Contrast control: bleaching prints before development

I should have made it clear that the flood light is on the same switch with the enlarger lamp so that the light I measure at the baseboard is flood + enlarger. I set highlight with enlarger f-stop and shadow with flood light. The flood lamp should have the same color temperature as the enlarger lamp. The filter one would use to adapt indoor color film to daylight use, used with a flashlight bulb and controlled by an iris or other such control, but not by a rheostat, will work well. Put that stuff in a small box and attach it by Velcro to the enlarger head.

Where's the Front Door?

MurrayMinchin said:

Pssst...look at post #13 on the previous page
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

P.S. The article has a link for SLIMT as well.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a help. Had lost hope of any further
depth on the subject. Good he has archived his
work. I've not found his Front Door. Wonder
what Mr. Katchel is up to. Dan

Patrick,

It seems that your method is in essence the same as flashing the print (you are simply adding the overall exposure simultaneously with the negative exposure instead of before or after).

This does reduce the overall contrast of the print, and, especially the way you describe it, is a good tool.

However, flashing reduces contrast and tonal separation in the highlight portion of the print, whereas the SLIMT bath does just the opposite, reducing shadow separation. I have been known to try both with difficult prints... the look is definitely different. Although I use the techniques only rarely, they are both in my "bag of tricks."

Just an observation.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

www.DoremusScudder.com

Kachel refined the Sterry Method which is used on prints. As far as I know, Kachel was the one who in an intuitive grand leap of logic discovered how a similar process could be used with negatives, and called it Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique (SLIMT). The Sterry Method proportionally reduces darker areas of a print, while SLIMT proportionally reduces denser areas in a negative (high print values).

Am I being too anal, or are both techniques becoming commonly known by a single name?

Murray

Doremus Scudder said:

Patrick,

It seems that your method is in essence the same as flashing the print (you are simply adding the overall exposure simultaneously with the negative exposure instead of before or after).

This does reduce the overall contrast of the print, and, especially the way you describe it, is a good tool.

However, flashing reduces contrast and tonal separation in the highlight portion of the print, whereas the SLIMT bath does just the opposite, reducing shadow separation. I have been known to try both with difficult prints... the look is definitely different. Although I use the techniques only rarely, they are both in my "bag of tricks."

Just an observation.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

www.DoremusScudder.com

Click to expand...

It CAN add density to the highlights. That is why I do not do the flashing separately. I measure first with the exposure light alone and set the exposure for the highlight. Then I measure with both flashing light and exposure light at the same time, setting the combination of flashing and image light for the shadow by changing the flashing intensity. Then I check to see if the highlight exposure has changed measurably. If so, then some reduction of exposure light must be made. This will necessitate another adjustment in the shadow by the flashing light. Naturally, there is a limit to the amount of change of contrast one can make without completely destroying the picture. I would only use flashing for adjustments of less than one paper grade. However, that also applies to the pre-development bleaching method. How is removing overall density to correct the highlights any better than adding overall density to correct the shadows? At least with the calibrated meter I can visualize the results before I develop the print.