Making prints 'glow'

[1kgcoffee]

Curious if it's possible and how you would make prints glow, particularly from the highlights? In photoshop terms the orton effect. But subdued.

I have some 6x6 young portraits of niece and nephew, exposed on pushed tri-x and pulled delta 3200, developed in d76 1+2. Really nice highlights and midtones on the face. I'd to extend the highlights out slightly for the glow, but keep sharp shadow detail. So no overly diffused light.

One possibility I have thought of is to throw the enlarger out of focus for a second or third exposure at grade 00, but without wasting too much paper maybe there's an existing technique?

Thanks in advance,
-Aaron

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Curious if it's possible and how you would make prints glow, particularly from the highlights? In photoshop terms the orton effect. But subdued.

I have some 6x6 young portraits of niece and nephew, exposed on pushed tri-x and pulled delta 3200, developed in d76 1+2. Really nice highlights and midtones on the face. I'd to extend the highlights out slightly for the glow, but keep sharp shadow detail. So no overly diffused light.

One possibility I have thought of is to throw the enlarger out of focus for a second or third exposure at grade 00, but without wasting too much paper maybe there's an existing technique?

Thanks in advance,
-Aaron

I achieve that by going slightly beyond the papers bona capabilities; in other words, the highlights are ever so slightly overexposed(too light) and the shadows are just a tad too dark.this,followed by selenium toning, gives me the sparkle of a wet print back.works from.Using the Zone System doesn't mean to cramp all tonality into a grade2 paper;Itmeans getting tones where you want them.Otherwise, prints can easily get dull.

 

[chip j]

Use a 75mm Komuranon S enlarging lens.

 

[jimjm]

Have you thought of selectively bleaching the highlight areas? Used very effectively by photographers like Dave Heath and Eugene Smith, to name a few.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't care for blur added during printing because the look is completely different than when done during image capture. In the darkroom, the shadows bleed into the highlights whereas in the camera, the highlights glow into the shadows. If you're wanting to stay mostly analog you could use PS to print masks on transparent material to sandwich with the film but registration will be a challenge.

Of course, if you want to use PS then this thread should be moved to the Hybrid Workflow Section.

There's another reason to make printing masks; Dodging can be done and so can burning (effectively). So prints should be extremely repeatable... and no more aching back from slumping over the printing easel waving miscellaneous bits of opaque paper between the lens and paper.

 

[darkosaric]

Try this: 80% of time expose normal, and 20% of time expose the paper with the women's nylon socks between the lens and the paer, or 20% of time expose slightly out of focus.

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

out of focus.

All of that will have the opposite effect of spreading the bright (aka shadows) into the dark (aka highlight) areas and creating a somber look. It's a pretty neat analog technique, but not what you need.
Using a diffusion filter when taking the picture would be what you want, but the time is passed for that option.

 

[Vaughn]

Try this: 80% of time expose normal, and 20% of time expose the paper with the women's nylon socks between the lens and the paer, or 20% of time expose slightly out of focus.

I tried this and it did not work at all. After two or three tries, it hit me -- no, it does not work for contact printing. I felt pretty silly.

 

[Julie McLeod]

Didn't the Orton Effect originate with a film technique? Something about two negatives sandwiched together when enlarging, if I recall.

 

[David Allen]

Try this: 80% of time expose normal, and 20% of time expose the paper with the women's nylon socks between the lens and the paer, or 20% of time expose slightly out of focus.

Yes using a piece of women's tights over the enlarger lens will give this effect and you can vary the level of the effect buy stretching or loosening the tights over the lens. The good news is that the courser the Denier the better the effect - so the cheaper the stockings/tights the better.

Way back in the day it was an often used technique when making 'Hollywood' type portraits of women and could be used at the tacking stage and at the printing stage. My friend who used to offer this service (early 1980s) preferred to use the effect at the printing stage so that the negatives could be printed 'straight' if required.

These days the technique is mainly used at the taking stage by film cameramen:

http://coltondavie.com/tests/testing-net-diffusion/

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[jeffreyg]

Sitting in my office because there is power and ac re: hurricane Irma ... no power or running water at our home with many trees in our yard down so no analog for a while. Some time ago while photographing a model; they were using Kodachrome 25 and I was using TriX 400 so I was quite stopped down because of the lighting setup. My images were too sharp and showed every pore and detail in the skin. In an effort to have some decent prints I took two pieces of 1/4 glass with some baby oil in between them. First I focused for a sharp image and the maneuvered the glass sandwich under the enlarger lens so that the eyes were sharp but the skin was diffused enough to look soft and actually had a glow. i used it for several of the images with equal results. You can adjust the amount of oil and by rotating the pieces of glass over each other see what the effect is before making the exposure. Of course make a test print fore exposure time and contrast setting. You can also dodge and burn by holding the glass in one hand and have the other free.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[pentaxuser]

Use a 75mm Komuranon S enlarging lens.

What is it about this lens that achieves the "glow" that the OP wants which other lenses lack? Thanks. An example would be nice and better still two prints of the same negative from this lens and another lens, demonstrating the glow effect in the Komuranon compared to the other

pentaxuser

 

[grimp0teuthis]

I had a couple negatives shot in very bright, contrasty conditions, creating relatively harsh highlights. I got a certain glow by using a split-grade printing technique: I split the total exposure into two exposures, one at "normal" (in this case, grade 2) contrast and one at 00 contrast (I may have lengthened the overall exposure time as well, but you'll need to play with it anyway.

If your shot isn't bright and contrasty, this won't work of course.

 

[chip j]

What is it about this lens that achieves the "glow" that the OP wants which other lenses lack? Thanks. An example would be nice and better still two prints of the same negative from this lens and another lens, demonstrating the glow effect in the Komuranon compared to the other

pentaxuser

It's the GLASS--can't be seen on computer screen, but it and my Agenieux 48mm G10 have far more glow than any other lenses I've tried, and I've tried 99% of them. The print almost looks almost still "wet", too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have you thought of selectively bleaching the highlight areas? Used very effectively by photographers like Dave Heath and Eugene Smith, to name a few.

+1

Another approach is to use my father's method. When my father would prepare to take the family photograph for Season's Greeting cards, he would take out the tripods and floodlights. The dog would try to get out of the house, failing that he would hide. Once set up we were gathered with the dog for the photograph. After yelling at us for not properly posing we would get spanked and that brought the tears. Then the photographs were taken. The people who received the cards would ask how he got photographs such bright eyes on the children and the dog.

 

[removed account4]

ansco (formulary) 130 paper developer sometimes gives this effect depending
on the dilution and exhaustion.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I have some 6x6 young portraits of niece and nephew, exposed on pushed tri-x and pulled delta 3200, developed in d76 1+2. Really nice highlights and midtones on the face. I'd to extend the highlights out slightly for the glow, but keep sharp shadow detail. So no overly diffused light.

From push processed Tri-X to pull processed Delta 3200 you will have two completely different negatives to work with, which will require completely different treatment to achieve similar results.

Your Tri-X negatives are likely to require a lower grade paper/filter than the D3200 ones in order to give similar overall contrast, assuming you care about consistency.

To make either of them sparkle will mean you have to focus on different areas:
Tri-X - pushed will have a lot of contrast. I would say you'd need to spend a lot of time on mid-tones, to make sure you have enough detail in the skin tones to pull the viewer in. You may have to work with selective bleaching to adjust local areas of detail, as your highlights are likely to need printing down, and your shadows are likely to require dodging, and a face has both highlights and shadows.

D3200 - it's already a low contrast film to begin, and if you pull process it will be even lower. You're likely to have to work with very high contrast filters to render satisfying contrast in the print. I like shooting D3200 @ 3200 and process in Ilford DD-X according to their time for 6400. That gives me the best negatives for normal contrast printing.

For both types of prints I'd try using an indirect toner such as sepia or thiourea, using a very weak bleach diluted so you only bleach the brightest highlights and tone them back. This gives the highlights a beautiful glow and sparkle. If you subsequently tone with selenium, you darken shadows, and your highlight toning will intensify. This changes the color of the print to warm on all papers, but it also gives a really great black with nice sparkle to the highlights.

Here's an example on Ilford MGIV developed in replenished Ethol LPD, toned in Moersch MT-3 and Harman Selenium. Negative was FP4+, exposed at EI 80, processed in Xtol 1+2, medium contrast negative.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's the GLASS--can't be seen on computer screen, but it and my Agenieux 48mm G10 have far more glow than any other lenses I've tried, and I've tried 99% of them. The print almost looks almost still "wet", too.

Is it really residual aberration or just plain dirty glass? Given that both those lenses are from manufacturers regarded as either extremely good or world class (Angenieux) I'd be more inclined to wonder how they'd behave after a thorough & meticulous clean, not least because oil/ dirt that has leaked on to the elements in small quantities would probably give similar results to what you describe. What aperture are you using them at anyway?

 

[chip j]

My local Leica dealer sold me a 50mm Komuranon S 3.5 saying it was VERY close to a Focotar 2. Well, I got a Focotar2 (2 of 'em, I have 5 Ss), and I like the Komura better--it makes the print look like a Billion bucks whereas the Focotar 2 only makes it look like a Million bucks! My lenses have always and everywhere been spotless; my aperture varies.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I do not use Photoshop, but the effect seems like a combination of increased colour saturation and increased contrast with a little vinetting. At least that´s what it looks like on some colour pics from the web.

For B&W - when I want a "glowing" look - I make the print at about +.7 Grad and +.5 f, tone it in selenium 1+20 for 1-2 minutes to increase Dmax and then bleach back the highlights in dillute farmer´s reducer. Usually does the trick.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's been many years for me but... no, the effect is created in PS with a second blurred layer as either "Darken" or "Hard Light" (darkroom blur)... OR... "Lighten" or "Soft Light" (in-camera blur) or a combination of two or more layers. The effect of each layer can be further modified with "Curves" and "Layer Transparency". I'll bet I can FAKE a photo making it appear as if it was shot with a Rodenstock Imagon... discounting the 'star' effect in the highlights... though, I'm sure that can be faked too... but I'm too lazy.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's the GLASS--can't be seen on computer screen, but it and my Agenieux 48mm G10 have far more glow than any other lenses I've tried, and I've tried 99% of them. The print almost looks almost still "wet", too.

I wonder what they do to the glass that gives it this look that other manufacturers such as Nikon, Rodenstock fail to do. Pity that the difference can only be seen by the naked eye which is what I think you mean in response to my request that you post two prints from the same neg using the "glowing" and non-glowing" lenses.

Some people believe that Leica lenses have special properties, albeit difficult to define and demonstrate. In fact if I recall, there was a thread on this in the past. Was that your thread?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

To me "glowing" effect of lenses indicates uncorrected aberrations. That's fine if it's what one wants. But (to me) it works much better in camera than in enlarger because the effect is VERY different.

 

[Eric Rose]

I second the use of Ansco 130. If you provided us with a scan of your print we could better suggest solutions. Liquid light might work as well.

 

[chip j]

I wonder what they do to the glass that gives it this look that other manufacturers such as Nikon, Rodenstock fail to do. Pity that the difference can only be seen by the naked eye which is what I think you mean in response to my request that you post two prints from the same neg using the "glowing" and non-glowing" lenses.

Some people believe that Leica lenses have special properties, albeit difficult to define and demonstrate. In fact if I recall, there was a thread on this in the past. Was that your thread?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Possibly my thread; i KNOW that Contax G Zeiss lenses have a "sparkle" that Nikon lenses don't--very evident in slides. It all depends on the "LOOK" each manufacturer wants--they all (enlarging lenses) have their own "world-view".