Unsharp Masks - When Not Worth the Effort

[Jerry Bodine]

I've been researching this technique and have come to some conclusions regarding which mask film to use and which developer. It's also clearly a time-consuming effort, but I've not found any information about whether there are certain characteristics of the original negative that prevent any benefit from the technique. In other words, when is it not worth the effort? Is it even possible to verbalize these characteristics, or is it just a matter of experience?

[Tin Can]

Incoming...

:cool:

[Drew Wiley]

It has its own learning curve and requires its own specialized equipment. Of course, you can learn the basics without needing to hunt down the relevant punches and registration frames,etc. But it's difficult to do this kind of thing accurately or in volume without specialized gear, so you might get prematurely frustrated without it. Or you might get frustrated just trying to find proper gear in good condition. The punches and pin glasses have to be matched, made at the same time, or else be precisely adjustable. And let me add that masking is not a single technique, but a whole tool box with all kinds of image enhancement opportunities to explore. Now the hard part: which drives you insane - endlessly spotting prints, or being willing to be hyper-diligent to keep your negs and work space, and masking equipment, as free from dust as possible? Quality masking requires one to be a clean freak, at least in the darkroom whenever that kind of task is involved. There are only two suitable current films I can recommend for large format originals: FP4 and TMax 100 (only TMax for small roll film images, due to its finer grain). A good developer needs to obtain a long straight line at very low gamma. That can be described later if necessary. Conceptually, basic contrast masking is not that difficult, but the devil is in the details, and it does take some experience to get a good handle on it. It's easy to overdo it. A good magician never shows his hand. Now the applicable negatives: depends. What are your trying to do? Automatically do complex dodge and burn operations with an attached mask, rein in highlights and open up shadows in otherwise difficult to print negatives, enhance edge effect and midtone microtonality? All this is possible with even a basic unsharp contrast mask, the most elementary kind. But I don't do it very often anymore with black and white work, mostly just with color images. Let's face it; Tmax sheet film is expensive; and if there's an easier route, I take that first.

[Pere Casals]

I've been researching this technique and have come to some conclusions regarding which mask film to use and which developer.

I've only limited experience in masking, I'm a rookie in that, but let me say my view...

Well, a ortho film is nice for that, as you may use safelight as you work the thing. ROLLEI Ortho 25 also provides a fine grain. Anyway as we use a diffuser layer then the grain in the mask is a minor issue.

An interesting effect is if toe/shoulder of the mask matches in shape/exposure the curve in the original negative, this allows for a wide range of effects.




or is it just a matter of experience?

:) :) in my particular case it is a matter of luck !!

My view is that USM is also by-product from CRM, SCIM, etc I'm still learning the basics of all that, so...




In other words, when is it not worth the effort?

Unsharp masking is a sharpening technique: USM. Photoshop does the same with digital images, it just subtracts a blurred negative image from the original image, with balanced factors in the convolution mask.

As with Ps, some images do not react much to sharpening because there are no hard edges in the image that would show the accutance increase, IMHO.

I guess that the regular Ps control factors, radius and percentage, are controlled in the film mask with the mylar diffuser thickness and with the mask contrast. Probably the optimal diffuser nature dependends ub the ebnlargement factor and viewing distance.


is it not worth the effort? USM/CRM/SCIM/Etc... this is not for the faint of heart. Not worth if the image is not sound... well worth for an image we love if we want a supreme analog crafting.

USM/CRM/SCIM/Etc is both a tool to solve problems in a negative and a powerful image manipulation technique, but I would consider USM as an integral component of the masking work which has a wider scope that includes advanced tonal mapping.

____

Way Beyond Monochrome book and Alan Ross pdfs (color Selective Masking, https://alan-ross-photography.myshopify.com/collections/pdfs/products/selective-masking) can be recommended.

[Pere Casals]

Of course, you can learn the basics without needing to hunt down the relevant punches and registration frames,etc. But it's difficult to do this kind of thing accurately or in volume without specialized gear

Punches etc are convenient but not necessary, see here how Burkett aligns a mask with a binocular loupe in the glass carriers, min 11:39 :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doNGi8HeKQ4&t=7s


I use a variant: As I've not a bino then I use the GG x8 focusing loupe, effect is easily seen, when aligned I place the ANR glass on the sandwich. This is a nice way if not wanting to insert xenogear (register) in the enlarger.

[Drew Wiley]

Once again, Pere, you're showing a bit of ignorance of what is really involved. But once again it's also nice to hear from you and know that you're beginning to seriously think things out. As far as I'm aware, Chris B. only masks relative to Cibachrome for sake of contrast reduction as well as certain hue repro issues inherent to that particular medium. He and I have quite different protocols even for Ciba. There is more than one way to skin a cat; and I don't like the sloppy way he tapes the films together, or the dimensionally unstable type of tape he uses. If your punch and registration steps are correct, then there's no need for optical alignment en route; it's automatic. There are a few tricks to doing it right in the first place. But the inherent difference with black and white work, unless you're just talking about broad area control like Alan Ross does, is that unsharp masking with film can do very subtle things for microtonality and precise edge effect that involve, first, reducing the overall contrast via the inverse density of the mask itself, then raising it back up via a harder paper grade. That means any potential misalignment or excess diffusion halo is likely to be more apparent and annoying in a black and white print than in basic color masking applications which end up with reduced overall contrast instead. And of course, small film sizes are much harder to align over a lightbox than large sheet film. Sharpening is controllable by the degree of diffusion. And just like over-sharpening in PS, overdoing it via a film mask can lend a harsh unrealistic look, a common mistake among beginners. So bingo, you have correctly assessed that it is based upon the thickness of the frosted mylar, or by how many sheets of this are involved in between. But you also have to consider the angle of light incidence from the enlarger lens as a point light source up above your masking contact frame. That's why I like to use a long lens at a fair degree of distance, and have the masking frame very precisely centered below it. But for beginners I do recommend trying to do alignment visually over a light box before going nuts hunting for specialized gear or having a machinist make it. It takes a bit of experience to recognize just exactly what gear you personally need, and if the expense it worth it to you. ... I won't comment on ortho films here, except that if you learn masking on pan film instead, then it will be easier to transfer some of that learning curve to color masking too, which obviously requires pan sensitivity.

[Pere Casals]

As far as I'm aware, Chris B. only masks relative to Cibachrome for sake of contrast reduction as well as certain hue repro issues

Yes, but he makes a precise mask totally pro alignment with no punch, no register, no etc.

Also a tinny reticle (cross hairs) can be placed in the original neg borders to allow an easy/precise alignment.




But you also have to consider the angle of light incidence from the enlarger lens as a point light source up above your masking contact frame. That's why I like to use a long lens at a fair degree of distance

Not necessary, while this is benefical for a regular contact print a collimated light source is irrelevant for USM masking, you don't need total sharpness in the mask as at the end you will use a diffuser between the neg and the mask, so a diffuse illumination works perfect to expose the mask.




But for beginners I do recommend trying to do alignment visually over a light box

Also using a bino loupe would make it easier.

[Drew Wiley]

He spoke about a punch in the flick. And I know that he sometimes uses a set of matched registered neg carriers for pre-punched film. The video has been simplified to the very basics of technique, not what he routinely does. Sometimes multiple masks are necessary for the same image, and it's just about impossible to do that right without punching. I've done this kind of work for decades. The whole point of a matched punch and register system is so that you don't have to visually register things - a big headache! Nor do you need to spend anywhere near the amount of money on enlarging equip as he did to obtain equally high quality results. What an $11,000 super rare 360 Apo EL Nikkor lens gives you, versus a 360 Apo Nikkor process lens one can find in immaculate used condition for around $300, besides bragging rights, is just one stop of extra speed. Ciba is a very slow printing medium, so that might be a luxury in that particular case; but it's relatively meaningless with much faster RA4 and b&w papers. Ciba is basically obsolete anyway. I doubt anyone would even spot the difference in a huge print if even the fast 360/5.6 ordinary EL Nikkor were used. These optical niceties are a very minor issue compared to depth of field issues in 8x10 photography to begin with. The faster 5.6 option is nice when trying to compose and focus through the orange mask of a color neg. But I prefer the slower Apo version for black and white printing and certain technical applications with color film. The relation of light source diameter and its angle of incidence, sharpness, precise edge effect, and specific means of diffusion is quite complex. Don't underestimate it. You really have to test to get a good idea. And dye clouds in color film behave quite a bit differently than silver grain clusters in this respect. Even the type of b&w film can be an
issue with what degree of diffusion is optimal. It's a short step from a very subtle etched effect to something annoyingly obvious.

[Pere Casals]

Sometimes multiple masks are necessary for the same image, and it's just about impossible to do that right without punching.

O course... if stacking masks then a register is essential.

But a simple USM or USM/CRM is easy to align with a bino or loupe.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, keep on plugging along. It would be truly helpful to fine-tune some masking tricks before exposing that stash of CDU you got ahold of, unless you've gotten good at an alternative flashing technique. I recently printed an 8x10 interneg that involved nine film steps ahead of it. In this case, it was worth it. But more often than not, a single mask does the trick.

[Pere Casals]

truly helpful to fine-tune some masking tricks before exposing that stash of CDU you got ahold of, unless you've gotten good at an alternative flashing technique.

I was not considering masking for CDU-II, but now that you say it... it can be a good idea. Sadly CDU is no longer available, so that frozen stash is a last chance...

[Drew Wiley]

For B&W masking I get the best result exposing with pure blue light when masking through greenish-yellow stain typical of PMK, my routine dev. I'd imagine the brownish-green stain of pyrocat would behave similarly, but only masked one of those once as I recall. Normal contrast Ortho film would probably be analogous, since it's generally more sensitive to blue than to green; but any specific brand of it has only been intermittently available here, whereas FP4 and TMax are routinely available, have very predictable batch to batch performance, work for color masking too, and can be used for general shooting as well. Thin high contrast Ortho-Litho film is used by some with very dilute developers for contrast masking just because its cheap; but getting precise results with it is a crap shoot. It has long been used for highlight masking instead, at full contrast.

[Jim Noel]

If I have a need for masking today I would use X-ray film. In Particular Carestream EB/RA. It is available only in 8x10 but is the easiest for most people to use because not only is it true orthochromatic, but it is single sided with a notch code thus not quite as susceptible to scratches as those films which are double sided. It is much cheaper than Panchromatic films and is available from Z&Z Medical. My second choice would be lith film from Freestyle which is even cheaper.

[Greg]

Thin high contrast Ortho-Litho film is used by some with very dilute developers for contrast masking just because its cheap; but getting precise results with it is a crap shoot.

Totally agree. While back was able to acquire a number of boxes of 11x14" film at a state surplus store. Getting repeatable consistent results was hard enough, but then just when I thought I had gotten there, opened up a second box and, even though the boxes were labeled and dated the same, my results were inconsistent. Ended up (and still do) using the film for testing the coverage and sharpness of my lenses. Prefer it to using X-Ray film for this purpose.

[Drew Wiley]

As one potentially seeks to acquire more advanced masking skills requiring serial exposures, that is, one sheet of masking film behaving in exact relation to yet another, perhaps even in multiples, hitting one fly ball after another with an unpredictable film isn't going to get you very far without frustration. Same with off-brand or surplus discount films. Arista (Freestyle) lith film is a high quality product for what it was originally designed for. With considerable headaches, one can make so-so enlarged negs with it. I've personally done that way better than the cult advocates of continuous tone applications of this film, and still found it a poor choice for con tone work. They do so because its cheap, draws well under a vac blanket due to its textured surface, and is available in big sizes. In other words, it makes sense in certain ways. But it's useless for color masking, and more trouble than it's worth doing quality b&w masking. Is time of any value to you? You can surmise what you might hypothetically do, Jim, and that's fair game; but I actually do it, over and over and over again.

[Jerry Bodine]

Drew, I fully expected (and hoped) you'd chime in here and provide the benefit of your expertise, and you have not disappointed. I think you answered my question in your very first sentence; it depends. So experience seems to be the answer. I suppose I should've provided more details of where I'm at on this topic to hopefully contain the comments specific to my question. To that end, I provide this list:
1. B&W only darkroom printing with VC paper.
2. Original negatives will be 4x5 and 5x7.
3. For now, I’m only interested in unsharp masks to enhance edge effects and tonality in the shadows (and maybe over the entire image if that works out).
4. Enlarger is Omega E6 5x7 diffusion with tall column (that I’ve converted to LED - you may recall my lengthy post describing those details ( FWIW https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111226-Omega-5x7-E6-LED-Mod ). All my LF lenses are Componons (not S) – 135/150/210mm, vintage ~1970.
5. My interest in this subject resulted from the chapter on unsharp masks in Way Beyond Monochrome 2nd Ed. (call it WBM2) by Ralph Lambrecht and found that his concept illustrations indicated the original negative would have punched registration holes in them, which I definitely do not want to do. Then I delved into Lynn Radeka’s website and saw that he suggested using rubylith tape to attach a strip of scrap film abutting the rebate of the original negative and punching the scrap (I have plenty of that :D), which avoids punching the original; this seemed a bit flaky to me but worth a try. His updated website ( http://www.radekaphotography.com/carriers.htm ) no longer mentions the tape method, but he has all along stated that the system he sells does somehow avoid punching the original. However, his system does not offer a 5x7 version (which I’d want). I also found John Sexton’s step-by-step instructions for going through the initial testing to establish the setup and procedure. After all this I decided to attempt making my own setup, using the tape + scrap.
6. Lynn clarified via email how I could neglect certain parts of his system when making my own, since I’m only interested in unsharp masking.
7. I’ve gone ahead and acquired the clear glass and AN glass from Mike at focalpoint.com, ¾”-wide ruby tape, diffusion material (frosted one side only), and had Ternes Burton Co. make me a registration pin bar to match some punched samples from my existing punch (pins close to ¼” diameter). The fit is excellent. I’ve spent a good amount of time designing my setup to ensure the format center is kept on the lens axis. I’m about to begin the assembly.
8. I plan to start with FP4 and HC-110 dev for the mask per Sexton.

[Drew Wiley]

I personally use the Condit micro-pin system, though I also have a 20 inch Ternes Burton punch & register; they're a good company. HC-110 is excellent. I use it 1:31 from stock, not concentrate. Stock is 1:3 from concentrate. But I add around 10ml per liter of 1% benzotriazole (a very small amount) to act as a toe-cutter. To start out, aim for around .30 maximum mask density above fbf. If it comes out a bit too dense, or you want to clear some fbf, just give it about a minute or less in Farmers Reducer in a tray. Use thin mylar tape because it's dimensionally stable. For diffusion sheet, I recommend 7-mil mylar frosted both sides. Single side frosted might give you some Newton ring issues; but you can try it. Don't use frosted acetate; it leaves a visible pattern. Just take it a step at a time. When you tape the two films together, you'll need some means or weight to hold them down perfectly flat in relation to one another.

[Jerry Bodine]

Useful info, Drew. Thanks.

[Pere Casals]

I personally use the Condit micro-pin system, though I also have a 20 inch Ternes Burton punch & register; they're a good company. HC-110 is excellent. I use it 1:31 from stock, not concentrate. Stock is 1:3 from concentrate. But I add around 10ml per liter of 1% benzotriazole (a very small amount) to act as a toe-cutter. To start out, aim for around .30 maximum mask density above fbf. If it comes out a bit too dense, or you want to clear some fbf, just give it about a minute or less in Farmers Reducer in a tray. Use thin mylar tape because it's dimensionally stable. For diffusion sheet, I recommend 7-mil mylar frosted both sides. Single side frosted might give you some Newton ring issues; but you can try it. Don't use frosted acetate; it leaves a visible pattern. Just take it a step at a time. When you tape the two films together, you'll need some means or weight to hold them down perfectly flat in relation to one another.

A good and useful summary.




I add around 10ml per liter of 1% benzotriazole (a very small amount) to act as a toe-cutter.

I guess than in practice this "extends" the paper toe to better print highlights, like if we had a more shouldered film.

aiming "around .30 maximum mask density above fbf" and using a toe-cutter... IMHO it would make a linear film behave a bit like a shouldered film, as the density difference in the highlights may be around that .30D

[Drew Wiley]

Just the opposite, Pere. What a "toe cutter" does is exactly that - counteract tendency to a toe formation in the mask itself, so that you get an especially long straight line at low gamma, where this is ordinarily difficult to achieve. The toe-cutter is optional. How printing highlights are affected all depends, but I wouldn't overthink it. If you want to induce a shoulder effect in the combined film printing sandwich, then you can always make a stronger mask. But with simple contrast masking of b&w negs, you have to be careful of too much mask density muddying up the deepest shadows. There's a cure for that; but I want to keep things simple here. l already mentioned my strategy for pyro stained originals using blue light mask exposure. But I recommend experimenting to find what works best for you. If you want an upswept curve to your mask instead, with a long toe, then use somewhat dilute D76 instead of HC110. Dealing with the slight residual magenta stain of FP4, leftover antihalation dye that doesn't get fully washed out, is a minor problem because it's consistent over the entire mask. It slowly fades; but strong UV can accelerate that. It generally amounts to only around .04 density anyway.

[interneg]

Drew - I take it that you're doing this to counteract the need for an extra mask to bump the highlights back up (the fundamental mechanisms being not dissimilar to the way that dye transfer separations ideally want both a contrast mask & a highlight mask)?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, masking for color is a much more involved topic because it depends on the specific color medium. But in that case, the next type of mask one needs to learn is a highlight mask, which protects the highlights of chromes. But when masking neg originals, you're protecting the deepest shadow values instead. I don't want to complicate the immediate thread with details. But if there are just small discrete areas involved, one can simply use a fine-point black Sharpie pen on the registered diffusion sheet instead of lith film. Or, in b&w work exclusively, build up some red dye or even black pencil smudge (messier than dye) to protect larger areas. Lots of possibilities once one has become comfortable with the basics. I never personally have found the need for an analog to lith highlight masks when printing negs, just a little red dye or black ink on the diffusion sheet once in awhile. Color chrome printing generally requires a much more aggressive masking strategy.

[interneg]

Drew - pretty much as soon as I posted the above, I realised you were talking about shadow behaviour control on neg films - it's one of these things you do automatically when making/ altering masks, but when writing at the end of a long day of printing, I can all too easily mix up the types of masks! I actually need to make a few to persuade a couple of negs on to Fomatone.

[Drew Wiley]

If shadow gradation is better separated using a mask, then bringing the deepest shadows back down to DMax in the print via a hard grade or longer print dev time will automatically rein in the highlights and improve their gradation too, and really, everything in between. You can have your cake and eat it too, unlike minus or compensating dev which smashes the whole original tonality flat. People use masking for all kinds of special dramatic effects. That's fine; but what I am interested in personally is taking a neg that already yields a good print and making an exceptional enlargement reminiscent of the tonal subtlety and nuance of what a good contact printer would get on specialized papers, perhaps even better. A basic unsharp mask can do this without resorting to fancy tricks. One still has all kinds of additional tools in the toolbox like dodging/burning, split printing, selective bleaching, staining dev of the original neg, etc.

[Pere Casals]

Just the opposite, Pere. What a "toe cutter" does is exactly that - counteract tendency to a toe formation in the mask itself, so that you get an especially long straight line at low gamma, where this is ordinarily difficult to achieve. The toe-cutter is optional. How printing highlights are affected all depends, but I wouldn't overthink it. If you want to induce a shoulder effect in the combined film printing sandwich, then you can always make a stronger mask. But with simple contrast masking of b&w negs, you have to be careful of too much mask density muddying up the deepest shadows. There's a cure for that; but I want to keep things simple here. l already mentioned my strategy for pyro stained originals using blue light mask exposure. But I recommend experimenting to find what works best for you. If you want an upswept curve to your mask instead, with a long toe, then use somewhat dilute D76 instead of HC110. Dealing with the slight residual magenta stain of FP4, leftover antihalation dye that doesn't get fully washed out, is a minor problem because it's consistent over the entire mask. It slowly fades; but strong UV can accelerate that. It generally amounts to only around .04 density anyway.


OK, but when adding the "toe cutter" restrainer we clear the mask to the F+B density in the scene extreme highlights, so the sandwich is less dense there and we expose more the extreme highlights than when no benzotriazole was added, with a compensating effect, compressing scene extreme highlights.


My "experiments" were done by adding some Rodinal to Xtol to develop the mask, which also has a remarkable toe-cutter effect in the mask.

[interneg]

Pere - I think what Drew is getting at is that you want to minimise the mask's impact on the original negative's highlights (hence the restrainer) but don't want to make the mask too dense either, because that will make the shadow values in the final print look rather unnatural. Essentially it boils down to: don't overdo the masking, otherwise it looks really fake/ obvious. Having BTDT, I'd agree with Drew. It doesn't need a lot of mask density to have a big impact on the final print. And quite often controlled flash/ fogging with diffusion can eliminate the need to make masks.

[Michael Kadillak]

When working in B&W why not just assign your full dedicated commitment to producing a bullet proof negative that occasionally could use just an minimum dodge and burn aesthetic easily managed without all of these tortuous iterations. Sometimes I think there exists some subliminal medal of honor for photographers that spend countless hours in the darkroom masking. Guess what. The viewer of said photograph does not give a #*&% what went into it. Unsharp masks to me look like the image was photoshopped. I am into efficiency and from my perspective if I need to seriously contemplate masking, I dropped the ball either in the execution phase of exposing the image and/or in the darkroom processing it and I take great care and time to learn from the mistake.Yes, I hear from the naysayers that Ansel (and current printers of Ansel's negatives) are relegated to these necessary techniques to derive the necessary tonal quality expected of the final result, but that is what they have to work with. If the market for your work justifies such efforts I guess that the ends justify the means. My instincts tell me that overwhelmingly that is not the case for the majority of us in this eclectic art form. As a result I choose to place the highest priority of the time I allocate to LF B&W photography to enjoying the photography making experience than laboring in the darkroom. The benefit of going all in with this rather simplistic objective is I avoid the frustrations of print tweek #17 and the stress and potential headaches that comes with it. Just my $0.02.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional microtonality and highly nuanced acutance that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone. But yes, not everyone finds darkroom work relaxing. I do. If a masked print looks like it had been Photosopped that's just an indicator of unrefined technique, and has nothing to do with the potential of such technique to do things eloquently instead.

[Drew Wiley]

Interneg, you are correct about what I was implying. Pere, it's interesting to hear about your Xtol tweak.

[Pere Casals]

When working in B&W why not just assign your full dedicated commitment to producing a bullet proof negative that occasionally could use just an minimum dodge and burn aesthetic easily managed without all of these tortuous iterations.

+1

Anyway this is not always possible, requiring additional techniques to get a sound print, or if wanting certain look.

But what you say is important, wet printing starts before shutter release !!!

[Pere Casals]

Pere - I think what Drew is getting at is that you want to minimise the mask's impact on the original negative's highlights (hence the restrainer) but don't want to make the mask too dense either, because that will make the shadow values in the final print look rather unnatural. Essentially it boils down to: don't overdo the masking, otherwise it looks really fake/ obvious. Having BTDT, I'd agree with Drew. It doesn't need a lot of mask density to have a big impact on the final print. And quite often controlled flash/ fogging with diffusion can eliminate the need to make masks.

interneg, I only discuss the additional effect of the toe-cutter. As the USM mask is a soft interpositive, if a toe-cutter is added in the mask developer then we simply expose more the extreme highlights when we print the sandwich on paper.




Interneg, you are correct about what I was implying. Pere, it's interesting to hear about your Xtol tweak.

I had no Benzo :)

Time ago I asked Peter de Graaff about that x+r:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/27790971473/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/page5

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional micotonality and highly nuanced acutace that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone. But yes, not everyone finds darkroom work relaxing. I do.

Based upon a previous discussions with fellow photographers on this specific topic I did some research and learned that masking is factually a "compromising" craft that sacrifices some part of the tonal range of the negative for an aesthetic improvement within other areas being represented. As a result I am not of the opinion that masking is technically better in any way it is utilized than the insitu complete negative that is executed with precision. This then leads directly into the grey area of what the photographer saw or wanted to convey in the print and in this regard there is no definitive conclusion that can be drawn and I am acknowledging that.

For me here is where the rubber meets the road. I feel I am probably not one standard deviation from the majority of other people that participate in this venue as I have for quite a long time. I readily admit that I am not a full time professional photographer as paying the bills and meeting my family and personal financial objectives mandates I maintain a day job outside of photography. That being said I dearly look forward to and am passionate about being able to extract as much joy out of this art form as possible. As a result I always come back to the term "efficiency". How can I maximize the time I have to photograph and produce prints that have the greatest total range and visual meaning for me and extract the greatest level of meaningful work in the time I have to allocate to LF/ULF photography? How does this translate to how I work and gaining this desired efficiency? It is really not that complicated. First run out of the box from my perspective is that each negative must be capable of being processed individually to its precise and delineated objective that was established at the instant it was exposed. That means an IF monocle and inspection capabilities that are aligned to that exacting objective which I accomplish with both tray development and gaseous burst development. Extreme N- and N+ negatives require Reduced Agitation Development (RAD) techniques using pyrocat individually processed in tubes or with my gas burst system that also afford individual negative inspection and RAD processing.

Many of the times I see very competent LF photographers processing large numbers of negatives in a single batch exposed under varied lighting conditions expecting to deploy the fallback option of variable contrast filters to arbitrate the variations of their negatives to prints they desire to produce. Yet when you look at the negatives on a light table the negative densities are all over the frigging place. Consistently over and under exposed and over and under processed from people that have been photographing for years. This is where I suspect the masking discussion starts to get legs. All I am saying is that if one were to take the time to process their negatives individually with precision, they would dramatically reduce the time they need to make quality prints.

Therefore I must conclude that: 1) some photographers are perfectly content with their own level of inefficiency and see no value in adjusting their process which is their choice, 2) some photographers actually enjoy the technical challenges of the various iterations of masking and 3) some photographers look forward to long periods of darkroom time. More power to them. I am just not one of them.

[Pere Casals]

As a result I am not of the opinion that masking is technically better in any way it is utilized than the insitu complete negative that is executed with precision.

One thing is true, if using masking to patch exposure/processing pitfalls then better to learn how to expose/process.


Of course we can solve the printing of some challenging scenes by accurately exposing and processing, but anyway acomodating the scene range to the paper range (depending on what we want) it may require a complex image manipulation in the printing.

_____________________________



Perhaps it could take a few clicks in Ps, but locally mainipulating the tonal response in a print can be can be a challenging situation.

This is a YMMV, there are no better or worse ways, a bullet proof negative may make sense and a complex manipulation in the printing also may make sense.

We may remember how John Sexton deals with that, just a particular way, he uses very diluted TMax RS with TMX to face even 15-stop contrast range scenes. He obtains a very flexible negative, and later he makes with the enlarger what a true master is able to do, with that he made Places Of Power. But there is nothing wrong in using toe/shoulder to solve most of the printing with film exposure/processing.

Anyway some manipulations should be made with masking... again, IMHO the Alan Ross way deserves a try by any wet printer.

[Jerry Bodine]

...Many of the times I see very competent LF photographers processing large numbers of negatives in a single batch exposed under varied lighting conditions expecting to deploy the fallback option of variable contrast filters to arbitrate the variations of their negatives to prints they desire to produce. Yet when you look at the negatives on a light table the negative densities are all over the frigging place. Consistently over and under exposed and over and under processed from people that have been photographing for years...
This sounds like the results obtained by photographers who've possibly succumbed to the roll film dilemma - excepting those who've chosen to learn and apply the zone system and use roll film cameras that offer interchangeable film backs (e.g., Hasselblads) which allow each back to be dedicated to a specific expansion or contraction.


Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional microtonality and highly nuanced acutance that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone. But yes, not everyone finds darkroom work relaxing. I do. If a masked print looks like it had been Photoshopped that's just an indicator of unrefined technique, and has nothing to do with the potential of such technique to do things eloquently instead.
Well said, Drew.

[Pere Casals]

Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional microtonality and highly nuanced acutance that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone.

.... If a masked print looks like it had been Photosopped that's just an indicator of unrefined technique, and has nothing to do with the potential of such technique to do things eloquently instead.

+1

[Drew Wiley]

Michael. I still don't think you get the point. Masking is just a Swiss Army Knife in a kitchen drawer full of numerous other useful utensils. But there are certain things it does best. I really don't give a damn if it's popular or routine, or even allegedly adds quantifiable value to a print or not. It's not a headache, and is really rather easy and predictable with experience, at least at the basic level we're discussing here. I learned it for sake of color printing, where it's often mandatory for high quality results. So I already had the requisite experience and equipment, and it was a small step adapting that to b&w printing. Yes, some people get goofy with it just like any new toy, or in this day and age, some new digi app. But don't condemn the invention of trumpets and drums because of what a junior high marching band sounds like. I am a printmaker. And if certain tools or techniques facilitate an OPTIMAL result, that's what I'll do.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael. I still don't think you get the point. Masking is just a Swiss Army Knife in a kitchen drawer full of numerous other useful utensils. But there are certain things it does best. I really don't give a damn if it's popular or routine, or even allegedly adds quantifiable value to a print or not. It's not a headache, and is really rather easy and predictable with experience, at least at the basic level we're discussing here. I learned it for sake of color printing, where it's often mandatory for high quality results. So I already had the requisite experience and equipment, and it was a small step adapting that to b&w printing. Yes, some people get goofy with it just like any new toy, or in this day and age, some new digi app. But don't condemn the invention of trumpets and drums because of what a junior high marching band sounds like. I am a printmaker. And if certain tools or techniques facilitate an OPTIMAL result, that's what I'll do.

I get your point but let me add some perspective. This darkroom technique is like walking to you (hence your ability to refer to it as another tool in the tool box) but may not be for someone else just like the original person that made this post. I feel that we need to be cognizant of the need to not talk past less experienced individual participants here (ie the need to cast a wider net at times) and provide some balance perspective like a teacher. I am making my comments specifically targeting current and future forum photographers interested in refining their skills who may arrive at the belief that a natural progression for printing their challenging negatives is the investment in equipment and time for masking and its various iterations. Case in point. I am very hard pressed to believe that any photographer that produces a glowing full scale negative that prints effortlessly reverts to masking techniques to further enhance the result. If that is the case please correct me on this issue.

My ball toss to these individuals inquisitive about masking is nothing more than a potential less expensive initial iteration to carefully evaluate their negatives and how they are produced and ask themselves if they are the best they can possibly produce? Nothing more than a get back to basics reminder that I had to learn back I was heading down this road myself. We are all free to choose our individual path. Many times on this venue when i was trying to learn and grow I found that a polite reminder of an alternative can be a refreshing experience to stimulate one wrapping their head about where they choose to go with their art and craft.

[interneg]

I only discuss the additional effect of the toe-cutter. As the USM mask is a soft interpositive, if a toe-cutter is added in the mask developer then we simply expose more the extreme highlights when we print the sandwich on paper.

This is not correct, what the mask is doing is raising the density of the original negative's shadows, hopefully without affecting the highlights (which is the point of the restrainer when processing the mask). If you have made even a few contrast reduction masks you would discover that it's usually preferable to do anything necessary to prevent the mask interfering with the original negative's highlights.



I had no Benzo :)

Time ago I asked Peter de Graaff about that x+r:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/27790971473/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/page5

Everything I have ever seen about this rather pointless mixture points towards a pH alteration of dilute Xtol having much the same effect. And it is well known that a less solvent, more alkaline developer will give less fog than one with high sulfite content. This is not really the same as modifying a developer to give the least possible fog for specific darkroom purposes. If it's what you have on hand, Rodinal plus a restrainer is probably a better place to start from than adding more sulfite. What Drew is trying to get is a highly contrast controllable, extremely low fog developer without (I assume) worrying too much about what the effective speed of the mask film is.

[Drew Wiley]

Contrast masking neg film, whether b&w or color neg, is like power steering on a car - very little has a significant effect, and is easy to overdo. Masking for color chrome positives is quite different.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - nobody is stopping you from singing the praises of the Zone System or whatever. But this is a masking thread, and there are issues that masking addresses that the ZS or mere exp/contraction dev technique does not. Why not consider masking as the logical next step? Nobody is forcing anyone else to adopt this. But if one does decide to venture down this path, it's presupposes excellent exposure skills and highly predictable process control, and is therefore not a substitute for that at all, but more like graduating from high school and figuring out what University best suits your plans. It's not a BandAid. The proof is in the pudding itself.

[Drew Wiley]

Interneg - I did experiment with high sulfite developers early on : excessive fog and an awfully long toe.

[Michael Kadillak]

there are issues that masking addresses that the ZS or mere exp/contraction dev technique does not.

Please let me know what these issues are because I have never experience them.

[Jerry Bodine]

Michael, I recall reading at some time about Ansel spending a whole day in the darkroom to get a print exactly how he wanted it. And he was a professional who had to put bread on the table, but even with all his ZS and printing knowledge (which I’ll never learn in my remaining years) still struggled that day. I don’t know if he ever employed masking (I doubt it), but it’s evident to me from this tale that simple expansion/contraction techniques alone may not produce the “glowing” negatives that you describe; therefore ANY available supplemental printing techniques are of interest to me.

Folks, as I mentioned earlier, my interest in unsharp masking is a result of the WBM2 chapter on this topic. In that chapter there were illustrations of not just opening up shadows but also a definite increase in sharpness of details in the shadows, that I understood was a result of edge enhancements of those details. The reasons for how this was achieved were also illustrated. This aspect of unsharp masking appeals to me very much. I’d appreciate any comments on this, as it has not been expounded upon thus far in this thread. Are there any other techniques that can produce this effect?

[Michael Kadillak]

To my earlier question. It is entirely technically possible (and I have been capable of) producing N+3 to N-4 negatives that print conventionally with a modest (if at all) aesthetic minimal conventional hand held burn or dodge. And I expose TMY, TMX, FP4+ and Delta 100. What am I missing?

[Jerry Bodine]

To my earlier question. It is entirely technically possible (and I have been capable of) producing N+3 to N-4 negatives that print conventionally with a modest (if at all) aesthetic minimal conventional hand held burn or dodge. And I expose TMY, TMX, FP4+ and Delta 100. What am I missing?
Of course, shadows can be opened up by dodging, but please read my second paragraph in post #43.

[Drew Wiley]

A "glow" is really a subjective sum of any number of things. Edge effect and specular highlight sparkle can easily be enhanced using basic unsharp masking with real film. Midtone and high value microtonality can be wonderfully expanded, whereas traditional ZS contraction techniques penalize it. Shadow separation can also benefit; but a mask alone is no substitute for getting shadow values up onto the straight line of the original film to begin with using sufficient exposure, which differs both by film type and overall scene contrast. FP4 is a good middle of the road sheet film for general shooting, as well as being useful for masking. I rate it at 50 for general shooting for sake of sufficient shadow support. But when it comes to extreme contrast scenes you might need to shoot one of the TMax products. Masking is not a silver bullet. There are a lot of variables involved in making a rich print, and the most important of them tend to be more intuitive than technical. So one simply has to get very well acquainted with their chosen materials or specific print medium until it somehow synchronizes with your personal Gestalt, for lack of a better term. But what masking can sometimes do is add that little bit of extra spice needed to turn something so-so into something very special. I don't recommend it for every shot; but you have to experiment awhile to recognize when it works best.

[Eric Woodbury]

FP4 is a good middle of the road sheet film for general shooting, as well as being useful for masking. But when it comes to extreme contrast scenes you might need to shoot one of the TMax products.

FP4 will hit N+4 with Wimberley's pyro formula. Above that (seldom) I use Ilford Ortho or Techpan. Techpan will do plus anything, but when used that way it is difficult to hit the exposure or development correctly. Ilford Ortho I'm still trying to understand, but it has interesting qualities in the high contrast domain.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, I recall reading at some time about Ansel spending a whole day in the darkroom to get a print exactly how he wanted it. And he was a professional who had to put bread on the table, but even with all his ZS and printing knowledge (which I’ll never learn in my remaining years) still struggled that day. I don’t know if he ever employed masking (I doubt it), but it’s evident to me from this tale that simple expansion/contraction techniques alone may not produce the “glowing” negatives that you describe; therefore ANY available supplemental printing techniques are of interest to me.

Folks, as I mentioned earlier, my interest in unsharp masking is a result of the WBM2 chapter on this topic. In that chapter there were illustrations of not just opening up shadows but also a definite increase in sharpness of details in the shadows, that I understood was a result of edge enhancements of those details. The reasons for how this was achieved were also illustrated. This aspect of unsharp masking appeals to me very much. I’d appreciate any comments on this, as it has not been expounded upon thus far in this thread. Are there any other techniques that can produce this effect?

Yes, it is my understanding that Ansel was excited about his water bath development technique and used it but never resorted to masking. Probably a product of his time. What has changed since then. Well, what we do know is that films have changed dramatically since then and I contend they are much improved in both quality control and performance with T Grain technology. The other game changers are catechol based developers like Pyrocat HD (and its variants) that have unique chemical properties that can be used in highly diluted forms (in reduced agitation process methodology) that hold shadow detail to attain expansions and contractions to a degree that was never before possible. The previous inability to process sheet film to such expansion and contractions (N+3 to N-4) I believe was the justification for contrast control masking. Case in point. Develop FP4+ in a conventional developer and you inherently get a top of the HD curve roll over. Process FP4+ in a Reduced Agitation Development process in N+ development mode and the top end of the film curve straightens out and extends like it was TMX. I recently made a photograph with FP4+ in a one stop sun over the horizon exposure on the South Platt River in Colorado late one evening and processed it with the RAD method and was able to produce a full scale negative that prints expressively without any extraneous printing techniques. Here is another game changer. For years I was of the opinion that TMX was solely relegated to a JOBO process in T Max RS developer (as per John Sexton) and only a fool would not adhere to these guidelines. Wrong. TMX responds like a finely cut gemstone in RAD development. I call this a game changer.

The other improvement in the negative processing arena is the technological improvement of using an infrared (IR) monocle that lets the photographer see the negative develop while it takes place in front of them. I can tell in the first minute of development if the exposure was "on" (ie how the negative comes up in the developer) and when it needs to be pulled from the developer. I can perform the identical technique with my gas burst system again aided by my infrared monocle.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael. You're still talking about a thin crust pizza; I'm talking about a deep dish pizza. With traditional ZS technique you have to either smash everything to fit into a preset sandwich thickness, or at the opposite extreme, make it swell up to that same density and grade thickness. Been there, done that. I'm old enough to remember waterbath dev with Super XX. As far as TMax goes, it does well in ALL common developers, and always has, though I have certain preferences. Sure, you can get a lot of mileage out of all kinds of dev techniques on their own. But there are places you can't go too. Why intimidate anyone from having fun with this, and potentially discovering a new tool that truly helps their own printing style? It doesn't work out for everyone. But nobody is going to fall off the edge of the earth for trying. They might just discover a whole new continent. And I do have to take exception to classifying masking as an "extraneous" technique. The same could be said for your IR monocle. If something works, it works.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael. You're still talking about a thin crust pizza; I'm talking about a deep dish pizza. With traditional ZS technique you have to either smash everything to fit into a preset sandwich thickness, or at the opposite extreme, make it swell up to that same density and grade thickness. Been there, done that. I'm old enough to remember waterbath dev with Super XX. As far as TMax goes, it does well in ALL common developers, and always has, though I have certain preferences. Sure, you can get a lot of mileage out of all kinds of dev techniques on their own. But there are places you can't go too. Why intimidate anyone from having fun with this, and potentially discovering a new tool that truly helps their own printing style? It doesn't work out for everyone. But nobody is going to fall off the edge of the earth for trying. They might just discover a whole new continent. And I do have to take exception to classifying masking as an "extraneous" technique. The same could be said for your IR monocle. If something works, it works.

I shot a lot of Super XX as well and still have some in the freezer as we speak. I was able to make my case and that yes, there are absolutely plenty of new places one can go. I am not intimidating anyone with anything contrary to your contention. Years ago after reading numerous articles from Howard Bond on masking I intuitively questioned the rational for such extraneous iterations as the first defense agains the unnecessary and extraneous. Fortunately I decided to recommit myself to revisiting the basics of the process and was able to get to where I needed to be without complex augmentations within the printing process. When simpler works I use it. Onward!

[Drew Wiley]

Complex masking was routine in color printing long before Howard Bond tried the simplest aspect of it. I was doing it before I ever heard of Howard Bond, but will say it made a visibly distinct difference in his own prints when I saw samples of them in person. The same photo magazine wanted me to do masking articles, but they didn't pay anywhere near in the league as the architectural glossy mags on unrelated topics I contributed to. It's an avenue worth exploration, but just one of many.

[Pere Casals]

This is not correct, what the mask is doing is raising the density of the original negative's shadows, hopefully without affecting the highlights (which is the point of the restrainer when processing the mask). If you have made even a few contrast reduction masks you would discover that it's usually preferable to do anything necessary to prevent the mask interfering with the original negative's highlights.


Interneg, consider that a mask that targets 0.3D in the Z-V will command just one stop more exposure when sandwiched with the original negative, to get same gray level for the Z-V. As the toe-cutter cleared density over extreme highlights this ends exactly in one stop advantage in burning those extreme highlights.

Of course the Base+Fog of the mask will require around 1/3 stop additional correction, add what the frosted mylar blocks, but this does not contribute to the tonal balance because the effect is flat across all the zones.




Everything I have ever seen about this rather pointless mixture points towards a pH alteration of dilute Xtol having much the same effect. And it is well known that a less solvent, more alkaline developer will give less fog than one with high sulfite content. This is not really the same as modifying a developer to give the least possible fog for specific darkroom purposes. If it's what you have on hand, Rodinal plus a restrainer is probably a better place to start from than adding more sulfite. What Drew is trying to get is a highly contrast controllable, extremely low fog developer without (I assume) worrying too much about what the effective speed of the mask film is.

It looks that you have never used that mixture.

Starting from the beginning, sulphite content in LF is mostly irrelevant, when you use Xtol 1:3 you notice little and that it has 1/4 of the sulphite concentration.

That mixture delivers deep blacks with a particular aesthetics. In Photoshop it's easy to clip out the toe, but for a wet printing that "mixture" in the film development is an straight path to a particular look that you may want or not.

It can be a "pointless mixture" for you, but I've seen great images crafted in this way. In general mixing developers it's not a great idea, but you may find exceptions like this one if you know what you do.

[Drew Wiley]

Pere, I don't have any experience with Xtol, so can't comment on that. But when I referred to .30 above fbf as a good starting point or target for a b&w mask, I meant just that - the most dense part of mask corresponding to the deepest shadows on the original, not to midtone Z5. For color work I do have some special math prioritized to 18% scene gray and how specific hue saturation relates to mask curve placement, but it's irrelevant here. One could hypothetically graph plot a Zone scale relative to the mask curve combined effect by sandwiching them together. But it requires a color transmission densitometer to properly factor any pyro stain on the original, for those of us who use that kind of dev. B&W densitometers typically aren't powerful enough to read through accessory deep blue filters. But unless one finds that kind of plotting of particular technical interest, it is really unnecessary for obtaining excellent practical results. One can begin learning masking without a densitometer at all, just visually comparing on a lightbox their mask DMax to the .30+ patch on a Stouffer step tablet. After awhile, it all gets intuitive anyway.

[Pere Casals]

One could hypothetically graph plot a Zone scale relative to the mask curve combined effect by sandwiching them together.

This is what I'm simulating with my software:

195774

I make contact copies of the stouffer on Film and on Paper. Later I scan the copies alonside a calibrated wedge, the software uses the wedges as the reference so it can automatically plot the film/paper calibrations.

Then an exposure/processing is selected for the mask, and mask density is virtually added to the original, so I see the density of the sandwich for each spot I want. This mostly allows to nail the mask we want at the first try.

This works yet, I accurately predict the density in any spot of the sandwich in a few seconds. Next step will be using paper curves to check what it would happen with any grade/exposure in any spot of the scene, just a proofing system to make most of the adjustment job fast and with no material waste, still manual refinements have to be done in the wet, of course.

[interneg]

Starting from the beginning, sulphite content in LF is mostly irrelevant, when you use Xtol 1:3 you notice little and that it has 1/4 of the sulphite concentration.

Xtol is not designed to be ultra low fog. None of the modern high speed, high sharpness & fine grain developers are designed to be. At best, once you add the Rodinal, you are probably ending up with something equivalent to somewhat diluted DK-50 - effectively you added an accelerant, not a restrainer, but because of the way the extra ingredients add up, you might get somewhat lower fog than with Xtol on its own. Instead of wasting time on this, you'd be better off choosing something already very low fog & possibly altering it with more restrainer.

That mixture delivers deep blacks with a particular aesthetics. In Photoshop it's easy to clip out the toe, but for a wet printing that "mixture" in the film development is an straight path to a particular look that you may want or not.

Sorry Pere, this is rubbish. Any film developer competently used & a modicum of darkroom ability will deliver similar results. It really is not difficult to achieve. If you really learnt & understood how negative exposure and process work in practice relative to aim grade on specific papers (and start ignoring the densitometer, it's merely a useful tool for specific situations & process control, not a rod for your back) you'll get better at the basics of technique than by chasing after the seemingly magic solutions that are no substitute for hard work, coupled to effective learning & understanding. There are no engineering solutions or data tables that will make you a great printer.

Technique should be subservient to your imagemaking - if it isn't, you should work at a level where it is.

[Pere Casals]

Any film developer competently used & a modicum of darkroom ability will deliver similar results. It really is not difficult to achieve.

Yes with hybrid processing, with Ps you bend curves like you want.

Darkroom printing is another war, we have many image manipulation tricks, but we cannot manipulate the tonal curve like in Ps, and manipulation may take a great effort and large paper waste.

Technically speaking you may not expect much improvements from an Xtol+Rodinal mixture, but it may nail an aesthetics you want with little effort.

There is a group in flickr about that mixture, and there are proficient photographers that use that resource with great results, one is Peter De Graaff.

The RodinoX mixture is not necessary, of course, but there is nothing wrong in using that creative path.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, of course we are manipulating the cumulative tonal curve whenever we apply a mask. That's what masks do. They redistribute the tonal values. They just do it differently than PS.

[Pere Casals]

They just do it differently than PS.

Yes, but with Ps we do it with a few clicks. In the darkroom every manipulation has a cost.

In Ps WYSIWYG.

In the wet YHWYH (You have what you have).

Nothing beats a sound darkroom print, but it requires a proficient printer in command. Today DR printing is more demanding than ever, because we have the digital competition side by side, digital prints are very good, and lambdas and lightjets also print on silver.

To me darkroom printing has a comeback, but still we require an easier way to manipulate the paper tonal curve, if this was possible then darkroom printing would rock totally.

[Drew Wiley]

Everything in PS has its own cost: sore back, sore butt, carpal tunnel fingers, throbbing eyes. Pick your poison. Darkroom printing does totally rock, as far as I'm concerned.

[Pere Casals]

Darkroom printing does totally rock, as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, I've not been clear, what I wanted to say is that if tonal curve manipulation was easier then that comeback of wet printing would be stronger.

[Drew Wiley]

Most people I know that are really good at digi color printing seem to spend as much or even more time trying to get things right than they once did in the darkroom. Plus you need a scan with its own film cleanup steps before and after. It's a lot of work either way. Depends on what you enjoy, and what you don't. The downside of doing it in the darkroom is that it is a chemical process, some color chem can be unhealthy, and sheet film is getting more and more expensive. Once you get into actually making CDUII dupes, Pere, I think you'll realize how much need to go into it to get it right. Hopefully, you won't thaw your film until you've got a good handle on what's involved. Monochrome work is a lot easier and safer. A single basic unsharp mask is usually plenty for b&w silver printing needs, and doesn't even need to be nitpicky in terms of precise tonality. But one does need careful with fog, alignment, and dust issues.

[interneg]

seem to spend as much or even more time trying to get things right than they once did in the darkroom.

Mainly because you end up having to do multiple manual steps that happen automatically in the darkroom...

To paraphrase a comment I once read about letterpress printing, the nominal technical restrictions (of darkroom printing) can actually be incredibly artistically freeing.



Darkroom printing is another war, we have many image manipulation tricks, but we cannot manipulate the tonal curve like in Ps, and manipulation may take a great effort and large paper waste.


You could just use a different film. Too much effort is expended on finding the 'magic' developer & not enough on using the materials competently. If you can't get extraordinary prints from either Xtol or Rodinal developed negatives, the solution does not lie in mixing them - that people apparently do get ok negs from this blend has more to do with good luck & the manufacturers designing in enough latitude in the materials that they resist the tender ministrations of amateurish photochemists. If you need a more active developer, use one that is a known quantity as a starting point, then tweak it with alkali or restrainer - it'll make keeping track of process adjustments much easier.

[Pere Casals]

If you can't get extraordinary prints from either Xtol or Rodinal developed negatives, the solution does not lie in mixing them - that people apparently do get ok negs from this blend has more to do with good luck & the manufacturers designing in enough latitude in the materials that they resist the tender ministrations of amateurish photochemists.

RodinX is not a solution, it's a resource. It's not about if it's technically better or worse, image crafting may take advantage of technical imperfections, this is well understood with lenses: since a century ago Universal Heliars have a ring to add spheric aberration, shifting from optimal performance.

RodinX has a natural look that one may want or not, this is a YMMV, so I see no debate.




You could just use a different film.

To make a full optic process I see two approaches:

>> One is finding a materials-process combination that suits our taste, in fact ZS tells how to acomodate our visualization to the materials. With classic films, in general, what we place in Z-II or Z-III will be more compressed in the negative, for example, and this starts to pave the way to obtain the print we want.

>> There is another approach, this is making a linear capture and later in the printing we may manipulate the tonal curve to fit the scene range in the paper range with a certain style. This conserves more flexibility for the printing, but it requires a superior effort. A man promoting that is John Sexton, no secret.


One thing is not better than the other, but IMHO a film photographer that ends printing in the darkroom needs to master both approaches to a certain point at least, many times we combine both.

Of course those liking the image "optimization" in the printing may tend more to the second approach, while others will prefer to spend more time with the camera: à chacun son goût.

[Drew Wiley]

John Sexton is a nice guy, Pere. I've stumbled onto him and had a few brief conversations a long time ago, which he probably wouldn't remember. He had barely dabbled in masking at that time, not very successfully, and came pretty late to the game. But the printing industry as well as color film printmakers understood curve redistribution via masking and routinely applied it to certain procedures before either he or I were ever born. There were substantial resources behind it - all kinds of specialized films from Kodak and Agfa, along with lengthy tutorials by men like Bob Pace. Because specific films and even the printing industry has changed so much in the interim, it's hard to directly apply a lot of the old advice. But everything we're discussing in this thread is just about getting to first base. No need to overcomplicate it. But, referring to a different comment of yours, there simply is no contradiction between the quality of time spent in the field optimizing the shot itself and an equal level of dedication spent in the darkroom. A chain is only as good as its weakest link.