I am looking for a good book, article or PDF on Masking.

I am looking into how to control tones and contrast with masking. I really like the videos that Timi Hall did on the subject but I feel like I need more. I would like to find a step by step guide on how to use it to control tones and bring out greater details in the image. So if someone could just give me a few suggestions to research or the name of a book to look up that would be really helpful. My guess is that a lot of people on this forum avoid the issue all together by using pyro but I am really interested in what this technique can do.

https://www.youtube.com/@timihall930/videos

There have been articles over the years on things like standard unsharp masking by Howard Bond, for example. However for a comprehensive overview of silver masking you can't do much better than to acquire a copy of Lynn Radeka's Contrast Masking 'kit'/guide (much of it originally written by Dennis McNutt). It gives thorough explanations/use cases for, and step-by-step procedures involved for making masks - not just basic unsharp masks typically used for edge effects, but also the various other types such as SCIMs, highlight masks etc.

Another potentially very useful technique is 'selective masking' in which masks for dodging/burning are made either by hand using various methods, or with inkjet. Alan Ross is a very good resource for this and has comprehensive written material.

There are just so many ways of doing it, and it's all specific medium related. I presume you're just interested in basic unsharp masking for black and white printing purposes. Pyro development is not a substitute for masking at all, but another useful tool. Masking I'd rather call a whole "tool box" of its own, capable of numerous things. There is a great amount of old literature out there, but nearly all of it out of date with respect to the specific films and developers employed. Howard Bond did a few basic articles in Darkroom Techniques magazine many years ago. Quite a few of us actually do masking as needed.

But if you're seriously interested in it you need to latch onto a micro-pin registration punch and MATCHING registered contact printing frame. The best were made by Condit and sometimes still turn up as matched sets. Heiland now offers them; but I don't know the cost. The best sheet films for masking purposes are TMX100 and FP4. Simple dodge/burn smudge pencil or creosin red dye masks can be made directly on frosted mylar sheeting from the art store. Those old time tricks are illustrated in old 1930's to 1950's darkroom and graphics guidebooks.

As one time, certain people offered masking workshops. But the demand is so intermittent now, there's no way for anyone to make money providing that. Punch and register skills were mandatory in the graphics arts and printing trades; but they used bigger punches and registration systems of the kind still easily obtainable from companies like Ternes-Burton or Olec-Stoesser. The kind of punch you want puts tiny little 1?16th diameter holes only in the very edge margin of the film.

You might post your gear request on the "Want to Buy" portion of this forum. Not long ago someone mentioned they had purchased the Radeka system, but had never even used it. Don't remember if that was here or over on APUG.

I am looking to understand how to use it for contrast control. I don't know if that is what is meant by "unsharp masking" or the dodge or burn masking described above. I wanted to read more about it to control tonalities and pull out greater details in my print. If someone could put a link to a pdf or article that they like that would be great. I will start searching for the Howard Bond articles.

Thanks everyone for the help.

-Andrew

The mask image itself is made unsharp by means of an intermediate sheet of 5-mil translucent mylar, frosted both sides. This not only makes it easier to register, but enhances edge effect without causing it to be annoying like an overdone or over-sharpened "masking tool" in digital printing. But the exact characteristics can be modified as needed. In the old days they used a film called Pan Masking Film to do this, which was unsharp due to lack of an anti-halation coating. Since that no longer exists, we now do it a little differently, and in my opinion, actually better.

What contrast masking does is reign in the overall contrast range of the total negative. Then you print it at a higher contrast level than normally using VC paper or a higher grade graded paper, if you can still find any decent graded paper, The result will be superior shadow gradation, much better highlight control, and markedly better micro tonality in between. Fine details will also become more evident. But it takes some practice to learn how to do it well without overdoing it.

So the effect of contrast masking is quite different from merely heavily "compressing" or "minus" developing a neg, which tends to compress together microtonal values themselves, rather than enhancing them. Sometimes that is the best approach to a subject, like for reducing complexion blemishes in female portraiture. But in many other cases, especially in landscape work, masking is the preferable option. In most black and white applications, you want the contrast reducing masks fairly soft, and around .30 density above fbf (film base plus fog). Things like highlight masks and contrast-increase masks are best learned after one has a good handle on basic unsharp contrast reduction masks first.

Possibly this might help?

https://www.alexbond.com.au/burning-...several%20ways.


Here is place for digital masking with Photoshop:

https://www.photoshopessentials.com/...p-layer-masks/

For me, I never used much of this for various reasons. But it is interesting.

Alan Ross teaches masking and has some publications, too. Not sure if they are still available or not.

Alan Ross taught a different kind of masking, which is not necessarily mutually exclusive with traditional unsharp film masking, but relies somewhat on hybrid methodology. If you have good punch and register gear, it's going to be more precise on film to begin with than relying on inkjetting onto transparency material. But there are ways to get around that without surrendering Alan's general concept, which is worth knowing about at least.

Photoshop "masking" is an attempt to imitate certain results of traditional graphics masking techniques in a totally digital workflow. It has nothing to do with generating masks usable in conjunction with film originals in the darkroom like Alan Ross' method.

All of this can be either fun or torture, depending on your personal inclinations. I enjoy darkroom work, including making actual film masks. I don't enjoy digital tasks or all the headaches inherent to digital devices.

But reviewing some of the advice links, I'd reassert, stay away from any kind of acetate sheet or even tape as much as possible; it isn't dimensionally stable. Stick with mylar, Durlar, Estar, etc, PET or polyester materials. I realize most 120 films are coated on acetate. Their relatively small size means dimensional change will be relatively minor itself. But that same percentage of shrinkage or whatever is likely to cause real headaches when trying to maintain register of larger 4X5 and 8x10 images. Most black and white sheet film is on stable PET base, but not all color sheet film is.

Alex Bond in that little video is definitely doing things the hard way; but if he's having fun at it, good for him. At a certain point, however, there is simply no substitute for serious punch and register gear. One can indeed learn the basics without that; but to do more precise or repetitive work, it's wise to acquire real deal equipment.

Prices of 4x5 film is now so expensive. The book "Way Beyond Monochrome" suggests I should use Ilford’s Ortho Plus or Kodak’s TMax for masking. I just checked in with B and H. The price was insane. Any suggestions. I read that some people use use Ortho Litho film. Is that for every type of mask?

Factor in the cost of long-term treatment in an insane asylum if you go the Ortho Litho route. It's very difficult to tame or develop evenly, especially at a low gamma necessary for b&w masking applications. Next to TMX, the best masking film is FP4. And what is your time worth? What percent of your masks do you want to repeat over and over again to get it right once? Yes, you're going to waste some film during the learning curve phase of the process. That is inevitable. But after that, you want predictability and consistency, not a roll of the dice.

If you plan to graduate into color printing, then it's wise to learn b&w masking on an actual panchromatic film too. If not, continuous tone ortho might work, but not necessarily Ortho Litho, since it's designed for very high contrast applications. Yeah, all kinds of people experiment with it for con-tone imagery, especially of the funky-artsy look sort; but masking is a whole other ballgame, where you most definitely do not want random excessive fbf issues. Been there, done that; I'm not guessing.

FP4 is way more common and easy to find than Ortho Plus; and they're both in the same general price category (right now, Ortho Plus is actually higher priced). And I don't know if Ortho Plus can be developed to the same low gamma as FP4 and still maintain a relatively consistent straight line or not. Remember, a typical black and white contrast mask DMax should only be .30 to .45 density above fbf. Might as well go with something tried and true.

If you insist on trying Ortho Litho, go with the current Arista version. Try a quite dilute version of HC-110, like 1:15 dilution from 1:3 stock solution. Forget Dektol or A&B lith developers unless you want a real mess.
Still, your fbf is going to be quite high compared to FP4 or TMax, and have its own stain-like color which might mess with VC light or pyro developer expectations.