• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

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

@darkosaric thanks for catching up; the scan looked a bit like the negative might have been underexposed, but your explanation suggests it's not the case. Goes to show how much we can make from a scan!
I hear you on the inconvenience of contact printing; I don't particularly like the ergonomics of it, either. But it does help me get a better feeling for what a negative will do in the enlarger.
 
pentaxuser said:
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
Click to expand...
I moved a lot during the years and I don't know where these magazines got 'lost', there where pictures in the article. I used it a few times as a last resort and it worked satisfactory - of course a better negative would have been preferable. Instead of the commercial paper holder I just use a plat piece of laminated wood as the FB paper sticks to the surface well. Doing so I also avoid to expose the expensive lap equipment to the chemicals.
Modern papers are a bit more tricky, I think due to their incorporated development substances. Development can be so fast that the masking effect already is becoming visible during the 1st exposure and that can create some interesting effects looking like 'solarization'.
Once you nailed it for one specific negative and noted the values you can make many identical copies. This reproducibility I personally like.
 
I covered Africa for the wires in the 70s to mid 80s, often in bright midday light, news happens when news happens. I shot with Nikon, F, F2 and F3, along with Canon 7s and Leica IIIG. It's important to recognize a severely backlit scene and know when to increase exposure to exposure for the shadows. My general rule of thumb was 2 stops, of course that blows out the background. If you developing back home then you use a compensating developer. Not knowing what camera and meter you use, but if I was to return I would use a modern AF with matrix and spot metering. Not sure if Nikon matrix will compensate for the backlighting, I would go with spot metering in manual mode. My reasoning is that the spot will expose the shadows to 18% gray, Zone V, but when photographing people with dark skin tones I might add 1 stop to compensate, looking skin tones in Zone III. Thinking about it, I had a Nikon FG (long story as how I got the FG rather than an FA) what did like about it was it had a backlight button that worked well.
 

I think you nailed it Paul. One needs to compensate for the backlight and have correct exposure for the skin tones.....then not over develop.
 
Last edited:
I don't see this requiring anything very elaborate. The persons are the only areas in the pictures with dark tones, just print them at less contrast, no local adjustments required. The sky may still be bright but that's the nature of certain weather and lighting conditions, even if you bring it down it will probably be featureless so doesn't contribute to the image. You can burn the corners a bit or flash the paper if the brightness as such is bothersome.
If local adjustments if the persons really turn out to be necessary, just split grade and dodge during the hard exposure. As the surrounding areas are lighter, they'll be less affected and you'll avoid some halo-ing.
 
The answer to your dilemma is SLIMT. That would open the shadows right up and is easy to do.

Next time, more exposure, less development, or use a two part developer like Diafine or divided D23. ALWAYS expose for the skin tones when shooting people no matter what else is in the image. Save yourself the grief. Chalk this one up to live and learn.
 
Patrick Robert James said:
The answer to your dilemma is SLIMT.
Click to expand...

Is that practical on roll film with potentially mixed exposures?
I only played with the concept very briefly - just enough to demonstrate to myself that it indeed does work. But I also took from it that it requires careful testing to dial in the process to the materials used and scene contrast. I never considered using it for anything smaller than 4x5".
 
Unless I missed it, darkosaric, didn't comment on how he metered the scene....
 

You certainly can use it on film, but I only use it on prints. I suppose it would be possible to use SLIMT after the fact on a neg if it is too dense. I've never tried that, but it should be possible. Bleach the neg, expose it to light, then use SLIMT and redevelop. The OP needs help with prints from those negs though to which I was referring.
 

Too late now, but I think the only remedy here would have been a fill flash, which doesn't add light to the background. On the other hand, I'm a big believer in Nikon's matrixmetering, which would have at least improved things.
 
I use split grade printing of all my negatives and that allows me to avoid dodging and burning most of my prints. Without split grade printing, I was doing a lot of dodging and burning.
 
RalphLambrecht said:
Too late now, but I think the only remedy here would have been a fill flash, which doesn't add light to the background. On the other hand, I'm a big believer in Nikon's matrixmetering, which would have at least improved things.
Click to expand...

The distance from camera to subject may have beyond a smallish flash unit. But when I was using an F with X M sync I carried a few M 5 bulbs and and a Agfa flash bulb gun with bounce. I would use it for fill flash as on M it sync at all shutter speeds, just had to figure in my head the output at which speed.
 
A lot has been written about printing the examples given by the OP, plus advice on how to get better exposures (reflectors, fill flash) on subsequent trips. Nothing has been said about the fact that both examples are soft, either out of focus or camera shake. That issue needs to be addressed first. No printing razzmatazz will fix that.
 
Well to answer the question you could find an exposure time that gives you the details you want on the man's face and clothes and just let the rest fall where they may..

But one could do a dodging mask. In the video below at around 5:15 we see a burning mask but it's the same principle : use the tape trick to draw the man's shape on a piece of thick white paper and cut it out. Stick it on a thin wire and use that as a mask. First, you'll have to find through test strips the exposure time needed to get a good exposure on the subjet, same thing for the rest of the picture : the difference between the two will be the dodging time.
If it's too short, close the lens one stop and double the time.

 


I am just wondering, if you sent the negative out to be printed by a photo finisher, would that count as printing without dodging or burning?
 
The areas that OP wants to dodge out are very small, I assume a 5X7 or 8X10 or metric equivalent making using a dodging out mask might not work. In my old Kodak book 8 to Late there is chapter on using Kodak Opaque Red which is like a paint to make a mask on sheet of acetate the size of the print. For a dodging mask you put the sheet of acetate over the print, I would use the back side of an print, then paint out the limbs and face,. Once dry give the print the exposure for the arms and legs, then under the red light place the mask making sure is lined up correctly, print in the background. I recalled doing this in college. I have several bottles of Opaque, if still good I might give it a try.
 
If you have a steady hand and a sharp Xacto blade, Rubylith works quite well.
 
Sirius Glass said:
I am just wondering, if you sent the negative out to be printed by a photo finisher, would that count as printing without dodging or burning?
Click to expand...

I print my negatives since 2006. I would be happy if I can afford that somebody else print it for me, especially those that are difficult for me .
 

I use cheap 10$ scanner, that does not keep the negative flat, so it looks worse than it is. I used Olympus 35RC, 1/250s, prefocused, f stop I don't remember.
 
With a Olympus 35 RC on automatic mode you lack the ability to compensate for backlighting, the meter is a standard average type with 43 degree view. When you look at the negative of the girl carrying the load so you see any details in her face?
 
darkosaric said:
I use cheap 10$ scanner, that does not keep the negative flat, so it looks worse than it is. I used Olympus 35RC, 1/250s, prefocused, f stop I don't remember.
Click to expand...

Paul Howell said:
With a Olympus 35 RC on automatic mode you lack the ability to compensate for backlighting, the meter is a standard average type with 43 degree view. When you look at the negative of the girl carrying the load so you see any details in her face?
Click to expand...
Have you tried printing any of these negatives? Do you have scans of the prints?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register