Unsharp Masks

[BobNewYork]

I know Howard Bond is probably the master, but I frankly preferred Howard Bond's work before the masking. Granted, the masking gave the images an initial high impact, but they seemed to lose much of the "serenity" that had previously characterized his work.

That said, is the intention of the masking to enable printing of the negative on very hard paper? And, if so, how would the results differ from curtailed film development that would permit same?

Thanks.

Bob

 

[Mike Wilde]

Curtailed devlopment in my case

I use unsharp masking when I am trying to pront old negatives that would have benefitted from a more correct development time. Unsharp always lowers the overall contrast, and saves considerably on the amount of dodging and burning. I use it when printing old family negas that sometimes date back 50 or more years. Back before any care qwas being made of time and temperature, it would appear.

 

[BobNewYork]

thanks Mike.

The reduced dodging and burning - is that because you specifically tailor the exposure and development of the mask to achieve this?

Bob

 

[Mike Wilde]

actually it usally works out that way

I am a bit fortunate to have a poor man's densitometer, a Colorstar timer/analyser. I read the neg in question on this thing, using the enlarger as the light source, once it has been zeroed for clear areas of film base + fog. ( old roll films almost always have enough of this between frames to measure it)

I look at the density range, and unless it is all confined in a sky that needs a straight forward burn in, think that it is a good candiate for an UnSharp Mask. The density rage info I interpret with the aid of an Ilford MGIV data sheet under the ISO contrast range data table. Unsharp here is more a convenience to aid in re-alignment, versus a sharp mask.

If the density range is too high, from thinnest area of interest to the densest of the same to fit on a grade 0/00 paper , then an USM will be needed to selectively cut the density.

For my USM's I work in ortho Lith film, with a a very low contrast developer. I can kind of eyeball the density that I am getting under a red safelight, and then measure the DR of the mask once I have fixed, and hair dryer accelerated the drying time. If I ned to do another un to get the density better, that can be done. Usually I am close enough that the mask and original sandwich well to land on between grades of 2 and 3.5, and I then proceed to print it on VC paper to accomodate this.

Expressively there is still the opportunity to dodge or burn when using the projected mask and neg sandwich, but by going this route, at least all of the image should at least register on the paper without lurching beyound the white, or into a black black.

 

[BobNewYork]

Thanks for the info Mike. I too have a Colorstar which I use similarly to determine contrast range in new negs to determine the best paper / grade. I was under the impression that the unsharp mask was used to get that "in your face" look that often results from them. I see how you use them to change the range of older negs that don't fit the softest paper.

Thanks again.

Bob

 

[MarkL]

That said, is the intention of the masking to enable printing of the negative on very hard paper? And, if so, how would the results differ from curtailed film development that would permit same?
Bob

Bob, there are a lot of different kinds of masks you can make depending on your needs. One thing they all have in common is that they can only ADD density to your neg when sandwiched with it. Therefore you can selectively increase or decrease contrast by adding mask density to the highlights or shadows respectively. In other words, supplementing density in shadow areas of your negs reduces contrast by "dodging" shadows, and supplementing density in upper values dodges and separates them, making them brighter, thereby increasing contrast.

An unsharp mask is made by contact printing your neg onto lith film and basically way underexposing and underdeveloping it. The resulting positive image is very faint and of course only the dark parts of the image are visible (barely sometimes). So when sandwiched and aligned with your neg, the net result is that you've added light-dodging density to the thin parts of your negative. This precisely dodges the shadows and places them farther up on the straight line of the paper's curve. The good thing is that the mask doesn't affect midtones and highlights because it's transparent in those parts of the mask. It only helps to selectively raise the shadows onto the straight line of the paper where you can then work further on them. Of course you can use bleach to take away contrast reducing density on any mask in areas where you don't want it's effect.

If the mask is right, you can now go to a higher grade paper to separate out those shadows (and of course all other values will now be separated better with the grade change). Instead of or in addition to a grade change, you can make a separate mask to selectively separate out just the deepest accents and expose those onto the paper independently.

When it comes to unsharp masks, there's a side benefit of added apparent sharpness due to lining up the negative and the positive mask in the negative carrier. There can be "edge effects" which are actually very thin white accents along the boundaries of detail in the negative, where the masking effect is present and then not, that gives the impression of sharpness. The more strongly the mask is exposed and developed the more severe the edge effects are, to the point of distraction. A thin and subtle mask can be made that will have only slight but pleasing edge effect.

This only scratches the surface of what masks are capable of. For the price of a couple boxes of paper you can get a glass negative carrier that doubles as a contact printing frame and then you can add and remove masks instantly and they'll be aligned perfectly every time. Then you can remove and store the masks separately, and they don't require that you puncture or alter the neg whatsoever.

Hope this helps!
Mark