How to print this in darkroom (without dodging and burning)

Alex Benjamin said:

OP didn't say why he doesn't want to dodge and burn. Maybe he doesn't like it, maybe he feels he's not good at it, maybe he just doesn't have the time.

OP has been a member of APUG/Photrio since 2008, and posts lots of photos of his travels on his website. If he feels that the mastery of photography and printing he has (and the time he has to put on them) allows him to post photos he likes, best advice is to help him find a way to keep doing things as close as possible to the way he has been doing them for all these years.

Click to expand...

Post #4 states he doesn’t want to dodge because he is unsure how to do so for the areas in question effectively.

rcphoto said:

Post #4 states he doesn’t want to dodge because he is unsure how to do so for the areas in question effectively.

Click to expand...

All the methods proposed are far more difficult than dodging and burning. The OP just needs to bite the bullet and learn to dodge and burn. The resulting experience will reward him immensely.

darkosaric said:

No hybrid, I want standard silver gelatin print, evetualy Lith print. I scan only to see which photo I decide to put in the chemicals, as contact printing never resonated with me.

Click to expand...

There's a lot going on in this little bit already.

Firstly, the question is why you want a silver gelatin print? Are we talking about resin coated paper or fiber-based? What paper specifically? And again - why? What aspect of a silver gel print appeals to you?

Secondly, you mention lith printing. That's a very particular approach and whatever you may try with regular enlargement (variable contrast, split grade etc.) you can basically throw out of the window when you're going to do lith. Not that the regular printing won't make any sense - it's just not a logical step towards, or practice for lith printing. If you want to lith print this, then lith print it.

Then, you mention you need to scan in order to select - which in itself is OK, but at the same time, you need to have (learn) ways to determine which negatives will work well (for you) in darkroom printing, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and what approaches will likely work to get a specific negative to print well. You present us with an inverted and contrast-adjusted scan of a negative, which effectively only shows the image, but says nothing about the negative as such. This illustrates that you're not yet aware of how differently a negative behaves in the darkroom from how it does on the scanner.

You said 'contact printing never resonated' with you - but what does that mean exactly? Does it mean you don't like the process of making a contact sheet? Or does it mean that the times you made one, you didn't like the results? In case of the latter, what have you tried to make the best contact sheet you could do? And if that wasn't enough to get a good impression of the photos you thought you had - have you considered the possibility that maybe your negatives could need improvement?

Despite all of the above, attempting to answer your original question "Is there any way to print this (and similar) without dodging and burning?" - Yes, there is:
* I assume you've selected a paper, your chemistry is in working order and you know how to properly process your paper, and that you're aware of what the dmax (the blackest black it can produce) of the paper is and how to recognize it. I also assume you're using variable contrast paper and you have a means to adjust contrast of the print.
* Put negative into enlarger. Focus & compose on base board.
* Make a test strip on e.g. grade 2. Ensure that the strip covers the deepest shadows as well as the brightest highlights of the photo. It helps to expose the strip at several time increments sop
* Process test strip and verify the tonal scale after drying the strip. Determine how the shadows and the highlights look. You're primarily looking for (1) how bright or dark they are in an absolute sense, in relation to the paper's dmax and the paper's white base, and (2) how well the shadow and highlight regions show differentiation in tonal values. Then choose where to go from here based on what you see:
* If both the shadows and the highlights are too light on the entire strip, redo the strip, but with longer exposure times and/or a larger aperture on the enlarging lens.
* If both the shadows and the highlights are too dark on the entire strip, redo the strip, but with shorter exposure times and/or a smaller aperture on the enlarging lens.
* If the shadows look good but the highlights are too dark, do a new strip at a higher contrast grade.
* If the highlights look good, but the shadows are too light, do a new strip at a higher contrast grade.
* If the shadows look good but the highlights are too light/blown out, do a new strip at a lower contrast grade.
* If the highlights look good, but the shadows are too dark/all black, do a new strip at a lower contrast grade.
* Once you've determined the contrast grade and exposure time that gives you both pleasing shadows and highlights, make a print of the full image. Based on evaluation of the (dried!) print, you can make some minor adjustments to contrast grade or exposure time to finetune it.

When starting out, I'd suggest working with smallish prints (e.g. 13-18cm/5x7") and instead of using test strips, print the full image for every 'strip' test so you can more easily see what effects changes in exposure and contrast have.

If you find that the optimum contrast/exposure time setting produces a print with technically OK shadows and highlights (or at least as good as it gets), but you still don't like the results - well, by that time you will have figured out what all the rest are implying in the previous responses: a straight print is not always a satisfactory end point - especially if the negative happens to fall short of 100% perfect.

Thank you all for input. I use Fomabrom FB and Fomaspeed RC variable grade papers, Ilford PQ universal, V35 Focomat. Paper size - I use usually 30x40cm.
About dodging and burning: when I have bigger areas - I have no issue with that, but when I need to dodge something very thin, like those skinny arms and legs - I always get unsatisfying results. Area around face, legs and arms are also dodged, and I see uneven results there. That is why I ask about alternatives, what would you guys try.

darkosaric said:

About dodging and burning: when I have bigger areas - I have no issue with that, but when I need to dodge something very thin, like those skinny arms and legs - I always get unsatisfying results. Area around face, legs and arms are also dodged, and I see uneven results there. That is why I ask about alternatives, what would you guys try.

Click to expand...

In the case of the image you posted in #1, the solution is simple IMO: start with a shorter base exposure, then burn all the rest. Much easier than dodging the figure.
If the result is too harsh (i.e. transition between burned and adjacent areas too harsh), improve technique.

darkosaric said:

That is why I ask about alternatives, what would you guys try.

Click to expand...

Split grade is what I would try, but then, that is the method I generally use anyway. That said, as almost everybody has mentioned, there's no way you'll get out of this without some dodging and burning. I agree that doing so on a small surface like the man's face is delicate and can lead to disaster. I would follow koraks' advice, and therefore focus on seeing if I can get the exposure right for that part and then work on burning the other, larger areas of the background.

rcphoto said:

Post #4 states he doesn’t want to dodge because he is unsure how to do so for the areas in question effectively.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. For some reason, I missed that one. You can ignore my comment.

I'd find the exposure that gets detail in facial features, adjust contrast, and accept the photo as is. The suggestion to pre-flash might actually help in that instance, since it would add some density to the highlight areas of the print.

No way would I dodge the face. Faces are the most looked-at part of such photos and the exposure should be correct right there. Base the rest of the print around that.

Question: what's that vertical line in front of his right hand and leg?



If this is something on the negative, and not from the scan, it would convince me, considering all the other difficulties associated with printing this photograph, to simply abandon it.

Animalcito said:

There was a German photography magazine called something like 'Foto Hobby Labor'. In one issue they had an article about using the photographic paper itself as a sort of instant contrast reducing mask.
In as nutshell it worked that way:
1) setup the enlarger and negative etc. like for a normal print.
2) soak the paper in the developer before exposing it under the enlarger
3) expose the paper for a fraction of the overall time needed
4) wait in the red light and you will see some development will happen in the dark parts of the print
5) second exposure with the remaining time
6) take the paper from the enlarger and develop normally
You have to test the two exposure times (sum and ratio) manually, if the 1st exposure is too long you may get some strange effects - and it is a bit of a mess

Click to expand...

That's an interesting procedure. Did the article you mention have any examples of a before and after print to show the difference between the two and have you tried it yourself with success?

Thanks

pentaxuser

You could do a collage and rephotograph it.

cowanw said:

You could do a collage and rephotograph it.

Click to expand...

What does that consist of and what will that do to assíst the OP with his problems? Not a challenge here to your idea but simply a question

Thanks

pentaxuser

cowanw said:

You could do a collage and rephotograph it.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the figure in the image still be under-exposed?

Animalcito said:

There was a German photography magazine called something like 'Foto Hobby Labor'. In one issue they had an article about using the photographic paper itself as a sort of instant contrast reducing mask.
In as nutshell it worked that way:
1) setup the enlarger and negative etc. like for a normal print.
2) soak the paper in the developer before exposing it under the enlarger
3) expose the paper for a fraction of the overall time needed
4) wait in the red light and you will see some development will happen in the dark parts of the print
5) second exposure with the remaining time
6) take the paper from the enlarger and develop normally
You have to test the two exposure times (sum and ratio) manually, if the 1st exposure is too long you may get some strange effects - and it is a bit of a mess

Click to expand...

We were taught this tech in college, the 60s, it is also mentioned in a Kodak book called In the Dark Room 8 to Late. I need to find my copy. When I used it I found that FB papers are needed as the developer needs to soak in to work, RC, just developer just on the surface did not work as well. Need a glass plate or sheet of plastic it is messy. In the end I thought the tones were just odd. I only used graded paper, but what if FB VC paper was used, 1st exposure #5 filter, second #0 then try the reverse grade

GregY said:

Wouldn't the figure in the image still be under-exposed?

Click to expand...

If one were to make a print correctly exposed for the figure and cut that figure out and paste it to a second print correctly exposed for the background, careful work could make a picture like e.g. Fading Away by Henry Peach Robinson.
But really the shot needed fill flash or a reflector in the first place.

cowanw said:

If one were to make a print correctly exposed for the figure and cut that figure out and paste it to a second print correctly exposed for the background, careful work could make a picture like Fading Away by Henry Peach Robinson.

Click to expand...

Yes... i get it now.
For a capable darkroom aficionado though, IMO it would be less work and easier ....to print for the figure..... make a simple cardboard cutout mask and burn in the remainder of the image.....

koraks said:

In the case of the image you posted in #1, the solution is simple IMO: start with a shorter base exposure, then burn all the rest. Much easier than dodging the figure.
If the result is too harsh (i.e. transition between burned and adjacent areas too harsh), improve technique.

Click to expand...

I may be missing something. So does the whole negative get a shorter exposure? I can see that a shorter base exposure might help the figure which I think is the problem part of the negative then when all the rest is burned as you suggest but don't you stil have to dodge the figure but avoiding the white halo effect that often arises when the area all around the dark figure is much lighter and doesn't that take him back to the art of dodging and burning?

Yes I accept that a dodge here is easier than ít would be on the second picture where the thin legs and arms create bigger problems

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

don't you stil have to dodge the figure but avoiding the white halo effect that often arises when the area all around the dark figure is much lighter and doesn't that take him back to the art of dodging and burning?

Click to expand...

Yeah, that would be the trick, but I personally find it generally easier to burn around a small object than to dodge it. You can burn all the way around it using a piece of card etc.; in this case I'd try to avoid the white halo by making more of a smooth gradient and not burn the sky too much.

Overall there's a good chance that this is a challenging negative to begin with if much contrast is desired in the figure. I have a feeling it may be too underexposed to get much out of it.

koraks said:

Yeah, that would be the trick, but I personally find it generally easier to burn around a small object than to dodge it. You can burn all the way around it using a piece of card etc.; in this case I'd try to avoid the white halo by making more of a smooth gradient and not burn the sky too much.

Overall there's a good chance that this is a challenging negative to begin with if much contrast is desired in the figure. I have a feeling it may be too underexposed to get much out of it.

Click to expand...

Agreed...... You can't fix an under-exposed negative.....

With respect to the first example I agree with those who have suggested finding the right exposure/contrast for the person’s face and see where everything else falls. If it’s not too jarring to ruin the whole thing and you don’t want to do more work I’d stop there. The person/face is the main subject so you want to do a good job on that.

There won’t be easier workarounds than burn/dodge. One possible way to help with that would be to do some selective masking with pencil shading etc. (not silver masking). It will still require work to get right - avoiding telltale artifacts but once you’ve got it fine tuned (the hard part) you avoid “manual” burning/dodging which is tricky to do in this sort of case.

darkosaric said:

Thank you all for input. I use Fomabrom FB and Fomaspeed RC variable grade papers, Ilford PQ universal, V35 Focomat. Paper size - I use usually 30x40cm.
About dodging and burning: when I have bigger areas - I have no issue with that, but when I need to dodge something very thin, like those skinny arms and legs - I always get unsatisfying results. Area around face, legs and arms are also dodged, and I see uneven results there. That is why I ask about alternatives, what would you guys try.

Click to expand...

Sometimes for a figure like that, I put a sheet of Bristol board on the easel and trace inside the shape, smaller than the figure itself. I then cut inside the lines by a few mm. I will tape the resulting cardboard shape to a piece of thin wire and carefully position it just above the projected image to dodge, hovering and moving the tool so there will not be any hard lines and the transition between dodged and not dodged areas is minimal. Here is an example: in this case I exposed for the figure, then burned the rest.

I will try Pieter12 idea, interesting. Negative itself is not underexposed, there are information in dark area and of course it is overexposed in highlights.

Alex Benjamin said:

Question: what's that vertical line in front of his right hand and leg?

Click to expand...

I need to check this, I think it is from negative scan.

koraks said:

You said 'contact printing never resonated' with you - but what does that mean exactly? Does it mean you don't like the process of making a contact sheet? Or does it mean that the times you made one, you didn't like the results? In case of the latter, what have you tried to make the best contact sheet you could do? And if that wasn't enough to get a good impression of the photos you thought you had - have you considered the possibility that maybe your negatives could need improvement?

Click to expand...

Thanks Koraks for long and detailed post. I tried one year long only contact printing, and scanning (I think 2017 or so, I don't remember), but on the end I found it troublesome to look on the magnifying glass, and keep track. It is easier for me to have folders on a laptop.
Almost all of my negatives are very thick, I almost always overexpose a little, and develop more, even at cost of bigger grain or something other. I hate thin negatives. I have 20x30 cm LED light board where I inspect negative, to see if something went wrong, but most of the time I am happy. Only in Africa on harsh contrast - there I struggle, but the lighting is as it is, and I have very limited time frame when I take photos there, when on business trips (1/2, 1 hour max per day).

Andrew O'Neill said:

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/andy8x10

Click to expand...

I was watching some of your videos without realizing that it is you

darkosaric said:

Thanks Koraks for long and detailed post. I tried one year long only contact printing, and scanning (I think 2017 or so, I don't remember), but on the end I found it troublesome to look on the magnifying glass, and keep track. It is easier for me to have folders on a laptop.
Almost all of my negatives are very thick, I almost always overexpose a little, and develop more, even at cost of bigger grain or something other. I hate thin negatives. I have 20x30 cm LED light board where I inspect negative, to see if something went wrong, but most of the time I am happy. Only in Africa on harsh contrast - there I struggle, but the lighting is as it is, and I have very limited time frame when I take photos there, when on business trips (1/2, 1 hour max per day).

Click to expand...

D, In that kind of harsh light, giving generous exposure and over developing gives me hard to print negatives that are too contrasty. For me the best result was more exposure (as an example) Tri-X at 320 / FP4 at 80..... and less development. For me with Pyrocat HD it's 13min with Tri-X.... 8 min with FP4. Last week i was in Texas.... the November sun was blazing in the mid-afternoon, and I still got easy to print negatives. Here's an example of my results: