Curious question

[Steven Ruttenberg]

When we do a traditional print, we can you things like contrast masks, unsharp masks, fog masks, etc. Requires an additional negative or positive sometimes. While we can duplicate these things in the computer with PS or other software from a single image, has anyone ever tried scanning the negative and the desired mask made from that negative and then combined in PS or other software? After all, the scanner is really nothing more than an enlarger.

[Pere Casals]

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?145715-Printing-contrast-exposure-filters-on-an-inkjet&p=1441791&viewfull=1#post1441791

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Nice but not what I was asking. I am referring to creating a mask the traditional way then scanning it and the actual negative and combining those in ps. The seems to refer to the opposite. Create mask by printing then combine for a traditional print. Nice info regardless.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] has anyone ever tried scanning the negative and the desired mask made from that negative and then combined in PS or other software? [...]

Duplicate and more bother.

[Pere Casals]

I am referring to creating a mask the traditional way then scanning it and the actual negative and combining those in ps.

In that case you may make the digital mask in Ps directly from your digital image.

What I did is testing masking effect in photoshop, in a sort of soft proofing for darkroom masking.

While with regular masking you can get USM effect I concluded that the Ross way is the sound one. An interesting thing would be proofing in Ps the effect of the Ross contrast masks, it's something I've pending.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

But that is the point, I do not want to make the mask in photoshop. I want to create a real physical mask the way it was/is done in the darkroom, then scan it in and scan in the photo and then combine the two separately scanned files. The only digital processes should be scanning the negatives, and the combining in photoshop.

[Pere Casals]

Steven, just stack the inverted image, and adjustent layer (with curve edition) and the original image and adjust blending. Then by the non destructive edition of the curve for the inverted image you get any possible effect you can get by blending with the scan of the real a negative mask.

In any case if the negative images are a bit blurred you get a basic USM (unsharp masking) sharpening effect.

But what's about tonality, any kind of those procedures (both real&scanned or inversion) has an equivalent curve edition on the original image.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I know. I have done those digital things often. I am just curious how well it will work and if anything is gained over a purely digital masking process from just one image. Part of what I suspect I will see is the subtle differences in analog mask of original and subtle differences in the two scans. Chaos and probability dictate this to be so and that is what I am after. Not the inherently stale and antiseptic nature of digital, but rather the subtle peculiarities that arise from nature and an analog process. Which is one reason I went back to film and someday will start old school printing in the dark room.

[Pere Casals]

When you make Ps align the images most of chaos should be lost...

If film grain was scanned (with smaller formats) then I guess we would see something in the overlaping grain structure...

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Well, we will find out. The chaos I am looking it is i the creation of the mask of the original image, it will for sure be exposed, developed under quite different circumstances than the original. Aligning will just remove the chaos of image stacking, but even that is left to interpretation of the use since I probably won't let photoshop align them for me.

[Jim Andrada]

Interesting. I used to spend a Sh--load of time doing this stuff in the darkroom. I'll be really interested to see how this turns out - should work. (I no longer have a wet darkroom - or any darkroom for that matter. Darkroom work was something that I really loved doing, but time marches on.)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I hope it works. I always love when an idea comes together, but then again even if it doesn't. Better to try and fail than to wonder if you would have succeeded.

[interneg]

I recall there are a few scanners out there (Heidelberg Topaz?) that can handle pin registration for copydot work, but that is an entirely different setup from the pin systems used for negative masks. Your biggest problem will be maintaining good register/ stability of base both in scanning & afterwards as otherwise you'll get a whole load of horrors (think bad HDR). Luminosity masks (& similar) in Photoshop will do many of the same things & the registration will be better than trying to manually re-register a mask on screen. Making a darkroom mask, scanning it, re-registering it etc is something for masochists with too much time on their hands.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I recall there are a few scanners out there (Heidelberg Topaz?) that can handle pin registration for copydot work, but that is an entirely different setup from the pin systems used for negative masks. Your biggest problem will be maintaining good register/ stability of base both in scanning & afterwards as otherwise you'll get a whole load of horrors (think bad HDR). Luminosity masks (& similar) in Photoshop will do many of the same things & the registration will be better than trying to manually re-register a mask on screen. Making a darkroom mask, scanning it, re-registering it etc is something for masochists with too much time on their hands.

LOL, that would not be me (too much time on my hands that is)