Flashing

[lynettemax]

I've recently been introduced into the flashing technique. I have a beautiful photo I want to print. However, it is so harsh. It was my first time using a hand held light meter( now I know I was using it incorrectly).
In any case, the photo is beautifully exposed for my subject and the sky is a wash.

When I try to use the flashing technique, I have a hard time believing the out come of the print. Is this natural? Or is there a chance it's just a terrible technique?

Thanks!
Lynette

 

[photomem]

Ansel Adams said that Flashing was to be considered a last ditch effort when you are desperate. I do it occasionally, but my issue is that it always makes things look a bit muddy to me. For that reason, I agree with St. Ansel.

 

[MattKing]

I'm not very good at it (others here are very adept) but hopefully this will help a bit.

The trick is not to overdue it. Print flashing works best when you get it just right. There is very little leeway.

It also works best as an aid to burning in.

It can be used locally as well (only on parts of the print).

If you really want to get complex, I hear that it works well when combined with an unsharp mask.

 

[Sim2]

Hi there,
Sort of depends on what the outcome actually is for your print - we can't see it!
Flashing is a great technique for bringing a tiny bit of tone into a burnt highlight - but as said, does need to be done with care or the results can just look like mud and lose all sparkle.
If there were any clouds or details (other than just pure washed out white) in the sky it might be possible to bring some detail into the sky by doing a careful grade 5 burn on the area - this would leave the whites of clouds white but any shadows will be darkened. Might be worth a try.
Sim2.

 

[snallan]

Hi Lynette, how did you determine your flash exposure? Did you do a test strip with the paper you are using to work out the maximum flash exposure (i.e. the maximum exposure that will not produce any tone on the paper), or have you just tried an additional short, white light exposure in addition to the print exposure you required?

You say you have a hard time believing the outcome of the print, is that because the highlights have gone grey? If so, did you include the paper flashing (pre-, or post-) with your test strip to determine the correct exposure for making the print?

(Alternatively, if this is a really contrasty negative, it could be a suitable candidate for split grade printing. i.e Determine a suitable grade 0 exposure to give you the detail you want in the sky, followed by the appropriate grade 5 exposure to bring in the rest of the print. However, print flashing is a useful technique, so I would suggest persevering with that in the short term, and see if you can get the result you want.)

 

[Ronald Moravec]

If you are getting a muddy low contrast print, the flashing is excessive.

Paper is best flashed from a ceiling light, 15 watt, and a digital enlarging timer that goes in .1 sec increments.
Alturnative is about 3% print exposure under the enlarger. Thats around 5 stops, 100/50/25/12/6/3. Take the neg out and post flash, not preflash. It makes no difference.

Take a blank piece of paper and incrementally expose strips of increasing exposre. develope fix and dry.

Compare exposures with an unexposed border. The first step that goes grey is too much, back off to the next shorter increment. That is the flashing time and it provides a threshold exposure to the whites. If your whites in the print go grey, reduce flash time more or dodge areas that you do not want to darken during flash exposure.

Follow this and nothing but the white skys should go darker.

If this does not work, try split contrast printing, masking or local deduction of the sky or dye dodge the neg with Kodak New Cocein. Put a light touch of dye on the lighter parts of the neg. Experiment with trash negs before either of the chemical fixes. The bigger the neg, the easier either is. The dye allows you to print longer without overdarkening the land area. Keep the dye very very thin.

You can also dodge with tracing paper and pencil darken the land area on the tracing paper. Advantage is easily reversible.

You can also make a full size mask and attach it to the easel so it registeres with the next print. High skill.

After all this you will learn not to blow out skies.

A super proportional reducer will reduce sky, but not the shadows.

All this requieres some experience and willingness to experiment and all are beyond you skill probably, but it all something to learn and master.

Digital is easier. Trust me.

 

[naugastyle]

I always like my results from flashing, although I'm trying to reduce its usage. I've only been back in the darkroom since October so I think my previous negs were more contrasty...not a problem for a scanner but am trying to fix that going forward. As of now, I've been printing some negs from two years ago that are too contrasty even for Emaks grade 2 with Selectol...so flashing is done on every single print.

Anyway, I only consistently use one graded paper so I no longer need to do a lot of tests on the flash amount. But I did require some experimentation at first, which is probably all you need. Like others here, I think you're simply flashing it too much. It shouldn't be grey/muddy... when I do it, it has a similar effect to using a 00 filter to fill in highlights.

I flash from the enlarger, not a ceiling light. Always minimum 2 seconds at smallest aperture, but sometimes more is needed. (this only applies to Emaks, which is pretty slow...some papers might not be able to take more than 1 second of flashing). I have done it locally on a few shots here and there but because it's a bit difficult to remember where everything in the image is (not sure how others are doing it??) it's only on the sky.

 

[naugastyle]

This is flashed. Still pretty contrasty, but an amount of contrast I liked. Had to burn in the windowside wall, and then flashed it overall for a few seconds because otherwise the white areas (all the shirts in the front row, for example) were burning bright.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

I've always flashed with a second enlarger, stopped way down. It is tricky, but can work wonders for highlight detail. I've got one series shot in the woods on HP5+ at ISO50, where the paper gets flashed and I split print to get detail everywhere. Hair pullers at times, but when they are right on they are lovely.

Keep at it- once you get it to work with one negative it gets easier.

 

[dancqu]

I see some ARTY potential in prints I've heavily
dosed with flash. Ghost like figures lurking in
a field of dark gray. Dan

 

[gainer]

I have used a technique I call "While Flashing". I have a spot meter that I use to check both highlight and shadow illumination at the easel. I have a separate adjustable flashing source that is used simultaneously with the imaging light. You will find that if you set the illumination of the shadow (brightest part of the negative) with the enlarger f-stop, then adjust the flashing source so that the highlight is just within the paper range, the shadow measurement will not have changed perceptibly. Thus, highlight and shadow are both within paper range with only one exposure. Anything that happens in the midrange will not be much different from what you would get if you used a softer grade of paper to begin with.

 

[lynettemax]

Anyway, I only consistently use one graded paper so I no longer need to do a lot of tests on the flash amount. But I did require some experimentation at first, which is probably all you need. Like others here, I think you're simply flashing it too much. It shouldn't be grey/muddy... when I do it, it has a similar effect to using a 00 filter to fill in highlights.

I have been using a 00 filter. This is the only way I have been shown so I'm really thankful that so many people have different ideas.
Maybe it's just me but i feel like no matter how little or how much i do it the paper gets too fogged.
Thanks for all the great advice I'm looking forward to putting the knowledge to use in the darkroom!

 

[lynettemax]

Ansel Adams said that Flashing was to be considered a last ditch effort when you are desperate. I do it occasionally, but my issue is that it always makes things look a bit muddy to me. For that reason, I agree with St. Ansel.

I feel the same way but for this particular photo, it's a necessity

 

[glbeas]

My cousin Vinny said flashing is best done with a trenchcoat.

Have you done a safelight check to see if it's not having an effect of it's own on your prints?
Another thing to try is to put your flash light source on a dimmer and turn it down pretty far then do a calibration.

 

[dancqu]

SLIMT or PEPDB

The Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique
which I term the Post Exposure Pre Development
Bleach is superior to flashing.

I've been experimenting with the method and have
found it to work quit well with some papers. With the
method one may build density in the highlight areas
without building unwanted density in the shadow
areas. Density is built globally. Dodging and
burning may be avoided.

In a nut shell, the paper after exposure is give a short
soak in an EXTREMELY dilute potassium ferricyanide
solution. The more exposed areas of the paper are
more effected than the less exposed areas. The
overall effect is less exposure where other
wise unwanted density could develop.

Whites stay White even with a considerable shift
in contrast. Paper grade is not effected. It's like
working from the start with a properly exposed
and processed negative. Dan

 

[gainer]

The Selective Latent Image Manipulation Technique
which I term the Post Exposure Pre Development
Bleach is superior to flashing.

I've been experimenting with the method and have
found it to work quit well with some papers. With the
method one may build density in the highlight areas
without building unwanted density in the shadow
areas. Density is built globally. Dodging and
burning may be avoided.

In a nut shell, the paper after exposure is give a short
soak in an EXTREMELY dilute potassium ferricyanide
solution. The more exposed areas of the paper are
more effected than the less exposed areas. The
overall effect is less exposure where other
wise unwanted density could develop.

Whites stay White even with a considerable shift
in contrast. Paper grade is not effected. It's like
working from the start with a properly exposed
and processed negative. Dan

I have tested that technique and compared it to the While Flashing technique on the same negatives. The whites can be made to stay white by either method, but the SLIMT method requires very much more exposure. It has been a long time since I used either method, but I remember that there was little or no difference between the results. SLIMT was much more of a trial and error process, as the exposure speed of the is very much dependent on the strength of the bleach and the length of time in the bleach. OTOH, once my meter is calibrated for paper speed, it stays the same regardless of the brightness of the flashing light. I should say that the meter is calibrated to read 0 when the brightness is set for the darkest point and 10 when set for the brightest. I built it myself, but I think there are meters available that can do the job, although the scale may be inverted.

 

[gainer]

I should also say that the meter scale must be logarithmic, as is the scale of a manual exposure meter.

 

[jfish]

Actually flashing has quite a lot of variables that you can use to your benefit, especially with multicontrast paper. To dispel one myth posted earlier, pre or post flash does make a difference, just as if film were slightly (maybe heat fogged) and you then took pics with it. The material (film or paper...and I'm going to assume multicontrast here just to make things easier) is already sensitized if it has any exposure to it before exposure, and therefore whatever that 2nd exposure is will build upon the first (the pre-flash). Going back to paper, determining just how much to use before your main exposure is a trial and error, since there are so many variables in the process...from contrast filter used (yes it DOES make a difference in your pre or post flash), to contrast range of your neg, to the type of enlarger light source you are using, etc. Personally I've always used an enlarger to flash, since I can control the amount of light with both the aperture of the lens and the timer. You can also make a mask to go between your lens and paper to mask off areas you don't want to get flashed (I put a paper box on the easle, then cardboard, refocus the image on the cardboard, trace the image, cut out what you want flashed, refocus the enlarger and try and hold the cut out at the same height you traced it from and you will get a darn good mask). Since you mentioned sky, I'd flash with a 00 filter first, the burn with a combination of filters to bring out the sky...maybe a 1 and 3F combo to bring in some of the lower end density, then separate that with the 3 filter, and maybe a post flash but it really depends on your neg so its hard to say.

It takes a lot of trial and error, paying attention to your results, and practice but it works, and very well. Hope this helps

 

[dancqu]

Flashing: Stay White? Not for Long.

I have tested that technique and compared it to the While Flashing
technique on the same negatives. The whites can be made to stay
white by either method, but the SLIMT method requires very much
more exposure. It has been a long time since I used either method
but I remember that there was little or no difference between the
results. SLIMT was much more of a trial and error process, as
exposure speed of is very much dependent on the strength
of the bleach and the length of time in the bleach.

I've experience flashing and with using a post exposure
EXTREMELY dilute potassium ferricyanide bleach. You are
correct on two accounts; compared to flashing THE exposure
time does increase and initially trial and error does take some
more time. Exposure time increases vary from paper to paper;
e.g. I found Slavich Graded to take a much greater amount while
Kentmere Bromide takes a not so greater. Workable
concentrations also vary from paper to paper.

With exposure times some what within reason and trial and
error attended the post exposure bleach method offers results
not possible with flashing. The results are as one would expect
from masking. Look at it this way; in effect the negative's
density has been increased in the shadow areas while
the high light areas are little affected. The effect is
global so obviating the need to burn and dodge.

I control contrast by varying the bleach solution's
concentration and soak time; 3 to 4 minutes.
The solution is used one-shot. Dan

 

[gainer]

Actually flashing has quite a lot of variables that you can use to your benefit, especially with multicontrast paper. To dispel one myth posted earlier, pre or post flash does make a difference, just as if film were slightly (maybe heat fogged) and you then took pics with it. The material (film or paper...and I'm going to assume multicontrast here just to make things easier) is already sensitized if it has any exposure to it before exposure, and therefore whatever that 2nd exposure is will build upon the first (the pre-flash). Going back to paper, determining just how much to use before your main exposure is a trial and error, since there are so many variables in the process...from contrast filter used (yes it DOES make a difference in your pre or post flash), to contrast range of your neg, to the type of enlarger light source you are using, etc. Personally I've always used an enlarger to flash, since I can control the amount of light with both the aperture of the lens and the timer. You can also make a mask to go between your lens and paper to mask off areas you don't want to get flashed (I put a paper box on the easle, then cardboard, refocus the image on the cardboard, trace the image, cut out what you want flashed, refocus the enlarger and try and hold the cut out at the same height you traced it from and you will get a darn good mask). Since you mentioned sky, I'd flash with a 00 filter first, the burn with a combination of filters to bring out the sky...maybe a 1 and 3F combo to bring in some of the lower end density, then separate that with the 3 filter, and maybe a post flash but it really depends on your neg so its hard to say.

It takes a lot of trial and error, paying attention to your results, and practice but it works, and very well. Hope this helps

With the method I described, there are two light sources, the projected image and a flooding source, but only one exposure. The effect of developing that one exposure is predictable by use of the spot meter. The non-image light need not be an overall flooding, but may be made stronger in one area. The flashing light source must be of the same color temperature as the enlarger's in order for the spot meter readings to be meaningful.

 

[hacked - sepiareverb]

Maybe it's just me but i feel like no matter how little or how much i do it the paper gets too fogged.

I have the flashing enlarger stopped way down- f32 or 45- at no grade- my other enlarger is a Zone VI single grade cold-light. I'm away from the studio and haven't printed these negs in a while, but as I recall it is a 2 or 4 second exposure at f32/ This with a 240 lens racked high enough to cover a 16x20"print. Hardly any exposure.

Dumb question, but you've ruled out safelight fog?

Can you post a jpg of the image? That might help too.

 

[lynettemax]

Dumb question, but you've ruled out safelight fog?

I have ruled out safe light fog. I've left paper out on the table for a period of time and my photos are not fogged. I'm not sure I was properly taught how to do this however.
I would post a jpeg of it but i dont have the money to use my schools scanner... I'm broke enough buying paper haha

 

[tim rudman]

I have ruled out safe light fog. I've left paper out on the table for a period of time and my photos are not fogged. I'm not sure I was properly taught how to do this however.
I would post a jpeg of it but i dont have the money to use my schools scanner... I'm broke enough buying paper haha

hi Lynette
I'm sorry you are having so much trouble. Flashing is really useful for appropriate negatives, highly controllable and should not give you flat prints if done correctly (despite AAs comments). It does however lower the contast of the image and so you should go up a grade or half grade in contrast to restore and keep your mid tone separation. Your highlights though will not blow out when you do this as they have been flashed, commonly to 'max flash'where they will record whatever upper value detail is on the neg.
If you can get a copy of The Master Photographer's Printing Course from the library (I'm not trying to sell it) it is explained fully, as is the pre-development bleaching already described. they have different objectives though and the latter is more trial and error - flashing really isn't.

It is important to do a flash test strip for each box of paper (takes only as long as a normal test strip) and it is important to do your final image test strip on flashed paper too, or you will have an over exposed flat print.

PS re your description of safe light testing - you must always do this test on slightly fogged paper or you risk being falsely reassured
Tim

 

[dancqu]

Dead Bleach

It has been a long time since I used either method,
but I remember that there was little or no difference
between the results.

The above quoted puzzled me. Flashing and post exposure
bleaching do not necessarily produce prints of "little or no
difference".

Ferricyanide is a strong oxidizer. EXTREMELY little is used.
The presence of any foreign reducible material may
entirely kill the bleach. I've an example of what
can happen.

Use distilled water in it's preparation and use. The little
additional work involved in using a post exposure latent
image bleach can pay big dividends. Very modest to
substantial corrections are possible. Dan

 

[archer]

When I use SLIMT I usually increase exposure by 40% and in rare instances use very subtle black screen diffusion for 10 to 20% of the exposure and find this method infinitely preferable to flashing and far more predictable.
Denise Libby