To spot or not to spot, that is the question!

[BSP]

I have searched and failed to find info, tips and tricks on how to get rid of nasty spots on finished prints and what tools and products are currently available.

Do you spot?
How, when and what with?
Is it difficult to learn?
Does it wotk on RC paper as well as fiber?

All help is welcome. Thanks.

I am now off to vacuum clean my room again.......


Bill

 

[msage]

Yes
When needed, with Spotone & fine brush.
Like most things it takes practice!
It is easier on FB (for me).

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Learn how to spot prints on your outtakes. It's a good skill. I've been doing it for over 30 years. It's getting harder as I get older. My eyes don't focus as close anymore. But spotting is not painting the Spottone, but it's just doing your best Serat by putting in dots of ink. I hate spotting so I try to keep my negs clean so spot less.

 

[koraks]

I hate spotting so I try to keep my negs clean so spot less.

Same here. Don't currently spot; can't be bothered to. I do spend some effort on preventing dust from ending up on my negatives. My success rate is well below 100% sadly enough.

 

[Pieter12]

I always spot. I clean my negs carefully, and (heresy!) do not use a glass carrier. If you don't like spotting, you're better off scanning and printing inkjet. Digital files are much easier to clean up.

 

[AgX]

Is there anything speaking against spotting? (Aside of the hassle?)

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Same here. Don't currently spot; can't be bothered to. I do spend some effort on preventing dust from ending up on my negatives. My success rate is well below 100% sadly enough.

My is well below 100% also. Having cats makes it tougher. When I pull the neg out of the sleeve to print, the static electricity sucks all the cat hair out of the air and on the my negs. Especially when the air is super dry.

 

[kevs]

It's not a job I relish but I can do a passable job of hiding spots. If I'm selling of gifting a print, I want it to look perfect so I'll retouch any white spots, even though the recipient may not notice them. It's not difficult to learn but it takes a lot of practice to get right.

Work on fibre-based paper, which absorbs dyes more easily than resin paper and the liquid doesn't migrate along the base layer. Resin-coated papers can be retouched but the liquid tends to flow outwards from the spot and you'll likely end up with a black splodge around a white spot!

Use a fine-tipped paintbrush; 000 is commonly recommended. I've used a 0 with good results.

For fine-art work, use water-soluble dyes like Spotone (no longer made), Marshalls dyes or Fotospeed dyes. I have a bottle of "Perfect Opaque Liquid". I've also mixed Dylon fabric dyes with my black for sepia-toned prints. These are absorbed into the gelatin and don't leave a mark on the surface. Avoid watercolour paints, which just sit on the surface of the gelatin. Retouching pens are not useful for a fine result.

Don't use neat dyes but use a very dilute dye and slowly build up the level you need. Very light grey tones need very little dye, wheres a deep shadow needs a lot more.

Use a hand-held magnifier to really see where you're putting the dye. Practise on reject prints before working on final pieces. Finally, work slowly and patiently; rushed spotting looks horrible and obvious. Happy spotting!

https://www.instructables.com/id/The-Vanishing-art-of-How-to-Spot-That-means-retouc/

 

[Luckless]

I always spot. I clean my negs carefully, and (heresy!) do not use a glass carrier. If you don't like spotting, you're better off scanning and printing inkjet. Digital files are much easier to clean up.

Other than the safety net of the undo button, is digital really all that much easier for a single print? It clearly 'wins' if you're printing 1000 copies, but how often does a photo typically get that kind of treatment either way?

But I will admit to playing around with some robotics and image processing with the goal of making a spotting-bot. Which would be more for the fun of tinkering with robotics than practical photography. [I've barely started doing actual darkroom prints as it is, but picking up spotting as a skill is on my to-do list.]

 

[Luckless]

Use a hand-held magnifier to really see where you're putting the dye. Practice on reject prints before working on final pieces. Finally, work slowly and patiently; rushed spotting looks horrible and obvious. Happy spotting!

I came across one YouTube tutorial awhile back where the photographer had gone so far as to make a 'spot-mask' specifically for the purpose of adding tons of 'dust and hair' to a negative specifically for the purpose of helping students improve their spotting method. Clearly not a mask one would want to accidentally leave in their enlarger... From memory it was made by photographing a lightbox with heavy dust and such, then making a contact print on film of it.

Seemed like a neat idea. Not sure my negatives are really clean enough to need the 'extra help' when I get around to it...

 

[mitorn]

Other than the safety net of the undo button, is digital really all that much easier for a single print? It clearly 'wins' if you're printing 1000 copies, but how often does a photo typically get that kind of treatment either way?

But I will admit to playing around with some robotics and image processing with the goal of making a spotting-bot. Which would be more for the fun of tinkering with robotics than practical photography. [I've barely started doing actual darkroom prints as it is, but picking up spotting as a skill is on my to-do list.]

Something like this but for prints, instead of skin?

 

[MattKing]

I have two sets of Spot-Tone pens - neutral and warm tone - and I've managed to reach a reasonable level of proficiency with them.
They aren't made anymore, unfortunately.
Almost all my spotting is done on RC paper. I can spot on glossy, but pearl and satin surfaces are easier.
I try to spot using tiny dots laid down in a sort of figure 8 pattern - really small figure 8s.
I use higher power reading glasses bought cheaply from the dollar stores - much higher power than my normal reading (progressive) glasses. I make a point of resting my eyes regularly, with the glasses off. Be sure that you are working in fairly bright light. I prefer a light source with a decent CRI.
My enlargers have been set up with diffusion light sources for years - it helps.
I have even spotted prints for postcard exchanges, but I try not to have to.
I sort of enjoy it - if I don't have to do too much of it.

 

[Luckless]

Something like this but for prints, instead of skin?

I was thinking something more like a robotic arm and a fine tipped brush, but that looks like a fun project.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pick your poison : either fine a good sable spotting brush at a real art store, try that, or go insane doing the same thing for hours in front of a computer screen instead. But either way, a lot of work will be spared by being as meticulously clean as you can with film in the first place, as well as with your darkroom space when you handle film. Retouching for sake of fakery is a whole other topic. There are all kinds of old darkroom and studio manuals describing that kind of thing. In black and white portraiture there were pro retouchers who in minutes could do things with pencil smudge or red dye on a big 8x10 or 11X14 negative faster and better than most could do it now in Fauxtoshop. There's also something called makeup. There are also things called Botox and skin lifts, and softening filters, and vaseline over the camera lens. Vanity, vanity, vanity. Old automatic retouch machines just kinda swirled around randomly like a floor polisher. Or use real floor polish on somebody's face first, and charge like a dermatologist instead of a starving photographer. Pick a softer-look film and develop it to a lower contrast; that's a routine tool of portrait studios. All kinds of possibilities.

 

[Pieter12]

In PhotoShop, you can apply a curves adjustment layer that makes dust stand out quite easily. Then, using the healing brush tool you can clean up dust and retain grain. Less time-consuming than breaking out the spotting ink, brush, water and loupe and a strong light. And you can undo it unlike traditional spotting.

 

[Pieter12]

Oh, and the spotted file.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes
When needed, with Spotone & fine brush.
Like most things it takes practice!
It is easier on FB (for me).

+1

 

[Louis Nargi]

I also spot using the spot tone and a fine brush when mixing your color put some spot tone on the boarder of the print to match the color. If you use a non harding fixer it takes the toning easer .

 

[DREW WILEY]

What good is Photoshop in a real darkroom? No less work involved. You have to clean and scan the film first; then you're committed to printing it digitally too, with its own fuss. Two different paths. The other belongs on the digital forum, or at least the hybrid one. Traditional spotting is easy to undo. Just rewash the print. A small investment too. Twenty or so bucks and you've got three different shades of Spotone plus the brush. Incidentally, Marshalls bought Spotone - they're the same thing (plus Marshall's previous selection of retouching and coloring products).

 

[revdoc]

Back when I had more dust issues and cared more, I used Spotone, dabbing it on using a sharpened toothpick, which was far more precise than a brush. A damp sponge helped lift it off when I overdid it.

I still have the Spotone, but I'd only bother with it for a print I made for someone else. Life's too short.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you would care to take a professional course, Katherine Gillis produced a comprehensive classroom course recently.

I thought of bringing it up because it offers exactly what you are asking.

 

[Pieter12]

What good is Photoshop in a real darkroom? No less work involved. You have to clean and scan the film first; then you're committed to printing it digitally too, with its own fuss. Two different paths. The other belongs on the digital forum, or at least the hybrid one. Traditional spotting is easy to undo. Just rewash the print. A small investment too. Twenty or so bucks and you've got three different shades of Spotone plus the brush. Incidentally, Marshalls bought Spotone - they're the same thing (plus Marshall's previous selection of retouching and coloring products).

Obviously, PhotoShop has nothing to do with making prints in a darkroom. However, depending on the amount if dust on the negative and the spotting necessary, I would prefer a clean, dry print to a spotty, wet one.

On a side note, I was at a gallery not long ago and they had a large print of Horst's "Woman with Corset" on display (and for sale for $$$) that had terrible, obvious spotting. My guess it was a print made for reproduction and the spotting wouldn't show up.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was in a particular gallery one day a long time ago which had a professional full-time spotter. What a miserable job. At that time, he was working on an AA print of Mt Mckinley from a negative taken when a mosquito was inside the camera bellows, had landed on the film, and left its precise silhouette. Such an insect might be small, but enlarged to a factor of four, is a miserable thing to retouch in an otherwise blank sky. Far more obnoxious than poor spotting are etching marks in the emulsion. The only intelligent game plan is to keep film clean of dust or lint through the entire workflow - all the way from camera usage to placement in the enlarger carrier (and I always use glass on both sides, always). Yes, a headache up front, but way better than a far bigger headache afterwards.

 

[Mick Fagan]

The best advice is from Ralf Lambrecht, use his chapter from his book, it is excellent.

I myself use a 00000, that is a 5 zero sable brush. Bought two of them around 30 years ago, worn one out, still have plenty of life in the second one. That fine brush is the make or break of many a superfine spot. Spotting is easy, getting it to look invisible is slightly harder, but once you understand how easy it is, you will be right. Before you know it, you will discover you have made one spot completely dissapear, from then on you will know the technique you need to do; just practice it.

Making a rest is a great way to enable you to reach the centre of a print without having anything resting on the print. Essentially a piece of timber wider than the print you need to spot, which has at each end another piece of timber that raises the board above the print. About 15mm - 20mm above the print is about perfect, anything more makes it a bit hard to use.

Mick.

 

[CMoore]

If you would care to take a professional course, Katherine Gillis produced a comprehensive classroom course recently.

I thought of bringing it up because it offers exactly what you are asking.

Wow...... that seems rather impressive.!
Especially circa 2020

I was in a particular gallery one day a long time ago which had a professional full-time spotter. What a miserable job. At that time, he was working on an AA print of Mt Mckinley from a negative taken when a mosquito was inside the camera bellows, had landed on the film, and left its precise silhouette. Such an insect might be small, but enlarged to a factor of four, is a miserable thing to retouch in an otherwise blank sky. Far more obnoxious than poor spotting are etching marks in the emulsion. The only intelligent game plan is to keep film clean of dust or lint through the entire workflow - all the way from camera usage to placement in the enlarger carrier (and I always use glass on both sides, always). Yes, a headache up front, but way better than a far bigger headache afterwards.

Yeah.....what a thankless, yet at the same time, a very important job.