Printing a 35mm negative with streamers - can it be done?

[snusmumriken]

I messed up: I got streamers through inadequate agitation. I am philosophical about losing photos through technical mishaps, but there’s one on this film that is almost intact and I’d like to print it. The location Silbury Hill, a huge Neolithic man-made chalk mound in southern England near Stonehenge and Avebury. It was a cold damp misty winter’s evening, with the light fading, and I had only a 100 ISO film. So Max Berek is probably turning in his grave over the image quality. I was also constrained by the location of access paths, and the fact that I had only a 50m lens. But I still like the result.

I just want to get rid of the streamers. My question is, how would you go about that in the darkroom? Is the only way to rehearse burning in with various size holes and heights and speeds, until one has it nailed?

(PS - as this is an analog content area, please don’t advise how easy it would be to do it 'next door'. I know, I've done it. But I want to make a darkroom print.)

 

[koraks]

They only reliable way I could think of is to let the sky blow out into white. You lose the atmosphere.

Sorry, sometimes the realistic thing to do is just accept the loss and move on.

 

[MattKing]

Either that or boost the contrast locally to emphasize the other worldly effect that those "streamers" create.

 

[snusmumriken]

Either that or boost the contrast locally to emphasize the other worldly effect that those "streamers" create.

Yeah, it's the aura, for sure. Should sell millions as a postcard.

 

[Graham06]

Have no idea how this will work but how about defocusing the sky. Cut out a land/ sky border mask a little into the sky. Keep both halves expose the land withe the land mask in place a little above the paper so the mask line is a bit blurry. Then install the other. Half in the same place, defocus things so the streamers are not visible and then expose the sky for the same amount.

Maybe defocising changes the amount of light and you will have to adjust but the sky won’t be washed out and there isn’t enough in it to tell it is out of focus. You may have to defocus a lot to hide the streamers. Maybe defocus will help hide burn attempts.

 

[Graham06]

Either that or boost the contrast locally to emphasize the other worldly effect that those "streamers

I once developed a roll with insufficient developer and got blurry bubble marks all over the negative. The effect worked for those photos

 

[snusmumriken]

Have no idea how this will work but how about defocusing the sky. Cut out a land/ sky border mask a little into the sky. Keep both halves expose the land withe the land mask in place a little above the paper so the mask line is a bit blurry. Then install the other. Half in the same place, defocus things so the streamers are not visible and then expose the sky for the same amount.

Maybe defocising changes the amount of light and you will have to adjust but the sky won’t be washed out and there isn’t enough in it to tell it is out of focus. You may have to defocus a lot to hide the streamers. Maybe defocus will help hide burn attempts.

Thanks for the suggestion! Undeterred by earlier replies(), I have been playing with a diffuser under the lens to soften edges while I expose the sky and then burn in the streamers. The main problem with that approach - which would presumably arise with de-focussing too? - is that the grain pattern is then missing in the sky. The grain isn't at all prominent, but it looks odd when it's missing from part of the print.

It's so ridiculously easy with an image editor like GIMP, but I'm stubbornly determined to find a darkroom workaround. Really not worth the effort for this photo, but I like a challenge ... at least, I haven't given up yet.

 

[bedrof]

You can flash the sky part a bit without the negative and then dodge it when printing. Or you can fit the sky from another appropriate negative.

 

[Don_ih]

It's so ridiculously easy with an image editor like GIMP, but I'm stubbornly determined to find a darkroom workaround.

Yeah, it's annoying how easy it could be but seemingly impossible in the darkroom.

You could make a print, touch it up with pencil, then rephotograph it. That would work best with a large print for doing the touch up. And, of course, depends on your skill with a pencil.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Airbrush time.

 

[Graham06]

is that the grain pattern is then missing in the sky.

Oh. That will sink the defocus idea And probably the diffuser idea too.

I think that main problem is that it will be very hard to eliminate the sharpish edge at the edge of the streamers.

Next idea is a sheet of transparency and some alcohol markers as a mask. This will let you have shades of grey. Trouble with that is that you have to colour everything that is not a streamer, so you will have a lot of colouring to do. You can raise the transparency a little to defocus the mask ( which means your mask image now needs to be a little bit smaller. ( you wanted a challenge, right?)) and the correction mask could be slightly heavy handed 'cos you don't have to use the mask for the whole exposure.

how about this:
-install a transparency sheet repeatably 1 inch above the paper with image focused on paper.
-mark the corners on the mask.
-now place the mask on the easel and focus the image so it hits the 4 corners you marked and is in focus.
-Raise the easel and a sheet of white paper to the transparency level so you have some support and feedback for painting.
-Now you can see the dark streamers projected as a negative on the transparency.
-now spend an hour with markers colouring everything else so the streamers don't show.
-lift the enlarger up back to hte original position and focus
-install your transparency 1 inch up.
-Put the easel back in the original position
-expose the image
-repeat all this 6 times till you get it right.

 

[cliveh]

I would leave as is. It is the mark of the artist. You may think it as technically imperfect, but others may enjoy the general atmosphere of the image. There are too many darkroom printers who try to improve their images and end up making them look worse.

 

[snusmumriken]

I would leave as is. It is the mark of the artist. You may think it as technically imperfect, but others may enjoy the general atmosphere of the image. There are too many darkroom printers who try to improve their images and end up making them look worse.

But Clive, those streamers weren’t in my artistic vision

 

[cliveh]

But Clive, those streamers weren’t in my artistic vision

Nor were the Vignetting of Atgets prints.

 

[Don_ih]

Nor were the Vignetting of Atgets prints.

Not sure about that. He could see that on the ground glass - plain as day.

 

[snusmumriken]

Nor were the Vignetting of Atgets prints.

Ha, touché! Maybe there was nothing he could do about it, or maybe he didn’t care, or maybe he liked it. None of those apply to me in this case.