Is this a possible spotting/retouching task? Using Spot Tone?

[Chuck_P]

First, this image is part of my on-going series of church interiors. This is a print scan on Ilford MGFB Glossy and toned in selenium at 1:10 and both are contrast adjusted in LrC to match the print. The problem is where there are gaps where the arms are connected to the figure and the result of the gaps at the shoulders and on the wall is quite evident. I find them to be a huge distraction, and I am wondering from the more experienced spot toners if this is even a possible task. I believe that the light gaps in the shadowed wall are more easily dealt with but it's the gap in the shoulders that concerns me most. I have yet to purchase a particular spot toning product, so far I've not needed to, but I know that I will eventually need to for those actual real spot defects. Is there a particular product that would tackle this task better, especially at the shoulders. Of coarse, it's a piece of cake removing those gaps in LrC as can be seen on the right image for comparison, and I could've done a better job than what is seen here.

 

[AnselMortensen]

The shadows on the wall would be easy with spotone.
The gaps in the shoulders would require retouching the negative. Not easy.

 

[logan2z]

The gaps in the shoulders would require retouching the negative. Not easy.

I don't know how tricky this would be, but I wonder if a bleach like Farmer's Reducer could be used to reduce the density in the shoulder gaps. The gaps could then be spotted back to match the density of the arms. Just a thought.

 

[jeffreyg]

Don’t know what size you are printing but if you can mask the lines on the shoulders possibly with rubylith or strips of paper you could then spot them in with Spotone or such. As said it not so easy

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

"Kodak Spotting Colors" are made with opaque pigment in black, white & sepia. Available on ebay Matching the color of the print may be a bit problematic, but you may get a 'good enough' result, and, after all is said and done, good enough is best.

On the plus side they don't soak into the paper, so they can be removed with a damp Q-Tip if there is an 'oops.' On the minus side they don't soak into the paper, so they are visible if the print is viewed in glancing light as they dry to a matte surface like tempra paint. I imagine tempra might work just as well.

Generally available on ebay.

 

[koraks]

Why mess with it to begin with? The photo is a literal representation of an object. The seams are in integral part of the object. I'd frankly not bother falsifying this bit of reality and just keep the image as it is.

 

[Chuck_P]

Why mess with it to begin with? The photo is a literal representation of an object. The seams are in integral part of the object. I'd frankly not bother falsifying this bit of reality and just keep the image as it is.

Naturally, leaving it alone is always and option..............primarily, I simply do not like it and I'm exploring other possibilities post exposure, since I was powerless to climb up there and tighten up those seams before exposure. I don't agree with the characterization of "falsifying", but that's ok. So at a minimum I may just spot out the white lines in the shadow and call it good.

 

[GregY]

Naturally, leaving it alone is always and option..............primarily, I simply do not like it and I'm exploring other possibilities post exposure, since I was powerless to climb up there and tighten up those seams before exposure. I don't agree with the characterization of "falsifying", but that's ok. So at a minimum I may just spot out the white lines in the shadow and call it good.

Chuck, Spot tone is the ticket.... but sadly no longer produced. Keep an eye on on ebay and in darkroom stuff for sale. Those of us who have it swear by it. I have a number of other 'dyes' from B&H but i've yet to open those packages.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why mess with it to begin with? The photo is a literal representation of an object. The seams are in integral part of the object. I'd frankly not bother falsifying this bit of reality and just keep the image as it is.

That was my first thought. Later reflection reinforced the first thought. The splits are authentic and add to the originality and charm of the subject.

 

[AnselMortensen]

One of my community college photo teachers called it "spotting out reality".
One of Ansel Adams' well-known photos has the white letters "LP" on a dark hillside spotted in ...(for Lone Pine).
Once you see it, it can't be unseen.

 

[koraks]

Naturally, leaving it alone is always and option..............primarily, I simply do not like it and I'm exploring other possibilities post exposure, since I was powerless to climb up there and tighten up those seams before exposure. I don't agree with the characterization of "falsifying", but that's ok. So at a minimum I may just spot out the white lines in the shadow and call it good.

Really, it's a (technically good) photo of an object you don't happen to like; I don't see how trying to mend it is going to be any improvement, left or right.

If you insist, there's a couple of things you can do:
* In the negative, bleach out the dense bit that's supposed to be a shadow on the wall. If you use rehalogenating bleach (ferricyanide + bromide) you can go back and redevelop it if you overdo it. If you're happy with the result, refix the negative to make the change permanent.
* Also in the negative, you could add some density on the seams with a very soft pencil and a fine (continuously sharpened) tip. It'll never be perfect, but at a casual glance the seams may stand out a little less.
* In the print, you could develop and stop a print, squeegee it and touch the bit that needs to be a deep shade with a fogging developer. Then fix the print as normal.
* Alternatively, touch up the crack in the shadow with dyes, but no guarantees that the result will age particularly gracefully and will hold up to light shining at the print at disadvantageous angles.
* The dark seems in the figure you could try to fix in the print by masking the adjacent areas with something like rubber cement or something else that will block out water and can be removed later on (perhaps certain types of easy-release tape will work as well), then touch up the dense bits with bleach or Farmer's reducer.

Whatever you do, I'm afraid that nothing, not even your technically excellent recording of the scene (I say that without any irony), will be able to fix the glaring and massive problem - which is that this is ultimately a mindbogglingly tacky figure stuck to an equally tackily finished faux-natural stone wall and lit in the most tacky way imaginable. In all honesty, I think the little seams are ultimately a nice touch to this display of utter kitsch. Please don't take this personally in any way, and there's of course no accounting for taste, but I honestly believe that those little imperfections are the only bits that bring a little sense to this scene.

 

[pentaxuser]

If it's any help and I fear it won't be based on what you have said, it's an impressive shot and I had to look several times to see the problem I was so impressed with the lighting and the impact

Try showing to as many people as you can and see how many, after they look at it, say "It's a pity about the split in the area just beyond the area where the arm meets the shoulder joint. It spoils the whole picture "

I suspect very few if any It's a bit like someone saying at the end of a mountain stage in the Tour de France where the end is almost a dead heat and which you have captured in a print by showing the look of strain on the 2 competitors faces : "Just a pity that you've missed the point of maximum strain in the legs"

pentaxuser

 

[Chuck_P]

If it's any help and I fear it won't be based on what you have said, it's an impressive shot and I had to look several times to see the problem I was so impressed with the lighting and the impact

Try showing to as many people as you can and see how many, after they look at it, say "It's a pity about the split in the area just beyond the area where the arm meets the shoulder joint. It spoils the whole picture "

I suspect very few if any It's a bit like someone saying at the end of a mountain stage in the Tour de France where the end is almost a dead heat and which you have captured in a print by showing the look of strain on the 2 competitors faces : "Just a pity that you've missed the point of maximum strain in the legs"

pentaxuser

Yes, no doubt that it is me alone that finds it distracting and I realize that just about anyone else would probably not look at as closely or even consider it an issue. However, if I can make it less of a distraction to me, then I would consider that a win. Thanks.

 

[Chuck_P]

Really, it's a (technically good) photo of an object you don't happen to like; I don't see how trying to mend it is going to be any improvement, left or right.

If you insist, there's a couple of things you can do:
* In the negative, bleach out the dense bit that's supposed to be a shadow on the wall. If you use rehalogenating bleach (ferricyanide + bromide) you can go back and redevelop it if you overdo it. If you're happy with the result, refix the negative to make the change permanent.
* Also in the negative, you could add some density on the seams with a very soft pencil and a fine (continuously sharpened) tip. It'll never be perfect, but at a casual glance the seams may stand out a little less.
* In the print, you could develop and stop a print, squeegee it and touch the bit that needs to be a deep shade with a fogging developer. Then fix the print as normal.
* Alternatively, touch up the crack in the shadow with dyes, but no guarantees that the result will age particularly gracefully and will hold up to light shining at the print at disadvantageous angles.
* The dark seems in the figure you could try to fix in the print by masking the adjacent areas with something like rubber cement or something else that will block out water and can be removed later on (perhaps certain types of easy-release tape will work as well), then touch up the dense bits with bleach or Farmer's reducer.

Whatever you do, I'm afraid that nothing, not even your technically excellent recording of the scene (I say that without any irony), will be able to fix the glaring and massive problem - which is that this is ultimately a mindbogglingly tacky figure stuck to an equally tackily finished faux-natural stone wall and lit in the most tacky way imaginable. In all honesty, I think the little seams are ultimately a nice touch to this display of utter kitsch. Please don't take this personally in any way, and there's of course no accounting for taste, but I honestly believe that those little imperfections are the only bits that bring a little sense to this scene.

Yeah, I had to look that word up..............kitsch:

noun

art, objects, or design considered to be in poor taste because of excessive garishness or sentimentality, but sometimes appreciated in an ironic or knowing way.

adjective

considered to be in poor taste but appreciated in an ironic or knowing way.
"the front room is stuffed with kitsch knickknacks, little glass and gilt ornaments"

----------------------

Look dude..........if you check my OP, you'll notice that I didn't ask for a subject critique of the photograph, only for advice on ways to deal with the issue that I raised about it, which you did provide some. So, why you were driven to express what you think of the subject of the photograph just sounds like a personal problem to me. You can have the last word.

 

[Chuck_P]

Chuck, Spot tone is the ticket.... but sadly no longer produced. Keep an eye on on ebay and in darkroom stuff for sale. Those of us who have it swear by it. I have a number of other 'dyes' from B&H but i've yet to open those packages.

Thanks, I will try to keep an eye out for some on ebay.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I prefer it with the gaps. But whatever. You'd have to go back to the original neg and use a very fine point black pen or sharp soft pencil, and very carefully fill in the white lines representing the cracks (gaps), preferably using a magnified. The point is to get them to come out in the print a bit too light, and then bring that back down using an appropriate blend of retouching dye. It's easier to do that than attempt a hole-in-one dye approach on the tiny hard-to-control scale of the neg itself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ansel - the other Ansel just needed to wait it out at Lone Pine as far as that obnoxious white dolomite "LP" on the hillside went. Its half eroded away now; and within another few decades it might be totally gone. But now there's a tall chain link fence beside the highway at the spot it was taken, with a row of trees planted behind that. The father of my old college roommate was the Principal at Lone Pine High,
and lived over at Dolomite.

AA used an actual eraser on the orignal negative. Then he printed the whole area total black, so the LP would be invisible. Ironically, when he wisely made his prints intended for offset reproduction less contrasty (prior to scanning days), with the contrast boost coming subsequently in the printing itself (books etc), the LP would become slightly visible again.

 

[MattKing]

Thread title tweaked, because spot or localized toning is actually something different.
If it were me, I would just spot out on the wall the result of the gaps in the sculpture.
Using any appropriate retouching material, including SpotTone, if available.
That should be a reasonably straightforward task.
The gaps in the sculpture are, I would respectfully suggest, part of the character of the subject.
An almost toy-like representation of an extremely consequential subject.
YMMV.

 

[What About Bob]

There was also a brand of spotting dyes called "Marshall's" but it looks like they aren't made anymore.

Freestyle sells a brand under the name: "Peerless". B&H sells the dry version, on sheets, of the stuff.

 

[F4U]

If that's the way it is actually, and considering what it is, then leave it be. It is what it is, so goes the saying.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Marshall's bought out what remained of Spot Tone, and for awhile sold it under their own name parallel to their own version. But now the Spot Tone dyes per se are no longer available. I think those were the best, and hope I don't run out myself.

 

[Chuck_P]

If it were me, I would just spot out on the wall the result of the gaps in the sculpture.

That is probably what I'll do as I alluded to in my post #7. It's hard to keep my eye from going to those white straight lines in the shadow because it is clear to me that they really shouldn't be there, imho. As the one who made the photograph, it's impossible for me not scrutinize aspects of it. So, my mind's eye wants them gone because I don't view it as somehow adding a dimension of character to sculpture. After learning all the possible actions that could be taken to fix the shoulder gaps themselves, it is equally clear that I'll simply not concern myself with them, at least they're black lines.

As a side note, the church was built in 1948 and I'm told by one older person that the sculpture has been there for quite some time but it's not clear when it was put in place.

 

[Chuck_P]

There was also a brand of spotting dyes called "Marshall's" but it looks like they aren't made anymore.

Freestyle sells a brand under the name: "Peerless". B&H sells the dry version, on sheets, of the stuff.

Thanks, I did have a set of Marshall's dyes years ago and wish I still had it. I've seen the Peerless brand at B&H's site and would be interested in opinions of anyone that may use it.

 

[Don_ih]

I personally like that the cracks in the shoulders make those lines in the shadow where the light comes through. If I had to edit the print, I'd do what Matt suggested and only spot the shadow. It's a good photo and it looks like the print is good, also. Spotting really needs to be very very tiny to be unnoticed. I think you'd easily ruin the print trying to mess with the shoulders.

If you manage to correct the print, you could take a photo of it and use that to make a new copy.

 

[What About Bob]

@Chuck_P: At first it had taken me a while to see what you were meaning by arm gaps. The bleaching method proposed by logan2z and koraks is a sound approach and would be the one I would try before touching the negative. Bleach and then slowly build back up dye to bring the tone back in the print, of the arms.

Well done negative retouching has the benefit of having to retouch/spot less, or not at all if you did an exceptional job, on future prints from that frame. Negative retouching is not as easy, as AnselMortensen has pointed out. if you can easily see the application of the dye filling in the area that you are working on, even if the dye is dilute on the brush, that means you have went too far with it. It is easy to do. You have to be very patient and meticulous. Practice on a sample negative that is not important to you until you get the hang of it. Making a copy of the negative before retouching would also be a good idea. I have retouched negatives using dyes and lead pencils, a long time ago when I was at Hallmark.

I also had a set of SpotPens. Anyone remember those? When I was at Hallmark those pens turned a few heads of the students. The instructors preferred us using the regular method of spotting. I was told, in an indirect way, to put those pens away!