The magic of pencil masking - A worked example

For those not familiar with the technique, pencil masking is where a matte but translucent sheet (mylar or tracing paper typically) is used above the negative and used to locally control exposure. I've been aware of the technique for a while, but have only just received my contact printing and pin registration setup from Alistair Inglis to be able to do this both in my little darkroom for proofing and contact printing - as well as the bigger darkroom I use which has an Durst 8x10 enlarger. After some messing around to tune the clamping pressure I wanted to share my first result to encourage more folks to give this amazing darkroom technique a look.

I always make a straight contact print from my 8x10 originals to a standard exposure as my starting point on the Foma 111 paper I normally use for everything. This print gets filed as a reference with the neg, and I write printing notes on the back for both contact prints and enlargements. For this image I went a little heavier and a grade harder as my starting point for a work print.


Straight contact print, selenium toned, grade 3.

Not bad overall, but I wanted more detail in the shadows under the ferns on the left, up the trees and so-on. So after determining a new exposure with clean mylar (50% longer), and then with just two tests I ended up creating this mylar mask on my lightbox.


Mylar mask - 2B and 6B pencil, softened with a blending stump and mostly my finger

We end up with a subtle difference, but much improved print. This dodging which would be all but impossible by conventional means with wands etc. To really see it I suggest you download the two images and compare them side by side, or better yet in a program where you can flip between the two. Perhaps the biggest advantage of this technique is it's absolute repeatability - you can make small changes and then print, and print again to get the same precise results. You can move from contact printing to enlarging and maintain all the effort in getting the exposure control of the print just so etc.



My final print, grade 3, using the mask and with a small burn across the top full width and bottom right corner. Selenium toned

Neat Technique!

Nice result!

James, that is really well done. I admit, now you've got me thinking...

Ken

Alistair Inglis is a long time APUG sponsor ....

Yes he is. And by all accounts his equipment is very good. I've looked at his gaseous burst system before, but never considered his contact printer/pin system.

Ken

Did you get the Durst alignment carrier?

Can this be done with medium format neg ? they are so small compared to 8x10.

Re Durst - We are shipping one of our existing carriers to Alistair to modify once he gets his workshop setup after moving.

Re Alistair - He has been great with questions, his gear is clearly made one by one in a well setup workshop but is also very nicely done. There is nobody else as far as I know making gear like this. It is possible to make your own setup using magic tape, perspex or plexiglass etc but the pin registration just makes everything simple - practical if you are only enlarging (120 or 4x5) - I can't fit an 8x10 enlarger in my 4ft by 4ft space. I also use his film washer which is very simple and effective.

Re Medium Format - Yes, but of course everything must be much finer and more subtle. The same principles apply, just need to be a bit less quick and crude than my mask.

Interesting.
I knew of pencil-retouching on the negative, but not of -masking on a lower scale on matte, seperate sheet.

Nice result. Are the pencil strokes visible in the print? I would have expected that more uniform smudging would be necessary.

I really need to try some masking one day!

Nope - Often in an enlarger some kind of diffusion is required between the mask and negative because of the greater depth of focus. I'm not sure with this mylar if that's going to be the case.

I've been using a similar technique for my contact prints. I place the negative on a light-box, then cover with a clear sheet of mylar the same size as the negative. I use a grease pencil to mark up the areas that I want dodged.
Using Scotch removable tape, I tape the negative to underside of contact glass, then visually register & tape the mylar onto top of glass. Sandwich paper, neg, glass, mylar into contact frame. About 1/2 thru exposure, I remove the mylar sheet ( a judgement call as to when).
If the paper is relatively slow such as for pt/pd and the negative is relatively thin, can skip the taping step and register the mylar after sandwiching paper & neg in frame.
Its a low tech solution.

Yes I agree with this - If you only wanted to pencil mask then some tape and registration by eye would be fine. I wanted one system to do everything so why not pin register everything. I also want to learn unsharp masking etc so having one approach is important.

Emmet Gowin has a nice article in Darkroom 2 Lustrum press on contour masking which is a variation of pencil masking.

My first mentor used Red dye to paint out shadows on negatives as well use it to pump up some areas . He learned this in a Berlin Studio in the early 40's

There are also people making digital masks on different medias and apply them to the negative to dodge and burn, some using colour to increase and decrease contrast in areas as well.

Wonderful methods all.

Pencil Shading & Inglis

I've been using the pencil shading technique (and Inglis' equipment) for years and find it a wonderful printing tool. Here's my insight, in case hoping it proves informative/beneficial:

> Alistair's equipment is top of the line. I have his unsharp masking stuff (for 8x10 and 4x5), his film washers (8x10, 4x5), pin-registration negative carriers (both sizes), punches (both sizes), etc. Everything works great and if there's ever an issue, Alistair takes care of it, no questions asked. I consider him a gentleman, an honest businessman, and a friend. I also get my diffusers and Mylar sheets directly from him.

> I use a harder pencil (H series vs. B series) for shading. I find B pencil to add too much shading all at once. I prefer an additive approach . . . shade, print, shade more, print, shade more. I prefer adding shading vs. having to remove shading (it just works better for me).

> I am surprised that the hard lines did not show on the print. I use a blending tool (blending stump, blending pencil, Q-tips, etc.) to ensure the shading is all very smooth and one cannot see any lines lines at all.

> I use a diffuser (supplied by Alistair) on top of the top glass. I then place the Mylar sheet (with pencil shading) on top of the diffuser. You need a pin-registration system to keep everything in registration.

> My ensemble is a Fotar chassis with Omega F head for 8x10 (and 4x5) and am waiting for Alistair to finish his move in order that I can send him the neg carrier for the 4x5 Durst. I only recently acquired the Durst enlarger (it was a bargain I could not resist).

> One can also use red crayon (instead of pencil) to dodge and slightly increase contrast. I prefer pencil.

> The technique can also be used for burning in . . . . cut holes in the Mylar mask where you want to burn in. I use jagged edges vs. smooth edges.

> The combination (unsharp masking + pencil dodging) allows me to increase contrast by as much as 1.5 grades (or even more) . . . . when I feel the print needs more "punch"

> If one dodges too much (too much pencil shading) . . . . no worries - simply use an eraser and erase. If it is a matter of fine tuning, use clean/new blending stump (or Q-tip) to remove some of the pencil shading.

> I have used the pencil shading technique with smaller formats: 6cmx6cm and 6cmx7cm. I shade the Mylar sheet (as I do with 8x10 and 4x5), then place a piece of Duratrans [ref: Lynn Radeka] on top of the negative, between the Mylar sheet and the negative. It works great for me. I believe Alistair can provide equipment for the smaller formats. I rarely work with formats smaller than 4x5 but if I did, I would definitely buy Inglis' equipment for this format.


Hope the information above helps. Any questions, I would be happy to try to answer/help.

great post Jack

I am surprised the pencil strokes could not be seen on the print. My solution bend, blend, blend, blend until no strokes are visible. I also use harder pencil (H series) so that not too much shading is deposited at once on the Mylar sheet. Works for me!
James - you may want to give this a try (??)

Thank you sir. Just trying to help my fellow APUG members. I get lots more help that I can give and so, when I have the opportunity to be helpful, it is my pleasure to give back to this group that has helped me so much over the years.

pin registration

jamespierce said:

Yes I agree with this - If you only wanted to pencil mask then some tape and registration by eye would be fine. I wanted one system to do everything so why not pin register everything. I also want to learn unsharp masking etc so having one approach is important.

Click to expand...

If you can afford the pin registration system ... I highly recommend it (vs. taping, etc.).

James ~ I also HIGHLY recommend the unsharp-masking equipment (and unsharp masking technique). Howard Bond (one of my heroes) published excellent article(s) on this technique. I use it with 99% of my negatives. These days, I rarely print a negative without unsharp mask. I've been using this technique even longer (by years) than Inglis' equipment . . . . in the beginning, I use light-box, tape, etc.

Hope this helps.

Alignment Carrier for Durts

ic-racer said:

Did you get the Durst alignment carrier?

Click to expand...

IC: Do you have Inglis' alignment carrier for your Durst? If "yes", did you only have to modify your Femoneg negative carrier, or did you also have to make mods to the enlarger itself (to register neg career to enlarger)?

what a beautiful blending of old school paper negative retouching
and modern mylary / trace paper - sandwich masking.


james or jack,
do you ever make an enlargement on paper + paper negative
retouch the negative and print through it to get your positive print
( like a retouched calotype or retouched in camera paper negative ) ?

thanks for posting this technique !
john

Old School/New School

jnanian said:

what a beautiful blending of old school paper negative retouching
and modern mylary / trace paper - sandwich masking.


james or jack,
do you ever make an enlargement on paper + paper negative
retouch the negative and print through it to get your positive print
( like a retouched calotype or retouched in camera paper negative ) ?

thanks for posting this technique !
john

Click to expand...

Credit should go mostly (99.999%) to James - for starting the Thread.

I use negative retouching (with dyes) in conjunction with the Mylar-retouching technique. My personal approach is to use dye directly on the negative to retouch small areas and pencil shading to retouch larger areas. Also, I find that overdoing it with either dye (on negative) or pencil shading (on Mylar mask) results in obvious dodging. Thus, when I feel I am almost there with either dye or pencil, I use the other (ever so slightly) to get me to where I want to be.

My personal approach is the one machinists use ... you can remove metal but cannot add metal. Take metal off little by little as you can always remove more. If you remove too much .... oops! no way to add it back. In dodging, it works the opposite: add a little more dye or pencil/print; add a little more/print, continue, and so on. When I get the feeling I am at the boundaries with pencil or dye, try the other (slightly/little by little).

Less time spent (and more fun) adding a little more pencil shading or dye than having to resort to the eraser or having to re-wash the negative and start from scratch.

P.S. Dodging vs. Burning-in with Mylar

JackRosa said:

Credit should go mostly (99.999%) to James - for starting the Thread.

I use negative retouching (with dyes) in conjunction with the Mylar-retouching technique. My personal approach is to use dye directly on the negative to retouch small areas and pencil shading to retouch larger areas. Also, I find that overdoing it with either dye (on negative) or pencil shading (on Mylar mask) results in obvious dodging. Thus, when I feel I am almost there with either dye or pencil, I use the other (ever so slightly) to get me to where I want to be.

My personal approach is the one machinists use ... you can remove metal but cannot add metal. Take metal off little by little as you can always remove more. If you remove too much .... oops! no way to add it back. In dodging, it works the opposite: add a little more dye or pencil/print; add a little more/print, continue, and so on. When I get the feeling I am at the boundaries with pencil or dye, try the other (slightly/little by little).

Less time spent (and more fun) adding a little more pencil shading or dye than having to resort to the eraser or having to re-wash the negative and start from scratch.

Click to expand...

P.S. I find it easier and more controllable to use the Mylar technique to dodge than to burn-in. In fact, in a case or two, i have dodged (with pencil) almost the entire image (minus area I want to burn in) so that I can increase exposure time and burn in without having to cut a hole in the Mylar sheet. This, of course, applies to minor burning in. With major burning in, I resort to Fog masks, use retouched internegatives, or protective masks.

Fantastic thread! One of the most informative discussions I have followed in a LONG time. More please.