Negative Masks with PS

[athbr]

Would it be possible to:
1. scan an image
2. edit it in photoshop
3. subtract out the original scan(so I'm left with the difference between the original and the edited)
4. Invert that file
5. print it on digital negative sheets
6. Sandwich this mask with the original negative and print optically

I know what you're thinking. Why? Honestly there is no why. It's simply fun to think about new processes (even when misguided).

Anyone try anything like this before? How do I accomplish step 3? Set the background to subtract?

 

[Luckless]

The high level answer is "Yes, this is totally doable", but the low level detailed answer is "It really depends on what you're doing..."

To help decide how to tackle the problem overall it would be important to know what film and size negative you're working with, what kind of editing you're aiming for, and what you have access to for printing. There is usually a non-trivial interplay between densities and response curves to keep in mind as well.

With smaller film that's getting enlarged, you may have more luck with printing large edit-positives, and carefully photographing them to transfer back to film for your actual masks. But it really depends on what you have for a printer as far as accuracy and density control.

 

[athbr]

Hi Luckless.

I'd be doing this for 35mm and 120 for color negative (mostly portra) and BW (mostly HP5).

I'm assuming that the calibration issue due to different response curves is going to be a headache. I suppose figuring it out would be part of the fun.

TBH if it would involve rephotographing then its a step too far for me. Any printer you recommend that can make decent masks in 35 and 66 or is this just a no go?

cheers.

 

[athbr]

As for editing, I'm imagining playing with contrast, exposure, saturation globally as well as locally.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For contact printing my 8x10 negatives, it worked extremely well. For enlargements, no.

 

[athbr]

For contact printing my 8x10 negatives, it worked extremely well. For enlargements, no.

Andrew, could you elaborate on your process? How did you create the mask? What blending mode did you use?

 

[jim10219]

Well, with contact printing, you scan the image. Enlarge it in software. Do any edits and masks and whatever else you want to do to the image. Invert the colors, apply your correction curves, or whatever else you need to do to make this particular print process look good, and then print a full size negative on your computer printer. Then you place the negative directly onto the sensitized paper, and then print it using UV light (or regular light if it's a silver gelatin print) and developing it in all of the necessary chemicals. You use a contact printing frame, and there's no need for an enlarger. You could, in theory print two negatives, one with the mask you wanted, and one normal, but why?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andrew, could you elaborate on your process? How did you create the mask? What blending mode did you use?

I honestly don't remember as it was several years ago. I first read/learnt about it through a Photo Techniques magazine article.

 

[athbr]

but why?

Well...

Why? Honestly there is no why. It's simply fun to think about new processes (even when misguided).

 

[DREW WILEY]

Entire handbooks have already been published on this very subject, at least with respect to b&w printing. I don't do it using a scanner because I find it way easier and more precise just to generate masks themselves via contact onto actual film, then develop that darkroom style. That way the film can be pre-punched in register, saving a lot of headaches with alignment afterwards, especially if you plan on doing this kind of thing in volume.

 

[athbr]

Entire handbooks have already been published on this very subject, at least with respect to b&w printing. I don't do it using a scanner because I find it way easier and more precise just to generate masks themselves via contact onto actual film, then develop that darkroom style. That way the film can be pre-punched in register, saving a lot of headaches with alignment afterwards, especially if you plan on doing this kind of thing in volume.

Im sure I’ve asked you this before but any sources? Sadly so much important photographic knowledge isn’t available on the internet. I’d love to get my hands on this info.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm unaware of anything up to date on the subject. There is an enormous amount of information retrievable on the web pertaining to past color techniques and specific masking films no longer available. People who made applicable punch gear in recent times like Inglis and Radeka offered their own instruction. Alan Ross still teaches his own version of b&w masking. You might start there.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Why?

You have a lot of small detail that you want to burn or dodge. Or you want to use a contrast mask for the small detail.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Real film is much better for keeping fine detail in register, that is, if dimensionally stable polyester sheet film is used for masking rather than acetate film. Microtonality and edge effect can be enhanced in this manner. Alan's method isn't particularly good for that, but Howard Bond published articles on it that aren't very out of date. Dodge/burn control is obviously possible at the same time. There's a follow-up illustrated PDF article of Bond's method still on the web by Paul Wainwright. Although it's obvious that Paul was still relatively a beginner when he published this article, and that a number of his specifics could be improved, the article might still prove useful to some.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I thought about the same thing. I remember years ago seeing Minit Mask. It's a making system that doesn't require using film. After you're done, you clear the mask with hot water. Don't know how it works.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/NuTek-Photo-Tools-4X5-MinitMask-Minit-Mask-Boxed-/392081279575

I thought of masking BW negatives with OHP film. I'm thinking that you can control local areas of contrast on MG paper by printing magenta or yellow.