CRM's, SCIM's, HLM's, etc...

[Donald Miller]

I typically will develop an unsharp mask (using lith film) for 1 1/2 to 2 min. Sharp masks are more likely to be 2 to 3 1/2 min. At the dilutions that I noted.

I would imagine that your print developer will work...just a matter of finding out the characteristics of the materials and working with them.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...just a matter of finding out the characteristics of the materials and working with them.

True enough...as always the answer is to test and try it out...will compare differences to the Zone VI.

Murray

 

[Claire Senft]

Is anyone using or has anyone tried vesicular film for masking in B&W? It is certainly extremely economical.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...vesicular film...

Never heard of it.

By the way, I tried the Zone VI print developer at 1:40 from stock solution for Contrast Reduction Masks (CRM) and will never use HC-110 at 1:40 from stock solution again! The print developer is easier to control, and gives a much more even tone.

Murray

 

[Claire Senft]

Vesicular film is a non silver film that is not panchromatic. It develops instantly when exposed to heat. it is extremely inexpensive. It comes in 35mm long rolls and 4x6 sheets. For a period time, at least 15 years ago, there where a number of lettets and articles written in what is not Photo Techniques magazine about using this film for masking Cibachrome. Since it is a non panchromatic film it should be more useful in B7W than in color.

 

[Donald Miller]

I have not heard of this film either. I wonder if there is the same ability to vary development with it as there is with lith film?

 

[lee]

Hi Claire,

Kodak makes or made a film like this for the graphic arts industry. They built a processor for it that used heat. The stuff I used was wide like 18 inches wide. A company in northern Mass (Tewksbury) called ECRM makes an imagesetter for this film. I am of the opinion that this film is not a dimensionally stable as other silver based films.

lee\c

 

[Claire Senft]

I do not believe that the film has a useful range of development controls. The users of the film in question were doing one of the following dipping it into hot vegatable oil. holding it with a tweezers above the heating element on an electric range, or holding with a tweezers in front of a heat gun. Even if the film lacks in development control it could still serve very nicely to reduce contrast in a negative that was carefully made to be precisely too contrasty for the targeted paper. It could be similarly used to create an unsharp mask. There were a variety of these films available with one particular kind being deemed most suitable for Cibachrome masking.

 

[Donald Miller]

I do not believe that the film has a useful range of development controls. The users of the film in question were doing one of the following dipping it into hot vegatable oil. holding it with a tweezers above the heating element on an electric range, or holding with a tweezers in front of a heat gun. Even if the film lacks in development control it could still serve very nicely to reduce contrast in a negative that was carefully made to be precisely too contrasty for the targeted paper. It could be similarly used to create an unsharp mask. There were a variety of these films available with one particular kind being deemed most suitable for Cibachrome masking.

Based in my experience with unsharp masking I would think that if this film lacks latitude in development that it would be very difficult to use for unsharp masking. If this lack of development latitude is in fact true then the only variation would be exposure and it would be far more difficult to be precise in unsharp masking where the peak density typically varies between .14 and .35. Additionally, if this is a high contrast material rather then a continuous tone material it would be doubly difficult for black and white unsharp masking.

The one benefit that may apply to Cibachrome as opposed to black and white is that if the film is truly not panchromatic, or orthochromatic or any variation of the two that it would be blind to the effects of color on the masking film and it's effect on exposure as would be the case when one is using a panchormatic or orthochromatic film for masking of a color transparency.

This is interesting, though, since I have not encountered this material before.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Just did my first SCIM's (shadow contrast increase masks) using the print developer instead of HC-110 as I was doing...I'll never go back. It's a good thing I caught this early - the difference is so great that it would require me re-printing everything!

I also made a mask for burning in annoying high tones (sky through foilage, bright distracting branches etc) by exposing the lith film through the original negative at the same time, but opened 1/2 stop, and developed at the same dilution and time as the SCIM. The mask is a super dense/contrasty positive that is clear only in the highest tones. I'll opaque any area I don't want to be burned in. What are you using to opaque areas of a mask that you don't want light to get through? The felt pens I'm using can leave little specks of residue on my glass negative carrier.

Murray

 

[Donald Miller]

I use either a red or black Sharpee brand pen.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Thanks

I use either a red or black Sharpee brand pen.

Thanks for that tip Donald! The black Sharpee is black-hole-density-black as far as the paper is concerned...absolutely no increase in print value in any of the opaqued areas, and absolutely no flakes of black crap left on the negative carrier. MUCH APPRECIATED!! (And of course thanks and appreciation go to you too Sean, for bringing us all together where we can share and learn)

Murray

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Should we change this thread to - Just Ask Donald?

(Part B to the question above).

Once having used the Sanford Super Sharpie permanent marker to opaque an area, how do you take it off if you change your mind? There is a small distracting bit of over exposed, pure white foilage that I opaqued on my 'burning in mask' that I now want to un-opaque so I can give the foilage some density in the print. Is it possible? What should I use? Do I have to make a new mask? The Sanford site has no information on this.

Murray

 

[Donald Miller]

Should we change this thread to - Just Ask Donald?

(Part B to the question above).

Once having used the Sanford Super Sharpie permanent marker to opaque an area, how do you take it off if you change your mind? There is a small distracting bit of over exposed, pure white foilage that I opaqued on my 'burning in mask' that I now want to un-opaque so I can give the foilage some density in the print. Is it possible? What should I use? Do I have to make a new mask? The Sanford site has no information on this.

Murray

The Sharpee marker is permanent so it you retouched on the mask it will require a new mask...or in lieu of that typically one can touch this area up with conventional print retouching materials ...either Spotone or Veronica Cass on the print itself. You mentioned foliage...it might be easier to retouch the print.

In the future, if you have something like this that you want to touch up, you can use cocein scarlet or red to touch up on the negative or mask using a 4/0 brush as another method then the Sharpee pen. If you opt to do this start by diluting the material...it is much easier to build up density with subsequent applications then it is to remove to heavy an application. This provides a softer transition on the print and also is reversible on the negative.

Retouch Methods (the makers of Spotone) made a negative retouch kit. I know that they are no longer in business but perhaps B&H or Calumet might have one of these kits in their inventory. It might be worth checking. Also Veronica Cass has a Mauve retouch material that will work well.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

(D'oh...note to self, f o l i a g e).

In the future, if you have something like this that you want to touch up, you can use cocein scarlet or red to touch up on the negative or mask using a 4/0 brush as another method then the Sharpee pen. If you opt to do this start by diluting the material...it is much easier to build up density with subsequent applications then it is to remove to heavy an application. This provides a softer transition on the print and also is reversible on the negative.

Thanks Donald...yet another tangent to explore! (Think I'll try it on the mask). Printing with graded papers was like composing for a string quartet. Printing with masking techniques on VC paper is like composing for an orchestra...so many layers of possibilities, so many methods of control, so complex, so satisfying.

Murray

 

[Donald Qualls]

You may be able to slightly reduce the density of the Sharpie marks with isopropyl alcohol on a cotton swab. My experience, however, is that *at best* this will only very slightly reduce the marker.

Worth a try if you'll have to remake the mask anyway if you can't remove it, is to get "non-chlorinated brake cleaner spray" at the local parts store. It's made to remove oil from brake drums so the brake shoes don't grab and slip randomly, but it will take permanent marker off steel, paint (though it can also lift the paint), and some plastics. What it would do to gelatin I can't say -- but if the alternative is remaking the mask, it's worth a try. PLEASE use it outdoors -- your liver and kidneys will thank you!

 

[pelerin]

Should we change this thread to - Just Ask Donald?

(Part B to the question above).

Once having used the Sanford Super Sharpie permanent marker to opaque an area, how do you take it off if you change your mind? There is a small distracting bit of over exposed, pure white foilage that I opaqued on my 'burning in mask' that I now want to un-opaque so I can give the foilage some density in the print. Is it possible? What should I use? Do I have to make a new mask? The Sanford site has no information on this.

Murray

Hey,
PEC 12 will cleanly remove marks made by a sharpie without ruining a C print. Perhaps it would work in this case too.
Celac.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hey,
Thanks!

Murray