How to dodge/burn with a sharp edge but no halo?

[gijsbert]

I'm trying to print this high contrast image:

To get the sky to come out with detail I have to expose quite long (about 20s), the water needs about 10s, and the rocks on the lower left already have enough detail in 3-4 seconds. I burn the top half for 10s, looks good. Having trouble with water/rocks, I tried the following:
- I made a cut-out of the rock and dodged the rocks with that, but that gives a bit of a halo (see scan)
- using the same mask but keep it lower to not touch the water give a black 'halo' on the top of the rocks, looks less obvious like dodging but still
- using a big round dodging tool and making sure the feather a lot gives the best result so far, a much lighter rock with a fair bit of lighter water, looks fairly natural, but the water close to the rocks is lighter than I'd like

What other dodging/burning tricks could I use to get different exposure regions without (too many) tell tales?

This print was already on low paper contrast, went down to grade 0.5 (ilford mg rc glossy+pearl), and also tried split-grade 00-5 (with very little 5 exposure) to get a bit more black. But even on 00 the rocks need a lot of dodging.

Thanks.

 

[LarsAC]

Rudman in one of his books makes several shorter exposures and places the mask each time in such a situation. Maybe that is something to try.

Lars

 

[bvy]

This print was already on low paper contrast, went down to grade 0.5 (ilford mg rc glossy+pearl), and also tried split-grade 00-5 (with very little 5 exposure) to get a bit more black. But even on 00 the rocks need a lot of dodging.

Have you tried a regular high grade exposure with no low grade exposure, getting the rocks where you want them (without any dodging/burning)? What does the water look like then? If it's okay, you could then burn in selected features with a low grade filter without affecting your shadows too much.

 

[Jim Noel]

Use a tray of hot water to do your burning. This was a common practice when I began in the 1930's.

 

[dasBlute]

Is that where you place the print into the water and use your fingers to rub the areas you want more density...?

Use a tray of hot water to do your burning. This was a common practice when I began in the 1930's.

 

[tedr1]

You may have tried this already, I am not sure. Make a cut-out of the rock to use as a mask, place the mask on the paper surface and attach it with sticky tape.

 

[klownshed]

you could use the cut out mask closer to the paper and try and ensure that you don't exceed the rock boundary. This may take a bit of practice to get right.

...or you could hold back less of the rocks with a small mask, moving it around the rock area, and not worry about some parts of the rock going to black (which is what i would try first).

Another method I've seen used but have yet to try myself would be to dodge some of the more rock as above then bleach subtly to bring out some more highlights and mid tones where needed.

 

[lauffray]

You could also try split grade printing, basically you divide your total exposure into two shorter ones, one at a low contrast filter (grade 0) and one at higher contrast (grade 3-5 typically). For a lot of my negatives it gives more control and better results than burning/dodging.

If you want to use a mask, one tip someone here gave me was to move the mask vertically instead of horizontally when making the exposure and that works very well too.

 

[MattKing]

If you want to use a mask, one tip someone here gave me was to move the mask vertically instead of horizontally when making the exposure and that works very well too.

That would be me.
The mask needs to be smaller than the print. If you are printing 8x10, a 5x7 print cut out appropriately works well.

 

[adelorenzo]

If you want a sharp edge your burning tool needs to sit right on the paper. The higher it is above the paper the more feathered the edge becomes.

Here is what I'd try: I would take one of those prints that you're not happy with and precisely cut out that rock. Use a red filter over the enlarger lens to align that mask perfectly with the rock on the paper and stick a weight on it to hold it in place. Then do your exposures.

 

[adelorenzo]

Another option: Take a piece of clear film and shade the shape of the rocks with a pencil. Sandwich it with the negative in the enlarger.

 

[jlbruyelle]

I used to have the exact same problem until I noticed that the halo was only visible in the light part next to the edge. Since then I take care to keep the mask over the dark side only (with the usual slight motion and the mask not too close to the paper, of course) and voila - no more halo!

With a complicated shape like this rock, it is probably best to cut a piece of cardboard to the shape that you want to mask. It makes it easier to obtain a precise masking which is mandatory to avoid the dreaded halo.

 

[Blurryimages]

Use a tray of hot water to do your burning. This was a common practice when I began in the 1930's.

This is interesting technique. How to use it? What hot water does? What temperature should be?

 

[gijsbert]

Rudman in one of his books makes several shorter exposures and places the mask each time in such a situation. Maybe that is something to try.

Lars

I really should get a good book about printing, you remember which book?
There are some other suggestions like this too, I'll try it out. Any idea why multiple short exposures?

 

[gijsbert]

That would be me.
The mask needs to be smaller than the print. If you are printing 8x10, a 5x7 print cut out appropriately works well.

I'll give it a go, but wouldn't moving the mask vertically instead of horizontally still give feathering in the vertical direction from the edge?

 

[gijsbert]

Thanks all for the suggestions, definitely things to try in my next darkroom session.
Curious about the warm water reference, didn't quite get that.

 

[MattKing]

I'll give it a go, but wouldn't moving the mask vertically instead of horizontally still give feathering in the vertical direction from the edge?

Yes, but the feathering is more controllable, and the transition appears more natural.

 

[bvy]

I really should get a good book about printing, you remember which book?
There are some other suggestions like this too, I'll try it out. Any idea why multiple short exposures?

I think the idea is that instead of dodging with the mask in place for, say, ten seconds, you pick up and replace the mask ten times exposing for one second each (i.e. place the mask, expose for one second, pick it up, replace it, expose for one second, etc., ten times). The idea is that the mask won't land in the exact same spot each time and so you'll get neither a halo nor a hard edge. I've done this before with some success.

 

[jlbruyelle]

I think the idea is that instead of dodging with the mask in place for, say, ten seconds, you pick up and replace the mask ten times exposing for one second each (i.e. place the mask, expose for one second, pick it up, replace it, expose for one second, etc., ten times). The idea is that the mask won't land in the exact same spot each time and so you'll get neither a halo nor a hard edge. I've done this before with some success.

This sounds like the exact equivalent of making a single exposure while slightly moving the mask, isn't it? I don't quite get the point: what it the advantage of making ten 1s exposures over one 10s exposure with a moving mask? How would it help avoiding the halo?

 

[Steve Goldstein]

At a workshop I attended the instructor suggested burning the halo with a small moving spot and a minimum-contrast filter.

 

[LarsAC]

It is from The Photographer's Master Printing Course.

Worthwile read for many aspects of printing.

Lars

 

[adelorenzo]

I really should get a good book about printing

I own and highly recommend (in no particular order):

• Master Photographer's Printing Course by Tim Rudman -- As mentioned by another poster. Out of print and his books can fetch big $$$. Somehow I managed to find a copy for $20 on Amazon.
• Photographic Printing by Gene Nocon -- This one is a gem IMHO. Out of print and easy to find, mine cost $7 including shipping.
• Way Beyond Monochrome by Ralph Lambrecht -- This covers more than printing it's basically everything about black and white photography. Ralph is an APUGforum member who contributes often. The second edition is still in print and available anywhere.

 

[LarsAC]

Rudman's books on toning and lith printing are rare and expensive, yes. The printing course can easily be found for reasonable prices, though.

I'd second the recommendation for Way beyond monochrome.

Also I like Larry Bartlett's Black and white photographic printing workshop for its many dodging and burning examples.

Will watch out for the book by Nocon, thanks.

Lars

 

[MattKing]

One caution:
All the books recommended here are excellent. If you have multiple books, it can be confusing!
It is probably best to first pick one of those books, read it thoroughly and carefully and experiment with the suggestions that are in it until you feel confident that you understand it.
THEN
Read other books, to see if there are other approaches that improve your understanding or match better your thought processes.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Have you tried flashing the paper first?