Flashing still used with Multi-Contrast papers ??

[Steve Sherman]

Is anyone using the Flashing technique to control contrast ?? Increase or decrease contrast ??

[bob carnie]

Most of the Vivian Maier images I worked on used flashing, I do not see how not to use this valuable tool.

[Eric Woodbury]

I use it all the time. A great tool. Wouldn't want to give it up. Some films have such great range of detail, that it is convenient to compress the highlights but still be able to print in high contrast. I have a little green LED mounted beside my enlarging lens, connected to a separate timer to make the process really easy. 3-5 seconds bump. Fantastic.

[Drew Wiley]

It's the one technique I've never had any use for. Just for fun I might try it with a few early over-developed pre-pyro negs of mine that have otherwise been ignored all these years.

[Steve Sherman]

Most of the Vivian Maier images I worked on used flashing, I do not see how not to use this valuable tool.

I most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ??

[bob carnie]

I most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ??

I use flashing for highlight regions only , Mis-read the title - I do not see how flashing would help the mid tones other than lower midtone contrast but I may be wrong. If one could create digital masks I can see where local flashing would be interesting for the whole scene but I personally have not gone down that rabbit hole. Others may have , I suspect someone who makes a lot of masks for their work would be a candidate for this kind of work.


What I do to increase mid tone contrast is to dodge in the basic exposures to steepen the curve (so to speak) much like soft light in PS. This technique is done in all the image even if I am burning in I will still be dodging, kind of like highlight protection negatives that were sandwiched with contrast control negs in cibachrome.. I believe this is the way to direct the viewer to areas of prints with local contrast methods, flashing is a very key element for nailing tone in negatives that are tough.

I have always said that dodging was the most important tool,, when I started printing professionally in 1976 I worked at a wedding studio where we printed all our work, Mr Filopvitch was a hard task master and made me use dodging on every single print, ( wallets if you can believe it included) What I learned was by using this tool one could modulate the look of the print to draw the viewers eye, most people think that is the role of the Burn, which I feel is overated.
I prefer to take away from an darker image rather than build it up from a lighter one....
It becomes pretty natural after time, I prefer to hit the timer and not dick around with the knobs while I print, I always have the dodging and burning in tool working in a kind of Automatic Feel.

[Doremus Scudder]

I most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ??

Bob's right on here: Flashing only noticeably affects the toe of the paper (highlights) by overcoming the threshold inertia and making it easier to get some detail in what would otherwise be blank white. The trade-off is reduced highlight contrast. The small amount of overall exposure used for flashing is proportionally smaller compared to the overall exposure the darker the area of the print is. Where flashing might be half of the highlight exposure, it ends up being only 5% or so in the mid-tones (where it reduces contrast too, just to a much lesser extent, plus we've usually compensated by printing at a different contrast setting). In the darkest shadows, the flashing exposure is only a fraction of the total exposure.

Often, burning VC paper at a high-contrast setting will give more contrasty details in the highlights. That said, sometimes flashing gives gratifying results, especially when it's something like a dark interior with a window showing a scene outdoors; one can print for the contrast in the shadowed area and use flashing to rein in the over-the-top bright area in the window.

If you're looking to up midtone contrast when printing, then you simply need a higher contrast setting. There's really no way around it. With split-printing techniques, you can dodge midtones and then burn them back at a higher setting, like Bob does, or use a higher-contrast setting to begin with and then burn other areas of the print with a lower-contrast setting or any combination of the above that gets you what you want. Flashing, however, simply won't help here.

Best,

Doremus

[Joe O'Hara]

I tend to agree with Doremus here. I see changing the printing contrast as analogous to pushing the brightness curves around in Photoshop (something I did quite a bit of before I went back to wet printing). There's just so much range between black and white; they are endpoints fixed by the materials. "Local" contrast just means a higher slope at a certain range of brightnesses (= "density" in wet photography terms), typically in a certain area where you want that effect. This is managed with masks in PS and dodging or burning in the darkroom.

BTW, I agree with Steve (in his remarks in the recent split-grade printing thread) that in principle, an overall quick exposure at maximum contrast after an initial overall exposure at a lower contrast level is equivalent technically to a single overall exposure at a somewhat higher contrast level. However, consider that when we print at higher contrast levels, exposure time becomes increasingly difficult to manage precisely: it gets difficult if you like the foot pedal and counting metronome ticks method, to control it below the 1-second level. ("Higher contrast" = "a greater density change for a given change of exposure".) I find it easier to get the highlights and higher midtones where I need them with a more moderate contrast setting--which is easier to consistently get right-- and then nail in the lowest values if needed with a quick shot of grade 5 light, again this with the lens stopped down to make the time management more tractable.

The road to enlightenment is between two pine trees, someone said. And there are a lot of pine trees (especially around here).

[Drew Wiley]

No need for flashing if you make the right kind of mask, which is something capable of improving microtonality along the entire curve. It would be redundant, although I must confess that when I use film masking (never digital masking, no thank you), it's generally in relation to a pyro developed neg in which the highlights have already been tamed somewhat by the image stain. I'd have to go way back to some very early negs to find something otherwise. But that happens to be what I'll be doing soon - trying to salvage some interesting old negs taken before I really understood the ropes. Maybe I'll try a flash on a few of them just for the heck of it, but don't really see why it would offer any benefit over split printing. ... The road to enlightenment is driving a Hummer on a prohibited Forest Service road between two pine trees too closely spaced to get that beast through, with a Ranger right there issuing citations.

[bob carnie]

Hi Drew

If the negative is completely blocked at the high end, a slight flash and then subsequent burn will indeed help, the original negative is blocked at the high end and no mask will help unless it is of course a Positive and then a complicated mask can be made, a mask in this case for lets say a street scene captured with bw negative film would need to be a registered negative mask within the enlarger which requires taking out the original negative and putting in a new negative at an enlarger magnification that would make this task really hard.. I know there are those of us who have done this but in my case it was at a lab with incredible equipment available to make this happen. Just making a negative mask for this highlight increase procedure is beyond the scope of most printers.
One would need a complete photocomp setup to do this, I do understand that there are those making digital negs to be used at the paper level in contact but I do not think this is what this thread is about.
For example in all the pt pd prints I make now I include a shadow only negative in register to apply pigment via gum printing, this increases the Dmax of the pt pd print, it would be simple to make this secondary negative a highlight only negative and if the pt pd process could not handle the highlight in a single exposure then a secondary hit of pigment via gum printing could be done.


A simple flash with a second enlarger off the main enlarger is too strong a tool not to use... Of course if you are making perfect negatives that require no help then the point is moot, Perfect negs are like Perfect Prints, I have never seen one, A full range out door
natural lit scene generally does not fall into the perfect category, especially if one is working from a roll and doing street work for example.

Bob

[Steve Sherman]

Good news fellas, there are some very knowledgable people in this thread for which I’m grateful.

First, I’ve seen first hand in dozens of prints that Bob Carnie has resurrected from mediocre and over processed negatives resulting in magnificent Silver prints . I consider Bob one of the five best printers on the planet, so I’m thrilled to pass along a Flashing technique I use most of the time. You can read about the entire evolution of this discovery if interested in an article I wrote for UnblinkingEye online magazine.

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Flashing/flashing.html

Essentially the key is reducing the amount of Green ( 0 ) contrast light that is “projected” thru the negative. First hint of grey tone happens in the densest part of the negative. Therefore, the less dense (mid tones) get “contaminated” with unnecessary low contrast light. We all know, mid-tones and their respective contrast is the single most difficult area of a Silver print to affect.
It’s all laid out in the article but I have found that by Flashing the MC paper with Green light to just below threshold I can reduce the amount of “projected” soft contrast light the negative sees by 33 % and in some cases as much as 40 %. There is a noticeable gain in mid-tone contrast, even when the entire sheet of paper is flashed.

Lastly, my negatives by design are extremely flat, i.e. highlight density of no more than 1.00 above fog. So, many negative makers and I’m sure the negs Bob often gets to print are more dense. This Flashing technique may pay even greater dividends than I realize with my negative design. I’d love to hear your feedback.

Cheers

[bob carnie]

Thank you for the kind words Steve..

I am interested in the phrase - (key is reducing the amount of Green ( 0 ) contrast light that is “projected” thru the negative ) -
I know you are a fan of Ilford Warmtone as am I - you may be seeing somewhat some of the same things I saw with this paper. I found issues using a 0 filter... in my case I went to a slight higher filter and in your case you are reducing the amount of 0 - which in my layman mind thinks is pretty much the same thing just a different way... I found issues with using a 0 filter and Ilford Warmtone, btw I did not find this with other papers which was strange to me.

It has been years since I took the higher low filter approach and frankly cannot remember the exact reason .. I think it had to do with one of the Tibetan Images with a lot of shadow detail which I saw issues, almost like a flaring or solarizing effect in the low end.

I have no control over the negatives I get and therefore have learned to work with sometime extreme situations, My own negs are solarized so its a bit different in my darkroom.

[Doremus Scudder]

Steve,

I've got a few comments, not in any particular order.

First, you conflate the effect of flashing with the effect of printing at a higher contrast "formula." You need to separate what is doing what in your print example. So let's get it straight: Increasing the contrast "formula" (or setting or filtration or grade or whatever term you wish to use for printing at a higher contrast) is what gets you extra contrast. Not the flashing.

Flashing reduces contrast, which is precisely what you are doing: Reducing contrast in the highlights while simultaneously giving them a bit of exposure so they print with tonality. This is classic, ho-hum, everyday, plain vanilla flashing technique. Flashing VC papers with green or blue or some combination of the two to fine-tune the highlight response is as old as VC paper. None of this, by itself, increases midtone contrast. Not a whit, no way, no how.

Certainly, the midtone contrast is going to be higher if you print at a higher-contrast setting. The problem that occurs without flashing is that the highlights often end up being underexposed. You've simply given some exposure with your flashing to get tonality in the highlights. Don't think, however, that the flashing adds midtone contrast. Au contraire! It's reducing the highlight contrast. What's increasing the midtone contrast is your higher overall contrast setting. Not the flashing.

Printing your example print without any flashing would result in an even higher overall contrast, especially apparent in the highlights, likely with the sky burnt out. By adding the flashing, you are reducing the contrast in the highlight areas of the print, reining in the high values and getting some tonality in whites, which would otherwise be blank.

Labeling or implying that this technique is novel, applicable to only VC papers, somehow a magic bullet, etc., etc. are all simply false.

Flashing has been around since about day one of photographic printing. What you are doing is nothing new. Even flashing using green and blue separately with VC papers is nothing new.

Flashing a higher grade of graded paper to rein in the highlights and making a print gets you more mid-tone contrast too. It's the same thing you're doing. Ansel Adams discusses it in his books. It doesn't matter how you change the paper contrast; either changing filtration settings or changing to a different grade, it's still the change of contrast grade or setting that gets you the increased contrast. Not the flashing.

There is a trade-off with flashing, always, and that is loss of separation in the print highlights. There are many times when burning highlights is better, since it doesn't compress the highlight values. Flashing with blue light is better than green in this regard, but burning is better if you can do it, and with a higher contrast setting than the overall print contrast if possible if you want to increase contrast in the highlights. Flashing is just one tool and doesn't work well for a lot of situations. It's not a panacea or magic bullet in any way shape or form.

What irks me most about this whole thread, however, is the way you disingenuously asked a leading question, prompting responses from forum members who thought they were helping you, while all the time having the goal of shameless self-promotion. I find this use of the forum to be objectionable and even unethical. Manipulating a thread with the sole interest of promoting your videos and workshops for your personal gain is not what this forum is intended for. While I don't begrudge you your livelihood, I do find such exploitation of what is supposed to be a neutral platform, where all advertising is forbidden, and which is intended to provide an objective and commerce-free exchange between members, deceptive and unacceptable.

I feel tricked, taken advantage of and conned; I'll not be participating in your discussions in the future if they continue in this vein. If I were a forum moderator, I would warn you most strongly about ever doing such a thing in the future with the threat of excluding you from the forum if you ever did. I think you owe us all an apology and a change of behavior.

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

I thought highlight masking was fairly elementary, but whatever. Your needs, printing other people's work, Bob, obviously involves some problem solving routes that personal pre-tamed b&w negs rarely do. That kind of headache was routine with Cibachrome; but in b&w printing, it ended a long time ago for me.

[Steve Sherman]

Bob,

I’m doing this from a phone so hopefully all goes as I plan

I know you always said you believe using 0 filtration can sometimes cause solarization. I have not found that in my printing. That said my Green exposures usually run 4-6 seconds and are never more than the Blue exposure. I believe many of the negs you get from clients are more dense and may require much more 0 filtration which might well be causing the solarization you are seeing. You know I only print with 0 and 5 and feel very strongly about that.

The phrase “projected thru the negative”. That’s the key to this Flashing technique. Consider the attach photo which shows all 5 exposure on the left side and all 0 exposure on the right side. With the right side 0 exposure, the lightest part on the print comes from the densest area on the negative. So, all the surrounding densities that are slightly less are the mid-tones. So, if we can reduce the amount of 0 filtration that is exposed “above and thru” the negative, by means of Flashing / bringing paper to threshold. The real gain is in the mid-tones which are less dense than the highlights. When the mid-tones “see” less 0 / Green exposure the contrast is increased because they are “less contaminated” with 0 filtration in less dense negative areas.
The way I discovered this technique is because of a failed negative. Check out the link and the story, it also describes a flashing technique with a Blue gel instead of a Green gel.

Cheers. 202917

[bob carnie]

Bob,

I’m doing this from a phone so hopefully all goes as I plan

I know you always said you believe using 0 filtration can sometimes cause solarization. I have not found that in my printing. That said my Green exposures usually run 4-6 seconds and are never more than the Blue exposure. I believe many of the negs you get from clients are more dense and may require much more 0 filtration which might well be causing the solarization you are seeing. You know I only print with 0 and 5 and feel very strongly about that.

The phrase “projected thru the negative”. That’s the key to this Flashing technique. Consider the attach photo which shows all 5 exposure on the left side and all 0 exposure on the right side. With the right side 0 exposure, the lightest part on the print comes from the densest area on the negative. So, all the surrounding densities that are slightly less are the mid-tones. So, if we can reduce the amount of 0 filtration that is exposed “above and thru” the negative, by means of Flashing / bringing paper to threshold. The real gain is in the mid-tones which are less dense than the highlights. When the mid-tones “see” less 0 / Green exposure the contrast is increased because they are “less contaminated” with 0 filtration in less dense negative areas.
The way I discovered this technique is because of a failed negative. Check out the link and the story, it also describes a flashing technique with a Blue gel instead of a Green gel.

Cheers. 202917

Need to noodle this for awhile and let you know what I think , I immediately do not see where you are going... are you saying by flashing you get faster to the detail in highlights , but do less printing time through the negatve with the 0 filter , therefore less O filtration in the mid tones???

[Drew Wiley]

In the pre-digital photo restoration era, I had to salvage print all kinds of wretched negs, even fire-damaged ones. Highlight masks could be as simple as registering a sheet of frosted mylar with red dye or soft pencil smudge or Sharpie pen applied. Or brown fire stain could be filtered out on a pan film mask using an appropriate color contrast filter. One could be quite innovative if someone was willing to pay enough. But it was pretty rare I was willing to accept someone's miserable prize color slide and come up with a serious Ciba print, usually a favor for someone already purchasing my own prints. Nothing's worse than a badly exposed chrome.

[Steve Sherman]

Steve,

What irks me most about this whole thread, however, is the way you disingenuously asked a leading question, prompting responses from forum members who thought they were helping you, while all the time having the goal of shameless self-promotion. I find this use of the forum to be objectionable and even unethical. Manipulating a thread with the sole interest of promoting your videos and workshops for your personal gain is not what this forum is intended for. While I don't begrudge you your livelihood, I do find such exploitation of what is supposed to be a neutral platform, where all advertising is forbidden, and which is intended to provide an objective and commerce-free exchange between members, deceptive and unacceptable.

I feel tricked, taken advantage of and conned; I'll not be participating in your discussions in the future if they continue in this vein. If I were a forum moderator, I would warn you most strongly about ever doing such a thing in the future with the threat of excluding you from the forum if you ever did. I think you owe us all an apology and a change of behavior.

Doremus

Doremus

Sorry you feel that way, actually very sorry as I respect your work and knowledge. The only reason I can put to my wording, my interest was to attract experienced printers and not the masses who expound on virtually every topic. Also, I never imagined that I would be the only silver printer using the Flashing technique in the manner. I can assure you, my only intention is creating greater mid-tone contrast, in that regard my focus and use of the technique is not traditional in any form.

However you to choose to spin it so it sounds like traditional flashing is your call. Flashing in it’s traditional sense is used to reduce high light contrast as you point out, with “graded” papers. However, I would imagine, as I did for years, that with MC papers and the Green / Blue relationship to shadows and highlights would suggest to almost all silver printers the technique has out lived its use.

Therefore, in the manner I am suggesting it is quite simple, when the amount of Green exposure which is “projected thru and from above” the negative can be reduced, in this case by means of bringing the paper to threshold there is a gain in mid-tone contrast. Of course it’s because the highlights realize a grey tone sooner, my interest is solely the benefit seen in the mid-tones and not in greater tonality in the high ligths.

So, in my opinion, as much as you wish to twist my words around to suit an explanation of the traditional use of Flashing, I can easily defend that by saying my question was “Is anyone using the Flashing technique to control contrast ?? Increase or decrease contrast ?? I never eluded to the high light region or used the word "traditional", that is a label you assigned to what I am doing, and with some disdain in your wording. I believe many simply assumed that is the target purpose of Flashing as I believe you did initially.

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to use the word disingenuous in regard to my intentions. While I don’t often contribute on these forums for a variety of reasons, I have over the years read scores of responses and opinions from you, never do I recall such a strongly worded response. Further, based on your response it’s apparent you didn’t take the time to read the linked article, which would validate the technique in the manner I am suggesting and possibly open your eyes to the purpose of this thread.

The damage your comment further reinforces, those reading this tread in the manner I am suggesting the Flashing technique will quickly discount it not because of the quality of your printing or mine, those are unknown to the masses. What is known, your contributions on this forum far out number mine, therefore, the louder voice always carries the day with regard to the veracity of my claims.

[Steve Sherman]

Need to noodle this for awhile and let you know what I think , I immediately do not see where you are going... are you saying by flashing you get faster to the detail in highlights , but do less printing time through the negatve with the 0 filter , therefore less O filtration in the mid tones???

Bob,

This is why I don’t bother with these forums much any more. I have a very narrow area of expertise, so when someone comes along who is knowledgeable with far more contributions on these forums disputes my knowledge, the louder voice always prevails. If you have further interest in what I am suggesting, read the article because it has clear and significant side by side visual comparisons to the benefits of what I’m doing or simply email me as you have my address.

[jmontague]

Steve, I read your article and plan on giving this a try. I use your EMA process for my negatives with great success and have no reason to believe that this will provide similar results.

I am still rather new to this art form so this question may be obvious to everyone but me. Do you flash before exposing through the negative or after? I assume this is done before, but hope you will confirm this.

I know that some feathers have been ruffled in this thread, but I always discover new things to try. If they work for me, I keep them. If not, I still learn something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve Sherman]

Steve, I read your article and plan on giving this a try. I use your EMA process for my negatives with great success and have no reason to believe that this will provide similar results.

I am still rather new to this art form so this question may be obvious to everyone but me. Do you flash before exposing through the negative or after? I assume this is done before, but hope you will confirm this.

I know that some feathers have been ruffled in this thread, but I always discover new things to try. If they work for me, I keep them. If not, I still learn something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Jim for the kind words.
In answer to your question, you can flash either before or after the exposure as been made with the negative. All flashing does is add a predetermined amount of light so that the threshold of the paper is met and all light thereafter should have nearly immediate impact in creating tone. One thing I did not go into simply because I did not want to further confuse the issue is, almost always I tried my best to direct the flashing light to the most dense areas where it has the most impact. After I have completed all print manipulations I'll use a dry erase pen at the very edge of the paper on two sides. Extending lines inward from those two dots, where the lines intersect is the center of the area I wish to impact with the flashing light. Once the flashing is complete the print goes to the developer and I quickly rub off the water soluble Dry Erase marks so full development happens right out to the edge of the print.

Enjoy your time in the Dark

[PRJ]

Steve,

What irks me most about this whole thread, however, is the way you disingenuously asked a leading question, prompting responses from forum members who thought they were helping you, while all the time having the goal of shameless self-promotion. I find this use of the forum to be objectionable and even unethical. Manipulating a thread with the sole interest of promoting your videos and workshops for your personal gain is not what this forum is intended for. While I don't begrudge you your livelihood, I do find such exploitation of what is supposed to be a neutral platform, where all advertising is forbidden, and which is intended to provide an objective and commerce-free exchange between members, deceptive and unacceptable.

I feel tricked, taken advantage of and conned; I'll not be participating in your discussions in the future if they continue in this vein. If I were a forum moderator, I would warn you most strongly about ever doing such a thing in the future with the threat of excluding you from the forum if you ever did. I think you owe us all an apology and a change of behavior.

Doremus

Yeah. He went from "anyone know anything about flashing" to "I invented it!"

Glad I didn't see this thread until today, although my answer pretty much would have negated his whole article because I've been flashing that way since the 90s. And I didn't invent it. I learned it from Nocon.

I guess whatever gets suckers to sign up for his workshops. But yeah, total dirtbag move. The ol' shuck and jive....

[bob carnie]

Flashing was used in photo comp extensively, we would combine transparancies and hard copy onto the same film and we had to flash one of them so they would balance out to the same contrast ratio. This was in the mid 80's when we were doing this each and every day.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus

Sorry you feel that way, actually very sorry as I respect your work and knowledge. The only reason I can put to my wording, my interest was to attract experienced printers and not the masses who expound on virtually every topic. Also, I never imagined that I would be the only silver printer using the Flashing technique in the manner. I can assure you, my only intention is creating greater mid-tone contrast, in that regard my focus and use of the technique is not traditional in any form.

However you to choose to spin it so it sounds like traditional flashing is your call. Flashing in it’s traditional sense is used to reduce high light contrast as you point out, with “graded” papers. However, I would imagine, as I did for years, that with MC papers and the Green / Blue relationship to shadows and highlights would suggest to almost all silver printers the technique has out lived its use.

Therefore, in the manner I am suggesting it is quite simple, when the amount of Green exposure which is “projected thru and from above” the negative can be reduced, in this case by means of bringing the paper to threshold there is a gain in mid-tone contrast. Of course it’s because the highlights realize a grey tone sooner, my interest is solely the benefit seen in the mid-tones and not in greater tonality in the high ligths.

So, in my opinion, as much as you wish to twist my words around to suit an explanation of the traditional use of Flashing, I can easily defend that by saying my question was “Is anyone using the Flashing technique to control contrast ?? Increase or decrease contrast ?? I never eluded to the high light region or used the word "traditional", that is a label you assigned to what I am doing, and with some disdain in your wording. I believe many simply assumed that is the target purpose of Flashing as I believe you did initially.

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to use the word disingenuous in regard to my intentions. While I don’t often contribute on these forums for a variety of reasons, I have over the years read scores of responses and opinions from you, never do I recall such a strongly worded response. Further, based on your response it’s apparent you didn’t take the time to read the linked article, which would validate the technique in the manner I am suggesting and possibly open your eyes to the purpose of this thread.

The damage your comment further reinforces, those reading this tread in the manner I am suggesting the Flashing technique will quickly discount it not because of the quality of your printing or mine, those are unknown to the masses. What is known, your contributions on this forum far out number mine, therefore, the louder voice always carries the day with regard to the veracity of my claims.

Steve,

Let me clarify:

I'm 100% willing to have a discussion about flashing in the context of an open forum where information is freely given. It doesn't matter if I disagree with you about particulars. That's not the real issue in my mind.

My disappointment was that you didn't ask your question in good faith, i.e., wanting to learn from the participants here, nor did you freely offer information on the new technique you think you have discovered. You didn't really want answers; you wanted to direct us to self-promotional material. That is not the purpose of this forum.

You baited and switched. You linked to an article (which I did read in its entirety) that ends up being nothing more than an infomercial for your videos and workshops. Advertising in that manner is forbidden by the forum rules. The surreptitious way you went about luring responses and then redirecting everyone to your advertisement is what rankles me.

You're very right that I have never taken anyone to task in such strong terms on this forum in the past. The intensity of my response was partly due to my own chagrin at being fooled by your ploy; not recognizing the subterfuge till I was taken in, and partly due to my disappointment that such a deception would come from someone who is a respected member of this forum.

I am more than willing to continue a good-faith debate on your flashing technique (which, by the way, is useful) in the context of this forum, which assumes a free and open exchange of ideas without ulterior motives of personal gain or promotion. I will continue to object to the forum being used as a means to bait and switch unsuspecting members and responders and as a means to generate business for you or anyone else. That is contrary to the spirit and the rules of the community here.

If you wish to advertise here, be up front and become a sponsor, advertise in the appropriate sections (Workshops, et al.) and leave your promotional urges at the door when you enter here for discussions.

I sincerely hope that you can amend your practice and behavior in this regard. My wish is that you recognize that you have stepped over the line this time, apologize to those involved and re-engage us all in an honest and open conversation about matters photographic for the edification of us all without any intent to garner customers. There are other, more appropriate places for you to do the latter.

Doremus

[Steve Sherman]

Steve,



My disappointment was that you didn't ask your question in good faith, i.e., wanting to learn from the participants here, nor did you freely offer information on the new technique you think you have discovered. You didn't really want answers; you wanted to direct us to self-promotional material. That is not the purpose of this forum.

You baited and switched. You linked to an article (which I did read in its entirety) that ends up being nothing more than an infomercial for your videos and workshops. Advertising in that manner is forbidden by the forum rules. The surreptitious way you went about luring responses and then redirecting everyone to your advertisement is what rankles me.


Doremus

Doremus,

I thought long and hard about this for most of last night after reading your scathing comments. The only thing I remotely regret is posting the link to the article too early in the conversation. People are simply trying to connect dots that aren’t there, why you reacted with such vigor is a mystery, yes you reason out why you reacted, however, there was such disdain in your response, and that’s unfortunate. I actually thought I could pass on a significant piece of silver printing information, obviously I was mistaken. Would it have been better received if I titled the thread, “Hey look what I am doing"

Nowhere in my opening question did I ask “how the flashing technique is done” I asked if anyone was using the Flashing technique with MC papers, either to decrease or increase contrast, that’s a quote. Most of the answers dealt with reducing highlight contrast, bordering on a lesson back at me which I never requested. Never for a second did I believe I was the only one using the technique in the manner I am suggesting. When Bob Carnie answered in the context of reducing highlight contrast I began to think I could offer the manner in which I’m using flashing as a benefit to the community.

Yes, I do offer workshops and premium videos for sale, nowhere did I point to those options ?? I simply linked to a “free” article, describing in detail what I’m doing, sharing knowledge, up to that point in the thread no one had offered up my scenario. Where did I say I invented something ?? People are jumping to conclusions. I specifically asked Bob Carnie, “I am most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ?? Even Bob did not immediately jump to the conclusion of “reducing the amount of Green light projected thru and from above the negative” could increase mid tone contrast. Is there some wording I could of used to ask my question any more clear ?? Even when you quoted my aforementioned question to Bob you offered an explanation with regard to highlight compression with little to no impact on the shadows, nothing about mid-tones at all. That is the # 10 reply to the original question, not one mention of Mid-tone contrast and what the benefit could be. I’m not yet convinced anyone here uses the flashing technique in the manner I described, or at least for the end result I’m suggesting. Even in Bob’s response today he makes an off hand reference to the 80’s, as though this was being done years ago. Once again, Bob does not address the topic of Mid-Tone contrast.

It’s now clearly known my interest was to share the technique with the community with no mention of $$. Obviously, the manner in which I chose to share was unfortunate and regrettable. In the article there is a 12 minute video spelling out exactly what I’m doing, yet you clearly believe and outright claim for all to see I am self-promoting for some financial gain, and only for financial gain. The entire PDF that accompanies the Premium video is included in the article for free, yet again somehow I am hawking my videos. I’ve contributed to this forum a bit over 700 times in 18 years, somehow I am self promoting when others have over 10,000 posts in half the time. I simply don’t get it.

Sure, I'd love for this to end amicably as my reputation has been impugned, but an outright apology from me would have to be met with one coming back my way, clearly the entire thing has degraded to a place neither of us wishes to remain.

[esearing]

Doremus, there is a whole lot of stealth marketing going on here in these forums including your own link to your website where you sell your images. Steve just happens to sell workshops and his expertise in the way he works. But stealth marketing usually requires you give something of benefit away and allow the recipient to find your products and decide if they want to continue a relationship or not. How many posts here are created so that the poster can then go sell something in the For Sale forums. Ever notice how those pop up right after a discussion? Your knowledge of Photography is not the same for everyone and the information shared will be there long after Steve retires. I am amazed at the number of people who use Pyrocat HD that have never heard of Sandy King and his original instructions or Steve's EMA agitation scheme or Bob Carnie's printing methods. Plus a ton of other great contributors including book writers, technicians, engineers, and true artists all who sell various products but also give away their thoughts and methods for the betterment of the photography community.

I think we have all been cooped up too long.

[gphoto120]

I was hoping a discussion on flashing techniques was going to be just that...a discussion. Unfortunately, it took a quick turn south....one of the reasons I mostly read responses on a forum and don’t respond is that the written word can be interpreted in many different ways....the inflection in my inner voice when read, the mood I’m in , any prejudice I might have on the subject, etc. That said, these are trying times, and many are inwardly aware that life itself as we know it is in peril. Emotions are running high these days.
One of my instructors years ago advised that if you have a strong opinion on a subject in written discussion, to perhaps write it down, but let it sit a day and come back with a clear, open mind and read it. This has saved me many possibly embarrassing situations. Another mentor always brought up the old adage “ Never Assume What You Think I Said” ask me....and I will help give you a further explanation if needed.....Perhaps some of the vitriolic responses here could have been avoided if we only took time to think things over and if your feelings are that strong, a PM instead of posting on the forum would bring the respondents to a better understanding of what was meant by a posted question etc. just my two cents.

[bob carnie]

Doremus,

I thought long and hard about this for most of last night after reading your scathing comments. The only thing I remotely regret is posting the link to the article too early in the conversation. People are simply trying to connect dots that aren’t there, why you reacted with such vigor is a mystery, yes you reason out why you reacted, however, there was such disdain in your response, and that’s unfortunate. I actually thought I could pass on a significant piece of silver printing information, obviously I was mistaken. Would it have been better received if I titled the thread, “Hey look what I am doing"

Nowhere in my opening question did I ask “how the flashing technique is done” I asked if anyone was using the Flashing technique with MC papers, either to decrease or increase contrast, that’s a quote. Most of the answers dealt with reducing highlight contrast, bordering on a lesson back at me which I never requested. Never for a second did I believe I was the only one using the technique in the manner I am suggesting. When Bob Carnie answered in the context of reducing highlight contrast I began to think I could offer the manner in which I’m using flashing as a benefit to the community.

Yes, I do offer workshops and premium videos for sale, nowhere did I point to those options ?? I simply linked to a “free” article, describing in detail what I’m doing, sharing knowledge, up to that point in the thread no one had offered up my scenario. Where did I say I invented something ?? People are jumping to conclusions. I specifically asked Bob Carnie, “I am most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ?? Even Bob did not immediately jump to the conclusion of “reducing the amount of Green light projected thru and from above the negative” could increase mid tone contrast. Is there some wording I could of used to ask my question any more clear ?? Even when you quoted my aforementioned question to Bob you offered an explanation with regard to highlight compression with little to no impact on the shadows, nothing about mid-tones at all. That is the # 10 reply to the original question, not one mention of Mid-tone contrast and what the benefit could be. I’m not yet convinced anyone here uses the flashing technique in the manner I described, or at least for the end result I’m suggesting. Even in Bob’s response today he makes an off hand reference to the 80’s, as though this was being done years ago. Once again, Bob does not address the topic of Mid-Tone contrast.

It’s now clearly known my interest was to share the technique with the community with no mention of $$. Obviously, the manner in which I chose to share was unfortunate and regrettable. In the article there is a 12 minute video spelling out exactly what I’m doing, yet you clearly believe and outright claim for all to see I am self-promoting for some financial gain, and only for financial gain. The entire PDF that accompanies the Premium video is included in the article for free, yet again somehow I am hawking my videos. I’ve contributed to this forum a bit over 700 times in 18 years, somehow I am self promoting when others have over 10,000 posts in half the time. I simply don’t get it.

Sure, I'd love for this to end amicably as my reputation has been impugned, but an outright apology from me would have to be met with one coming back my way, clearly the entire thing has degraded to a place neither of us wishes to remain.


Steve

.....From my Post #6

What I do to increase mid tone contrast is to dodge in the basic exposures to steepen the curve (so to speak) much like soft light in PS. This technique is done in all the image even if I am burning in I will still be dodging, kind of like highlight protection negatives that were sandwiched with contrast control negs in cibachrome.. I believe this is the way to direct the viewer to areas of prints with local contrast methods, flashing is a very key element for nailing tone in negatives that are tough.......



I believe this is a way of increasing contrast in the midtone Steve In fact it seems to me to be just a different method of achieving the same thing.. you are suggesting flashing to get the initial tone which does not reach into the midtones therefore allowing less exposure using low filter.
I suggest and have practiced since 1998 that dodging during the low filter exposure will increase the mid tone contrast by backing off some of the exposure light. I believe in effect gets us to the same point.

Does this not in effect increase midtone contrast... Look at Soft Light in PS and understand they needed to come up with a way of mid tone contrast.. basically they replicated dodging and burning methods that could be used in multi contrast papers .
Contour masking was introduced in the 60's for increasing / decreasing mid tone contrast... Pencil and Red Coccine were introduced in the mid 30's to do the same thing, I was lucky enough to have a European taskmaster who actually used both methods for all his black and white work , I saw his negs and they were impressive.

Your method has much merit as it single handedly solves a problem most printers face with extreme lighting situations. I am not sure it solves the solarization I have seen with the 0 filter though but is worthy of tying out. As I see it you are solving two problems... gaining initial density to hold in highlights and two increasing contrast specifically in the midtones by allowing less low end exposure...


I have participated in this thread willingly and now it seems the thread has the potential for getting pretty nasty.
From this point on though I would appreciate my name not being used here for this discussion, I have enough problems keeping my printing business afloat than worring about reputations.

Bob

[Steve Sherman]

I have participated in this thread willingly and now it seems the thread has the potential for getting pretty nasty.
From this point on though I would appreciate my name not being used here for this discussion, I have enough problems keeping my printing business afloat than worring about reputations.

Bob[/QUOTE]

I’m checking out of this tread now regardless of how nasty it becomes will not lie at my doorstep. I’ll say this in parting, I think what when on here has been subliminally perpetuated by the political leaders here in the states, from both sides of the isle, it has become all to common place for this behavior.

Wishing all great light !!

[Doremus Scudder]

I have participated in this thread willingly and now it seems the thread has the potential for getting pretty nasty.
From this point on though I would appreciate my name not being used here for this discussion, I have enough problems keeping my printing business afloat than worrying about reputations.

Bob

I’m checking out of this tread now regardless of how nasty it becomes will not lie at my doorstep. I’ll say this in parting, I think what when on here has been subliminally perpetuated by the political leaders here in the states, from both sides of the isle, it has become all to commonplace for this behavior.

Wishing all great light !!

Steve,

In the interest of smoothing things out and steering this thread toward a more objective tone, I'm requesting that we bury the hatchet and re-evaluate; both of us. The last thing I want to do is to be responsible for nastiness here. Let me make the first move.

I've read and re-read your posts and the article as well as posts from others, in an attempt to understand your point of view and with an understanding that I may have overreacted. I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

The last thing I'm doing is trying to ruin your reputation. I don't know your work or your methods well except for the things you've posted and linked to, but I'm certain that they are excellent and work well for you. Nor do I think it untoward that you are trying to make a living disseminating what you know. Furthermore, while my response to this thread was strong, I believe I addressed substance and did so civilly, without personal attacks or insults. I hope you recognize that.

Let me explain my reasons and motivations so you can hopefully understand how I felt taken advantage of.

I, perhaps naively, value this forum for its honesty and its civil and constructive tone. I participate out of a desire to learn for myself and to help and instruct others. It is the character and good faith of the members that make this such a rewarding forum.

When you started this thread, you posed a question, which I assumed was a request for information and assistance. I, and quite a few others, responded to your query in that spirit, i.e., supplying facts, information, theory and instruction.

When, in post #11, you revealed that you neither wanted nor needed any of that information and help that was so freely given, but instead wanted to instruct us, I felt taken advantage of (why did I have to spend my time trying to help and formulating a response that you didn't even want...) and fooled. Fooled, because, yes, I took your first post at face value and thought you were sincerely asking for our help. That wasn't the case.

Perhaps, in my chagrin at being taken in by this and my disappointment that this happened to me here, I reacted more strongly than necessary. In any case, my response seems to have had the opposite effect of what I intended, which was to, yes, reprimand you, but in a spirit of comradery and of maintaining the decorum that I so greatly value here. My remarks were on my behalf only, and not intended to represent anyone but myself.

If your intent was simply to share information with us, then I misinterpreted that completely. Maybe you could be more transparent next time and avoid misunderstandings. For example, you first post could have been, "Hey fellow photographers, here's technique I use to ... Hope this helps someone!" Then you wouldn't have got nine responses trying to help you when you didn't need any (and I probably wouldn't have responded at all, since you know your stuff and don't need my help).

Furthermore, while the article you linked to does lay out your technique, it also contains a lot of promotional material. To me, it seems more like an infomercial than an article solely intended to inform. Perhaps if you had simply linked to your article in the first post, the promotional content would not have been so objectionable to me. However, by the time I got there, I was feeling taken advantage of and fooled, so, yes, I likely reacted more strongly than I would have if I had not already been "primed," so to speak, to view things cynically.

I'm more than willing to meet you halfway on this, so please accept this "half-apology" for my possibly misunderstanding and overreacting. I hope you'll respond with the other half and restore my confidence, banish my cynicism and foster a congenial relationship.

Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to respond publicly.

We can argue about flashing some other time :)

Doremus

[Steve Sherman]

Steve,

In the interest of smoothing things out and steering this thread toward a more objective tone, I'm requesting that we bury the hatchet and re-evaluate; both of us. The last thing I want to do is to be responsible for nastiness here. Let me make the first move.

Doremus,

I had made my mind up I was not going to respond unless there would be a willingness to move on and find more positive common ground. Your opening statement clearly suggests that and I am grateful for the opportunity to move in a positive direction. I really wanted nothing more than to move on without rehashing.

Still, there seems to be a need to re-characterize your same thoughts as seen below. I still maintain that's unfortunate to continue to illustrate your original point of view. I think our disconnect can be summed in this one choice of verb. You suggest my intention was to "Instruct" while I maintain my intention was to "Share". Seems like such a small difference, but that's where I think the divide happened and it snow balled from there.

I simply don't care to continue in a negative manner, so I will surely meet you half way with my apology to you personally and extend my full apology for subjecting all those involved in this thread for my part in our cat fight !!


Furthermore, while the article you linked to does lay out your technique, it also contains a lot of promotional material. To me, it seems more like an infomercial than an article solely intended to inform. Perhaps if you had simply linked to your article in the first post, the promotional content would not have been so objectionable to me. However, by the time I got there, I was feeling taken advantage of and fooled, so, yes, I likely reacted more strongly than I would have if I had not already been "primed," so to speak, to view things cynically.

I'm more than willing to meet you halfway on this, so please accept this "half-apology" for my possibly misunderstanding and overreacting. I hope you'll respond with the other half and restore my confidence, banish my cynicism and foster a congenial relationship.

Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to respond publicly.

We can argue about flashing some other time :)

Doremus

[John Layton]

:cool:Steve...Doremus...c'mon - Flashing? Ya gotta step up to the plate...join the major leagues - and wear a proper trench coat! Works for me! :cool:

[John Layton]

Next morning...yup - that was the bourbon talking!

[Doremus Scudder]

:cool:Steve...Doremus...c'mon - Flashing? Ya gotta step up to the plate...join the major leagues - and wear a proper trench coat! Works for me! :cool:

Well... I have been sitting around a lot with no pants these days. Maybe my skin is thinning? :) It's not about the flashing, though.

To all here,

I didn't really mean to start a conflagration here. And, I guess I'm not a moderator, so I really have no business policing the forum. I got tricked into replying to a topic and felt that needed addressing.

Steve,

My reaction may have been out of proportion, but you hit a nerve. Through all of this, I've tried to be civil and objective. I believe I managed to do that. At any rate, I'm dropping this and going back to my policy of not participating unless I can be constructive.

But please, do try to make your intentions clearer from the start next time.

Best,

Doremus