Making Multiple Prints

How would one go about making a duplicate print if one has dodged and burned areas? I'm afraid that if I just keep track of the processes that I won't be able to get the same results twice. Would it be easier to copy the print and then work from a negative of that print? How much quality loss would there be? I am working primarily with 6 X 6 and 6 X 7 negatives.

Darkroom317 said:

How would one go about making a duplicate print if one has dodged and burned areas? I'm afraid that if I just keep track of the processes that I won't be able to get the same results twice. Would it be easier to copy the print and then work from a negative of that print? How much quality loss would there be? I am working primarily with 6 X 6 and 6 X 7 negatives.

Click to expand...

consider f/stop timing

Dead Link Removed

Making nearly the same print twice is a matter of consistency and simplified through f/stop timing. It works even if you change the enlargement, and if your filtering system is calibrated, it also works when switching to a different paper or enlarger!

You will, or can, get quite close duplicate prints with burning, dodging and the like, but not really duplicate in the sense of the word.

You can do a copy negative, but realistically it should be a flat, or low contrast negative of a good print.

From there you should be able do reasonable copies of your original dodged and burnt print, not duplicates, but quite close.

How acceptable this is, is for you to judge, but if you have to do multiple prints, then this is a possible viable proposition.

Last year I had a job of doing around 3,000 prints from the same negative. I made a master print which the client approved. This was from a 35mm negative.

I then used a 4x5" camera to make a copy negative, actually 4 negatives with various exposures, developed the lot in one hit and found the best negative that would reproduce a straight print with a reasonable closeness to the original print.

Checked with the customer the go ahead was given then I hit the darkroom.

Enlarger globes going off have to be monitored by having at least a couple of master prints nearby.

You should think about comparing every 30 or so prints with your master print to ensure you are still on track, it really is easy to slowly wander and not realise the prints are too light, dark or lacking in contrast as the developer goes off.

Assume a contrast increase with any copy negative. This is usually looked after by making a slightly flatter print to copy.

Mick.

Make one good print, give it to an offset litho printer to be reproduced as a run of prints, or to be put in a book.

2F/2F said:

Make one good print, give it to an offset litho printer to be reproduced as a run of prints, or to be put in a book.

Click to expand...

OK, I found the sledge hammer. Now, where is that fly again?

He was talking about making a duplicate print!

RalphLambrecht said:

OK, I found the sledge hammer. Now, where is that fly again?

He was talking about making a duplicate print!

Click to expand...

Come on now...I am being facetious (AKA joking around dryly).

Seriously speaking, what I do is try to expose, dodge, burn, and process the same exact way I did on the first one until I get it right. Not hard matching two or three or five...but matching a whole run of "many"? Very hard...on the pocketbook!

The reason f-stop timing will make the job easier is because many f-stop timers can be programmed to remember a sequence of dodge and burn exposures that they 'replay' for each print. Dodge and burn exposures are specified in stops +/- the base exposure so when the base exposure is changed the dodges and burns automatically track the changes.

Another way to get consistency is the use dodging and burning masks that rest on a sheet of glass about a foot or so above the paper, sort of a glass-top table that stands on the easel. The problem here is that quite a bit of trimming is needed to get the size of the masks just right so you don't get halos. Sometimes you want the mask to be slightly larger, sometimes slightly smaller. To make the masks you make a few smaller prints, glue them to cardboard, and cut out dodging and burning areas.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Another way to get consistency is the use dodging and burning masks that rest on a sheet of glass about a foot or so above the paper, sort of a glass-top table that stands on the easel. The problem here is that quite a bit of trimming is needed to get the size of the masks just right so you don't get halos. Sometimes you want the mask to be slightly larger, sometimes slightly smaller. To make the masks you make a few smaller prints, glue them to cardboard, and cut out dodging and burning areas.

Click to expand...

Well, i think the easyest way, is to use pinregistred positive/negative masks.
Burnmask, Dodgemask, Highlightmask so on so on. Here is a guide i made for making and using a dodgemask:
http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/makingofalargeprint.pdf

kompressor said:

Well, i think the easyest way, is to use pinregistred positive/negative masks.
Burnmask, Dodgemask, Highlightmask so on so on. Here is a guide i made for making and using a dodgemask:
http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/makingofalargeprint.pdf

Click to expand...

Once the mask is made, that is the easiest way, but ease of duplication is not the main reason for such a mask, is it?

Making or getting a lithographic printer is not a very good idea unless you do duo-tone printing.

Having had personal experience with trying to emulate the North American Indian that Kodak used about a thirty years ago in their advertising brochures for the Asia Pacific region, it is very hard to approximate the finished product.

We had master prints on Kodak's best B&W fibre paper couriered by onboard hand luggage from Nth America. If my memory was correct we took about a week with one camera operator and a hand lithographic printer doing the proof prints on the various magazine paper stock before Kodak (and us) were satisfied.

Ralph's suggestion of f/stop printing for using an original negative with various exposures, is more or less the best option if you do not wish to make a copy printing negative.

Making a copy negative is relatively easy, getting one that satisfies you completely could be a bit difficult, but it isn't that onerous.

In fact quite a few copy negatives from prints sometimes print slightly better than originals, usually due to the slight contrast bump and slight loss of detail you will have going through this procedure.

For what it's worth, my big job last year was originally shot on HP5+ and was of a photo journalistic nature in it's content, and quite grainy.

My work print was printed very slightly out of focus to about ½ of an 8x10" paper, full frame. This reduced the harshness of the grain that was quite apparent. This was the print I used to make a copy negative with.

I used FP4+ 5x4" film for the copy negative, it was focused sharply. Then straight prints were made using different grades of contrast and submitted to the customer.

They picked the higher contrast print, which was also my choice. It looked quite good, better than an original sharp focused print.

In all cases, the paper used was Ilford MGIV RC Pearl surface.

Mick.

I don't have any problem getting consistent results with dodges and burns. It helps that most of my exposures end up being on the order of 1 minute or longer - the dodges and burns are quite long, so more forgiving of small deviations. If you are are having consistency problems, try stopping down and exposing for longer.

Basically, I want to launch a website in order to sell my work. I will of course scan the print for display and I want to able to insure that the customer gets what they see, or as close as possible giving the scanning and monitor issues.

Darkroom317 said:

Basically, I want to launch a website in order to sell my work. I will of course scan the print for display and I want to able to insure that the customer gets what they see, or as close as possible giving the scanning and monitor issues.

Click to expand...

That's different. This file may be of help:

Dead Link Removed

Also, consider something like this on your site:

Dead Link Removed

I should have specified. What I meant was that I don't plan on just selling one copy of a print.

Thanks for the monitor advice as well.