I'll have to search my bookmarks on a couple of retired computers to see if I can point you to some still-active links...
While it may yet be possible to overcome all this you've got your work cut out for you in simply acquiring that materials nowadays. Nevertheless, you may decide to go for it anyhow. Just realize before you do that compared to all this it's relatively trivial nowadays to scan a slide and make a series of USM layers in Photoshop, and to vary the opacity of them individually or simply locally erase with the History Brush until the desired effect is achieved.
...
I probably haven't made a mask in the past 5 years for the above reason. There's an art to making masks and printing through them and doing it well-- so that the final image doesn't look like a horrible HDR merge. It's possible to do this in Photoshop too, but at least you're not wasting materials rare as hen's teeth with each scrapped iteration.
I'll have to search my bookmarks on a couple of retired computers to see if I can point you to some still-active links...
Meanwhile, you may not need a registration system if shooting in the larger formats as they can be aligned visually and taped down "good enough". For 35mm and MF you'd perhaps find that unsatisfactory if doing more than a very few. I built my own system after I discovered that the tried-and-true Condit registration system was no longer being made and very rarely became available used (and was going for about a grand when one could be found). But then again, making a register punch and contacting frame and easel pin set was made easier as I have a machine shop at my disposal. There are myriad ways to pin-register the larger formats with hole punches and tape-down pins etc, but not so easily with the miniature ones.
Another hurdle to overcome with masks is that ideally you'd want to use Pan Masking film, which being panchromatic B&W film is sensitive to the whole visible spectrum. It also doesn't have an anti-halation backing so the edges are naturally more diffuse. Unfortunately it too was discontinued about a dozen years ago. (Good luck finding any now, but it's what I've always used. I found exactly one box ten years ago, in 4x5 sheets that I had to cut down to 35mm sized chips in the dark-- remember, being panchromatic you can't work under a safelight.)
Some moved on to FP4 for masking but since then this emulsion too may have been axed. There was an issue of purple staining and color crossover in the highlights when masking with FP4 so I never bothered with it. Other emulsions might be tried but the greater accutance bumping up the granularity can be a problem when there's an antihalation backing.
For optimal results you'll also want some Ortho film to mask the specular highlights out of the contrast control mask so that the image retains bright highlights. This was once common for lithographic work but may be harder to source now.
Reciprocity failure characteristic of Ilfochrome would also rear it's head in exposures over 60 seconds when making 11x14s and 16x20s from 35mm... paper exposures often running from 8-45 minutes with attendant color crosses and shifts and dust settling on the paper or the mask, or slide during the exposure. There's 4 film surfaces to clean and to keep dust free with a mask. Spotting materials for Ilfochrome don't work so hot because dust is black and you've gotta scratch to the base to use them... Add to that burning up enlarger bulbs and having them shift color on a regular basis and you might begin to understand why contrast masking quickly becomes something of a chore.
While it may yet be possible to overcome all this you've got your work cut out for you in simply acquiring that materials nowadays. Nevertheless, you may decide to go for it anyhow. Just realize before you do that compared to all this it's relatively trivial nowadays to scan a slide and make a series of USM layers in Photoshop, and to vary the opacity of them individually or simply locally erase with the History Brush until the desired effect is achieved. I probably haven't made a mask in the past 5 years for the above reason. There's an art to making masks and printing through them and doing it well-- so that the final image doesn't look like a horrible HDR merge. It's possible to do this in Photoshop too, but at least you're not wasting materials rare as hen's teeth with each scrapped iteration.
Another thought: a score of years ago, a company called Photo-Tools, I believe, made or marketed a reuseable photochromic A/N glass mask called a Minit Mask. Idea was you contacted it with the slide in the carrier (there was even an optically-ground relief bulge in the 35mm size that held the glass in contact with the film emulsion) and then popped it with flash right before making a print exposure. Supposedly it held a latent reversed mask image for a few minutes. It was cleared with a heat gun or hair dryer. It's also long since out of production, but if you found one of these (and providing it still worked as intended) you might save yourself a great deal of grief and avoid the need for the lower density masks, at least.
That all said, I once figured that about 25% of my best portfolio shots were printable on Ilfochrome only with a contrast-controlling mask. Another 25% of my images still were a huge challenge on Ilfochrome and therefore better candidates for internegs and C-41 prints (even using the low-contrast CPM1M and the lowest contrast resin Ilfochrome material, the designation of which escapes me at the moment).
I concur with the remarks by boyooso relative to Bob Paces work. I do not have his Cibachrome book. I do have his book on masking for photographic purposes. I would also be willing to share. He has a lot of info on Ciba printing in it as well as dye transfer and B&W printing.
I haven't found either of my copies of it yet, but Ilfochrome themselves at one time published a very good (free) pamphlet on contrast masking for Ciba/Ilfochrome materials.
I have the pamphlet - let me see about scanning it...
Erik, another thought-- you're not using P3X chemistry, are you? This is the commericial lab roller transport print machine soup that purportedly bumps up the contrast. (Can't say for sure, never used it but it crossed my mind. Low-contrast scenes--say those within a 4-stop range-- should print well on Ilfochrome without any masking at all, though you may notice a saturation bump).
Too, for the really critical work, someone once suggested that the 75˚F temp with regular P3 or P30 may be less contrasty than 86˚F. Whether or not that's irrefutable, I do remember mostly using 86˚F in later years whenever I wanted to print fast (2m-2m-2m as opposed to 3m-3m-3m) with little ill effect; but on days and projects when I was masking it slowed me down anyway so I did standardize on running at 75˚F. That was because in my Jobo CPP2, floating the three 4x5 trays for open processing of the masks also worked well at that temp.
Another thing that I found over half a dozen years of making and selling a ton of Ilfochrome prints was that while I could often look at a slide and probably nail exposure and color balance within 2 sheets of paper, I only did so after ramping up to it by religiously recording all the exposure details in a logbook for continual reference. This ingrained habit proved extremely valuable later, with masking.
Too, it'll help to have a densitometer or at least an easel meter (I used a ColorStar) to measure the actual contrast between the shadows and the highlights in a given transparency.
Now if only someone can recommend an extremely bright yet evenly diffuse dichro head in 4x5, I may soon be in the market for a new (used) one.
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?