Masking Wet Prints with Inkjet Transparencies

athbr · Mar 17, 2019

I've always wondered if it would be possible to automate dodging and burning of darkroom silver gelatin prints by:

- scanning the negative
- creating a mask in Photoshop with the respective alterations (opacity for exposure control, shades of magenta for contrast)
- printing the mask onto transparency film
- Adding the mask while enlarging

Has anyone tried a process like this?

I've heard of people doing this by hand but I wonder if it could be done digitally.

Also I see most people do this by stacking the mask with the film. Could it be done by layering the mask on top of the paper? I know it would require more materials but would probably be more precise considering I'm shooting medium format.

cheers.

calebarchie · Mar 17, 2019

This is an interesting approach, as it is essentially in reverse of current practice.
I'm not sure if you have heard of digital negatives, but if you are going through this much trouble (scanning/PS/printing etc) it may be worth investigating this approach first to see if may be a better fit for you or what you are indeed looking for in the end.
I assume you are still putting the negative in the enlarger? If you know what DNs are and don't want to do that, there is a thread where someone has pretty much done this approach digitally with B/W I'll see if I can find it..

Bests,
C

athbr · Mar 17, 2019

Hi Calebarchie,

I haven't had any experience with hybrid processes so I don't know what a digital negative is.

But based on reading what I assume you mean is:

- Correct the scan in PS
- Print it as a negative on transparency film
- Contact print onto silver gelatin paper

My only issue with this is that I am limited by the quality of my scan. It is too poor to produce actual photos at my usual print sizes but maybe good enough to produce the masks.

If you could find me the thread you were referring to let me know!

Richard Man · Mar 17, 2019

That's basically how you do silver gelatin off an inkjet "negative". The trick is that you have to apply a compensation curve since the inkjet media (film and ink) do not react to light as normal silver negs do.

... which is also where your original proposal runs into problems: the inkjet printed masks will not behave the same way as a mask made with ortho film, for example.

calebarchie · Mar 17, 2019

athbr said:
Hi Calebarchie,

I haven't had any experience with hybrid processes so I don't know what a digital negative is.

But based on reading what I assume you mean is:

- Correct the scan in PS
- Print it as a negative on transparency film
- Contact print onto silver gelatin paper

My only issue with this is that I am limited by the quality of my scan. It is too poor to produce actual photos at my usual print sizes but maybe good enough to produce the masks.

If you could find me the thread you were referring to let me know!

Hi, yes that is more or less the process in laymans terms (refer to Richard's post for just small things). It is overall a pretty complex process and not having the best scanner is perfectly valid reason to experiment with this alternative approach. I only do DNs because I have several drum scanners

Will do as soon as I find it, been a while.

calebarchie · Mar 17, 2019

Found it:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/digital-contrast-masks-for-colour-printing-yeah.161560/

Apologies I mean't to say colour, there was something different iirc but the overall process is more or less the same. I hope this helps.

athbr · Mar 17, 2019

Richard,

Any good posts/tutorials on applying said compensation curve? Do you think this could be viably done or will I just get swamped in complexity?

Thanks for the help everyone.

calebarchie · Mar 17, 2019

I think you what you want to do, especially if you fear complexity is to simply experiment with QTR, individual ink channels (M/Y) and play with densities. You can always get into mapping curves later if you see some potential in the system after initial testing. You will probably need to read some tutorials about DNs & QTR in general to get an idea first.
If you have even more tech limitations (eg you don't have an epson printer) then you really can do this with without the digital aspect, some film and paint/markers/airbrush etc. Affords less control than PS depending on your skill level, but completely analogue, you just need to experiment

Richard Man · Mar 18, 2019

First, you need to have an Epson printer. In theory, other printers should work, but I blew 3 months and hundreds of dollars a few years ago making it work with my then HP Z3100 printer, and it was not worth it. There are just a lot more software profiles, tools, tutorial etc. for the Epson.

Second, there are actually programs that can help you generate these curves so you don't have to do it by hand. Do some googling and make your own decisions on which one appeals to you, as it depends on your comfort level with color management, printer mucking. etc.

calebarchie · Mar 18, 2019

Richard Man said:
First, you need to have an Epson printer. In theory, other printers should work, but I blew 3 months and hundreds of dollars a few years ago making it work with my then HP Z3100 printer, and it was not worth it. There are just a lot more software profiles, tools, tutorial etc. for the Epson.

Second, there are actually programs that can help you generate these curves so you don't have to do it by hand. Do some googling and make your own decisions on which one appeals to you, as it depends on your comfort level with color management, printer mucking. etc.

Richard is right, you would be totally on your own with another printer, would need to source your own RIP that has similar capabilities (and did I mention they are $$$$) QTR is free, Chartthrob is another easy, free useful program to quickly generate basic curves.

Just an interesting tidbit - HP used to have an official system for creating digital negatives very easily (I'd rather a HP just due to print head design/no clogging issues) until it was quietly scrapped, bit of controversy surrounding that if you like to research that kind of thing. Also the official HP ink formulations changed which more or less made system redundant anyway, at least regarding a total turn key solution.

athbr · Mar 18, 2019

Thanks for the Epson tip. I'd have probably bought a Canon and have been utterly and royally screwed!

Richard Man · Mar 18, 2019

calebarchie said:
Just an interesting tidbit - HP used to have an official system for creating digital negatives very easily (I'd rather a HP just due to print head design/no clogging issues) until it was quietly scrapped, bit of controversy surrounding that if you like to research that kind of thing. Also the official HP ink formulations changed which more or less made system redundant anyway, at least regarding a total turn key solution.

Ah yes, the vaunted "green ink" special sauce (I think it green, it's been a long time) that Erwitt used to make very large platinum prints... Sadly, they never made that special sauce public...

calebarchie · Mar 18, 2019

athbr said:
Thanks for the Epson tip. I'd have probably bought a Canon and have been utterly and royally screwed!

Just use it regularly, their heads are like whiney little babies who have never been given nappies. If you are on budget, go for cheaper dye-based models just make sure it is compatible with QTR still. The dyes will work better for what you want to do. Don't forget to have fun in all this.

Richard Man said:
Ah yes, the vaunted "green ink" special sauce (I think it green, it's been a long time) that Erwitt used to make very large platinum prints... Sadly, they never made that special sauce public...

Green and red IIRC, but its been so long they have probably changed all of them at this point. It was public for a short while, just never marketed well (Erwitt is probably only piece) I think it was clear HP wanted to sweep it under the carpet from the get-go as for why that is controversy. I get the idea it was a bit of a waste of money for them, developing it all for such a niche market with very limited returns. It is a shame, it could of proported an image for the company from a R&D prowess standpoint but they have chose to pretend it never existed unfortunately. That said, you can still get the files if you look hard enough, you can even contact the project lead who has made himself very accessible in all this. But fact of the matter, it probably just doesn't work like it originally did now.

They were offloading a HP at work recently which I seriously considered getting just to investigate and play around with all this in current state. But they wanted way too much for its age and condition to justify for what I wanted to use it for, eventually they found someone silly enough who paid what they wanted. So there goes that..

Sirius Glass · Mar 19, 2019

Yes, I had a workshop that covered that in Yosemite last year with Adam Ross.

athbr · Mar 19, 2019

Hi Sirius,

Any resources online (free or paid) that can guide me with this? Not being stateside my ability to attend all the great workshops promoted here on APUG are severely limited.

cheers.

Sirius Glass · Mar 19, 2019

Alan Ross' workshop has three parts to darkroom printing with one selected negative:

Print using dodging and burning using magenta and yellow filters
Print using filters with a foam mask. He then uses colored pencils and pens to achieve the final print
Print using filters and then PhotoShop or GIMP to mask areas and print the mask on clear plastic. He add the printed mask and repeats the process until the final print is completed

The last two methods produce a completed custom mask for each negative, producing a method of making multiple prints that are the same.

Since Alan earns his income from teaching workshops, I feel that providing any more detail could compromise his income.

DREW WILEY · May 12, 2019

There are all kinds of ways to do this, and entire small books have been published on hybrid masking techniques. I personally prefer to do it all darkroom style, using real film and punch and register systems for masking, which is still the most precise method. Alan Ross' approach is a bit unusual but perhaps the easiest. And you can mix and match all kinds of different methods as you please. Masking can either be as simple as you wish (like smudge pencil or red dye on frosted mylar) or as involved as you aspire to be in image control, involving multiple masks. It's not a single technique, but a huge toolbox full of all kinds of potential tricks. But you do have to have some means of final registration of the mask image to the original; and the bigger the film is, the easier this is.

athbr · Jun 14, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
There are all kinds of ways to do this, and entire small books have been published on hybrid masking techniques. I personally prefer to do it all darkroom style, using real film and punch and register systems for masking, which is still the most precise method. Alan Ross' approach is a bit unusual but perhaps the easiest. And you can mix and match all kinds of different methods as you please. Masking can either be as simple as you wish (like smudge pencil or red dye on frosted mylar) or as involved as you aspire to be in image control, involving multiple masks. It's not a single technique, but a huge toolbox full of all kinds of potential tricks. But you do have to have some means of final registration of the mask image to the original; and the bigger the film is, the easier this is.

Hi Drew,

care to name drop a title of those books if you happen to recall? Google isn't helping much.

DREW WILEY · Jun 14, 2019

There are no current books that I'm aware of. The one or two remaining minor manufacturers of suitable equipment had their own tutorial pamphlets and websites. Lynn Radeka might still offer masking kits with instructions. The Alan Ross technique information is available from himself. There are quite a number of old references available on the web, but which involve discontinued types of film and equipment no longer available unless you find it used. There are books in print on generating masks in Photoshop, but I don't do that kind of thing, just real film work. I printed a complexly masked 8X10 color internegative today, and all the effort that went into it was well worth it. It has a lot of color nuances and extremely fine detail you just don't get when going digital. But quite a bit can be done to enhance texture and tonal reproduction with a single simple unsharp mask in black and white printing. Not every image is going to be helped by doing that; but it can be a wonderful tool in the right hands. If I stumble onto any current useful information, I'll let you know.

Masking Wet Prints with Inkjet Transparencies

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency