Unsharp Masking…Would I/Could I/Should I?

[John Layton]

When I turned 66 last October, a few things finally dawned on me…that, nope - I wouldn’t be climbing Everest. Not owning that 911. Not getting that Guggenheim…

But…who wants to stand on that rediculous Konga line anyway? And I’m perfectly happy with my 944, thank you. That Guggenheim? Well, to be honest….(sigh)

But there is something that might still be in the realm of possibility - which is to give unsharp masking a try. Yeah…I know - just go ahead and TRY it, you doofus! But it looks like a lot of work (time, materials, learning curve)…and although I’m retired, I still have quite a bit on my plate as it is (loads of printing/re-printing to catch up on…and the 944 is still in pieces).

And to be honest, I also find something a bit unsettling about some (much) of the actual, unsharp masked work I’ve seen “up close and personal” in galleries…that, although yes, while the degree of enhanced sharpness can indeed be fascinating - the prints themselves can, overall, look just a little too “harsh” for my tastes - with the erstwhile balance of sharpness and softness…that magical “glow” to which many of us aspire in our work - having been sacrificed to the gods of “detail at any cost.”

But…if I have a specific issue which still might be addressed by a bit of unsharp masking - it would be related to my current scenario of creating large (40x60”) prints from 5x7 negatives. Don’t get me wrong - the overall balance I feel I’ve been achieving with these large prints has, thus far, been to my liking. But I feel like I’m working right on the edge here…and there are times when some of the finer details in a given image, such as tree bark and rock faces - could be just a bit sharper. But, to the extent that my work often combines such “fine” details with much softer elements (like ocean surf and/or fog), well, I’d truly hate to sacrifice the wonderful subtlety in this. Still…

So I’m trolling for opinions here, as well as seeking some sage advice regarding the two currently available approaches (wet vs scanned interpositive) to creating the masks themselves. My only past (like 30 years ago) experience with anything close to this had been with using pan masking films in making interpositives to enlarged negatives for use in creating platinum/palladium/albumen prints…and my tendency, as one committed to “the old ways,” would be to go this route and give Bergger’s “Printfilm” (continuous tone ortho) film a try.

So…Opinions? Advice (sage or otherwise)? Thanks!

[Michael R]

Try it. It takes some trial and error, and experience (for example, with standard unsharp masks you might initially be a little surprised at how thin they need to be) but don't be intimidated. Make a few, print, see if any of them do what you want. Nothing lost if you don't like it.

I'm partial to doing it the old fashioned wet way, but that's just because I'm a darkroom guy and am only just starting to look into hybrid workflows. I don't personally use masks for sharpness (edge effect) enhancement, but when you're going for that, my advice is to keep it subtle.

Given the magnification/enlargement, doing it digitally may or may not work. My vague understanding of inkjet negatives is that they aren't high enough in resolution for enlarging - however that's for the image itself. For a mask, depending on the type of mask it might be good enough. Ultimately you'd really have to just try, spend some time experimenting and see. All this to say, wet has fewer of those technicalities to consider.

[Steve Goldstein]

What Michael said - they need to be quite thin or you'll get ugly results. I don't often use this technique, but it has occasionally been useful.

I use 4x5 Ilford Ortho Plus film for my 4x5 (surprise!) and 120 negatives as I can handle it under my normal red darkroom lighting, which makes things really easy. Before that I was using FP4+. I cut the sheets in half for the 120 negs. Ortho Plus is also offered in 8x10 sheets.

[Renato Tonelli]

To mask or not to mask - that has been on my mind as well.
I have Lynn Radeka’s Masking Kit and instructions; what is holding me back is the fear of the learning curve - learning these techniques in a workshop situation would be the ideal way to go.

[John Layton]

Renato...I, too, have Lynn Radeka's Masking Kit (4x5 version - wish it were 5x7) - and what has held me back...as well as a bit of fear of the learning curve...has been the lack of a decent pan masking film - but now it looks like we have this with Bergger's new "Print-Film."

I do agree that it would be nice to get this process started by attending a workshop, but I'll likely just dive in at some point...starting with purchasing some of the new Bergger film and experimenting with it.

[Drew Wiley]

Just try it? Just try playing a fiddle. Two minutes later - Nope, not for me. Just like any darkroom skill it takes awhile to master. If you see results by others which seem overdone or crude, it has nothing to do with masking per se, but only with their relative lack of experience or proper gear and supplies. Masking is not a single technique, but a whole tool box containing all kinds of options. Either get into it or don't; going halfway is guaranteed disappointment. The punch and register gear itself is an investment. Heiland can make you a 5x7 set. ; TMX100 is better for masking than Pan Masking film ever was if you have the right developer, but certain other films can be made to work too. As to which images are potentially helped in this manner, and which not, takes some experience. Expect to spend a lot of extra time cleaning film, carrier glass, and masking frame glass. Sure beats spotting afterwards.

[Michael R]

Oh Drew. Making a standard unsharp contrast mask (which is what OP wants if you read what he wrote) is not overly complicated, is not like learning to play the fiddle, and can be done without fancy equipment, especially since the negatives are pretty big. It takes some trial and error to get the right exposure, density etc. but is not the quantum mechanics you make it sound like. So yes, he should consider trying it. Of course it will require some work, but what is wrong with that?

[Mark Sampson]

Mr. Layton- is there a problem with your current prints- and do you think that this technique will solve that problem (whatever it might be)?
I ask this question in all honesty- because after 40+ years in the trade and craft, and decades in the lab, I've only heard reference to unsharp masking. I've never seen it done, never tried it, and am ignorant of the benefits. Of course my own KISS approach is about to be tested by the new darkroom that I'm just finishing, but still, "inquiring minds want to know".

[John Layton]

No real problem with my current prints...just wondering if I could push just a tad more feeling of sharpness out of my 40x60's without compromising overall character. Still on the fence...but if I do "just try" it...I will dive deep, and be thorough...as always!:)

[Drew Wiley]

The answer is yes. Sharpening is easily achieved with a basic contrast mask; but fine tuning it takes some skill and understanding of how light gets scattered from an edge based upon several variables : the kind of diffusion sheet involved, the angle of incidence from your point light source (related to focal length and aperture of the enlarger lens above the masking frame), specific films, and dev, accuracy of your punch & register system etc. Once it becomes too obvious in the print, it's overdone. But at this point you haven't communicated what kind of film & dev is involved with the originals, so it's hard to be more specific. Generic contrast masking is easy in principle. But there are all kinds of ways to significantly improve the effect.

[John Layton]

FP4/Pyrocat HD (in glycol), 1:1:100.

[Drew Wiley]

What I personally do with pyro-stained originals is to generate the contrast mask using blue light to make it inversely proportional to the yellowish-brown or greenish-brown pyro stain itself. Ortho film will obviously work, since it's mainly blue sensitive anyway. But I'd try to keep things simple, and just use FP4 for the mask too. It's an excellent film for masking. But don't develop the mask itself in pyro or you might get excess cumulative edge fog. It's better to have something non-staining for the mask itself. I use very dilute HC-110 with a pinch of benzotriazole to act as a toe and fog cutter. I can provide the specific formula later if there is interest. The idea is to get a very low contrast straight line mask, aiming for a DMax of only about .30 above fbf, at least at the start of the learning curve. What you're really doing is shadow masking all the way up into the highlights, more and more gently, then actually printing to a harder grade to accentuate micro-contrast, and optionally edge effect too. A happy result would be more subtle sparkle and detail. One can experiment with manual lightbox registration for earlier stages of the learning curve; but reliable results without going insane really need investment in dedicated gear. But the FP4 originals you already have should be excellent candidates for this kind of enhancement.

[Michael R]

“Micro contrast” and edge effects are the same thing.

John, in the context of black and white, the idea behind a basic unsharp mask is the following:

1. Since the mask is a thin positive, when printed as a sandwich with the original negative overall contrast is reduced

2. Since the mask is slightly blurry, when printed sandwiched with the original negative, the mask causes hard edges in the image to increase in contrast

So, overall contrast is reduced, but at sharp boundaries in the image (hard edges, details, textures) the original contrast is retained.

When printing the sandwich, in order to compensate for the reduction in overall contrast you need to print at a higher grade, which gets you back to where you began when printing the original negative by itself. However printing at a higher grade means sharp boundaries now have more contrast than they did when printing the original negative by itself. These higher contrast edges in the image are what enhances the subjective sense of sharpness in the print.

An illustrative example. Suppose you have a negative that prints at grade 2. You make an unsharp mask and sandwich it with the negative. Now when you print, overall contrast is too low, but contrast between tones at sharp edges is the same as in the original grade 2 print. In order to get overall contrast and tonality back to where you want it, you need to print at grade 3. In your final print, overall contrast is now back to where it started at grade 2, but edge contrast is at grade 3. This makes fine detail more punchy.

[Drew Wiley]

Not really in this case, Michael. It's an important distinction because visible edge effect can be differentially controlled by masking, just like with digitally controlled edge effect. That's why I hinted there's more to it than just basic contrast masking. When people don't have precise registration gear or know specific techniques, they tend to make masks too unsharp for sake of easier alignment; but then they lose control of precise edge effect. He's already enlarging the heck out of his 5x7's. Any further edge sharpening would need to be very carefully tuned or it would stand out like a sore thumb on that scale. A good illusionist never shows their hand. In this case, think about killing two birds with one stone - tonal gradation enhancement being one thing, visible edge effect another (not to be confused with the micro Mackie line topic, which is not even visible on a diffused UNSHARP mask itself). Lots to explain, but otherwise, pretty darn obvious in before and after prints (not web images). It's actually easier to do than to explain.

[Michael R]

Edge effects and micro contrast are the same phenomenon. In direct development, the are caused by diffusion. With unsharp masking, they are caused by the fuzziness of the mask. From a sensitometry perspective the result is the same. The difference is that with masking, more extreme effects can be created, all the way to halos around objects.

[Drew Wiley]

You're getting hung up on terminology and missing the point, Michael. Instead of micro-contrast (which is indeed a real effect somewhat controllable by masking), think of micro-gradation or internal tonality expansion as another cumulatively controllable outcome based on contrastier printing. We've had this conversation before, but in reference to why I prefer masking to traditional Zone System minus or compensating strategy, which tends to do the opposite, and flattens internal tonal contrast - my smashed peanut butter and jelly sandwich analogy. This is a contrast issue, whereas any mask halo effect is diffusion sheet and light source related. Hence they can be independently controlled.

Halo edge : controlled by size of point light source in relation to angle of incidence, as well as by degree of diffusion via frosted sheets.

Internal gradation : degree of paper contrast increase in relation to density of mask

[Michael R]

There is no micro-gradation vs micro contrast. It’s all edge contrast. You might be confusing it with Planck-scale contrast, but only your darkroom equipment can generate the energy required to probe those effects.

The smashed peanut butter and jelly was something else, and we probably agreed on that.

[Bill Burk]

John Layton,

You have the kit and the coaches... go for it.

I'm amused that Photosharp unsharp masking uses similar parameters, but bemused that everyone who uses it has ruined the look.

So I would go for it but touch lightly because you don't want to look like everyone else.

[John Layton]

Folks...I truly appreciate this discussion - thank you!

I likely will not get around to this any time soon...but seeing as I have the Radeka kit for 4x5, and I ultimately (might) want to mask more 5x7's than 4x5's - my thought at this point is that I'll just cut a "spare" 5x7 negative (one of multiple negs from a desired example) to fit ...making sure that this section contains an appropriate mix of relevant material - and work with this up to my desired size. This should give me enough to make a comparison to one or more existing 40x60 prints.

If the above experimentation (assuming I can either get it right, or find someone to help further until I do) then indicates that I would indeed find such masking beneficial - then I'll go ahead and either find or build a masking system which would either fit my Zone VI (series 2) enlarger, or perhaps a larger one to fit my DIY 8x10 horizontal enlarger - whichever makes sense in terms of available negative stage area, and how much of this might be required to accommodate the masking/registration gear. Make sense?

[Michael R]

Makes sense to me.

Lynn Radeka’s kit explains things quite well.

For a nice beginner’s demo, Greg Davis (first reply in this thread) made a video on his Naked Photographer YouTube channel.

[Drew Wiley]

You still don't get it, Michael. But that's OK for now. This thread is about how to get to first base first.

[Bill Burk]

I think Lynn Radeka's kit looks great! High precision machined carriers make the work easier and more repeatable. Certainly the instructions that come with the set
But I think a couple registration pins and a matching punch would be enough for a proof of concept.

[Michael R]

You still don't get it, Michael. But that's OK for now. This thread is about how to get to first base first.

In fact I exactly get it. You’re just trying make it sound much more complex than it actually is by using a lot of synonyms. But that’s ok for now. :)

Bill, I have used Lynn Radeka’s system and it is very good. The part I don’t love is taping things together, but some people prefer that. Masking systems like Radeka, Inglis etc. are more complex than just a punch and pins mostly because they are intended to support a full range of masks in addition to the standard unsharp CRM. For example, in some cases rather than just printing a sandwich, you need to print negatives and masks separately, which means reloading the carrier, which means you need to accurately register not only the film, but the carrier seating in the negative stage of the enlarger.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - I have more than two entire machinist's cabinets full of dedicated punch and register gear, with not a single duplicate piece - masking capacity for three very distinct varieties of color printing, plus black and white work, multiple enlargers, and kinds of equipment you've never even seen or heard of, which I am highly proficient using. Yes, explain what you do know. But please don't contradict me, because you're simply out of your league. I've been doing this for a long time. You're not doing anyone a favor that way.

As far as investing in gear, it's getting hard to find matched sets of the serious older Condit or Durst equipment. I don't know Heiland's price structure. One does NOT need a registered carrier for the kind of application under question. But if serious long-term use is in mind, and an 8x10 enlarger somewhere on the horizon, that just keeps going down the rabbit hole to the possibility of an 8X10 camera too. Might as well order up a punch and matching mask exposure frame with a 3-hole linear pattern for the long side of the film : two holes for the 10" side, plus an intermediate fixed punch position for 7 inch film.

Otherwise, if a 4x5 punch is used, and punches on the LONG side of the film, it can also potentially be adapted for 5x7 film on the short side. But the greater the distance, the better the accuracy, provided everything involved (including the tape) is dimensionally stable polyester or mylar based rather than acetate.

[Michael R]

Yes, yes, Drew. We know you have a warehouse full of Area 51 photo gear and a dedicated darkroom, cleanroom and laboratory for each individual negative.

[Drew Wiley]

Be careful not to cross the border, Michael. I had Loyalist ancestors chased up there during the Revolutionary War, and they're still not welcomed back until they apologize. Keep acting this way and you're going to have to bring along a whole stack of beaver pelts and a polar bear hide too. We still have the ancestral flintlock and powder horn, and it probably still works. It was last fired as recently as 1915, so the powder might still be dry !

[Michael R]

I once saw a beaver. But it might have been an otter, or a bilge rat. It was in Vermont though.

[John Layton]

Most likely a beaver...but possibly an otter. Definitely not a bilge rat though, because, well, here in Vermont (just as in California apparently) we do like to keep our powder dry! :cool:

[Bill Burk]

I can only say I used register punches that would allow me to place a white or black spot of 1/1000 inch anywhere I wanted on a 20 1/2 x 25 1/2 inch sheet of film. It was nifty but all that's left is a roof prism and a few empty cartons of film that I use for flat files.

[Michael R]

Most likely a beaver...but possibly an otter. Definitely not a bilge rat though, because, well, here in Vermont (just as in California apparently) we do like to keep our powder dry! :cool:

I should have noticed your location. :) I used to spend quite a lot of time in Vermont. I’ve never been to Newbury but I used to sometimes stay in Warren, so not too far. I miss it.

[Drew Wiley]

Beaver fur trappers were through much of the US before either Lewis and Clark or Fremont, and into a lot of Canada before McKenzie. We still have beaver and beaver dams in the Sierras, sea otters on the coast (once the most valuable fur in the world, but hunted nearly to extinction due to that), river otters in certain lakes and streams (I saw a few near here not long ago). What look like big rats around water are either muskrats or nutria. Nutria are a big problem because they burrow into our river levees and potentially make them fail. Ironically, the local wildlife official in charge of trapping and killing the nutria has one as a pet. In the South, they're eaten. None of the above critters dig holes measured in the thousandths; but all film register punches must be.

[Renato Tonelli]

My video and Radeka's book follow the exact same instructions. It's easy to do, and only takes a little bit of effort with trial and error.

Video?!? Is it available online/dvd? I am very interested.

[Michael Kadillak]

Why go down a rabbit hole if you don't need to John. At this stage of the proceedings the last thing you need is unnecessary "dilution". Expose and process your film optimally and you do not need to deploy any masking for B&W work. If you have a career defining image that is suffering from a stumble during execution and from which masking and the investment in materials, time and working your way up the learning curve is legitimately justified that is one thing (as some prior generation masters have required). I suspect that is simply not the case in your situation. I would focus on ensuring you are extracting the best possible results from the materials you use and your process as is possible and the good news is all you need are the eyes you already have any the experience that has gotten you to this point. Just my $0.02.

[Michael R]

Video?!? Is it available online/dvd? I am very interested.

YouTube: Naked Photographer is Greg Davis's channel. He's done videos on many topics. The unsharp masking demo is in three parts and I would recommend it to anyone starting to look into masking. It's a good visual aid and overview with a step by step example. In my opinion seeing rather than just reading can be especially helpful for learning about masking.

[Michael R]

I don't entirely agree. It isn't dilution, nor is it redundant. It also doesn't need to be a deep rabbit hole. It's an additional tool which one might want to use on occasion. No amount of optimal exposure/processing of film automatically leads to great prints. Sometimes they are relatively easy, other times they are more laborious or complicated, and occasionally having a few extra tricks in the bag comes in handy.

Here we have specific case in which an unsharp mask might help John get to the desired result. It could potentially be worth the effort.


Why go down a rabbit hole if you don't need to John. At this stage of the proceedings the last thing you need is unnecessary "dilution". Expose and process your film optimally and you do not need to deploy any masking for B&W work. If you have a career defining image that is suffering from a stumble during execution and from which masking and the investment in materials, time and working your way up the learning curve is legitimately justified that is one thing (as some prior generation masters have required). I suspect that is simply not the case in your situation. I would focus on ensuring you are extracting the best possible results from the materials you use and your process as is possible and the good news is all you need are the eyes you already have any the experience that has gotten you to this point. Just my $0.02.

[John Layton]

Both Michaels - I hear you equally.

Michael K. - Indeed...I've spent over half a century with basically the same materials and principles, extracting my own "best possible results," and see nothing generally which would now cause me to change this in any drastic manner. I do feel that I can continue to move forward...meaningfully - with what I'm doing/using now.

Michael R. - Yes...there are a few specifics about a small number of my prints which I feel may be appropriately addressed by unsharp and contrast masking, but more in the context of curiosity - as I'm generally satisfied with current results.

...but a deep thanks to you both, to Drew, and to all of you for being so helpful and supportive!

[Drew Wiley]

Masking can be used as a remedial tool, and in certain kinds of color printing it was almost mandatory for both hue and contrast correction. But it's main application is not remedial. You can have an "ideal" neg that still benefits from this. In black and white work it can improve the print in manners other kinds of workflow simply can't . A good print might become a great one, meaning an enlargement with all the subtle tonality reminiscent of a contact print. About 5% of my own b&w negs get masked. It's especially helpful for bringing out extreme texture and sparkle.

[Renato Tonelli]

YouTube: Naked Photographer is Greg Davis's channel. He's done videos on many topics. The unsharp masking demo is in three parts and I would recommend it to anyone starting to look into masking. It's a good visual aid and overview with a step by step example. In my opinion seeing rather than just reading can be especially helpful for learning about masking.

Thanks Michael.

[Hugo Zhang]

For someone who doesn't use an enlarger and contact print only, does this unsharp masking technique worth the time and trouble to learn? Most of my negs are 8x10 sizes.

[Michael R]

For someone who doesn't use an enlarger and contact print only, does this unsharp masking technique worth the time and trouble to learn? Most of my negs are 8x10 sizes.

The general principles can apply to any format. Whether or not it is worth trying really depends on whether or not you think any of the types of masks would be of use in making your prints.

[Hugo Zhang]

Thank you Michael and I will read more about this technique.

[LabRat]

For someone who doesn't use an enlarger and contact print only, does this unsharp masking technique worth the time and trouble to learn? Most of my negs are 8x10 sizes.

If you need it...

Steve K

[Jim Noel]

Iuse ortho/lith film to make masks. Not difficult, but it takes practice to get to the point of them not being difficult.

[neil poulsen]

Much of John Sexton's 2nd workshop, Fine Tuning the Expressive Black and White print, is about masking techniques, both for the negative and the print. It took me a while, but after the workshop, I finally found a punch for 4x5 (and 5x7) and a nice setup for 8x10 negatives.

But somehow, I need to find a way to set up a negative carrier with pins that align "perfectly" with the holes in a punched negative. Any suggestions? Is there a resource out there that can do this for an Omega D5 negative carrier . . .

And, as soon as I ask, I'm wondering about S.K. Grimes?

[Michael R]

Even with pin registration, you don’t necessarily need pins in the enlarger negative carrier. Align the negative and masking film on pins to make the mask exposure. Then when the mask is done, align it with the negative on pins and tape the negative-mask sandwich together. Then that goes in the enlarger carrier (no pins required).

If you’re interested in pin registration along with enlarger carrier registration, while it isn’t all that difficult to DIY, Lynn Radeka’s masking/carrier systems might be an option for you. They fit into most enlargers, are quite straight forward to use, and allow for a wide variety of mask types. Radeka does a lot of masking and in designing his system he solicited feedback from John and others. It works well. The system uses large pins (holes are punched in scrap film strips using a standard hole punch and these are taped to the negative and mask(s)) rather than small pins with holes punched in the negative.

If you’ve already spent money on other stuff, this might not be the best option, in which case DIY might be the way to go.

Of course you can also do masking without pin registration.


Much of John Sexton's 2nd workshop, Fine Tuning the Expressive Black and White print, is about masking techniques, both for the negative and the print. It took me a while, but after the workshop, I finally found a punch for 4x5 (and 5x7) and a nice setup for 8x10 negatives.

But somehow, I need to find a way to set up a negative carrier with pins that align "perfectly" with the holes in a punched negative. Any suggestions? Is there a resource out there that can do this for an Omega D5 negative carrier . . .

And, as soon as I ask, I'm wondering about S.K. Grimes?

[Hugo Zhang]

A simple question to those who have used this technique: How this masking/carrier system, let's say 8x10, be used with an 8x10 contact frame, not an 8x10 enlarger? My understanding is the pins make the masking positive and the negative prefectly lined-up and one can't just put the masking sheet on top the negative and then on the photopaper. Is that correct?

[Michael R]

A simple question to those who have used this technique: How this masking/carrier system, let's say 8x10, be used with an 8x10 contact frame, not an 8x10 enlarger? My understanding is the pins make the masking positive and the negative prefectly lined-up and one can't just put the masking sheet on top the negative and then on the photopaper. Is that correct?

You need a way to keep the negative and mask film in alignment when making the mask and when printing the negative/mask combination. This can be done without pins but it is often easier with pins. On the other hand, the larger the format, the easier it is to align things without necessarily requiring pins. This can work ok with unsharp masks.

If you want to use pin registration with 8x10 contact prints, generally there are two approaches:

1. Modify your contact printer with pins

2. Make a separate contact printer with pins for making the masks. You will also need a separate flat surface such as a piece of glass or plastic with pins in the same locations as your mask contact printer. Call this an “alignment jig”. The way this would work is as follows:

Step 1: Punch negative
Step 2: Punch masking film
Step 3: Place them both on the pins in your mask-making contact printer/frame
Step 4 (once you have your processed mask): Place the mask and negative on the pins on the alignment jig and tape them together. The registered negative-mask sandwich can now be removed from the jig and printed in a regular contact printing frame or enlarger negative carrier.

Michael

[Drew Wiley]

If contact printing 8x10, I simply use the same masking registration frame as I used for making the mask in the first place. The only difference is that's there's a piece of paper in it, along with the original neg and its mask, all placed on the same set of pins.

The smaller the neg, the more difficult it is to register without proper punch and pin gear. As far as Eliot Porter goes, he was trained as a machinist during the War, so at first made his own registration gear. It was later that he purchased a better system from Condit. There is simply no way dye transfer printing can be done without some kind of precise registration system workflow; he had that all along, in one form or another. That process often involves a dozen or more sheets of film - various masks and separation negatives - that all need to be precisely aligned, plus the aligned and often enlarged dyed matrices afterwards, requiring its own dedicated punch and peg system.

Kodak had their own very basic Eastman punch and register system for 8x10 DT contact prints; and then later, their Pan Matrix film was pre-punched in two sizes for sake of matching transfer boards. Amateurs sometimes used ordinary 3-hole paper punches; but those tended to be far better made than the cheapo office supply versions of today. And others made use of pre-press registration gear, just like many carbon printers today.