Enlarging without dodging.

[calebarchie]

Yikes! This is just one artists interpretation and I'm all for it as a component of darkroom practice. God forbid there is a 'correct' or technical way and stifle any creative discourse...

 

[Don_ih]

@awty -- Paul, your stuff is excellent. You make what you want and that's great.

This thread is ridiculous.

 

[Russ Young]

I'm thrilled to see that some of you are such accomplished photographers that you generate masterpieces without burning or dodging. Kudos! I made my first print in 1966 and have yet to achieve that level of mastery over the materials.
I signed up for one of Ansel's workshops for the summer of 1984. Alas, he passed away between registration and the workshop. John Sexton led the darkroom portion of the workshop, using Ansel's MOONRISE OVER HERNANDEZ as an example. It had to be burned, dodged, bleached and toned to create a print that satisfied Ansel. A pity that you Masters weren't present to show him why he was overdoing it.
Russ Young, F.R.P.S.

 

[Don_ih]

Guess y'all needed to show him why he was overdoing it.

He should've made one print he liked then took a photo of it for all subsequent prints. Much easier

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

@Guillaume Zuili I like that quote "So no blog. Darkroom !"

I may be coming to ask you questions sometime. Had some prints that just didn't do right on Kodabromide F4 so I went to the camera store and asked if they had any Lith developer.

I was thinking they might have some traditional graphic arts concentrate. But no, I came home with a master kit suited for Tim Rudman.
View attachment 406436
Cheers,

Bill

I sent you a pm

 

[DREW WILEY]

Speaking of Ansel, who never did seem to make a "perfect negative", there were certain classic images which suffered water damage consequent upon a fire in his Yosemite shop. "Gates of the Valley" was among those, and required intense dodge/burn manipulation. I would have generated a master corrective mask instead; but AA wasn't into that.

One never knows until they begin printing a given negative. I've gotten a number of hole-in-one prints this year, but also had cases I thought would be easy, but weren't. A person has to set their own standards; and how they get from Point A to B is up to them.

It's also really difficult to adjudicate other people's work over the web. I'm not referring to subject matter or general composition, but actual print quality.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

It’s friday evening, I raise my glass of Tequila to all of you. ******* we are all here because we love the smell of the darkroom.
Yes we can be a pain in the ass sometime, me included. But we share the same passion !
Peace !
May the darkroom gods be with you !
And more drinks please.
{Moderator note - careful with the language please}

 

[awty]

He should've made one print he liked then took a photo of it for all subsequent prints. Much easier

Ha ha.....essentially that's what happens these days with digital prints. Much easier.

 

[awty]

This is a recent print I did, was a flat scene, overcast, light wasn't doing anything. I used contrast filter, dodge and burn, and bleach to add light. My method was different, but the outcome is the same. Messy, was only 6x8 paper and I was in a hurry.
I usually work out my base print time and contrast, then dodge the base time, then burn, then bleach the highlights where necessary, then tone with sepia and selenium.
Anyone learning to do darkroom work should practice with these tools, they will lift your print even if it is just a nothing scene.

 

[Bill Burk]

I dodge or burn probably less than 5% of my prints. If you make the correct negative exposure and correct development of the negative for the type of enlarger you use to print, followed by the correct print exposure, without any contrast control, then it is rarely nessesary.

That’s because your strength is your image.

 

[Vaughn]

I'm thrilled to see that some of you are such accomplished photographers that you generate masterpieces without burning or dodging. Kudos! I made my first print in 1966 and have yet to achieve that level of mastery over the materials.
I signed up for one of Ansel's workshops for the summer of 1984. Alas, he passed away between registration and the workshop. John Sexton led the darkroom portion of the workshop, using Ansel's MOONRISE OVER HERNANDEZ as an example. It had to be burned, dodged, bleached and toned to create a print that satisfied Ansel. A pity that you Masters weren't present to show him why he was overdoing it.
Russ Young, F.R.P.S.

I am glad you found us! Actually, generating masterpieces without burning and dodging ended up just as easy as making masterpieces by dodging and burning...imagine that!

One of the advantages of digital negs for many people doing alt processes has been making all the edits in the file and turn printing into a no-brainer. I still like working with camera negs though..

I recently made a print that needed a 3 hour exposure under a UV lamp. Burning would have been a little tough. Dodging is possible, but hanging around that long around the UV light is a drag. I have taken a sharpie and blacked-in that bit area in the lower right partway thru the exposure as a way to burn. I made the boys pose and hold still for two minutes for this exposure, so waiting three hours for the print to be exposed must be karma at work.

 

[awty]

Or you can do the opposite and just dodge for a different effect.
This was done with just Dodging.
Dodging is a really good tool.

 

[Bill Burk]

But wait! I thought Sharpies are transparent to UV.

I liked Andrew Sanderson’s article and think it’s cool that he gives plain tips.

It’s easy to see how to apply his ideas.

For a long time I have admired his work without knowing it. I see his work when I reach for a box of paper knowing my prints may never grace a paper box.

Are his steps wildly different than mine? Not that I can tell. Andrew dodged in one of his examples so it can’t be a hard and fast rule not to dodge. Are his aims different? God yes. I’m too intent on making a realistic reproduction of nature. I may just have to give some dramatic burning a try. It looks like fun.

Now I always use graded paper and it’s always obvious to me which grade a negative will need. (Anything that depends on multigrade paper is outside of my constraints). From there a test strip tells me what exposure my main image needs and gives me dodge and burn choices.

I would say hard and fast rule; keep dodge and burn within 2/3 stop. But I have no rule about which exposure I use for the main. I pick the one where something important looks a little hot. Then I look left and right of the test strip for different things and pick their dodge and burn times.

The hard and fast 2/3 stop rule doesn’t include pictorial burn and flash. (Flash a-la Lootens, non-image white light striking parts of the print you want darker.) I’ve often checked for much longer exposures but haven’t used enough of them. I must defer to Andrew on this he has the effective proof in his examples.

 

[Don_ih]

This was done with just Dodging.
Dodging is a really good tool.

That's a great photo. I really like it (and I'm allergic to horses)).

All tools are good if they get you what you want.

 

[Kino]

Reading this thread has been like watching a Louis Malle film! Thanks everyone!

 

[Vaughn]

But wait! I thought Sharpies are transparent to UV.
...

I buy the special AA-approved Sharpies.

Sharpies can control the movement of hurricanes, though, from what I understand...

 

[Bill Burk]

I buy the special AA-approved Sharpies.

Sharpies can control the movement of hurricanes, though, from what I understand...

I remember now. I was in college working on the Mustang Daily, and tried to spot pinholes on lith film with a Sharpie. It didn't work very well so I went back to red opaque.

 

[Vaughn]

I remember now. I was in college working on the Mustang Daily, and tried to spot pinholes on lith film with a Sharpie. It didn't work very well so I went back to red opaque.

That makes sense.

Mustang Daily -- was that in Nevada?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The first pons asinorum in the paper is the advice to find the "minimum time for maximum black" and then setting the highlight/white point using contrast filters. This isn't an optimum approach, and in some cases will lead to frustration.

The approach advocated in the paper only works when making normal to high contrast prints from normal to low contrast negatives where the black point is found with a #2 filter and the white point is set by manipulating the contrast by selecting a #2 - #3 1/2 filter (grades #4 - #5 take a bit of head scratching what with the 1 stop speed bump). To be fair, VC papers work best at grades #2 1/2 and above and so low(ish) contrast negatives are prefered.

In actuality, for low contrast prints from high contrast negatives the procedure has to be reversed - find the white point with a #2 filter and then select the appropriate #00 - #2 filter to get to a black in the lowest density part of the negative.

Finding the right filter can be a bit of a PITA, and if using this technique then split grade printing may be the better solution. However, again, the technique has to be modified for low and high contrast negatives. For low contrast negatives make the #5 black point test strip first and then using this exposure make #00 white point strip. For high contrast negatives find the #00 white point test strip first and using this exposure then make the #5 black point test strip(1). For normal negatives that print best at #2 or #2 1/2 grade it doesn't matter much what order is used, but then why bother with split grade?

With the better behaved MGV paper a white point first approach will work well well up to #3 filtration. #3 1/2 will need some tweeking and #4 - #5 should be black point first (2).

The second pons asinorum to cross is dodging V. burning.

Obviously, identical prints can be made with all burning or all dodging. For the burning approach set the base exposure for the part of the print you want to be the lightest and then burn in everything else. For a dodging approach set the base exposure to the part of the print you want to be darkest and then dodge back everything else.

The idea of "burning" a print while holding a dodger is a pons all to itself.

A more rational approach is the set the base exposure so that it is correct for the majority of the print and then burn what needs burning and dodge what needs dodging. If one finds oneself doing a whole lot of dodging then it may be simpler to make a lighter print and instead burn in the dark bits. If there is an excess of burning then the same effect may be effected with a few dodges.

* * *​

Anyone who claims to have found The Answer is suspect. There are many problems, and any one problem has many answers. In the real world 2 + 2 = 3 is a legitamate solution for sufficiently small values of 2 and sufficiently large values of 3 - ask any lumber yard.

--------------
(1) http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotesgmeasured.pdf
(2) http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgvrchd.jpg

the best approach is still to find thebase exposure time to get faint density in the highlights with grade 2-21/2 filtration and then the filtration to get dark shadows with detail.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wonder what print the horse was eyeing - a dodged one or a straight print? We should ask its opinion.

Vaughn - I don't think Australia is in Nevada, but you never know. There are plenty of big open spaces and strange creatures in Nevada too, and weird tribal celebrations where either dust storms or flashfloods seem mandatory.

 

[Vaughn]

I thought the Mustang Daily building where Bill worked might have been right next to the Ranch in Nevada...

 

[Bill Burk]

the best approach is still to find thebase exposure time to get faint density in the highlights with grade 2-21/2 filtration and then the filtration to get dark shadows with detail.

Thanks, that’s simple.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

the best approach is still to find the base exposure time to get faint density in the highlights with grade 2-21/2 filtration and then the filtration to get dark shadows with detail.

Well, it's not so simple...

The "highlights first" approach is true for high contrast negatives that print best on grade 2/2.5 or softer.

A "shadows first" approach is best for low contrast negatives that print best on grade 2/2.5 or harder.

There is an overlap there - if the negative is normal contrast and prints best on 2/2.5 it doesn't matter much which exposure determination is done first.

The short story is that the family of HD curves for VC paper http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivrchd.jpg show:

• The required highlight exposure is the same for all low contrast grades and so changing filtration to get good shadows won't have much effect on the highlights.
• Conversly, the shoulder of the curves for the high contrast grades all cluster together and so changing filtration to bring the highlights into line won't have that much effect on the shadows.
• Grades 4-5 are on their own, but again the shadow exposure changes far less than the highlight exposure.

This only becomes really important for split grade printing, as explained starting at the bottom of page 3 "HOW SPLIT GRADE WORKS" in http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/appnotesgmeasured.pdf (Yeah, a lot of the paper is devoted to metering for split grade printing, but the "How it works" section is general in nature, and has little to do with metering.)

Fixed grade filtration and split-grade filtration produce different curve families because of the addition of a neutral density component to the various grades of VC filters. These are added in attempt to mitigate changes in exposure due to changes in filtration. MGIV RC's curves all cross at around a density of 0.55 - between caucasian skin and 18% grey.

Most photographers favor negatives that range from normal to contrasty or that range from normal to soft. The approach they will champion will be the one that works for their negatives; they will have learned from experience that doing it the other way round doesn't work well for them. It's one of those things where people can disagree but both can be right, a bit like religion.

However, as we are all doing this for fun, it matters not one whit which method one employs or champions.

Some might find this advice helpful, some might not. It isn't meant to topologically challenge anyone's underclothing.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I ... tried to spot pinholes on lith film with a Sharpie. It didn't work very well so I went back to red opaque.

Yeah, printing plates are exposed using UV, and it seems Sharpies pass a lot of UV. I imagine Sharpies would make a lousy sunblock, expectations to the contrary.

 

[Bill Burk]

I thought the Mustang Daily building where Bill worked might have been right next to the Ranch in Nevada...

Haaa, that might have been more intriguing than the reality. (Cal Poly SLO).