Daniel Lawton said:I made my first attempts at unsharp masking this weekend and I must say it was probably the single most depressing and frustrating darkroom attempt to date. Are there any good web links out there giving tips on this technique. 90% of my google search turned up the usual links related to Photoshop unsharp mask (sign of the times.) My main trouble is judging exposure, development and contrast of the actual mask. I'm also assembling the thing with a loupe and lightbox which isn't that easy no matter what Barry Thornton says in his book. Also, does everyone use a glass negative carrier with unsharp mask? I don't have one so I was trying to improvise using Anti-Newton glass from slide mounts and its not working out very well. I'm at a stage where I want the sharpest looking prints possible, but this whole ordeal is making me rethink my goals!
Maine-iac said:The difficulty and time of production in getting good unsharp masks is what has kept me away from this technique, which admittedly produces some lovely results.
However, while the unsharp masking advocates will undoubtedly dispute this, I'm not sure the gains are worth it when compared with another technique(s) which can accomplish nearly as good results, if not as good.
I'm referring to the technique of split-grade printing on VC paper, combined with divided development. The split-grade technique (two exposures, one at full magenta, one at full yellow if using a colorhead or one at highest contrast filter and one at lowest contrast filter if using filters) yields prints with greatly improved local contrast that make the tones "sing" in ways that are quite similar to unsharp masking. Divided development provides further assistance in consistency and tonal control. The learning curve for both techniques is much shorter (see my article on Divided Paper developers in the Chemistry Recipe section), and I think you'll be very pleased with the results.
Larry
hortense said:Donald - Yes, a grade 1 or 3 is fine. My statement was that the neg should not be greater than one that will print on grade 3 12 or 4 since an increase in constrast will be found when you sandwish the USM with the original negative.
My experience parallels your regarding split grade printing. This method does not improve local contrast as much as USMs nor does it in any way enhance apparent rpness.
Daniel Lawton said:I'm at a stage where I want the sharpest looking prints possible, but this whole ordeal is making me rethink my goals!
Donald Miller said:Hortense,
I am sorry but I still do not follow your thinking on this...an unsharp mask does not increase the negative density range (contrast) of the camera negative. It decreases it.
Now split grade printing is a beneficial means of printing some negatives. It allows very good control of burning some specific regions within a print at higher or lower contrast but it does not affect the overall contrast in the same way that unsharp masking does. I do find that sharp masking does allow even more control in this regard then split grade printing.
Donald Miller said:This material, if I were to write it, would be supported by densitometric documentation of the actual effects of each of the processes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?