Bright Eyes - How?

[OptiKen]

Total beginner here so I will apologize in advance for my ignorance. Learning is fun, though.
Digitally (is that a word?), I would brighten someone's eyes in some of my photos to draw attention to them. It made them look alive, somehow.

Moving forward 10 years to my first darkroom and I just realized that I am clueless how to achieve that when printing from a negative (black and white).
How can you achieve 'bright eyes' in an analog world?


Thanks in advance.

Ken

 

[Fixcinater]

Dodging and burning, physically blocking the light while enlarging or contact printing instead of with the dodge/burn tools in Photoshop.

Takes a lot of practice in the darkroom.

 

[OptiKen]

Dodging and burning, physically blocking the light while enlarging or contact printing instead of with the dodge/burn tools in Photoshop.

Takes a lot of practice in the darkroom.

I would guess so. It's such a small area

 

[eddie]

You can bleach the area, too.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

It also helps (greatly) if your subject has blue or maybe hazel eyes.

 

[OptiKen]

You can bleach the area, too.

I was wondering about bleaching...maybe with a Q-tip or camel hair brush

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

You could try masking but registration is a PITA.

EDIT: This isn't practical for small formats though... so I guess I should have asked what format.

 

[removed account4]

i used to print portraits for a portrait photographer.
you expose the print until the whites of the eyes are white
any darker will throw off the balance of the print.
burn and dodge the rest after that. always test your paper for "dry down"
because what looks perfect wet is too dark dried down ..
every paper dries down a different darkness. potassium ferricyanide bleach
and a q tip will bleach back as eddie said ...

good luck !
john

 

[Maris]

I dodge the eyes with a very small dodger that can cast its shadow on the whites of the eyes and not so much the pupil. If the exposure time under the enlarger is 20 seconds (say) I'll reset the timer to 10 seconds and dodge one eye. Then I repeat the 10 second exposure and dodge the other eye. This way I get the eyes to match (!) and the effect remains subtle; like dodging should be.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When we were children every year our Season's Greeting cards always showed us with bright eyes. People would ask my father how he photographed us with bright eyes.

When my father would set up the flood lights and the chairs, the dog would hide and we would get yelled at and spanked. With our eyes full of tears, the eyes always printed as bright.

 

[Ghostman]

When we were children every year our Season's Greeting cards always showed us with bright eyes. People would ask my father how he photographed us with bright eyes.

When my father would set up the flood lights and the chairs, the dog would hide and we would get yelled at and spanked. With our eyes full of tears, the eyes always printed as bright.

You may work it out in therapy one day, but he did get the eyes bright!

 

[AgX]

I was wondering about bleaching...maybe with a Q-tip or camel hair brush

Have a look at the video at this site:

http://www.atelierfenetresurcour.com/prestation.html

In the last third you can watch her bleaching highlights.
(With brush and Q-tip...)

 

[gone]

There are a number of ways to do this after the fact, and the Q-tip idea is a good one, but I find it easier if it's done at the time of the shot. If you're using a 35mm camera, a fast 85 or 90 lens should enable you to get only the eyes really sharp if you focus carefully. It really helps to get the right lighting for something like this no matter what format you're using. If you look at old B&W films that have excellent cinematography, you'll see they often either used tiny spot lights to get the eyes to sparkle, or used very carefully selected natural light.

 

[darkosaric]

Have a look at the video at this site:

http://www.atelierfenetresurcour.com/prestation.html

In the last third you can watch her bleaching highlights.
(With brush and Q-tip...)

I was looking for the same video

She is using "le ferricyanure" - Potassium ferricyanide. Only thing with this bleaching is that it is hard in small prints, I find that it works great with prints at least 20x30 cm size (when bleaching small areas like eyes).

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Use studio strobes. There's no substitute for good lighting in a photograph, and a nice sparkle in the eyes.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I am not sure but at youtube drawing lessons , there are white pencils , may be you can carve it to sharp point and paint the eyes.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Whether you use strobes or available light, the magic is 99% in your lighting and exposure rather than your printing technique. Expose generously, really look at the lighting falling in the subject's eyes, practice reading the light without the camera in your hand, and you will find it much easier to get luminous eyes in a straight print.

Ilford HP5 in very low light (pushed a stop) taking care to pay attention to the lighting direction and exposure. Straight scan.

 

[cliveh]

Whether you use strobes or available light, the magic is 99% in your lighting and exposure rather than your printing technique. Expose generously, really look at the lighting falling in the subject's eyes, practice reading the light without the camera in your hand, and you will find it much easier to get luminous eyes in a straight print.

Ilford HP5 in very low light (pushed a stop) taking care to pay attention to the lighting direction and exposure. Straight scan.

I would agree with this, although the master printer in the video brightens the eyes with bleach, it lacks the integrity of producing the same effect in the original shot. Any modification at the printing stage is analogous to Photoshop.

 

[eddie]

I would agree with this, although the master printer in the video brightens the eyes with bleach, it lacks the integrity of producing the same effect in the original shot. Any modification at the printing stage is analogous to Photoshop.

I have to disagree with this. Working with film/paper/chemistry is always a compromise. A good photographer will have the tools to realize his/her original vision, be it bleaching or Photoshop. It in no way has any effect on the "integrity" of the original shot.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I have no problem with enhancing what is already there. But when I mentor and critique photographers, whether they work in the darkroom or in PS, I often get question on how to fix something after the fact, when you really have to go back to the capture. I can certainly dodge undereye shadows or bleach back highlights, but that is only masking the original lighting issue. Much better to learn how to shoot effectively for the best possible results, and then subtly enhance rather than attempting to "fix."

At the end of the day, there is no fix, digital or traditional, for poorly handled light, particularly in a portrait.

 

[cliveh]

I have to disagree with this. Working with film/paper/chemistry is always a compromise. A good photographer will have the tools to realize his/her original vision, be it bleaching or Photoshop. It in no way has any effect on the "integrity" of the original shot.

“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

Francis Bacon

 

[erikg]

So says a painter. Anyway I agree that using techniques during shooting with lighting, and with posing will go a long way to getting what you are after without relying so much on process afterwards. Placing a light specifically to create a catchlight in the eyes is a standard technique as is directing the sitter to look in a direction so that sparkle is best placed.

And the story about the christmas card.. that's the saddest thing I heard all day! You never know what you will learn on apug.

 

[eddie]

“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

Francis Bacon

A nice quote, but it has nothing to do with photography. A photo is not about "things as they are". A photo is a representation, limited by the recording media (film/paper, etc.). According to the quote, and your prior post, NO black and white photo can be seen as having integrity.

 

[cliveh]

A nice quote, but it has nothing to do with photography. A photo is not about "things as they are". A photo is a representation, limited by the recording media (film/paper, etc.). According to the quote, and your prior post, NO black and white photo can be seen as having integrity.

Please explain.

 

[eddie]

Clive- Michael's post articulates my point quite well. The only integrity required of the photographer is to convey his/her vision successfully to the viewer. In fact, I'd submit that "darkroom magic" can make a print with more "integrity" if it's use is to better realize the photographers original intent.