Best film for above-negative masking (primarily unsharp)

[ChrisBCS]

I'd like to at least play around with some unsharp masking of 6x6 negatives, since screen printing registration tabs and pins are inexpensive enough. Any recommendations for a good film that is readily available and will work well for such masks would be greatly appreciated.

Any advice on proper unsharp mask exposure would also be appreciated.

 

[M Carter]

I haven't gotten deep into it but had success with Arista/Freetsyle ortho litho film in very dilute HC-110 - you can get 2 MF negs from a 4x5 sheet, develop under safelight, etc. The film base + fog of the stuff is really transparent, it's dirt cheap, and I had no newton ring troubles with it.

I don't have a densitometer, the easiest advice I read was play with densities around that of a .3 ND. Also, I got much better development by pre-washing the film before developing, it bleeds off so much gunk you'd think a terrified octopus was in the tray. Which kinda kills the fun of "develop by inspection".

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I used to use TMX 4x5 and 8x10 films for unsharp masking. Then FP4. Then I got my hands on high contrast copy sheet film, which was heaps cheaper than the panchro films and made great masks. A few times I have used X-ray film which works quite well. In my opinion, TMX was the best film as it has a long, straight line, and short toe, with no shoulder. Colour printers liked it too, because it had no colour cast. I don't care about colour cast as I print B/W.
Howard Bond had a few excellent articles on the subject in the long gone Darkroom and Camera Techniques magazine, back in the 90's. He describes a way to make consistent and repeatable masks. It is the technque that I learnt. It requires a densitometer. You don't need a densitometer, but it helps. You also don't need a pin registration system, either. A good eye (or magnifying glasses), light table and cellophane tape is all you need.
Just make a test strip with a negative on top of the masking film. Place the negative emulsion side facing up, on top of the masking film. Because of the space between both emulsion, the positive won't be sharp. That's what you want. Develop the test strip with a conventional developer, perhaps diluted a bit more than normal. Try a development time around 5 minutes. Hopefully one strip will have the correct exposure. If not, make adjustments and repeat. You want an exposure that gives you a DR of about .30. It will look under exposed.
See if you can locate Bond's articles on unsharp masking.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ilford Ortho+ - but be careful with safelights if DBI. Can process in ID-11 etc & PQ Universal to get wide range of contrasts.

 

[MarkL]

You can get litho film at Freestyle Photo and develop in very dilute (1+50 to 1+100) Dektol or most any developer. It works well and you can use it under red safelight.

You can play with aligning the mask by eye and it could work out if you settle on one mask and leave it attached to the neg. But I recommend a pin registration system if you get very seriously into it. Aligning by eye is tedious so it's nice to avoid it and make perfect alignment automatic. You never have to align by eye and you can take the mask on and off at will and store it separately.

This is super helpful if you use more than one type of mask to make a print (there are several very useful ones). Lynn Radeka makes a great system and it comes with detailed instructions and examples.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A pin registration system is only necessary if you plan on using SCIM's, and the like, where these dodge/burn masks are added/removed during exposure. Not necessary for the unsharp mask. I've been using unsharp masks for over 20 years and never needed such a system... even for 35mm negs. My dollar store +4 reading glasses aid in the alignment.
On another note, I remember when VC magazine did an unsharp mask test. Spacer VS no spacer between negative and masking film. They found that the negative film base allowed enough spacing to produce an effective unsharp mask. Don't bother putting a blank piece of film between the two, as some people do. Just something to consider... cheers and happy unsharp masking!

 

[MarkL]

Hey Andrew. Sounds like you're knowledgeable about the varieties of masks that are out there. You're right...the OP only wants to "play around" with unsharp masks, and for that, aligning by eye will get him started and could even suffice as it has for you. For me, masking is so integral and useful to my darkroom work that I can't resist recommending using it! True, there's an investment to make to get the glass negative carrier pin registration system, but it allows you to entertain making all kinds of customized masks. But I'm getting off track from the OP's question. What I can say in his case, if he ends up liking unsharp masks for many images, is that it can take several attempts to get the mask right for each image. So to be able to expose the masking film and later to expose the print with everything in effortless perfect alignment for each attempt may well be worth the investment. Then you are set up to try out any number of other masks by simply snapping them in place, and storing them separately afterwards. And you have the benefit of the glass carrier. Can you tell I like masking?!!!

 

[ChrisBCS]

Thanks everyone. Actually, I know unsharp masking will quickly move to SCIM and Highlight masks, since I have done the tests to demonstrate that the negative carrier will return perfectly to its location in the stage. Lynn Radeka's work is some of the most inspirational printing I have ever seen. It is actually what has gotten me really determined to try any (all?) type of masking. But I cannot afford his system at the moment AND I only have an MF enlarger. I figure a hole punch and registers for printing with some tape will get me off the ground. I have no clue where to even begin with proper exposure, developer (I have loads of XTOL)... but that's part of the fun!

The hole in my carrier is 7 cm long and I only need to accommodate 6x6. I figured I could use the extra space to the side for register pins without having to drill a hole in the top plate of the neg carrier. I had planned on clearing some 120 film in fixer, taping a single negative to a strip of the 12 film. The real trick right now, once the film is taped to the cleared 120 strip, would be how to get a punch to put two holes in the right spots so they would go a perfect distance to each side of the 6x6 film (5.5 cm + diameter of register pin). I'm sure it just requires some creative thinking.

 

[Arklatexian]

Thanks everyone. Actually, I know unsharp masking will quickly move to SCIM and Highlight masks, since I have done the tests to demonstrate that the negative carrier will return perfectly to its location in the stage. Lynn Radeka's work is some of the most inspirational printing I have ever seen. It is actually what has gotten me really determined to try any (all?) type of masking. But I cannot afford his system at the moment AND I only have an MF enlarger. I figure a hole punch and registers for printing with some tape will get me off the ground. I have no clue where to even begin with proper exposure, developer (I have loads of XTOL)... but that's part of the fun!

The hole in my carrier is 7 cm long and I only need to accommodate 6x6. I figured I could use the extra space to the side for register pins without having to drill a hole in the top plate of the neg carrier. I had planned on clearing some 120 film in fixer, taping a single negative to a strip of the 12 film. The real trick right now, once the film is taped to the cleared 120 strip, would be how to get a punch to put two holes in the right spots so they would go a perfect distance to each side of the 6x6 film (5.5 cm + diameter of register pin). I'm sure it just requires some creative thinking.

Do all of you who answered this post realize how much good usable information you have come up with. I didn't start this post but I have learned a lot here and can only say "thank you".........Regards!

 

[MarkL]

I have no clue where to even begin with proper exposure, developer (I have loads of XTOL)... but that's part of the fun!

Chris, I make contrast reduction masks (CRM's) which are very similar to unsharp masks. I haven't used unsharp masks and don't remember the exact difference but I think they're a little bit denser. Anyway, here's what i do for a CRM, using my old Zone VI cold light source.

-Standardize the head's height above the baseboard (say, forcused for an 8x10 print)
-Use the same focal length lens and aperture (f5.6 for me)
-Cut the Arista lith film into test strips (under red light!). It's hard to tell the emulsion side, but it's brown instead of black. For CRM's it's emulsion up, with the negative emulsion UP and some diffusion above that (mylar should work. I use discontinued Kodak duratrans). Place some glass over this 3-layer sandwich and hold it down tight.
-make a test strip at 5, 10, 15, 20 seconds

Develop in very dilute developer to keep contrast low (I use Dektol 1 oz + water 50 oz, or Ilford Multigrade 1/2 oz + 2 quarts water) in an 8x10 tray. Develop for 1 1/2 minutes with gentle agitation (I just slide/flip the film over every few seconds).
Fix the test briefly and rinse
Place the mask on a white surface to evaluate. For a CRM it's a very light positive image with no density in the highlights.
Experiment with exposures and development times to make variations of the mask if you need to. Without the masking system you'll need to align carefully by eye and tape the mask on top of the neg (use the ruby red lithographer's tape that Freestyle photo has....it leaves no residue).

The mask, being a positive image, will have density where the negative's clearer shadows are, so it will reduce exposure there while creating edge effects that give the illusion of greater sharpness.

I don't recall the exact exposure/development tweaks you would make for an unsharp mask but the process is nearly identical.

Lynn Radeka is the master of masking and is a super nice guy. I would guess he'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Hope this helps!
Mark

 

[adelorenzo]

I bought a 2-hole office punch from Staples and then had Ternes Burton make me a couple of registration pin bars to match it. Total cost less than $100.

Very similar to the Radeka system in that you attach a leader of scrap film to your negative and then print your mask on oversize film.

 

[Bill Burk]

You can get loose individual register pins.

Then it does not matter how precise the dimensions are between pins, so long as you punch the film and mask at the same time.

You can also just punch some scrap film and tape the punched film to your negative/mask as you make additional masks or any time you might do the alignment after you create the mask.

 

[ChrisBCS]

And the main reason to use litho film is the alignments can be done under safelight condition?

I had planned on buying loose 1/4" register pins from Ternes Burton since they match the typical two hole office punch.

If anyone wants to post pics of their carrier/method, that would be amazing.

 

[MarkL]

I'm all about making things and doing it yourself, and it's true that Lynn Radeka's system is an investment, at about $450 (http://radekaphotography.com/carriers.htm). I took a masking workshop from Lynn and learned it takes many hours (several days I believe) to make a single carrier system to order! So while you can make a system yourself (and may have to if your budget dictates), I'm in favor of supporting handmade analog equipment makers while they still exist! Plus it works so darn well. It has a magnetized negative carrier docking mechanism which makes it extremely easy to remove the carrier and substitute different masks, then sliding the carrier back into the receiver for perfect alignment again for the next print step. I'm obviously biased because I know Lynn, but let me tell you...masking is an irreplaceable method of control. Take a look at his website where you can see before and after effects of masking....

Boy, I sure did hijack this topic!

 

[ChrisBCS]

No no, this is great info! I would love to support Lynn, but right now I don't even own a 4x5/LF enlarger. Yet I thing we'll be picking up an intrepid soon, so I will need one. The financial situation will allow it in the next year or so. Until then, my MF enlarger will just have to be made to work!

 

[AgX]

A pin registration system is only necessary if you plan on using SCIM's, and the like, where these dodge/burn masks are added/removed during exposure.

What are SCIMs ?

 

[Lachlan Young]

What are SCIMs ?

Shadow Contrast Increase Mask.

If overused & with imperfect register they can do a good job of making images look like bad (all?) HDR

 

[ChrisBCS]

Shadow Contrast Increase Mask.

If overused & with imperfect register they can do a good job of making images look like bad (all?) HDR

I can definitely see the potential for that. Yuck.

 

[ChuckP]

You might also be able to use 1/4" threaded electronic equipment standoffs for pins. That's what I used in making a carrier for my Elwood. But not sure how common they are nowadays. Back when I made mine they actually had Radio Shack and other Electronic supply stores locally.

 

[GAS496]

I took Lynn Radeka's Masking workshop many years ago after reading about him in Large Format Magazine. It was by far the best printing lesson I have ever gotten. Printing with masks helps poor negatives and makes good ones even better.

I was so happy I even bought his 8x10 system for my Durst 8x10 enlarger. I now keep the carrier in the enlarger all the time and use it even when I am printing without a mask. It is that good and was worth every penny. I tried various methods of masking without it but it was time consuming, labor intensive and cumbersome. My advise is to mask however you can but put some money aside until you can afford the Radeka system. You will not regret it.

In full disclosure I have taken several of his field shooting workshops in Death Valley, Canyon Lands, and southern Utah and love his style of photography too.

 

[ChrisBCS]

Thanks folks, I bought registration pins and some Arista ortho 3.0. It doesn't appear on the massive dev chart, so should I be using dilute developer and developing by inspection under safelight conditions?

 

[MarkL]

There should be very little density for a contrast reduction or unsharp mask, and you really can't see it through the emulsion under safelight. You could do test strips and develop for a normal time of, say, 1 minute, 30 seconds. When you feel like the exposure is right, you can vary the development time + or -. And yes, use very dilute developer to keep the contrast down.

 

[silveror0]

...See if you can locate Bond's articles on unsharp masking.

FWIW, in my search for Bond's articles I've yet to find them but I've just come across an article in Photo Techniques magazine (Sept/Oct 2004) by Paul F. Wainwright that nails down the reference to the series of Bond's masking articles:

Photo Techniques magazine, March/April 2001 + Special Issue #11, "Mastering the B&W Fine Print."

Perhaps this may help someone locate them.

 

[Neal]

Dear Chrisbcs,

I use TMX.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd like to at least play around with some unsharp masking of 6x6 negatives, since screen printing registration tabs and pins are inexpensive enough. Any recommendations for a good film that is readily available and will work well for such masks would be greatly appreciated.

Any advice on proper unsharp mask exposure would also be appreciated.

my 2 cents