Burning Precise Areas

[Peter Lewin]

I have an image I need to reprint (and improve), but am not sure how best to do it. The general question is how to handle an image which has well-defined areas (in this case windows and door) which need to be burned in with exposures that are multiples of the overall base exposure, i.e. enough that the burning is likely to be very obvious around the edges of the area being burned in unless it is precise. One approach would be masking, but I have neither the specialized equipment nor experience. The one thing I have not tried yet is flashing the paper beforehand.

189155

In this image, the open windows need the most burning (something like 5x the base exposure), the doorway a bit less (3x), the window arch also less (2x) and the floor (which I can do easily enough) about 2x. It is the windows and door which I am having the most trouble with. (This is an iPhone snap of a print I made maybe 10 years ago which already has a little burning, and I'm trying to improve the reprint,) Any suggestions greatly appreciated!

[Richard Wasserman]

I would definitely try flashing the paper. It takes a bit of practice to learn how to do it well, but I think it could really help you. Are you using VC paper? If so you might also try split-grade printing to get the highlights and shadows close. With either method you'll still need to do some burning and/or dodging, but you should certainly be able to get a nice print.

Good luck!

[PRJ]

Flashing the paper will help, like Richard mentioned. That is the simplest solution.

You could print for the highlights then use SLIMT to get the shadows from completely blocking up.

You could make a mask to add density to the shadows but that would be the last thing I'd try.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Next time, if there is one, use a large Edison-base flash bulb w/o reflector to balance the difference - says the old man, me.

[Corran]

Not sure if this'll help, but I use large note cards to make custom burning shapes. Trace the area on the card, but a little smaller - then cut it out. When you lift the card away from the baseboard, the size of the burn area is bigger depending on the height of the card. So if you keep the card real low, it'll only be a bit bigger but have fairly sharp edges. If you want more diffuse edges, make the shape even smaller so that you have to lift higher to match the size. I use a piece of balsa wood with an appropriate hole cut out for the note cards if I need to, so that the entire print area is covered while burning - this can get troublesome with larger prints.

And yes burn with the #0 filter to help just push the highlights down.

Done this a few times and works for me, but YMMV.

[Greg]

For images like that one... I scan the negative, make corrections in Photoshop, then make a full sized digital negative to conventionally contact print from. Some of my B&W negatives that I took and processed in my first darkroom were essentially impossible to print using an enlarger. Uneven development and/or severe underprocessing were almost always the culprits. Have also made inkjet prints using an Epson Pro 4900 of the images... I have yet to prefer the digital print over the silver print. Side by side both are sharp. Inkjet prints seem to have brighter whites and darker (mat) blacks. BUT the silver prints have so much more depth in their grays.

[Drew Wiley]

Masking can be as simple as taping on a sheet of frosted mylar and using soft pencil smudge or dilute red dye to lighten certain areas, and thus print everything darker. But it looks like a good candidate for split printing too. I guess everyone has to try flashing at least once. I've never liked the results. PS is out in left field - the most convoluted route from Point A to faux Point B.

[MartinP]

You could always try masking the flash exposure to just the window and door, so that you don't lose any sparkle anywhere else. Make a test-print (on the cheapest paper you have), cut out the relevant areas, thin down and blacken the edges then place it over the paper to be printed prior to the flash exposure. If you notice that don't get a perfect match with the size, make a very slightly smaller print and cut that out then hold it (or better, fix it) above the print when making the flash, such that the edges are out of focus. A simpler idea is just to make the flash exposure long enough (ie. not much light) so that you make a couple of exposures using your hands for controlling the light.

[interneg]

Pre-flash separates the shadows, post-flash brings the highlights under control - neither are difficult to learn & you can dodge & burn the post-flash quite easily - & it will tame things often better than burning in on a low filter grade.

[LabRat]

First, try printing it on MG with a #1 or 1.5 filter with a healthy exposure...

Can work wonders...

Steve K

[Doremus Scudder]

Pre-flash separates the shadows, post-flash brings the highlights under control - neither are difficult to learn & you can dodge & burn the post-flash quite easily - & it will tame things often better than burning in on a low filter grade.

Sorry, wrong. Both pre- and post flashing have exactly the same effect; ideally to give an exposure just under the threshold of the paper (or film) and thus make it possible to render as detail things that would have not shown up without the flash exposure. In the case of paper, flashing affects the highlights, allowing more detail to be rendered at the expense of separation in the least-dense areas. Keep in mind: exposure is cumulative; the order doesn't matter.

@Peter,

Pre-flashing will maybe work for you in this case, so try it. A similar and perhaps easier first step would be to try to burn the areas with a 00 filter, as mentioned above. This will give more highlight exposure without much exposure to the darker areas of the print and reduces the halo effect quite a bit. Plus, you don't have to give an overall exposure, just concentrate on the areas that need burning. Blend the area burned with the surrounding parts of the image in concentric circles of less exposure (hope that's clear) to minimize the halo effect even more.

Best,

Doremus

[Pere Casals]

I have an image I need to reprint (and improve), but am not sure how best to do it. The general question is how to handle an image which has well-defined areas

IMHO, best way is using the digital variant of the USM/CRM/SCIM/etc described in the Way Beyond Monocrome book.

I'd recommend you take a look to Selective Masking by Alan Ross, he sells PDFs with easy instructions: https://alan-ross-photography.myshopify.com/collections/pdfs

Basicly you scan the negative (not much resolution required) with some register marks. Then in Photoshop you make a mask in a layer that's over the digital image. In that mask yoiu may use shades of grey to mask more or less each area. You also may paint with yellow or purple to work local contrast.

Then you print the mask (with any sheap inkjet), adjusting size to match the real negative.

Then you make a sandwich, the negative at the bottom, over it you place a thin diffuser layer (translucid mylar) and over it you place the mask. All is aligned on a light table using those marks.

Alan's pdf has detailed intructions for Photoshop usage, etc.

hmmm... this is a great way !!!!

This is a really powerful way... I've only started with that and I find this delivers total control. Of course while you may also solve most of complexity with the Mask you can still leave the amount you want for the manual work, so prints will still have that handcrafting footprint.

My view is that this way makes wet printing competitive aganist inkjets, etc.

[interneg]

Both pre- and post flashing have exactly the same effect; ideally to give an exposure just under the threshold of the paper

OK, call it very controlled post-exposure fogging, rather than a post flash. Either way, it's a very handy thing when you have awkward highlights to control & making a mask is too time consuming.

[Doremus Scudder]

OK, call it very controlled post-exposure fogging, rather than a post flash. Either way, it's a very handy thing when you have awkward highlights to control & making a mask is too time consuming.

Exactly, I just didn't want people thinking you could manipulate the shadow detail in a print with flashing. I call it pre- or post- depending on when it happens :)

If you need to do that, you should flash the film (pre-/post-exposure). Same problems happen there in the least dense areas: more detail at the expense of separation.

Best,

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

There's always a penalty to flashing. Tonality gets muddied somewhere on the scale; how much, all depends. With masking you can have your cake and eat it too. There are different paths to masking. Real film is more direct and precise; but some people might understandably be more comfortable going through the extra fuss of a scan and inkjet output, since they aren't likely to have a film recorder option. It's a good era to be a printmaker - lots of potential ways to do things, including hybrid.

[Peter Lewin]

Just want to thank everyone for their suggestions. I was in the darkroom yesterday and came very close to the print I want, I think one more session will nail it, and I will post an image when done. I'm using many of the ideas suggested: I have cut some "burning templates" (Corran's post), am doing all the highlight burning with my ZoneVI VC head on "soft only" (i.e. green max, blue off), and only turning the "hard" (blue) light on for the final step of my 7 step script (each burn area needs a different time). The only thing I haven't tried, because it will need a learning curve of its own is masking. These are actually all techniques I have used before, but the many posts gave me the incentive to keep at it for this one print. The image is not spectacular, but it is a good exercise in really working on it until it is as good as I can make it, rather than settling for "good enough."

Quick background: I was going over prints with the curator for a group show later this year. The curator was an instructor at the Ansel Adams workshops in years gone by, and while I thought the prints I showed her were good, she suggested small tweaks on a number of them. I re-printed most of the images fairly easily incorporating her suggestions, but this one, where she suggested deeper burns and a slightly lighter base exposure, was the one that fought back.