Unsharp masking

[Dario]

Hi

I've never seen a print that I've known to be printed using an unsharp-masked, let alone a comparable pair of masked and unmasked prints. On the other hand, people who do unsharp masking often rave about how wonderful it is, so I thought I would experiment.

I chose an image that had been developed in 510 pyro. I made a mask using 4x5 Ilford Ortho Plus film. I used a single piece of clear sheet film as a spacer. I exposed it under my enlarger after placing a sheet of drafting film on top of the image neg to diffuse the light. I developed it in Rodinal, experimenting until I got what I expected to be a "fairly strong" mask. On examining the mask with a loupe, I could see that it is definitely not sharp.

Then I made a print and compared it with a print made without using the mask. To get a comparable image using the mask, I had to increase the paper contrast from grade 2 to grade 3 1/2, and to increase the exposure by 2-3 stops. The print enlargement is a bit over two times. There's no hint of a registration problem.

After all that, it takes a keen eye to see any difference between the two prints. The masked print has just perceptible better local contrast, but the effect is very subtle. It's certainly not enough to justify the effort of making the mask.

So my question is, is that it? Am I missing something? Maybe the effect more pronounced with different sorts of subject?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[mdarnton]

I'll be very interested in the answers. I hope several people will post masked/not examples! I have only a vague memory of doing this 50 years ago, but do remember that the mask had no detail at all, and was being used for wholeslae burning/dodging, not anything local. But that was a long time ago!

[Michael Clark]

From my understanding the mask is very thin in density and has many use's, correct contrast, dodging or burning in and also for improving focus (it does not make the neg sharper but kind of tricks the viewer, that the print is sharp. What were you trying to correct.

[Drew Wiley]

Learning the ropes of masking can be every bit as much a journey as learning to print well. There are a lot of ways to do it. And it can make a real difference with appropriate images. But it's like any other printing tool, and not a silver bullet.

[Drew Wiley]

The degree of "unsharpness" can finely tuned by the degree of diffusion to enhace edge effect. But the less unsharp the mask is, the more you'll wish you invested in a punch and register system! I've made thousands of masks for color printing, but substantially less for black and white work.

[LabRat]

Usually it is a "solution looking for a problem", as there's a # of ways "to skin a cat", with masking being one way to hold back darker local areas on a print...

Let's see, there's dodging, there's using a flatter paper, there's a better neg exposure + softer development, there's using a diffuse enlarger light source, then there's print alternating dev/water baths, there's cutting overlay masks covering portions of the print (while removing them during exposure), split contrast MG printing, longer scale paper, scanning/manipulation and so on...

If there was one specific thing to lighten, maybe, but all of the above can usually be avoided by good film exposure and balanced development... Or if someone had too hot highlights, and blasted the print exposure overall to bring them down, then tried to hold back the darks, but this is a little Fred Flintstone way of doing it...

What all of these are about solving is a neg has slightly a little more range than printing paper, and if the neg contrast is excessive, so too will be the print... Solve that, and the printing is easy...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Masking can do all kinds of things because there are so many types of masks. A an elementary level like what is under discussion, the contrast of the original is reduced proportionately in the shadows, then brought back up using a harder paper grade, enhancing microtanality overall, and also increasing edge acutance at the same time. My own pyro negs have a yellow-green proportional stain reining in the highlights; then pan film is exposed using deep blue light to proportionately control the shadow end of the scale. Ortho film is fine; but I use pan because it can be used with color film too. The final mask should look like a soft positive image of the full range of the subject, generally having a Dmax no more than .30 above fbf. That's a good starting point until you're more comfortable with the concept.

[Drew Wiley]

Forgot to say, don't dev the mask itself in pyro. You want it clear, not stained.

[Drew Wiley]

Steve, masking can truly do what "none of the above" on your list can. It's more of a highly versatile tool kit than a single tool. But it's obviously more work, and can be overdone if not careful. Things like flashing, reduced film dev, lower paper grades etc just squish microtanality along with the total image contrast. With masking you can have your cake and eat it too. It takes some practice printing masked negs to appreciate when it's a valuable technique, and when it's not.

[Dario]

Thanks everyone for the comments.

My objective is to increase the perception of sharpness and local contrast (which presumably go hand in hand).

Because I had to increase my print exposure by 2-3 stops, I take it that my mask is too dense. An average mask density (not Dmax) of 0.3 would presumably require just one extra stop. But would a thinner mask make more of a difference to the final print? It's hard to imagine.

The question exercising my mind most is just how much effect should an unsharp mask have? What I've achieved is perceptible but so subtle as to be not worth the effort.

[Drew Wiley]

Your concept is correct. But unless your original neg is terribly contrasty, you shouldn't need such a dense mask. A good way to learn is to bracket your mask exposures at different densities, then experiment. Later you could get more scientific if necessary; but that can be a distraction when trying to learn basic technique. What developer are you using for the mask? Quite dilute HC110 works esp well.

[Drew Wiley]

How much effect? As much as you need. Too much will start looking fake, much like oversharpened or excessively unsharp-masked digital images. The technique itself should not be apparent, but just some extra magic that wouldn't be there otherwise. It takes practice. But I mask b&w images far less often than I used to, because VC papers have dramatically improved. Such things can be used in combination, of course.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks everyone for the comments.

My objective is to increase the perception of sharpness and local contrast (which presumably go hand in hand).

Because I had to increase my print exposure by 2-3 stops, I take it that my mask is too dense. An average mask density (not Dmax) of 0.3 would presumably require just one extra stop. But would a thinner mask make more of a difference to the final print? It's hard to imagine.

The question exercising my mind most is just how much effect should an unsharp mask have? What I've achieved is perceptible but so subtle as to be not worth the effort.

Let me say a recommendation. Learn how to simulate masking effect in Photoshop, by using layers, blending and LUTs, then try work it in the darkroom. IMHO simulating it in Ps does not substitute all real darkroom tests, but it is an straight way to prepare for a darkroom fine job so save paper, film and time.

A LF shot can be very sharp, not requiring unshrap masking if you control illumination, flare and optics. IMHO what it is not well done at shooting time its hard to fix with unsharp masking, at least to the level that a good shot has. Anyway this is a personal choice.

Then we have CRM, SCIM, etc masks...

But I found a way that I find better, this is color masks for local contrast control and exposure control, in the way Alan Ross teaches: http://phototechmag.com/selective-masking-part-iii-computer-techniques-for-the-traditional-darkroom/

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, PS obviously had options resembling darkroom masking. But it can be done more seaslessly on film with no need of a scan. Best of all, you go to a true silver print. This isn't necessarily about "fixing" an otherwise flawed negative, but often about bringing out something special that simpler technique cannot. I'm looking at some old 8X10 HP5 negs now and planning to make masks. They printed beautifully to begin with, but might be even more interesting masked, esp on newer papers. Different mask techniques can be combined, including Alan Ross's method to more typical methods. It can get quite involved in serious color printing, but the end result is worth it. I have no interest in digital printing.

[Drew Wiley]

Masks can be made to essentially automate complex dodge/burn sequences. That is often their function in color printing, along with hue correction. But that's just one aspect of the technique. Going film to film with precise pin registration, fine detail can also be tweaked in an efficient manner. I like doing this with real LF film because the transitions and edges look more realistic than PS results, plus I like the way silver prints tone. Masking can deliver an enlargement every bit as nuanced and rich as a contact print. Of course, you can mask negs intended for contact printing too. It's fun if you're not in a hurry and prioritize final print quality.

[LabRat]

Steve, masking can truly do what "none of the above" on your list can. It's more of a highly versatile tool kit than a single tool. But it's obviously more work, and can be overdone if not careful. Things like flashing, reduced film dev, lower paper grades etc just squish microtanality along with the total image contrast. With masking you can have your cake and eat it too. It takes some practice printing masked negs to appreciate when it's a valuable technique, and when it's not.

Yea, it can, but as usual in the lab, adding an element often means one has to pay for it somewhere else... A higher contrast paper has a different scale, so much testing is required to be able to get a natural looking result, but one can avoid this (complicated) step/process by nailing film/development with a very good neg, and have an easy less stressful printing session...

Often the cause of the loss of microtonality etc is just dumb stuff like over-development, not perfect exposure, neg not lining up to paper contrasts, wrong dilutions (film or paper), film or paper choices, etc or shooting issues like vibration, flare, diffraction, (or many or all of the above) etc...

I realize that adding contrast can create the illusion of greater sharpness, but then that contrast has to be controlled for a natural photo look, so hopefully does not open "Pandora's Box" of other elements that need to be balanced... (But makes more sense for color, with shorter scale, local CC shadow casts, etc...) Someone can get good at it, but...

Not against it, but get the rest of the system in order first, then try if needed...

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

I'm glad the subject came up. It inspired me to go back thru some early 8x10 negs and make masks for them. It's going to be quite rainy the next several days, so a good time to print. But each combination of film and paper has its learning curve that takes awhile.

[Drew Wiley]

...and I did have about a decade of doing precise color masking before I ever even started black and white work with a camera per se. That helped, as did owning the specialized lab gear. But not only is b&w masking quite different from color, but significantly different approaches to color itself requires different masking techniques (Ciba vs dye transfer vs chromogenic color neg printing). A lot of up front testing, but after awhile it gets nearly instinctive.

[David Lobato]

Unsharp masking for edge enhancement in the darkroom has interested me for a long time, though I never tried it. Bruce Barnbaum was a practitioner of darkroom unsharp masking, and there are others. Here are wiki articles about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking and edge enhancement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_enhancement

[Drew Wiley]

It was standard practice in color repro work for decades). Several entire companies were dedicated to the equipment. You can find more info and gear searching the printing industry rather than conventional photography. Wickipedia doesn't seem to understand the scope of applications. I find darkroom work relaxing, so it's fun to me.

[Dario]

Thanks again for all your comments and especially the links to Photo Technique magazine.

[Drew Wiley]

Howard Bond did a series of masking articles for them as I recall.

[Drew Wiley]

Guess I never kept those issues. But I did find a brief article by Ctein in the Oct 97 issue which gives his Softshot dev formula. I think you can also download this from his site. I think he later switched to my own masking formula which gives a straighter gradient on TMax and FP4.

[Ulophot]

This includes at least one article on masking from Bond.

http://phototechmag.com/author/howard-bond/

[Pere Casals]

This includes at least one article on masking from Bond.

http://phototechmag.com/author/howard-bond/

interesting link, thanks

[Peter De Smidt]

I don't have any first-hand experience, but people were divided over whether the bump in edge sharpness/contrast was a good thing or not. A friend took a workshop with Howard, and he (my friend) generally preferred the non-masked prints, which was disappointing, as the workshop was pricey. I imagine whether it was a good thing or not would depend a lot on the subject.

[Pere Casals]

I don't have any first-hand experience, but people were divided over whether the bump in edge sharpness/contrast was a good thing or not. A friend took a workshop with Howard, and he (my friend) generally preferred the non-masked prints, which was disappointing, as the workshop was pricey. I imagine whether it was a good thing or not would depend a lot on the subject.

The unsharp masking effect is parallel to the photoshop unsharp masking feature, one may like it or not, one may like a harder setting of softer, and some shots may benefit from it and some not.

With Ps with a couple of clicks we can test more or less radious, and more or less % in the blending, so it's easy to adjust the good level, but with maks each time we want to test a different radious we have to place a thicker or thiner diffuser layer and to develop a paper, and for the % we have to make a different mask, so with masks it is labour and materials intensive to adjust for a better result.

Problem is the same, excess of artificial acutance looks unnatural and even nasty.

[Michael Kadillak]

How about coming at this issue from a divergent angle.

Rather than force a commitment to learning the iterative and elaborate procedures such as masking to fix troublesome negatives, how about spending that time intelligently on the front end of your photography to fine tune your exposure and development procedures so you consistently produce bullet proof negatives? Then the fix exercise becomes a rare if ever event.

Lessons I have learned the hard way toward that objective. Only change one variable at a time in fine tuning your exposure and development process. Each sheet of film needs individual development. Use your eyes more and your meter less. Take an iPhone snap of your composition to evaluate produced tonalities in the final product. Lastly, take good notes and stay disciplined and on track as long as it takes to produce a no dodge/burn final print.

[Drew Wiley]

It can "fix" certain things. But well-controlled masking can do things none of those other procedures can, including the digital mimic going by the same name. I just finished printing two masked images today. I need reading glasses to sell all the detail, but it almost looks mico-etched 3d. The print surface almost seems alive. Howard Bond never took it to the next level, but he could bring out a greater range of tones than otherwise. I don't think I've ever masked a b&w portrait. But for the right subject matter it can yield stunning results. Like anything else, don't expect consistently high results overnight. There is really quite a bit to doing it well. But it's not hard to get started. Today I was combining it with a number of other tricks: split printing, dodging & burning, very subtle split toning, but no bleaching this time.

[Mike Reyburn]

Another good source of masking information and registration equipment is Lynn Redeka. http://www.radekaphotography.com/maskingkits.htm

[Michael Kadillak]

It can "fix" certain things. But well-controlled masking can do things none of those other procedures can, including the digital mimic going by the same name. I just finished printing two masked images today. I need reading glasses to sell all the detail, but it almost looks mico-etched 3d. The print surface almost seems alive. Howard Bond never took it to the next level, but he could bring out a greater range of tones than otherwise. I don't think I've ever masked a b&w portrait. But for the right subject matter it can yield stunning results. Like anything else, don't expect consistently high results overnight. There is really quite a bit to doing it well. But it's not hard to get started. Today I was combining it with a number of other tricks: split printing, dodging & burning, very subtle split toning, but no bleaching this time.

Great. I remember reading about Paul Strand working on a negative for a week before he felt it was "correct". Lets fast forward to the real world.

Reality check. Nobody has unlimited resources to dabble with photography to their hearts content because we all have requirements on us in paying our bills and funding our retirement. As a result the time and resources we would like to expend in photographic endeavors are inherently limited and desperately induce the highest efficiency level physically possible. In figuring out how advance the photographic skill sets within this constrictive environment called reality induces a get real mentality of efficiency driven by higher cost materials and limited time resources. Welcome to the Brave New World.

[Drew Wiley]

Reality check? I've worked hard all my life, paid all my bills and taxes, taken care of my family, and frankly, earned my retirement income. That fact doesn't deprive me of the right to make high quality prints if I want to. There are plenty of poor people who spend more money every week at the gas station on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets than I spend on photographic supplies per month. Yeah, sheet film is expensive. But it's not machine gun fodder either.

[faberryman]

There are plenty of poor people who spend more money every week at the gas station on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets than I spend on photographic supplies per month.
Well, that is certainly revealing.

[Michael Kadillak]

Reality check? I've worked hard all my life, paid all my bills and taxes, taken care of my family, and frankly, earned my retirement income. That fact doesn't deprive me of the right to make high quality prints if I want to. There are plenty of poor people who spend more money every week at the gas station on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets than I spend on photographic supplies per month. Yeah, sheet film is expensive. But it's not machine gun fodder either.

Why in this culture do people consistently take comments personally. I am trying to contribute to the edification of the broader context of promoting large format photography to the forward literary library and offering reasonable alternatives that facilitate keeping the faith in a challenged lifestyle and continuing to purchase sheet film and honing their craft. It is not about you. Similarly, there is no reason to deconstruct the conversation to cast a negative context on individuals that smoke, drink, buy lottery tickets or shoot machine guns. Quite sincerely this could describe anyone in the military. Just saying.....

[Mrportr8]

Why in this culture do people consistently take comments personally. I am trying to contribute to the edification of the broader context of promoting large format photography to the forward literary library and offering reasonable alternatives that facilitate keeping the faith in a challenged lifestyle and continuing to purchase sheet film and honing their craft. It is not about you. Similarly, there is no reason to deconstruct the conversation to cast a negative context on individuals that smoke, drink, buy lottery tickets or shoot machine guns. Quite sincerely this could describe anyone in the military. Just saying.....

Hey guys let's take it down a notch please? Like any craft it takes TIME to hone your skills and develop your own personal style. This doesn't happen overnight whether you're a woodworker, potter, blacksmith, you get the drift. Time and money spent over many years of practice and making countless mistakes is worth far more than any printed page or sage advice. We each work and learn at our own pace and to our own satisfaction.

[Drew Wiley]

What on earth does that have to do with masking? Do specific film developers each have differing sociological implications?

[Mrportr8]

How about coming at this issue from a divergent angle.

Rather than force a commitment to learning the iterative and elaborate procedures such as masking to fix troublesome negatives, how about spending that time intelligently on the front end of your photography to fine tune your exposure and development procedures so you consistently produce bullet proof negatives? Then the fix exercise becomes a rare if ever event.

Lessons I have learned the hard way toward that objective. Only change one variable at a time in fine tuning your exposure and development process. Each sheet of film needs individual development. Use your eyes more and your meter less. Take an iPhone snap of your composition to evaluate produced tonalities in the final product. Lastly, take good notes and stay disciplined and on track as long as it takes to produce a no dodge/burn final print.

I don't think it does much to fix a problem negative as it does help to enrich local contrast by upping the paper grade required for a good print. The problem in film is that there is a limited range of light to dark values that can be adequately captured and rendered. Mostly this is in the low values where the characteristic curve is quite shallow and contrast is suppressed. The unsharp mask that Howard Bond utilized raised these values into the higher portion where the paper could render more separation. In a sense you're compressing the gamma of the film without suppressing the contrast in the mid and upper values as reduced development would. It's an extra tool in your toolbox should you need it.

[Drew Wiley]

That's one of the applications for a mask, the one that came into play today. There are many others. I've been making masks for nearly 40 years, mostly for color printing, but obviously sometimes for b&w too. It can be as simple or as complex as you wish. But there meeting fact that PS mimics it with the same terminology proves how seriously it was taken by the printing industry all along.

[Drew Wiley]

Did you know you can even tweak image tone with a mask? With many VC papers if you predominantly expose only the blue-sensitive part of the paper emulsion thru a deep blue filter and sufficiently dev it, you often get a cold tone, even on warmtone paper. It takes a lot of masking finesse to do that, but it's distinctly an option. With color neg printing, I often make contrast-increase masks, double-neg method. You can actually target as much as the film curve as you need to, at either end or in the middle, essentially reconfiguring the curve while enhancing specific characteristics at the same time. So like I said, it's a tool kit, not just one more tool.

[Pere Casals]

Rather than force a commitment to learning the iterative and elaborate procedures such as masking to fix troublesome negatives, how about spending that time intelligently on the front end of your photography to fine tune your exposure and development procedures so you consistently produce bullet proof negatives? Then the fix exercise becomes a rare if ever event.


Yes Michael, you are right, if having the capability of obtaining a negative that prints straight like we want then we have a very natural and direct photograph, and enhanced productivity !!!

It is also true that the printing process allows for a cretivity input in the art, AA was enforcing the print as the score...

IMHO since we have popular VC papers (1980s) there is the tendence to make a linear reading of the scene (TMX, Delta) and then manipulating the tonal scale at a glance in the print, having the capability to adjust local contrast in every area.

Not the same debate at all than "pictorialism vs direct", but it is related in part: manipulation vs straight.

IMHO both ways are good, but a bit the way you point is overlooked today... we think in photoshop terms: manipulate, manipulate and manipulate !!!

... and prehaps sometimes a great result comes from straight things.

As I learn I like the more how Sally Mann manipulates the images, with a cracked lens or with a lens not covering well the format. This is being an artist ! (IMHO)

[esearing]

There are a series of videos by Timi Hall that illustrate the finesse one can achieve with masking. I find him a bit long winded but he gives some important information on what and why he is doing something and all the steps he goes through. All kinds of tidbits in there including registration, tipping in a 2x2 negative into a 4x5 sheet, developers and times, contrasts, bleaching, multiple masks, etc....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMaWEcmy4MU

[Drew Wiley]

There never has been and never will be such a thing as a perfect negative. Yes, everyone needs to learn accurate exp and dev technique. But all it takes is a single important variable being changed, like a favorite paper being discontinued, and what does or does not constitute an ideal neg itself changes. Besides, why does something have to be printed the same way every time? That sounds boring. Have some fun. Then there's that suitable AA adage about the score vs the performance. Mozart might have composed the score, but in the hands of the Junior High marching band what does it sound like?

[faberryman]

I see many photographers going to extraordinary lengths to produce mediocre images. This applies to film photographers, alternate process photographers, and digital photographers equally. Somehow the process has become all important. And the more complex the better. Look what I can do, whether or not it is necessary, or even advisable.

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I print gel silver in the darkroom, I usually make an unsharp mask. Been doing it that way since '96, after reading about an article in the old Darkroom & Camera Tech magazine, by Howard Bond. The first time I made one, I was blown away. I don't bother with a spacer between negative and mask. It's not necessary. So, if you can get your hands on that old article, you'll find it to be very helpful.

[Drew Wiley]

Indeed. But the primary field of application to masking technique is not to salvage something. Rather, being able to make a precise thoughtful neg should be the starting platform. Only then will you really know how to expose and develop with a mask in mind, should you desire that route. But a good illusionist never shows his hand. If the technique is in your face, like a lot of digital output these days, it looks either pretentious or amaturish.

[Mrportr8]

There never has been and never will be such a thing as a perfect negative. Yes, everyone needs to learn accurate exp and dev technique. But all it takes is a single important variable being changed, like a favorite paper being discontinued, and what does or does not constitute an ideal neg itself changes. Besides, why does something have to be printed the same way every time? That sounds boring. Have some fun. Then there's that suitable AA adage about the score vs the performance. Mozart might have composed the score, but in the hands of the Junior High marching band what does it sound like?

I agree! What's important is that you get to the destination, not how you get there.

[SMBooth]

Andy Cross has a PDF : http://largeformatphotography.com.au/2013/08/05/book-masking-andy-cross/

[Drew Wiley]

That should be interesting. Andy teaches digital technique, but personally works in a variety of color processes which require masking, including dye transfer, tricolor carbon, and formerly Ciba.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've never used an unsharp mask to "fix" a negative. I've made them to enhance them, not only for the additional sharpness, but for the increase in local contrasts within the shadows.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Masking and unsharp masking are not to be confused with one another.

[Michael Kadillak]

There never has been and never will be such a thing as a perfect negative. Yes, everyone needs to learn accurate exp and dev technique. But all it takes is a single important variable being changed, like a favorite paper being discontinued, and what does or does not constitute an ideal neg itself changes. Besides, why does something have to be printed the same way every time? That sounds boring. Have some fun. Then there's that suitable AA adage about the score vs the performance. Mozart might have composed the score, but in the hands of the Junior High marching band what does it sound like?

I will admit that perfection is an adjective that is challenged in the world of analog photography. Shutters are inherently off a bit between lenses, developing temperature can change slightly and light can experience subtle changes during the exposure process. But here are just a few of the issues that I feel continue to dominate the inducement of operator error and troublesome negatives. Not only have I seen these consistently demonstrated among many photographers, I have been down this road myself early in my process. Fortunately I worked through these issues and learned from them.

Developing multiple negatives in a single developing drum or single use tank expecting to use multi contrast filters as the "fix" may be an assumed step forward in sheet film processing efficiency but realistically IMHO it is easily two steps backwards in the results category. I contend each negative needs to be processed individually and with the highest precision possible. I use an infrared monocle to deal with optimizing this subset of challenges. Secondly, adoration of the spot meter as the holy grail of determining a correct exposure unfortunately falls victim to the error of the spot meter to flare and the necessity of reading an area at least three times the size of the "spot" means the meter can also be a contributing factor to challenged results. Using the eyes to "see" the scene tonally as well as an incident meter in valuing the range of tonality of a photographic scene is highly advisable.

At the end of the day while absolute perfection may not be unattainable, I can assure you the proximity to this lofty goal of producing marvelous trouble fee negatives is not only possible but with a sufficient level of attention to details can easily be attained 95% of the time. I contend that if we are going to drag big cameras around, purchase expensive sheet film and make the commitment to put ourselves in the field to make photographs, we should not accept anything less than as close to perfection as humanly possible. But at the end of the day the choice is yours.

[Pere Casals]

Masking and unsharp masking are not to be confused with one another.

This is true, unsharp masking is a kind of masking.

Anyway unsharp masking has a side effect like a contrast control masking, I guess, isn't it ? Or at least both efects can be used at the same time...

[Drew Wiley]

Gosh, Michael. Precise control is the STARTING POINT for learning masking, it's prerequisite if you expect anything even resembling consistency. Some kinds of masks are a way more fussy in terms of dev, exp, and filtration than general shooting. And per your question, Pere, yes, sometimes masks can combine functions, or as we say, kill two birds with a single stone. And there are many potential kind of masks.

[faberryman]

Re-read OP's post. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let's see some before and after images to establish visual benchmarks. Otherwise, it is just endless internet braggadocio about whose mask is bigger. And complexity as virtue.

[Drew Wiley]

And Andrew, sharpness or"unsharpness" in a mask is relative. It's not one versus the other, but related to conscious choices per step. I've applied up to eight masks to a single color image, and each had a different function. But it was worth it. I've heard of dye transfer printers using fourteen. Normally, a single combination mask is sufficient, esp in b&w work. But there is always room to invent new ways of doing it, esp among the hybrid crowd.

[bob carnie]

I too would love to see some current samples before and after of the variety of masks being proposed here.

I did masking in the 80's to colour correct and as well to control highlight contrast in Cibachromes.. I never saw the need for sharpening an image. I remember the pain in making them.

[Michael Kadillak]

I too would love to see some current samples before and after of the variety of masks being proposed here.

I did masking in the 80's to colour correct and as well to control highlight contrast in Cibachromes.. I never saw the need for sharpening an image. I remember the pain in making them.

I would second Bob's request. The B&W masking that I have read about (and I will admit my reading may not be all encompassing) have been contrast control driven i.e. improving a problem negative to improve its visual palatability to the photographer relative to his pre visualized vision. Given the modern era of advanced multi contrast papers and the ability to split grade print I do not see the need to use a mask solely for contrast control. Holding back a section of a print to hold detail or for that matter to add detail I can understand. The sharpening effect in the final print (whether it was a desired initial objective or came along with the contrast control process) tends at least to me eye to emulate a photoshop effect can look somewhat surreal at least to me. I have not delved into the technical aspects of what causes this effect in the print but I do know that when a crisp contrast "edge" is present in a print and sharpness emulates a normal range of visual esthetic the print works. Beyond that range I feel i t can be a bit distracting.

[Pere Casals]

Given the modern era of advanced multi contrast papers and the ability to split grade print I do not see the need to use a mask solely for contrast control.

CRM+SCIM (contrast reduction mask + shadow contrast increase mask) may be needed to cook some prints if wanting rich shadows and a controled tonal scale. Split grade printing is a powerful tool, but the split burning/dodging can be too complex for some prints to obtain a sound result, also a Pro may want some consistence from print to print, masking allows for that.

CRM+SCIM delivers (IMHO) a way to re-shape the toe in the negative, this is the shoulder of the print...

A benefit is that this process can work as an unsharp masking at the same time, and this can solve some slight softness in the shot or add some acutance that it can improve the look if the thing well dosed.

I prefer the selective contrast masking described by Alan Ross... it is less a purist way, as the mask is printed by a (common) inkjet, but I find it a serious way.

[bob carnie]

CRM+SCIM (contrast reduction mask + shadow contrast increase mask) may be needed to cook some prints if wanting rich shadows and a controled tonal scale. Split grade printing is a powerful tool, but the split burning/dodging can be too complex for some prints to obtain a sound result, also a Pro may want some consistence from print to print, masking allows for that.

CRM+SCIM delivers (IMHO) a way to re-shape the toe in the negative, this is the shoulder of the print...

A benefit is that this process can work as an unsharp masking at the same time, and this can solve some slight softness in the shot or add some acutance that it can improve the look if the thing well dosed.

I prefer the selective contrast masking described by Alan Ross... it is less a purist way, as the mask is printed by a (common) inkjet, but I find it a serious way.

Contour Masking has been done for over 50 years... just different tools

[Pere Casals]

Contour Masking has been done for over 50 years... just different tools

Yes... today Photoshop is a very powerful tool, to print masks, digital negatives, or the image itself... but still that requires sound artist to get a sound result. Without those powerful tools sound results were also obtained, I guess that tools have improved more than artists :)

[bob carnie]

In the book Darkroom 2 Lustrum Press there is a wonderful article by Emmet Gowin about contour masking, very enlightening I must say. my copy is 1978.

This article clearly shows a method using tissue and clear plastic above the negative plain controlling dodging and burning, taken further one could also dodge contrast up or down depending upon complexities of the image.
Photoshop tools were designed to mimic these old methods of working..There is not much new with digital other than its tremendous speeding up of the workflow.

[Pere Casals]

Thanks for that recommendation, I'll get that book

[interneg]

In the book Darkroom 2 Lustrum Press there is a wonderful article by Emmet Gowin about contour masking, very enlightening I must say. my copy is 1978.


Having pulled my copy off the shelf, Gowin said he took it verbatim from Frederick Sommer & Alex Jamison - I've seen people do similar things with lighting gels, cellophane etc - more from a conceptual standpoint than from any notions of formalised masking techniques. Plenty to explore there I think.

The Lustrum 'Darkroom' books are fantastic books & a wonderful antidote to overly doctrinaire Zone System nonsense.

The ideological warfare being waged upthread over masking or not masking seems frankly silly - it's a tool that's sometimes the best choice for the job, but equally often not worth the time & effort & terribly easy to overdo into something that looks aesthetically awful. That said, I think there's something worth exploring with using a traditional USM to fit a neg onto a paper about 2-3 grades harder than originally intended - potentially quite an intense visual style.

[Drew Wiley]

The way dye clouds react is different from how silver clusters do. So let me give just one application among the many possible, relating specifically to b&w printing. That involves the mgt of high contrast scenes. Maybe you've perfected the Zone System to decimel points, you know how to do minus and compensating development, flashing and advanced VC split printing. But with any or all of this, you're taking a deep dish pizza and putting it in a drymount press to obtain a thin crust pizza. You've brought the full range into manageable printing parameters, but at the same time have squished flat all the microtanality in between. With masking you can keep and even enhance both in the same print. I personally mask b&w prints only about 5 percent of the time. But I'll try to save some test strips or pieces of work prints for people to see. I use such techniques to enhance images that already print well, but which might sing even better masked. But only certain images are appropriate.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Does anyone make a simplified unsharp system for a stupid bloke like me? I mean something like a punch with adjustable micro variable offsets, and a printing unit to align them?
.

[Michael Kadillak]

The way dye clouds react is different from how silver clusters do. So let me give just one application among the many possible, relating specifically to b&w printing. That involves the mgt of high contrast scenes. Maybe you've perfected the Zone System to decimel points, you know how to do minus and compensating development, flashing and advanced VC split printing. But with any or all of this, you're taking a deep dish pizza and putting it in a drymount press to obtain a thin crust pizza. You've brought the full range into manageable printing parameters, but at the same time have squished flat all the microtanality in between. With masking you can keep and even enhance both in the same print. I personally mask b&w prints only about 5 percent of the time. But I'll try to save some test strips or pieces of work prints for people to see. I use such techniques to enhance images that already print well, but which might sing even better masked. But only certain images are appropriate.

If you only spend 5% of your time making masks for your prints then you have essentially made my point in my earlier analysis. You are in fact a highly efficient practitioner highly skilled in the craft and this whole post needs to be placed into the proper perspective. Of 100 prints you produce, only 5 of them you would consider masking an improvement technique. Conclusion. Masking for you is an outlier and should be properly called for what it is.

[Drew Wiley]

It's just another tool (or tool kit) among many options. But for me, it's relatively instinctive because masking was 100 percent of the time printing Cibachrome. I have three big binders full of densitometer plots, procedural protocols, and sample prints, one volume for Ciba, one for dye transfer, and one for color neg printing. Sheets for black and white masking are also in there; but that's comparatively simple compared to color masking. It can be fun and challenging. With black and white work, it's easy to overdo. But if an unsharp mask itself happens to be too strong, a minute or so in Farmers Reducer is an easy way to fine-tune the density. I certainly don't make a religion out of masking - but what the heck, I've already got the gear and experience.

[Pere Casals]

It's just another tool (or tool kit) among many options. But for me, it's relatively instinctive because masking was 100 percent of the time printing Cibachrome. I have three big binders full of densitometer plots, procedural protocols, and sample prints, one volume for Ciba, one for dye transfer, and one for color neg printing. Sheets for black and white masking are also in there; but that's comparatively simple compared to color masking. It can be fun and challenging. With black and white work, it's easy to overdo. But if an unsharp mask itself happens to be too strong, a minute or so in Farmers Reducer is an easy way to fine-tune the density. I certainly don't make a religion out of masking - but what the heck, I've already got the gear and experience.

Drew, I figure your workflow... good. When a mask is suitable then with desitometer and graphs you nearly nail the mask you want, (slightly better in the dense side, I guess) and this allows to find the good point, if necessary with some Farmer's...

This shows how straight it is if looking to graphs and having some practice...

Seen in that way it is not as challenging as it may look !

[Pere Casals]

Does anyone make a simplified unsharp system for a stupid bloke like me? I mean something like a punch with adjustable micro variable offsets, and a printing unit to align them?
.

IMHO this is not necessary for UM as common practice is to pin register the negative and the mask before contact exposure, so the registration system keeps it aligned again once the mask developed and sanwidched again with the pin register.

If you use the Alan Ross described way with selective color masking for VC papers then you can use small "cross hairs" in the negative border before scanning, then the inkjet printed color mask is aligned to the negative sheet using the cross hairs as the reference, also this tells if the mask has to stretched to overlap well. Alignment is performed on a light table with enough precission with fingers, but I guess that a micro adjustment would be useful for smaller formats.

I think that there are small "cross hairs" printed in transparent labels that are intended for graphic arts, this can be plaed in the negative before scanning...

[Mrportr8]

If you only spend 5% of your time making masks for your prints then you have essentially made my point in my earlier analysis. You are in fact a highly efficient practitioner highly skilled in the craft and this whole post needs to be placed into the proper perspective. Of 100 prints you produce, only 5 of them you would consider masking an improvement technique. Conclusion. Masking for you is an outlier and should be properly called for what it is.

I'm sorry but this is like stating that because you only use the yellow #8 filter 5% of the time that you don't really need filters except for when things go wrong. Masking is a tool. Perfect negatives are meaningless if you can't print them worth a darn, and things have changed enormously in the past 20 years. The choice of papers is a FAR cry from what it used to be, so IMHO the need for masking is more relevant now than in the past.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere - one can certainly learn the basics of masking without either a densitometer of special registration equipment. But if you do it a lot or get involved with multiple masks per image, not having the right equipment is a prescription for insanity. There are two companies involved in making simple masking punches and registration frames for up to 4X5 film. My own gear was custom made for me by Condit, and I have full 4X5/5X7 and 8X10 sets. Sometimes this kind of thing comes up for sale used; but one
needs to be very careful that matched sets are involved : the registration glass, punch, strips or carriers must all have been
made at the same time or there will be a problem. Simply having the same brand and film size is not sufficient for the necessary
degree of accuracy. Or if one is a skilled machinist, they could make their own, but ideal glass types no longer exist, at least
in drillable Anti-Newton form. But you avoid Newton rings using a second thin sheet of diffuse polyester between the glass and
sheet of film. How often one makes masks is wholly a personal choice. If someone really enjoys it, they might gravitate toward
shooting images which are appropriate to begin with. I get plenty of practice during color printing season, but once in awhile
have nice 8X10 b&w neg which might benefit. It's hard to know until the final print has dried down. I did two images a couple
days ago, and one really sings having used the mask, and on the other image it was counterproductive. With color work athings
are actually far more predictable, at least if you've done a ton of homework first, like I have.

[interneg]

Does anyone make a simplified unsharp system for a stupid bloke like me? I mean something like a punch with adjustable micro variable offsets, and a printing unit to align them?
.

There's folk like Alistair Inglis (http://www.alistairinglis.com/inglis-unsharp/) if you want a full system, but if you're only making contrast reducing unsharp masks, you can do the registration by hand with a light box, a magnifier & tape. The contrast boosting masks are the ones that demand tight register.

[Jac@stafford.net]

IMHO this is not necessary for UM as common practice is to pin register the negative and the mask before contact exposure, so the registration system keeps it aligned again once the mask developed and sanwidched again with the pin register.

If you use the Alan Ross described way [...]

I do not do scanning of any kind. No digital in my image making.

Okay, I will continue to look for registration methods. I do have a Linhof punch, but no print platform which uses it. A punch without a registered negative holder seems useless. I am open to suggestions.
.

[Drew Wiley]

One tremendously important thing I forgot to mention is that only polyester films or tapes are dimensionally stable. Anything acetate can drive you nuts, esp in sheet film sizes as humidity or age related dimensional changes proportionately increase.
Even attaching sheets of film with common tape can spoil registration. I use thin mylar graphics art tape. Diffusion sheets should also be polyester, frosted both sides. The reason for this is that acetate sheeting is far more likely to show a pattern. The degree of diffusion is important. I generally use 5-mil material for sheet film, but keep 3-mil on hand as well. The more unsharp a mask is, the easier it is to register if you don't have dedicated equipment, but the higher the risk will be of getting a distracting halo around edges and details. My favorite films for masking are FP4 and TMX100.

[Jac@stafford.net]

There's folk like Alistair Inglis (http://www.alistairinglis.com/inglis-unsharp/) if you want a full system, but if you're only making contrast reducing unsharp masks, you can do the registration by hand with a light box, a magnifier & tape. The contrast boosting masks are the ones that demand tight register.

Thank you very much for that!
.

[Dan O'Farrell]

I've been following this thread with a lot of interest, and with the back-of-my-head thought that I had read a pretty interesting article about "Unsharp Masking" a few years ago.

Tonight, I found my source, a copy of Photo Techniques magazine, Special Issue #11, " Mastering the Black & White Fine Print".
The article about masking in this issue is, as mentioned above, by Howard Bond.

The magazine has, as well, articles by or about David Vestal ( a favourite ), Gene Smith and Brett Weston.

This issue is a real treasure and I'm :rolleyes: glad to have found it.

[Pere Casals]

but ideal glass types no longer exist, at least in drillable Anti-Newton form.

Drew, thanks for that practical information.

Just I'd like to point a tip about manufacturing glass parts, waterjet cutting machines do a very good job with any glass, you can cut any shape, make drills, etc.. and at very competitive cost, in special with series.

[Drew Wiley]

The problem is with drilling a very precise tiny hole for micopins in thick current AN glass which spalls quite easily. There is another method where you can very shallowly grind a slot for a registration strip on the glass. If the pins are outside the glass in an aluminum frame, some image area is lost. And registered tabs are not as accurate.This is a technical aspect of the craft that was once well known to the print trade. There are still companies like Ternes Burton and Olec Stosser making large punches and registration surfaces, incl vac easel, but the smaller film equip like 8X10 is now harder to find. 4x5 has two sources for basic unsharp work, but not a full selection. This could be done in a personal shop with a precision drill press (not cheap) or comparable milling machine.

[Pere Casals]

The problem is with drilling a very precise tiny hole for micopins in thick current AN glass which spalls quite easily. There is another method where you can very shallowly grind a slot for a registration strip on the glass. If the pins are outside the glass in an aluminum frame, some image area is lost. And registered tabs are not as accurate.This is a technical aspect of the craft that was once well known to the print trade. There are still companies like Ternes Burton and Olec Stosser making large punches and registration surfaces, incl vac easel, but the smaller film equip like 8X10 is now harder to find. 4x5 has two sources for basic unsharp work, but not a full selection. This could be done in a personal shop with a precision drill press (not cheap) or comparable milling machine.

With waterjet you can cut within 0.1mm precision, I cut plenty of 304 stainless steel in a waterjet workshop, several Tm yearly, and same machine is often also used to cut glass. The machine has to be calibrated for each kind of material, but it really makes a nice job with glass.

Waterjet cutting is used for demanding jobs, for example alluminium plate for fuselage and wings of the airliners made with alluminium, the advantage is that the material crystalline structure is not modified, if cut with laser the boundary of the holes for rivets takes a defective thermal treatment, and a crack may strat there with repetitive stress. Also as the part heats up with the laser cutting the metal dimensions change, and when the part is cold it has a different size :)

Waterjet cutting is smart and cheap, still for some jobs laser is preferred...

[Drew Wiley]

That isn't even remotely precise enough for this kind of application. I really don't want to make this sound daunting. One could simply take quarter-inch non-tempered float glass and drill it with special micro-drills. Then a simple sheet of 3-mil frosted mylar between the glass and film to suppress Newton rings. Best done by a skilled machine shop. Typical home-use or even cabinet shop drill presses have wobbly spindles. Or, if you're just working with 4X5 and smaller negs, just order a pre-made masking kit.

[Drew Wiley]

Dedicated micro-pins for masking had a barrel to expoxy into the glass about 1/8 in dia. The actual micopin projecting above the glass was about 1/16 in dia, but crucially not centered on the barrel. This slight offset allowed the pin to be ever so slightly rotated before the epoxy set up to allow complete accuracy with a punched strip. These pins are very difficult to find. If you take a tiny stainless pin by itself (easy to find), you need the drilling and spacing of the pins to be within .002 inch or better. And the same jig must be used for anything matching. There's even an art to correctly using a punch. But none of this should scare beginners, who can simply register and tape using a light box. On trick is to take a fine needle and scratch X-marks on opposite corners of the original negative, outside the image area of course. These scratches are easier to align.

[Pere Casals]

On trick is to take a fine needle and scratch X-marks on opposite corners of the original negative, outside the image area of course. These scratches are easier to align.

This tip should be effective !

[Bernhardas]

It's just another tool (or tool kit) among many options. But for me, it's relatively instinctive because masking was 100 percent of the time printing Cibachrome. I have three big binders full of densitometer plots, procedural protocols, and sample prints, one volume for Ciba, one for dye transfer, and one for color neg printing. Sheets for black and white masking are also in there; but that's comparatively simple compared to color masking. It can be fun and challenging. With black and white work, it's easy to overdo. But if an unsharp mask itself happens to be too strong, a minute or so in Farmers Reducer is an easy way to fine-tune the density. I certainly don't make a religion out of masking - but what the heck, I've already got the gear and experience.

Hmm sounds like a lot of source material for a masking book?

[Drew Wiley]

The problem with any such book is not only lttle demand, but the fact that specific materials change from time to time. The basic techniques have been around over 70 yrs. You might try that Andy Cross book noted earlier. A lot of info is online regarding past color processes, and the current mfg of limited gear provide their own tutorials per b&w masking. Ctein's book, Post Exposure still has useful hints. I passed up my opportunity long ago when the editor of Dkrm Techniques approached me first. Would have liked to have helped, but the glossy architectural magazines were paying five times the rate, and I only had so many moonlight hours to contribute.

[interneg]

Just an update for those looking for masking equipment, I emailed Alistair Inglis a few days ago to ask about current availability of his masking system, however he replied that he had recently retired - which leaves only the Radeka system as the main currently available masking kit I think?

[Drew Wiley]

Depends. I hesitate to give the third source even though the gear is way better. ... Doesn't help much if some of it never arrived. But if you're working with large sheets (8x10 up), you can always use registration strips made with full-sized punches. The customer service at Ternes Burton is superb.

[interneg]

Depends. I hesitate to give the third source even though the gear is way better. ... Doesn't help much if some of it never arrived. But if you're working with large sheets (8x10 up), you can always use registration strips made with full-sized punches. The customer service at Ternes Burton is superb.

If you mean the Durst-Pro company that seemed to have swallowed up the Condit punches, they may well also be gone too - there was a recent thread on Photrio that mentioned that Jens Jensen had died recently.

I do know a couple of toolmakers who'd be able to build the necessary kit, but the biggest headache is the glass - and at that point my mind wandered off in the direction of immersion carriers...

Was aware of the Ternes Burton pins, but more because of a mad idea involving 4-colour hand wiped gravures...

[Drew Wiley]

Carlwen once made immersion carriers. A good idea in theory. I just never wanted to deal with the cleanup. Anti-Newton sprays are also available from the same outfits that distribute scanning fluid. A so-so solution if nothing else works.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have a Kodak registration punch. I was able to buy Stosser (I think) pins from a graphics supply place, similar to the place Drew mentioned. Punch some mylar, or similar. Put pins into holes on mylar. Tape pins to something solid. Unlike the Condit system, you have to tape something to punch to the negative.

[Drew Wiley]

Same if you have the Durst system - always needs a secondary strip taped to your film. Remember to use dimensionally stable mylar or polyester tape, strip too, although brass shim stock can be substituted for the latter. Don't expect to find a working Durst punch. But it is possible to make something similar.

[bob carnie]

I used Stosser system for Photo Comp registration on vacumn frames... I still use Stosser system for my registration needs with tri colour. All the Photo Comp departments I worked at used Stosser.

[Drew Wiley]

It's now Olec Stoesser. Very common around here too. But Ternes Burton is more affordable for basic new gear, and quite fast.

[Drew Wiley]

I just stumbled onto a 50pg illustrated Kodak guide to masking from the mid-1950's. Cost 75 cents back then. Geared to commercial printing, but still lotsa general theory still valid today.

[Pere Casals]

I just stumbled onto a 50pg illustrated Kodak guide to masking from the mid-1950's. Cost 75 cents back then. Geared to commercial printing, but still lotsa general theory still valid today.

Is it this one ? http://www.daviddoubley.com/Documents/KodakDataBk-SepsAndMasks/KodakSepsAndMasks.pdf

This was 50 cents (in the early 50's)...

Also (off topic), an interesting set of dye transfer there, http://www.daviddoubley.com/DyeTransfer.htm

this is a nice book: http://www.daviddoubley.com/Documents/Dye%20Transfer%20Process_DDoubley/Dye%20Transf%20Manl%20SecureNoPrint.pdf

[Drew Wiley]

My copy is revised 1955. David Doubley and the late Bob Pace put out tutorials, also a whole video series by Bob. Other than the gear, DT masking is somewhat different, and all the films have changed anyway. DT has its own dedicated forum. I don't know if I'll find time to color print at all this year. Just too much of a remodeling backlog in the house. Hope all my DT films keep well in the freezer. Dyes seem to keep for decades and can be replaced. A richer medium than inkjet, but it took a lot of work to recalibrate everything to current film.

[Pere Casals]

This is an interesting field...

[Drew Wiley]

Also fun. In fact, I'm just about to make some masks. Not too many. Sleepy. Up last nite watching our once-in-a-lifetime blood moon eclipse.

[interneg]

All this dye transfer talk has me wishing that pan matrix (aka 4149) didn't need an acutance dye with a fairly specific set of properties (as I recall) which makes it rather tricky to potentially experiment with as a handmade emulsion.

[Drew Wiley]

As far as I know, Ctein is/was the last person to work with pan matrix film. It could be revived. But the more complicated method of generating color separations from chromes actually offers more options for controls. I don't know how many people still work in that mode worldwide. There is a couple doing it in Germany with new materials.

[lsattler]

I have two Howard Bond articles on Unsharp Masking in PDF form. I will be happy to email them to anyone interested. Send request to: LCS7@bex.net. They are too large to upload here.

[interneg]

As far as I know, Ctein is/was the last person to work with pan matrix film. It could be revived. But the more complicated method of generating color separations from chromes actually offers more options for controls. I don't know how many people still work in that mode worldwide. There is a couple doing it in Germany with new materials.

Bettina Haneke uses (I recall) a high resolution filmsetting machine to output digital files - which reduces your material needs to just ortho matrix film, mordanted paper & the dyes. None of those are especially complicated to make. I'd guess that the prints are probably drastically less grainy than anything made from Super-XX separations.

It's the potential for less grain, but still with the saturation control of dye transfer that attracts me to the idea of pan-matrix, however I'm now wondering about outputting QTR/Piezography digital negatives & using them to expose ortho matrix films too...

[Drew Wiley]

They use blue lasers to expose the matrices, but had to buy six machines so they wouldn't run out of replacement parts (one of the true limitations of digital hardware). Same with scanner gear. Plus a massive investment in custom film and paper coating, with lots and lots of trial and error behind it. Not simple by any means. Previously they used Efke matrix film made to Jim Browning's formula. I bought up the last of the Efke except for some leftovers in Germany. No time yet to do much with it except learn the basics. Jim B. is an elec engineer and designed his own 8X10 registered film recorder to make separation negs from film scans. I learned to do it completely analog, but have quite a bit of custom gear of my own. Andy Cross of the masking book also does it analog, I believe, even though he teaches digital technique.

[Drew Wiley]

You can go to Jim's DT site to see just how complicated a usable matrix film can be to prototype. He publishes the formula, and even Efke didn't get it quite right. Replicating a storable transfer paper like Kodak once offered requires a double coating with radioactive thorium. Therefore people mordant their own paper just prior to use. DT materials were one volume made by several different companies, not just Kodak. For separation film I use TMax 100, which actually works better than Super XX, and which, with very different exp & Dev is also superior to old pan masking film. Kodak knew what they were doing. Andy learned to make separations on FP4 and has stuck with it.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Unsharp Silver Masking. If you're making new negs or taking new images, it's an arcane subject that probably isn't worth mastering. There are myriad other ways to accomplish what film masks do, which basically is increase or decrease the contrast of the transparency or negative, globally. If OTOH you're trying to print traditionally using existing images, there may still be some place for it, but applying it now to actually solve a problem would a lot narrower as to what it once did arguably best.

With Cibachrome/lfochrome gone by the boards and dye-transfer materials, too (and no one to my knowledge still making optical color seps to print these days), it does kinda sound like a solution in need of a problem.

Nowadays you can typically scan the entire range of density within an original, or even combine two negs/slides (shooting one for highlights another for shadows). It's not only relatively easy-- almost trivial-- to do this combining in Photoshop, it's a heck of a lot less costly in time and materials, to do so digitally from the get go, and probably why no one is much doing USM in film anymore. (Incidentally, USM in Photoshop mostly came to be called Sharpening, but that's another matter.) You can also locally, precisely apply (and erase) the effects in PS which is really hard to do under the enlarger.

Been almost 15 years since I've used traditional masking for difficult color slides even color negs. Some that wouldn't scan or print worth a darn any other way. Recalling one image where I took a measured 10 stops of density on a Kodachrome from highlight to shadow, and got the final print to look clean and great on CPM1M Ilfochrome (~4 stops of compression).

The best material for making masks I know of is Pan Masking Film, by Kodak, and it's not been available for almost 25 years. I made my own punch system (enlarger film holder, and contact printer, too) but had available to me a full-on machine shop in which to make them. I kept copious notes on exposure and development times, tried different developers, etc. to arrive at what worked. Dust control is another subject unto itself and while rear it's head once you start adding more layers of film to print through.

[Drew Wiley]

You're welcome to your own arcane opinion. I happen to prefer a more complete tool kit. I have a 24mm wrench that I use only a few times a year. Why not just use a pair of Vise Grips or a pipe wrench, or Crescent wrench? - because something ends up looking not quite right! As far as materials go, I can make better masks any day of the week with current films than could be done with old "all toe" Pan Masking Film. It just takes the right developer. I admire your background, Ivan, but frankly, I don't want a digital wannabee technique. Real film just has that extra bit of authenticity and nuanced tonal control. I pulled some masked images out of the print washer just an hour ago. Photoshop is a step backwards.

[Drew Wiley]

Read some past posts on this thread and you'd discover dye transfer printing is still alive, and the necessary materials are still being made (though not by Kodak or for public use). Inkjet might be a commercial worklow improvement, to phrase it mildly; but it lacks a certain luxuriousness of color that both dye transfer and Ciba had. Now Fuji Supergloss can attain that Ciba look with less masking needed. I actually enjoy that kind of work. Other than a little web chit chat like this, I'm quite glad to be retired from the office slavery of computers.

[Pere Casals]

I'm quite glad to be retired from the office slavery of computers.

+1

:)

I'm all day long in front of one :(