How to print blown out skys?

[mealers]

Is there an actual technique for printing detail in the sky but also retaining exposure on the foreground?

I've developed a couple negatives which have good separation in the clouds but as soon as I try and print I have to drastically overexpose the foreground to get get any signs of cloud detail.

As both negatives are simple beach scenes I figured it would be easy enough to expose the clouds to the correct exposure and then dodge in the foreground.
Is this the right way of doing it or am I way off track??

Any help would be appreciated.

Mike

 

[nemo999]

Is there an actual technique for printing detail in the sky but also retaining exposure on the foreground?

I've developed a couple negatives which have good separation in the clouds but as soon as I try and print I have to drastically overexpose the foreground to get get any signs of cloud detail.

As both negatives are simple beach scenes I figured it would be easy enough to expose the clouds to the correct exposure and then dodge in the foreground.
Is this the right way of doing it or am I way off track??

Any help would be appreciated.

Mike

Big question - a textbook on printing would give the best answer, but ...

If the sky needs more exposure than the foreground, then give it what it needs. If the dividing line between the beach and sky is a fairly straight one, then dodging and burning should be easy. You could give one continuous exposure - if the sky needs 50 seconds, make one exposure of this length but bring the dodging tool (a simple piece of card) into play after the print has had enough exposure for the foreground (maybe 20 seconds or so). Hold the card up as high as possible to avoid a sharp shadow and move it slightly up and down constantly to get a smoother transition between the two areas with different exposure. It sounds a little as if you are over-exposing the foreground and then trying to dodge it back afterwards, which is unfortunately not possible!

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's the most straightforward way of doing it--burn in the sky or dodge the foreground.

If you have ND grad filters, you can also use them on the enlarging lens, in reverse of the way they are used on the camera lens.

If the skyline is complicated, a contrast mask is a more sophisticated option. Do a search for "contrast mask" and you'll find some descriptions of the technique here and some sources for further research.

 

[Mike Wilde]

dodge and burn

it is a hand waving, or card waving skill during exposure with the light falling from the enlarger being manulated so that all of it does not reach the paper.

It sounds silly, but it works. read up on it.

Figure out the exposure for the foreground. Figure oiut the exposure for the sky with the detail that you want. use a card, a cut out with the right contour on it from a test print, etc, and wave it under the ennlarger to keep light from hitting the foreground part of the image as you give additional (usually a seperately timed interval) light to the sky to get the detial you want.

 

[PVia]

Also, look up flashing... a technique involving exposing your paper (whole or partial) to white light without a neg in the carrier in order to bring it to the threshold of sensitivity. Les McLean has an article on his website about it...

 

[Claire Senft]

What filter number are you using? Using a lower filter number will reduce the problem. It is completely possible that using a low filter number will solve your problem.

Many times the need for burning and dodging is caused by trying to make a negative print on a paper that is too hard.

Being careful to not over develop your film will help substantially.

 

[jeroldharter]

You don't mention if you are using variable contrast or graded paper.

With graded paper, the advice to dodge the foreground, burn the sky, perhaps use flashing, contrast masks, etc are the options.

With variable contrast paper, you could burn the sky with different contrast filters. I find that if the sky is mostly white, using a low contrast filter works best but if overdone gets too muddy. If the sky has clouds with outlines, then a high contrast filter works well but gets too grainy and too out of step with the rest of the print if overdone. I do split contrast printing so usually arrive at a strategy by viewing both the high and low contrast test sheets for guidance.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Mike, you are on the right track - dodge & burn

But be warned - it takes loads of practice and can reduce grown men to tears.

Getting a decent ground exposure and to then burn the sky in to a believable level is one of the most difficult things you can do in printing - particularly in the UK when so much of the sky is cloud filled.

Clouds are after all backlit translucent objects and they should glow.

Try burning in clouds when using VC paper with a 0 grade filter - it helps a lot

Good luck

Martin

Martin

 

[david b]

if the dodge burn thing does not work, print for the foreground and then half way through the developer, take the print out and gently rub the sky with a paper towel that has been in 100 degree water.

 

[ic-racer]

An age old problem. One of the best solutions is to filter the image during the exposure. The sky will always be lighter on the film than what you see because of UV light. I think simply as Yellow ('normal' looking sky), Orange (darker than 'normal') and Red (dramatic dark sky).

Since you already made the exposure the above won't help. I agree with all the darkroom tips, but don't have any that haven't been suggested.

 

[Ian Grant]

Dodging & burnings fine but you often get tell tale halo effects, a combination of flashing and dodging & burning is often far more successful.

BTW don't severely burn your fingers using David B's technique, the US haven't joined the modern metric world yet, so don't use boiling water at 100 degrees Centigrade/Celsius he actually means 37.8º F.

Ian

 

[mealers]

Great responses, just what I was hoping for, thankyou all!
It all makes sense but my only problem is coming to grips with how all this fits in with my flashy new Stopclock Pro and F Stop printing. I've made test strips for the base exposure and for the skyline but for the time being I'm struggling to understand how to store this in the Stopclock.
To be honest. in the last couple days that I've been using the Stopclock and can now store base exposures, burn in times and split grade print but I cant for the life of me figure out how to programme a dodge into the base exposure sequence.
I've now turned my enlarger off but shall be reading back through this thread and having another attempt in the morning.

Thanks again.

 

[david b]

thanks Ian for pointing that out.

I meant 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

[mealers]

Yep I'm pretty glad you pointed that out aswell Ian!!

 

[doughowk]

Slightly over-expose the print. Then pull early from developer when the blacks look close and place in water bath with no agitation for remainder of dev time. A softer grade of paper, or paper with longer scale may also help.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm surprised no one here mentioned split grade printing. When I have a negative with a foreground and sky that require different exposures they almost always require a different filter as well. This technique is very, VERY valuable. I can't imagine printing some of my images without using split grade printing.

I don't have time to go into the details now. There is plenty of information on this site. Do a search. Good luck!

 

[mealers]

This is the final(ish) print.
I've split grade printed it using 0 and 5 grade VC paper.
I used the grade 5 to burn the bottom left and right corners and used the grade 0 filter to burn down the skyline. I may try this again later but using a grade 2 filter for the skyline, would this give the clouds better definition and more out line?

 

[nemo999]

This is the final(ish) print.
I've split grade printed it using 0 and 5 grade VC paper.
I used the grade 5 to burn the bottom left and right corners and used the grade 0 filter to burn down the skyline. I may try this again later but using a grade 2 filter for the skyline, would this give the clouds better definition and more out line?

Beyond a certain point, printing is interpretation, with no clear "right" or "wrong", but just as an experiment try burning in the top right quarter of the print. If you've used grade 0 for the sky, stick with this. As others have said, if you have not filtered the sky during the camera exposure, you've made problems for yourself, and getting more tone in the top right quarter is going to take a lot of burning in. See if you can get the cloud to an even density across the print left to right and see how you like it.

 

[rcoda]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned dig... OOPS! Wrong website ;^)

P.S. I mean dig... to save a bad negative of a good image, and have a new negative made to print wet. I have used this technique and it works very well.

 

[dancqu]

I'm surprised no one here mentioned split grade printing.

I'm surprised no one here has mentioned SLIMP. Were I working
with such a negative I'd jump directly to that method. Some
this gourp do use the method. Dan

 

[Ian Grant]

You mean the Sterry or New Sterry process dancqu. The negative process is known as SLIM(T)

There's an article here. There was one on APUG but thats gone AWOL like many of the formulae (recipes).

Ian

 

[argus]

This is the final(ish) print.
I've split grade printed it using 0 and 5 grade VC paper.
I used the grade 5 to burn the bottom left and right corners and used the grade 0 filter to burn down the skyline. I may try this again later but using a grade 2 filter for the skyline, would this give the clouds better definition and more out line?

You will get better could definition with a higher grade filter.
I used a V to gradually burn in the sky in this image:

http://fijnefotografie.eu/pics/france/stpabu_67_02.jpg

G

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

I didn't read ALL the replies...apologies if already suggested...
...and I hesitate to call this a suggstion...

If you just want pleasing results, and aren't adamant about 'purism', there's the old 'trick' of using a second negative with a nice sky and overlay the two negatives in the enlarger.

But if you did it to, >ahem<, deceive viewers into, >cough<ahem, believing endangered species were repopulating in large numbers somewhere they weren't happy before...hey, this sounds familiar...of course, it's unethical when it's digital! Whether it's unethical or skillful I guess depends on how and what you accomplish.

I saw a really horrible job done once, with the sun obviously coming from two different directions at the same time (in the end result)...but who am I to judge that photographer? ;O) ...maybe he really did take the photo on some planet with two suns (I didn't check it there is such a planet, but I'm sure it didn't have lighthouses.)

 

[Poohblah]

I saw a really horrible job done once, with the sun obviously coming from two different directions at the same time (in the end result)...but who am I to judge that photographer? ;O) ...maybe he really did take the photo on some planet with two suns (I didn't check it there is such a planet, but I'm sure it didn't have lighthouses.)

[off topic]
that is entirely possible. there are binary star systems out there (where two stars orbit each other) and some of them have planetary systems.
[/off topic]

 

[dancqu]

You mean the Sterry or New Sterry process dancqu.
The negative process is known as SLIM(T)

There's an article here. Ian

So where is David Kachel? What is he up to?
His Front Door, site, is not to be found. Dan