Medium format negatives and masking

[Roy Keane]

I've been tinkering with making precision masks on lith film for sandwich masking/printing of medium format negatives. I kinda made a makeshift registration system, etc.

I've experimented a lot and I think I'm coming to the "it's not worth the frustration" point in the proceedings. I've also noticed that most of the documentation/vendors in this area of darkroom stuff focus on large format negatives. I've read everything I can get my hands on (the usual suspects: Ctein, way beyond monochrome, the registration-sellers stuff, etc)

So, 2 questions:

-is medium format just too small to expect a repeatable masking workflow?

-semi-related: why are diffusion enlargers preferred to condenser enlargers for this type of tinkering?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've seen what I presumed were successful mask setups on 6x6 cm negatives, and back when this was the only way to do certain things, heard of it being done with good results on 35 mm. That said, anything involving registration is easier with less magnification. You might think about working with an enlarged negative as an alternative to buying all sort of new equipmoent...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

As to question #1...are you having problems with 'sloppy registration' between masks and the original negative?

I made my own low budget pin registration negative carrier and it worked perfectly. It was for 4x5's but the basic design should work for medium format.

The base glass wasn't square or rectangular, but a very slight trapezoidal shape, where the edge going to the back of the enlarger was slightly narrower than the edge facing you when it was placed in the enlarger. There were guides/edges on the enlarger placed with double sided tape at the same angle of the trapezoid and a stop edge at the back which resulted in absolutely perfect registration every time. (I'll post some photos from our other computer in a minute).

For making masks I followed the recommendations in Lynn Radeka's Masking Kit, and found the time saved in finding the materials and information it contained well worth it.

As to question #2...I’d guess (been out of this game for a while and it’s been years since reading Radeka’s book) it would be to avoid unwanted edge effects for collimated light and mask/negative sharply defined edges.

Here’s an example fo the book from Radeka’s website.:

https://www.radekaphotography.com/Contrast Masking Kit sample pages.pdf

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Here's the photos of the pin registration negative carrier for 4x5's:

 

[Roy Keane]

I've seen what I presumed were successful mask setups on 6x6 cm negatives, and back when this was the only way to do certain things, heard of it being done with good results on 35 mm. That said, anything involving registration is easier with less magnification. You might think about working with an enlarged negative as an alternative to buying all sort of new equipmoent...

very interesting idea. Hadn't thought of that

 

[Roy Keane]

Here's the photos of the pin registration negative carrier:

View attachment 282133

View attachment 282134

Thanks for the replies, Murray. Ive found the problem (for me, anyway) wasn't about registration as much as it was about creating usable masks on the lith film. Despite my best efforts, it often feels like luck if I get something usable, which is a lot of work when it feels the like the process is difficult to repeat with precision.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've seen multiple warnings about lith film relative to excessive contrast for things like copy negatives and masks -- though I recall masks of some kinds being done with lith film in print developer back in the 1970s (the one mask I ever made was for posterization -- to get a 4-value print from a continuous tone negative -- so lith film was a good choice there). You might also consider Ilford Ortho 80 as an alternative -- costs a bit more, but it's continuous tone by design and works well in either print or film developers, and you can still work in red safelight. Available in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, too...

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Thanks for the replies, Murray. Ive found the problem (for me, anyway) wasn't about registration as much as it was about creating usable masks on the lith film. Despite my best efforts, it often feels like luck if I get something usable, which is a lot of work when it feels the like the process is difficult to repeat with precision.

Like I say, its was years ago that I was swimming in this rather deep area of the pool. What I do remember is that it took over a year before being able to intuitively know what was needed to get the results I wanted in a print, and how to get there. That's where Radeka's book came in because all the basic masks are there, and how to make them.

If you look at the link to his book example above, the area affected is about the size of a medium format negative.

 

[Roy Keane]

Like I say, its was years ago that I was swimming in this rather deep area of the pool. What I do remember is that it took over a year before being able to intuitively know what was needed to get the results I wanted in a print, and how to get there. That's where Radeka's book came in because all the basic masks are there, and how to make them.

If you look at the link to his book example above, the area affected is about the size of a medium format negative.

I will definitely check that excerpt out - I'd really like this masking to be a tool I can use with some confidence.

 

[Roy Keane]

I've seen multiple warnings about lith film relative to excessive contrast for things like copy negatives and masks -- though I recall masks of some kinds being done with lith film in print developer back in the 1970s (the one mask I ever made was for posterization -- to get a 4-value print from a continuous tone negative -- so lith film was a good choice there). You might also consider Ilford Ortho 80 as an alternative -- costs a bit more, but it's continuous tone by design and works well in either print or film developers, and you can still work in red safelight. Available in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, too...

Really good suggestions. I've been trying to use that Ultrafine Ortho Lith but perhaps it's too contrasty and maybe that's making things feel harder to control

 

[Roy Keane]

Do you have Lynn Radeka's booklet? It's one of the better ones in my opinion.

No, other than some excerpts that I've read and the bit he wrote in Way Beyond Monochrome. Will check it out

 

[Robert Maxey]

Look for "The Dye Transfer Process" by Bob Pace. A very good look at masking. 250 or so pages and freely available as a PDF file. He was an amazing dye transfer printer. In his book, he covers the proper way to make the various kinds of masks a DT printer will more often than not, absolutely require.

Unfortunately, it is an older book and it will mention things like Kodalith Pan Masking film and several other suitable films specifically designed for making proper masks..

Luck To You,

Bob

 

[Roy Keane]

thanks Bob! Will check it out

 

[Robert Maxey]

thanks Bob! Will check it out

You are welcome. There are other references out there. A simplified guide was released by Kodak that is a tad easier to follow than the book by Mr. Pace. I forget the publication number, but Mr. Google can help you locate it. It is well worth looking for the PDF.

Making seem difficult, but once you see the results of your work and the results of the choices you made, you will easily see how to improve your masks. Fo9r me, masking was a slow go in the early years, bit I got better at it.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

In an odd sort of way, masking was our Photoshop.

Bob

 

[Donald Qualls]

In an odd sort of way, masking was our Photoshop.

Bob

Nothing odd about it. Many of the older tools in Photoshop were designed to emulate darkroom techniques (such as masking) that were still in common use in the 1980s when Photoshop came out.

 

[Roy Keane]

Nothing odd about it. Many of the older tools in Photoshop were designed to emulate darkroom techniques (such as masking) that were still in common use in the 1980s when Photoshop came out.

The "burn" and "dodge" tool icons were a complete mystery to me until i started in the darkroom...then it all made sense.

 

[Robert Maxey]

The "burn" and "dodge" tool icons were a complete mystery to me until i started in the darkroom...then it all made sense.

A very valuable skill. Be it a few homemade tools or PS, in a very basic sense, it is all essentially the same.

Bob

 

[DREW WILEY]

Because 120 roll film is so thin, and often on warp-prone acetate base, it is a bit harder to precisely register than either estar sheet film or even 35mm, but I've done it many many times. Lith film is a miserable choice for contrast masking. It was once widely used for high-contrast highlight masks and certain other pre-masks, certainly not for contrast masks per se. It's way too uncooperative for consistent low contrast gradients. It's only real advantage is that it's cheap. What you want is a good stiff sheet film with excellent low-contrast linearity and fine grain. TMax 100 is by far the best choice today for small originals. FP4 works nicely too, but has a bit larger grain.

Your 120 original neg gets taped to a pre-punched strip cut from a piece of dimensionally stable sheet film. Likewise, the tape involved should itself be of dimensionally stable mylar rather than acetate. Then after punching, a full piece of sheet film is fitted on the pins on the glass in the masking exposure contract frame, preferably Anti-Newton glass. After development, the mask is re-registered to the original on the pin glass, the two are permanently taped together at one edge, removed together from the pin glass, and cut down to convenient negative carrier size.

I can't even begin to go into all the details here. But if researching older literature, just realize that masking for dye transfer versus Cibachrome versus color neg film versus black and white film originals are all somewhat different. What they all have in common is the same kind of punch and register gear. I guess the designers of Photoshop couldn't afford real darkroom gear, so they simply stole some of the same terminology (actually, they were darn sharp, because all of that new technology was squarely aimed at the extant offset printing industry accustomed to those terms, not to home desktop printmakers, who didn't even exist yet).