If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does a Contrasty Neg Condemn Me To a Life of Puppetry
"Donald Qualls" wrote in message news:xc3Yc.84832$mD.72353@attbi_s02... Alan Smithee wrote: I'm going to attach the example. I'm not sure if this will show up since this is not a binary group. The first is roughly what it looks like on my monitor (calibrated with OptiCal) and the "b" version is roughly what I get in the darkroom. Would have been better to post a link to a webspace somewhere with those images -- but... This looks to me like a fine example of why people consider TMX fussy; it continues to record detail long past what you can print, so the negatives look okay to the (uncalibrated) eye, but are very hard to print. ..... uh, where do I get me one of those eye calibrators you're talking about? ;^j |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Try spilt filtering. You could try burning the clouds in with a low contrast filter. It won't hurt to try. I'm going to try split filtering. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Just burn in the sky. I do this all the time with similar negatives. You can also try split-filtering. That is, when burning in the sky, use a lower-grade contrast filter (or more yellow in a dichro head). I'm using Kodak Polycontrast filters fitted over the lens. I do have a dichro head as well. Is it better to use the color head to control contrast? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
news:kuUXc.227988$M95.163578@pd7tw1no... I'm dumb but I can learn. I was scanning some black and white TMX I shot in Glacier Nat. Park on my honeymoon a couple of years ago and noticed that some of the negs looked quite good on the monitor. One shot in particular had some dark spruce trees in the foreground with beautiful detail in the shadows, some grayish mountains at the mid point, and in the background was a roiling cloudly sky (but not sunny) with interesting highlights. "Great," I thought "this one will look fantastic on the wall, such drama, what passion I possess...". Down to my newly minted darkroom to print this baby up and marvel at my genius....three hours later after fighting with test strips and finally resorting to crude hand puppetry. I realized that the foreground looks good with 10 secs. exposure while the sky doesn't start showing up with any detail until 50 secs. So what now? Monitor good. Darkroom print bad. Why? I now realize a yellow filter on the original scene (to pimp up the clouds a bit) probably wouldn't have hurted. I know I need to lower the contrast somehow. Low contrast paper? Better masking? Or should I have been N-2 or -3 from that start? Could I have done something else wrong? Nothing exceptional, you just recorded a particularly wide range of luminosity ... You might have used a filter to reduce sky's brightness but unles you can re-do these pictures easily you have to work with your actual neg. From what you write, it seems you have the details in the neg, so you *can* print them ! It's just a matter of technique: - dodging/burning, maybe at different grades - flashing - silver masking - manual masking (acetate, ...) - bleaching/intensifying - ... I would suggest two books that will help you improve your skills: - "The Photographer's Master Printing Course" by Tim Rudman (ISBN 0-240-80324-8) - "Way Beyong Monochrome" by Ralph W. Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse (ISBN 0-86343-354-5) http://www.darkroomagic.com and http://www.ktphotonics.co.uk have some free chapters extracted from this book. "Post Exposure" by Ctein (ISBN 0-240-80299-3) has also a chapter dedicated to silver masking maily for color work but the principle is very similar in B/W. Some links to silver masking: - http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unsharp/ - http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/fr/photo/masking101.htm Both are mainly meant for large format, the only difference for 35mm work is that it is pretty difficult to position the masks and dust is more of a concern. Regards, -- Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Smithee wrote:
Just burn in the sky. I do this all the time with similar negatives. You can also try split-filtering. That is, when burning in the sky, use a lower-grade contrast filter (or more yellow in a dichro head). I'm using Kodak Polycontrast filters fitted over the lens. I do have a dichro head as well. Is it better to use the color head to control contrast? I'd use the head because I find it less painfull. Others seem to find it the other way. See what works best for you. Nick |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Smithee" wrote in message
news:zlcYc.253854$J06.239049@pd7tw2no... Just burn in the sky. I do this all the time with similar negatives. You can also try split-filtering. That is, when burning in the sky, use a lower-grade contrast filter (or more yellow in a dichro head). I'm using Kodak Polycontrast filters fitted over the lens. I do have a dichro head as well. Is it better to use the color head to control contrast? I do prefer to use my color head for several reasons (the major being you can adapt it to every type of paper) but you have to calibrate it. The following page gives you an idea: http://www.butzi.net/articles/vcce.htm The already mentioned book "Way Beyong Monochrome" by Lambrecht/Woodhouse has also a chapter on this. Both use double filtration to keep exposure times similar between grades. My approach is somewhat different as I use single fltration and a computer-linked timer that does the exposure change easily: http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/labsoftV3.htm Regards, -- Claudio Bonavolta http://www.bonavolta.ch |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Smithee wrote:
.... uh, where do I get me one of those eye calibrators you're talking about? ;^j You've already got one in your darkroom -- it's more commonly called an enlarger. You calibrate your eyeball by making a few hundred (or a few thousand) prints from all kinds of negatives, learning the techniques and doing what you have to do in order to get good prints from negatives of important (to you) subjects, even if the negatives aren't perfect (and many of them won't be, even if your first name is Ansel and your last name is Adams and you aren't dead). The real trick, though, with TMX and to a lesser extent TMY is learning to control exposure and contrast to produce printable negatives, instead of negatives that record all the detail in the scene but have too much contrast range to print. Oh, BTW, it occurred to me, there may be another way to get a good print from your contrasty negative: if you can make a very faithful (i.e. identical contrast) enlarged negative, you might find it a very good negative from which to print with salted paper, platinum, cyanotype, etc. -- most printing-out processes are "self masking"; that is, the image density, by appearing during exposure, tends to reduce exposure in the darkest (shadow) areas of the print in proportion to density, and thus reduce contrast. That makes a contrasty negative desirable for these processes, even at a level that would be quite difficult to print well with silver gelatin on graded or multigrade paper. Unfortunately, contact printing from 35 mm film gives a print most people find too small to view comfortably -- hence the need for a faithful enlarged negative. If you can still find some Kodak Printing Film (if I've recalled the product name correctly), it's just the ticket for this; you can handle it in safelight, it has working speed similar to projection type printing papers, and due to some kind of chemical magic it develops as a positive (that is, light exposure makes it clear, it's black if developed without exposure) in normal print developers like Dektol. Just grain focus, put the stuff in your easel, expose and develop, and you have an enlarged negative -- and it has the latitude to record the kind of negative you're working with. Once you have an 8x10 negative, a contact print on salted paper, cyanotype, or platinum will give a full gradation on a scene with that kind of contrast (exposure of those processes requires a few minutes in direct sunlight or under a high powered UV source, or a long time under a "normal" fluorescent UV blacklight). -- I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz! -- E. J. Fudd, 1954 Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Donald Qualls wrote
I'm not even sure lith film is available any more; all such work done commercially is digital now. There is a great variety and huge amounts of litho films available. For two sources check Freestyle and Valley Litho Supply. A Freestyle Arista litho film is recommended for use when makeing direct negatives; one method I believe you have not yet expounded upon which can be used to correct for excessive contrast. An article at www.unblinkingeye.com will explain. Also, at that site will be found information on SLIMT. SLIMT is too simple and effective to pass up. The technique is at the top of my to-master list. A third method you've not mentioned is the full gray scale lith printing of the negative. Dan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
PGG_ wrote:
The only difference between a diffuser and condensor is about a grade of paper. And a gallon bit bucket full of redundant ASCII from Mike Scarpitti.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Battery Life | Joseph Meehan | Digital Photography | 4 | July 25th 04 01:36 PM |
Master Mason Handbook | Doug Robbins | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | July 15th 04 03:33 PM |
Book Review: "Marilyn: Her Life In Her Own Words", George Barris | Paul | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 15th 04 01:26 AM |
Book Review: "Marilyn: Her Life In Her Own Words", George Barris | Paul | Photographing People | 0 | June 15th 04 01:26 AM |