got a lot to pursue. I understand what you said, and I'll start on this tonight and not get discouraged as I can see it's just a matter of experience and perseverance.

Michael Wesik · Oct 25, 2016

If you're using multigrade paper I would split filter print it. Your base filtration could be anything between Grade 00 and Grade 2 and then you would layer Grade 5 on top, dodging and burning where necessary. You'd use the lower filtration like 00 to bring in the detail of the sky while dodging the buildings and add contrast however you see fit. Personally, I would start here rather than going through the process of flashing. I'd only use that as a last resort...even then, I would probably opt to rephotograph the subject if I could and use a different exposure, different developing technique or flashing the negative to Zone II.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

Michael Wesik said:
If you're using multigrade paper I would split filter print it. Your base filtration could be anything between Grade 00 and Grade 2 and then you would layer Grade 5 on top, dodging and burning where necessary. You'd use the lower filtration like 00 to bring in the detail of the sky while dodging the buildings and add contrast however you see fit. Personally, I would start here rather than going through the process of flashing. I'd only use that as a last resort...even then, I would probably opt to rephotograph the subject if I could and use a different exposure, different developing technique or flashing the negative to Zone II.

Thanks also.

FYI to everyone, this was a photograph taken by a friend of mine while he was in Switzerland, he had a hard time with the neg, so I said I'd take a shot just for the experience. It is what it is.

jeffreyg · Oct 25, 2016

Not that it will help with this negative but a graduated neutral density filter would be a good addition to your equipment. You can also make some sky with clouds negatives and print ala Jerry Ueslmann but that takes some work. Also a bald sky works when you don't want clouds to detract from the impact of the subject.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

MattKing · Oct 25, 2016

One really neat trick that helps when you are trying to burn in a sky but leave the foreground untouched is to make a customized burning-in/dodging mask. You do this by making a smaller print of the same scene and then cut that print along the line between the foreground and the sky. That cut out foreground becomes your mask, which you position by moving it up and down until its shadow is close to being exactly matched to the scene at the easel.

If your final print is on 8"x10" paper, a 4"x5" or a 5"x7" print will probably do for the mask.

Be sure to keep the mask moving slightly throughout - an up and down movement is good.

tedr1 · Oct 25, 2016

rpavich said:
So, would you say that this is a true statement; if the negative has the information then it can be brought out with enough effort. ?

Yes. Some negs are easy to print (no extremes of contrast) others can be more tricky (contrast extremes present). Film can hold more contrast than can be printed.

rpavich · Oct 25, 2016

tedr1 said:
Yes. Some negs are easy to print (no extremes of contrast) others can be more tricky (contrast extremes present). Film can hold more contrast than can be printed.

I'm going to have to keep that in mind.

removed account4 · Oct 25, 2016

tedr1 said:
Yes. Some negs are easy to print (no extremes of contrast) others can be more tricky (contrast extremes present). Film can hold more contrast than can be printed.

this is why i suggested a base exposure and using a higher grade filter to burn everything else in ...

ac12 · Oct 25, 2016

For those of you suggesting split contrast printing.
How reliable and stable is the situation where you have to touch the enlarger head to: open the filter drawer, change filters and close the filter drawer?
I would be afraid that if I touch the enlarger head to do that, the 2nd exposure would be "slightly" out of alignment with the first.
Or am I just being a pessimist.

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 25, 2016

I like to flash with a piece of translucent plexi under the lens and the negative in the enlarger. As a last resort, I'll make a dodge/burn mask. Keep the mask moving slightly during exposure, otherwise you will get an odd looking flow along the roof tops. And forget about dodging the church spire. Let it go dark. So much easier with large format film but definitely doable with roll films!

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 25, 2016

Andrew O'Neill said:
I like to flash with a piece of translucent plexi under the lens and the negative in the enlarger. As a last resort, I'll make a dodge/burn mask. Keep the mask moving slightly during exposure, otherwise you will get an odd looking flow along the roof tops. And forget about dodging the church spire. Let it go dark. So much easier with large format film but definitely doable with roll films!

Yes, this is a good way to go, too. I prefer split printing. The contrast head controller is separate from the enlarger, so no worries touching and knocking things out of alignment. Before I got this head, I used under the lens Ilford filters. No issues. My 8x10 takes very large Roscoe filters between the negative and the lens. They slide in and out. Never had an issue.
Split grade printing is an easier approach and could very well be the answer here.

Basic help with super dense contrasty negative please.

rpavich

rpavich

spijker

rpavich

tedr1

rpavich

tedr1

tedr1

rpavich

removed account4

rpavich

faberryman

rpavich

David Allen

rpavich

Michael Wesik

rpavich

jeffreyg

MattKing

Moderator

tedr1

rpavich

removed account4

ac12

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Basic help with super dense contrasty negative please.

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency