Print Transformations

[Kirk Gittings]

I thought a thread on the process of transforming a negative into an expressive print would be fun and instructional. Show yours!

I was working on a file of an art print for a client today. This will be the first time I have printed it digitally and was really enjoying the control. I put this up on my Blog first and then thought it would be fun to show here.

The top is the original scan and the bottom is the finished file. "The Memory of Form", Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico 1984 (shot on 4x5 Tri-X with a #15 orange filter, developed in HC 110, scanned on an Imacon 949).

The manipulations involved are to make the print represent my feelings about the scene beyond what the scene looked like. The manipulations add drama, depth and balance to the print.

For the final print the sky has been darkened and contrast added with a double softlight gradient which has been sculpted in the layer mask to fit around the escapement. The tone and value of the ruins in the foreground have been lowered with a curve adjustment layer (sculpted in the layer mask to fit the top edge of the ruins) to separate it from the canyon wall. The bottom right hand corner has been burned in with an art history brush (linear burn mode) from a snapshot. Some additional local enhancement of the tones in the clouds and sandstone were done in this same manner. The final file has 6 adjustment layers.

For years I produced a pretty similar traditional silver print by careful burning and dodging on graded papers like Zone VI Brilliant. There is nothing wrong with those prints, there are a few in museum collections. BUT with digital printing I can get the midtone contrast I like while preserving better shadow detail. I'm not sure what paper I will print this on yet. No doubt I will further tweak the tones as I move toward the final print.

[jeroldharter]

This will be a great thread. I wish I could scan so I could participate. This is a great way to learn to see the path to a better print.

[Kirk Gittings]

This will be a great thread. I wish I could scan so I could participate. This is a great way to learn to see the path to a better print.

That's the idea! It could be very informative.

[cjbroadbent]

This is two 4x5 negs (over & under) tonemapped to exaggerate mid-tone contrast. I was getting better b&w results from digital until I tried this trick. The Epson V750 takes two negs in the holder. I just move the selection frame between scans and they mate perfectly. All the tests are here (http://picasaweb.google.com/cjbroadbent/Formats?feat=directlink).
The 8x10s and the single 4x5 are pretty boring. Whereas the Leica shots had more life and soul.
I could never do this on a bromide print. If ony I could do it to the 8x10 negative for argyrotypes.

[Marco Milazzo]

Christopher, what a beautiful, classic image! How are the two scans tonemapped? Are they simply merged Photoshop layers, or do you use the HDR function . . . , or some other program?

[cjbroadbent]

C... Are they simply merged Photoshop layers, or do you use the HDR function . . . , or some other program?
Photomatix Pro. I tried the PShop HDR but found it less tweakable than Photomatix - though a lot of people do it happily with Pshop. I've tried 3 other programs for Mac. In my view Photomatix is best even though the controls are slow and sticky with big files.
Maybe it's just my oldish G5 Mac.
HDR is of course Zone System for Idiots and will soon be built into digicam firmware.

[Donald Miller]

I am increasingly finding that purely depictional photographs are boring to me. For that reason I take a lot more license to modify images from their original state. The two images that accompany are an example of my current efforts.

I modified the original image by masking, adjustment of levels, curves and print color. finally and most importantly, in my opinion, I turned the image upside down.

[Kirk Gittings]

I found and have added a scan of a silver print of the same image on my original post.

[Richard M. Coda]

I embrace a traditional/hybrid workflow when it is required. Usually to salvage a bad negative of a good image, or to allow infinite and detailed control over an otherwise unprintable image. Case in point, the attached "Moonrise, Glacier Point, 1989."

This negative (Tri-X from 1989) has so much range in it I could never print it in the darkroom without losing something important. So I had a drumscan made and worked on it in Photoshop. 9 adjustment layers (with masks), a spotting layer and a burning layer, and I now have an image I can print and that looks fairly good. I plan on having a new negative made at Chicago Albumen Works (either 4x5 or 8x10) and print it in the darkroom, and maybe even have some very large inkjets made.

http://rcodaphotography.blogspot.com/2008/11/unprintable.html

[Jehu]

Photomatix Pro. I tried the PShop HDR but found it less tweakable than Photomatix - though a lot of people do it happily with Pshop. I've tried 3 other programs for Mac. In my view Photomatix is best even though the controls are slow and sticky with big files.
Maybe it's just my oldish G5 Mac.
HDR is of course Zone System for Idiots and will soon be built into digicam firmware.

Christopher,
You really got my attention with this. Your results are stunning. Is this as simple as "bracketing" two 4x5 shots and using HDR from Photomatix?

[cjbroadbent]

Richard,
That transformation is very impressive. Could you get anywhere near that without a drum scan and with an Epson? Do you think a colour tranny would have more to work on than a b&W negative?

[Vaughn]

I think a better title of this thread would be "Image Transformations"...just because of the degree of change in the images. Photoshop (or equivilents) is a amazing tool. The hyper-reality of the still life, the creation of different forms by flipping the image, and the flattening of the landscapes are all very interesting. If this thread stick around for a few weeks, perhaps I will be able to find and scan an example.

Vaughn

[Richard M. Coda]

Richard,
That transformation is very impressive. Could you get anywhere near that without a drum scan and with an Epson? Do you think a colour tranny would have more to work on than a b&W negative?

Thank you Christopher.

I don't know about the Epson. I guess if you wet-mounted it maybe. My scan file is 2400 dpi @ 16 bits TIF. The Photoshop file is 1.64 GB.

I doubt a color transparency would have more info as their range is much less than a BW negative, and this negative in particular. There must be close to 10 full zones in this one.

[nathanm]

This is kind of along those lines, although for a satirical purpose. But nevertheless it does show the layers and masks used for a dilapitated window shot I took.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBASuOpQxAM

The problem is of course resolution. A 1:1 video with voiceover explaining the adjustments would be sweet, but many many GB. Or something like those tutorial vids that come with Adobe apps. Animated GIF might not be a bad stopgap. Hmmm.

[cjbroadbent]

...... Is this as simple as "bracketing" two 4x5 shots and using HDR from Photomatix?
Jehu, thanks but landscapes by the others are more impressive. Yes, this way is dead simple bracketing to have more tones to play with. The shoot/develop/scan/align is a 90 minute no-brainer. The tweaking takes creative brainwork because you are adding stuff that was not there and you must not overdo it. I hope to get out and do some real photography soon. I do feel, though, that the Zone System is nearer to God.

[RPNugent]

In keeping with Kirk's post here is one of my recent attempts to see how Photoshop versus the darkroom might make a difference in how much I can get from a negative.

The raw scan was followed by two levels adjustments requiring some masking, then a series of dodges, burns and healing brush strokes that provided far more control than I could get in the darkroom. In the darkroom I had to leave of the stem with the new bud which I had wanted to keep when I exposed the film.

Still learning Photoshop and don't have a good printer yet so will continue to keep my wet darkroom around for now.

Now if I could just figure out how to reorder the upload so the first thumbnail would be the raw scan instead of the final image.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry I can't seem to reorder the images on my end either. You could redo the post and then we could delete this one?

[cjbroadbent]

So what's the next step with hybrids; digital print or digital negative? There is no shame in either apparently, but the image is built up from devilish half-tone dots.
So perhaps back to the darkroom and "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition (pyro)".

[jnantz]

I am increasingly finding that purely depictional photographs are boring to me. For that reason I take a lot more license to modify images from their original state. The two images that accompany are an example of my current efforts.

I modified the original image by masking, adjustment of levels, curves and print color. finally and most importantly, in my opinion, I turned the image upside down.

your last step was one of the, if not THE most important :)

great image donald!

john

[D. Bryant]

I thought a thread on the process of transforming a negative into an expressive print would be fun and instructional.

Kirk (or anyone else who wishes to comment),

What methods do you use to make selections with B&W work? IOW how do you go about creating your masks for B&W data?

And what sharpening techniques do you use for your landscape work?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

If ony I could do it to the 8x10 negative for argyrotypes.

Why not create a digital negative?

Don Bryant

[Richard M. Coda]

So what's the next step with hybrids; digital print or digital negative? There is no shame in either apparently, but the image is built up from devilish half-tone dots.
So perhaps back to the darkroom and "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition (pyro)".

I believe (and practice) digital (silver) negative/traditional wet print. It costs a lot more than inkjet negatives, but IMHO I believe the results are superior to any other hybrid process out there.

[D. Bryant]

I believe (and practice) digital (silver) negative/traditional wet print. It costs a lot more than inkjet negatives, but IMHO I believe the results are superior to any other hybrid process out there.

Richard,

There is no doubt that an image setter negative is superior for making gelatin silver prints.

However, using inkjet negatives for alternative provesses work fine IF you know what you are doing. There are just too many fine alt process printers making prints this way to dispute that fact.

Don Bryant

[willwilson]

Great Thread!

Here's one of mine. I print wet darkroom only, so these are scans of prints. This shot is on Delta 100 4x5, 65mm SA. I keep a contact print archive for reference so the before is a scan from a contact print at grade 2 through a plastic document page. I don't have a straight print of this image to scan, but you can get the idea from the contact proof. The final version is on Ilford MGIV FB Gloss. I print this on Kentmere Fineprint VC now, but this scan is a little old. I still print it pretty much the same way though.

Final Print has a base exposure of 24s at Grade 3.5. Red area burned in at Grade 4.25 for 24s, being careful to soften the transition to prevent a noticeable burn line (my own handmade version of ctrl-alt-d). Green area burned in at Grade 4.25 for 18s. I burn the green section at the same time I am burning the upper right red section. The yellow circled area gets spotted down while the print is still wet to match the surrounding tones. It is just too small to burn in. I also bleach the large shadow areas between the roots, just slightly.

It's not my favorite image to print, as it is a little difficult/frustrating to pull off the burn line transitions but I think its more than worth the effort.

[Richard M. Coda]

Richard,

There is no doubt that an image setter negative is superior for making gelatin silver prints.

However, using inkjet negatives for alternative provesses work fine IF you know what you are doing. There are just too many fine alt process printers making prints this way to dispute that fact.

Don Bryant

Not imagesetter... LVT. Indistinguishable from an in-camera negative. As you can probably tell, I am not an alt process guy ;^)

[chris_4622]

Not imagesetter... LVT. Indistinguishable from an in-camera negative. As you can probably tell, I am not an alt process guy ;^)

Thanks for this info. Exactly what I have been thinking about with some of my negatives and it's nice to know a contact print using this method is indistinguishable from an in camera one.

chris

[Richard M. Coda]

Thanks for this info. Exactly what I have been thinking about with some of my negatives and it's nice to know a contact print using this method is indistinguishable from an in camera one.

chris

And moderate enlargements, too!
http://www.albumenworks.com/lvt_prices_working_photogs.htm