preflashing tools?

In article ,
(JCPERE) wrote:

tony wingo

n article .com,
wrote:

Why pre-expose with the enlarger as the light source? Dan

It's convenient: You don't need a separate flashing station. And with a
reasonable diffuser (I use two nested styrofoam cups over the lens), you
don't even have to remove the negative from the enlarger.


Doesn't your flash exposure change depending on the negative density? I've
never used this method. Always used a separate light in a calibrated setup as
I assumed this would be more accurate.

Well, yes. But I use flashing rarely enough that i just recalibrate the
flash time on a per print basis, then include that information in my
notes for the print, so I can reproduce it in the future.

-t

Tom Phillips

The whole point of flashing is to increase the base
paper density (essentially fog), usually to fine
tune highlight tonalities.

You could calibrate flashing for a particular paper and
light source, but creatively it will vary depending
on the image and especially negative densities. So
if I flash I test it for each negative and the degree
of flashing would vary with each negative.

Most people I know flash to just below the paper threshold. They don't
actually fog the paper. So a calibrated setup makes more sense.

Tom Phillips

The whole point of flashing is to increase the base
paper density (essentially fog), usually to fine
tune highlight tonalities.

You could calibrate flashing for a particular paper and
light source, but creatively it will vary depending
on the image and especially negative densities. So
if I flash I test it for each negative and the degree
of flashing would vary with each negative.

Most people I know flash to just below the paper threshold. They don't
actually fog the paper. So a calibrated setup makes more sense.

Tom Phillips

The whole point of flashing is to increase the base
paper density (essentially fog), usually to fine
tune highlight tonalities.

You could calibrate flashing for a particular paper and
light source, but creatively it will vary depending
on the image and especially negative densities. So
if I flash I test it for each negative and the degree
of flashing would vary with each negative.

Most people I know flash to just below the paper threshold. They don't
actually fog the paper. So a calibrated setup makes more sense.

JCPERE wrote:

Tom Phillips

The whole point of flashing is to increase the base
paper density (essentially fog), usually to fine
tune highlight tonalities.

You could calibrate flashing for a particular paper and
light source, but creatively it will vary depending
on the image and especially negative densities. So
if I flash I test it for each negative and the degree
of flashing would vary with each negative.

Most people I know flash to just below the paper threshold. They don't
actually fog the paper. So a calibrated setup makes more sense.

Flashing is fogging; it's just a matter of degree. Both
flashing and what we consider "fogged" paper or film are
the result of non-image forming light. Aesthetically
there's a difference in effect; technically there's not.
You are in fact adding overall (light) density to paper
that wasn't there before that in fact reduces the contrast
(grade) of the paper. The reason it works is because just
the right amount of preflashing affects only the print
highlights (paper base), not the denser areas (blacks) of
the print.

Henry (p 67) states his test show that preflashing at greater
than 1/32 the print exposure time is unlikely to be beneficial
and that preflash exposures between 1/64 and 1/32 the print
exposure time provided an optimum decrease in print highlight
contrast. Given preflashing is contingent on the results
desired for a given print/negative, it makes more sense to
test for each negative/print.

I assume by what you mean by "below the paper threshold"
is a preflash that doesn't add enough significant density
to apparently fog the paper (which would actually be at
the paper's base reflection density threshold since it
seems impossible to me that one could get/flash below the
paper's density threshold.) I.e., just enough to reduce the
contrast of highlight areas where softer tonal detail is
desired.

With variable contrast papers I would tend to think pre-
flashing is unnecessary, since you can expose different
areas of the print to lower or higher contrast filters.

JCPERE wrote:

Tom Phillips

The whole point of flashing is to increase the base
paper density (essentially fog), usually to fine
tune highlight tonalities.

You could calibrate flashing for a particular paper and
light source, but creatively it will vary depending
on the image and especially negative densities. So
if I flash I test it for each negative and the degree
of flashing would vary with each negative.

Most people I know flash to just below the paper threshold. They don't
actually fog the paper. So a calibrated setup makes more sense.

Flashing is fogging; it's just a matter of degree. Both
flashing and what we consider "fogged" paper or film are
the result of non-image forming light. Aesthetically
there's a difference in effect; technically there's not.
You are in fact adding overall (light) density to paper
that wasn't there before that in fact reduces the contrast
(grade) of the paper. The reason it works is because just
the right amount of preflashing affects only the print
highlights (paper base), not the denser areas (blacks) of
the print.

Henry (p 67) states his test show that preflashing at greater
than 1/32 the print exposure time is unlikely to be beneficial
and that preflash exposures between 1/64 and 1/32 the print
exposure time provided an optimum decrease in print highlight
contrast. Given preflashing is contingent on the results
desired for a given print/negative, it makes more sense to
test for each negative/print.

I assume by what you mean by "below the paper threshold"
is a preflash that doesn't add enough significant density
to apparently fog the paper (which would actually be at
the paper's base reflection density threshold since it
seems impossible to me that one could get/flash below the
paper's density threshold.) I.e., just enough to reduce the
contrast of highlight areas where softer tonal detail is
desired.

With variable contrast papers I would tend to think pre-
flashing is unnecessary, since you can expose different
areas of the print to lower or higher contrast filters.

JCPERE wrote:

Tom Phillips

The whole point of flashing is to increase the base
paper density (essentially fog), usually to fine
tune highlight tonalities.

You could calibrate flashing for a particular paper and
light source, but creatively it will vary depending
on the image and especially negative densities. So
if I flash I test it for each negative and the degree
of flashing would vary with each negative.

Most people I know flash to just below the paper threshold. They don't
actually fog the paper. So a calibrated setup makes more sense.

Flashing is fogging; it's just a matter of degree. Both
flashing and what we consider "fogged" paper or film are
the result of non-image forming light. Aesthetically
there's a difference in effect; technically there's not.
You are in fact adding overall (light) density to paper
that wasn't there before that in fact reduces the contrast
(grade) of the paper. The reason it works is because just
the right amount of preflashing affects only the print
highlights (paper base), not the denser areas (blacks) of
the print.

Henry (p 67) states his test show that preflashing at greater
than 1/32 the print exposure time is unlikely to be beneficial
and that preflash exposures between 1/64 and 1/32 the print
exposure time provided an optimum decrease in print highlight
contrast. Given preflashing is contingent on the results
desired for a given print/negative, it makes more sense to
test for each negative/print.

I assume by what you mean by "below the paper threshold"
is a preflash that doesn't add enough significant density
to apparently fog the paper (which would actually be at
the paper's base reflection density threshold since it
seems impossible to me that one could get/flash below the
paper's density threshold.) I.e., just enough to reduce the
contrast of highlight areas where softer tonal detail is
desired.

With variable contrast papers I would tend to think pre-
flashing is unnecessary, since you can expose different
areas of the print to lower or higher contrast filters.

Yeah, I used to do this a lot when printing black and white wedding shots of
the "happy couple" for the paper. This was I could get detail in the dress
and not blast the tux into a black hole, without burning and dodging.

I calibrated my flashing exposure to be just threshold or sub-threshold for
the paper I was using and used the second enlarger in the darkroom for the
light source. It was calibrated, had a timer and an aperture (long slow
exposure easier to accurately time with a 40+ year old mechanical timer) and
pretty repeatable. I used two different papers, Panalure II RC and
Polycontrast III RC, so had only two espouses to remember and wrote them on
the enlarger baseboard in grease pencil.

--
darkroommike

----------
wrote in message
oups.com...
Why pre-expose with the enlarger as the light source? Dan

Yeah, I used to do this a lot when printing black and white wedding shots of
the "happy couple" for the paper. This was I could get detail in the dress
and not blast the tux into a black hole, without burning and dodging.

I calibrated my flashing exposure to be just threshold or sub-threshold for
the paper I was using and used the second enlarger in the darkroom for the
light source. It was calibrated, had a timer and an aperture (long slow
exposure easier to accurately time with a 40+ year old mechanical timer) and
pretty repeatable. I used two different papers, Panalure II RC and
Polycontrast III RC, so had only two espouses to remember and wrote them on
the enlarger baseboard in grease pencil.

--
darkroommike

----------
wrote in message
oups.com...
Why pre-expose with the enlarger as the light source? Dan

Yeah, I used to do this a lot when printing black and white wedding shots of
the "happy couple" for the paper. This was I could get detail in the dress
and not blast the tux into a black hole, without burning and dodging.

I calibrated my flashing exposure to be just threshold or sub-threshold for
the paper I was using and used the second enlarger in the darkroom for the
light source. It was calibrated, had a timer and an aperture (long slow
exposure easier to accurately time with a 40+ year old mechanical timer) and
pretty repeatable. I used two different papers, Panalure II RC and
Polycontrast III RC, so had only two espouses to remember and wrote them on
the enlarger baseboard in grease pencil.

--
darkroommike

----------
wrote in message
oups.com...
Why pre-expose with the enlarger as the light source? Dan