would flashing help me in this situation?

[Chester McCheeserton]

Back in the darkroom after a long break. The negative is 35mm fuji acros. It was weird light the day of the picture, and the sky is overexposed versus the ground.

In photoshop, I have no problem getting the sky how I want it to look, by making a curve, dragging the highlight point down and the 3/4 mid down and then making a mask right along the horizon line.

At the enlarger, however it's a different story, I cut a shape of cardboard to try and match the horizon and am burning in with the 00 filter, but I have to open the aperture up all the way to 2.8 and even so I simply cannnot get the sky as dark and perfect looking as I can digitally. This was an 11x14 print on ilford warmtone but I was hoping to print is 20x24 once I'd figured out the negative. Even opening the lens up all the way I'm having to burn like 25 seconds with the 00 and my base exposure at between F4 and 5.6 is 30 seconds.

I'm also printing with a fairly large white border. Would flashing/adding pre-exposure help me get the sky closer to my digital version? I can handle losing a little contrast up there, but don't want to lose contrast in the ground or not be able to have my white print borders. (I don't have actual image of the physical print as it's drying at the lab, but have approximated my struggle here on the scan) The band of overexposure on the top left edge is also frustrating, it seems to show up more on the analog print then the digital.

227620
227621
227622

[Ben Calwell]

Chester, in my opinion, your darkroom print looks fine. But I know how niggling things like that can drive one crazy.

[xkaes]

I've had skies that were almost completely clear, but with a mask cut to the shape of the skyline (and movement during burning in) I was able to create a magnificent sky with clouds -- using a very long burn-in time and a #5 VC filter.

I don't recall the exact time, but the base exposure was probably 20 seconds, and the sky was probably 2 MINUTES.

You might be on the right track. Try it with a smaller print first, like a 5x7.

[jim_jm]

It looks like you've got detail in the clouds, the challenge here is bumping up the contrast enough to add some drama.
Selective burning at 00 or 0 will take awhile to add any density to the darker areas of the clouds, so try a burn of the sky using your mask at grade 1 or 2. Keep the mask moving slightly to avoid any impact on your foreground.
If your base exposure was 30 sec @ 5.6, try burning the sky only for an additional 5 or 10 sec @ 5.6 at grade 1 or 2. If the lightest areas of the clouds are still too close to paper white, then try burning the sky at 00, which should add some density there. Don't be afraid to go a little overboard to see how far you can push it before you start seeing halos or other artifacts, then just pull it back a bit.
There's lots of methods you can try, and I'm sure you'll get other suggestions, but this is what I would try first. If you test on smaller prints first (same paper type) you should be able to work out your ratios for the additional exposures.

This print below took more than a few attempts to get the look of the sky right, but the challenge was similar to yours.

227631

[Chester McCheeserton]

Thanks a lot, maybe I jumped the gun on dipping down to the 00. I will try with a higher filter...I've never been confident with flashing, only tried it a few times when I was working for other printers...

[Andrew O'Neill]

For tricky burning or dodging situations, I like to use the dye/dodge technique, with frosted mylar and a soft pencil or watered down acrylic paint.

[Pieter]

I woild definitely try flashing. Burning with the 5 filter wil make the grain much more apparent, I often make 3-stop burns with the 00 filter.

[Chuck Pere]

You could use your burn cardboard to just flash the sky area. You will still need to burn the area after flashing. Give it a try.

[Michael R]

You could use your burn cardboard to just flash the sky area. You will still need to burn the area after flashing. Give it a try.

This would be the best way - localized (to some extent) flashing. Even using a moving burning card during the flash exposure (as if you were broadly burning in the sky area with a graduated burn) would be better than overall flashing. You don’t want to flash more of the image than you need to as flashing reduces contrast. If done carefully it can work well.

It should be noted flashing will not be much different than burning at minimum contrast. However still worth trying.

[Willie]

Just be very careful.

You start with flashing.

Then you might advance to Streaking.

Next thing you know you are arrested Streaking across the 40 yard line at the SuperBowl... ;-)

[xkaes]

Another approach would be to make your perfect print of the sky -- JUST the sky -- using whatever time and contrast (paper/filter) works for you. Assuming you can do that, just merge the two.

[Doremus Scudder]

Flashing and burning with a #00 filter have essentially the same effect; to add density but not detail. If you need detail, you need to burn with high-contrast filtration.

It may be that the best solution is a combination of both. The tricky part, of course is dealing with edges and avoiding halos.

xkaes' suggestion to make your perfect print of just the sky is a good one. It may work out that a backward approach is best for this particular print; base everything on the sky and then dodge/burn the foreground.

Best,

Doremus

[Chester McCheeserton]

Flashing and burning with a #00 filter have essentially the same effect; to add density but not detail. If you need detail, you need to burn with high-contrast filtration.

It may be that the best solution is a combination of both. The tricky part, of course is dealing with edges and avoiding halos.

xkaes' suggestion to make your perfect print of just the sky is a good one. It may work out that a backward approach is best for this particular print; base everything on the sky and then dodge/burn the foreground.

Best,

Doremus

Thank you Everyone for the suggestions – I will give this another shot when I get back in the darkroom this week. Forgot that that analog enlarging takes a minute to get back into the flow!

Here's hoping that it's all worth it.

I'll try to post an update on whether I was able to get an improved result.

[xkaes]

Having worked with similar photos, I suspect you can get what you want without any flashing. You might even discover that you can make it much better than you expected.

[Michael R]

It’s worth noting also that Acros has much higher highlight contrast and densities than say TMX or Delta100. This is one of those double-edged swords. It can make it harder to bring bright highlights in on a print, but on the other hand they can stand a lot more compression without becoming too flat or losing detail.

[Chester McCheeserton]

good point...I initially shot a bunch of it planning to scan...it def shows a huge difference compared to Tri-x in terms of less shadow + Highlight detail, punchier contrast....at least in the analog contact sheets. The detail is there but hidden away.
I find enlarging 11x14 and 20x24 I'm mainly using filter 1 and 1.5 and that's with what I thought was very gentle development using HC-110 diluted 1 to 12 or 1 to 15 from the stock, which I think is closest to Dilution H.

On the flip side the grain is super tight on a well exposed neg at 20x24 and sometimes almost hard to see at 11x14.

[Michael R]

Indeed it’s a wonderful film. Wish they still made it in sheets.


good point...I initially shot a bunch of it planning to scan...it def shows a huge difference compared to Tri-x in terms of less shadow + Highlight detail, punchier contrast....at least in the analog contact sheets. The detail is there but hidden away.
I find enlarging 11x14 and 20x24 I'm mainly using filter 1 and 1.5 and that's with what I thought was very gentle development using HC-110 diluted 1 to 12 or 1 to 15 from the stock, which I think is closest to Dilution H.

On the flip side the grain is super tight on a well exposed neg at 20x24 and sometimes almost hard to see at 11x14.

[otto.f]

Chester, in my opinion, your darkroom print looks fine. But I know how niggling things like that can drive one crazy.

Totally agree. Total detail in the sky is only possible when placed in Zone V which is mostly unnatural. The detail is in the crushed metal which is in fact the subject. You could vignet the whole image a bit. But locally, the tonal scale of the wet print is the best of all versions.

[Jim Noel]

I would begin with flashing since if done properly it will have essentially no effect on the shadow and mid densities.

[Chester McCheeserton]

Thanks again everyone. I did end pre- flashing and burning with the 1.5 filter and while it still isn't as perfect in terms of the masking of the burning as I'd like, it is way better. I will try and post some pictures of the actual prints once I've flattened them in a few days. I think I combined suggestions from several of you. The grain in the sky isn't quite as beautiful as a drum scan when you are burning for 85 seconds wide open But it is a handmade object that is inside the paper now, so I'm happy.

[Chester McCheeserton]

Not really a good comparison since my initial images posted were approximations of my print from a scan but here are bad phone pictures of my final 11x14 and 20x24 print. Appreciate all the collective Hive mind help.

227879
227880

FT: one 11x14 flattened and signed print of the above for an unopened and unexpired box of 11x14 ilford warmtone glossy paper and a quart of unopened Heico permawash.