Burning - Any Tips?

[Scott --]

Hi, all -

Ok, I'm trying to print this negative:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_hay00.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/hay00.jpg)

Guessed at the reciprocity data; guessed wrong. Should've decreased my developing, but the scene really didn't seem that contrasty at the time... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I like the shot, but have that insane bright area. I'm trying to burn it in a bit to bring the contrast down to earth a bit, but - man - it seems like total guesswork. I've gotten close a couple times, but either the burn area is too dark, or the whole image darkens 'cause I was trying to feather it in too much...

Ok, so what's the trick here? I'm using a flashlight with a cover that has a little pinhole in it to give me a controlled spot. That right? Is there any way to take some of the guesswork outta this?

Thanks for any help.
Scott

[Andrew O'Neill]

Why don't you try flashing that area of the print before you lay down your main exposure?

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Assuming you are using Variable Contrast paper, why don't you do the burning with a soft filter like 0. Make an appropriate burning card with a hole in it of a size that will allow you to hold it halfway between the lens and the paper without being too large or too small. Tip: view the area to be burned on the card itself. With a 0 filter, you can afford to get a little sloppy near the adjacent dark areas as the 0 filter will result in little if any increase exposure to the blue sensitive (dark printer) layer of the paper.

If your negative is super contrasty, you might consider making an unsharp mask for it. This will tame it down a bit and help restore some of the shadow detail.

[Jim Jones]

I use a small flashlight with masking tape over the lens to reduce and diffuse the light to a managable degree. This provides a very soft-edged illuminated area.

[Sandeha]

Burning in a couple of leaky edges and corners I've used an A4 piece of black card over the 8x10 print ... if the exposure was 60 secs, say, then an extra 15 or 30 secs might do the corner. Trial and error, but feathering was a gentle continuous movement of maybe 1" backwards and forwards.

[Brian Ellis]

I used to use two cards of about 8x10 size, maybe larger if you're making a larger print. Cut a hole in one of the cards around the center, leave the other with no hole. I kept maybe five or six cards around with holes of different sizes and placements, one would almost always work since the size of the area the hole covers on a print can be changed by raising or lowering the card. I used mat board that was white on one side and black on the other, with the white side facing up. Put the no hole card under the one with the hole. Move the card up, down, and sideways to get the hole roughly over the area you're trying to burn. Just make sure that as you're moving the card around light doesn't spill over an edge of the card onto the print. Once you have the hole properly positioned then slide the bottom card out of the way of the hole far enough so that the enlarger light shines through and keep the card moving randomly throughout the burn while you count the seconds in your head or with a timer.

As for the time of the burn, think in terms of percentages of the main exposure, not in absolute numbers. That way you'll get a feel for the correct time from one print to another despite the fact that your base exposure times will vary. If you want to save on guess-work and paper, you could use the method John Sexton uses, which involves tearing a sheet of printing paper up into maybe four parts, number them 1 -4 on the back, then put each over the area you're trying to burn and expose them for different times, develop all four, see which looks best. I didn't use that method very much myself, it was kind of a pain and with experience I could usually get the burn time accurate on the first or second try but you might find it useful to save on paper as you gain experience.

[Greg Lockrey]

I don't know if anyone still does this anymore but did you try to "bleach" the overexposed negative?

[John Berry]

How about making a contrast mask? That way you might be able to save some detail in the dark portions of the rocks in the bright area.

[cowanw]

or dodge parts of the dark area
Regards
Bill

[cowanw]

Or if you are useing multigrade, Print first with a softer filter to tame the highlights and burn the darks with a #5.
Regards
Bil

[Chuck Pere]

I assume you're trying to spot flash the area with your small flashlight. Ideally you would flash enough to be just under the paper threshold and then burn in the area with a low contrast filter. For small out of the way hot spots you can get away with flashing the area to a gray tone but probably not here. Or try to flash the whole sheet of paper instead of a spot area. This will hurt highlights some but may still be a good compromise. With your flashlight you can only control exposure but changing the time or distance from the paper. Make sure you keep the distance the same when trying different times or you will get all mixed up. Another method to flash is to cut a mask from a sheet of old paper so that only the area to be flashed is exposed. Move the mask slightly during the flash exposure. You can make the mask by putting the paper in the easel and drawing an outline for cutting. This saves the highlights outside the flashed area and works better than the flashlight for larger areas.

[Scott --]

Thanks, everyone. I have a lot to learn. :rolleyes:

FWIW, here's the results of the printing, before and after:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_hay00.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/hay00.jpg) http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_proof.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/proof.jpg)

[Scott Whitford]

I would use a local post-flash. I normally just use the enlarger with the neg removed instead of a flashlight.

Use test strips to determine the amount of exposure required to raise the threshold of the paper to just under the first detectable light gray (be sure to dry down the test strip in a microwave before you choose the exposure) just as though you were going to pre-flash the paper.

Then make the basic exposure with any required burning/dodging (except don't worry about the blasted highlights in the upper left for now).

Leave the paper in the easel and remove the negative from the carrier. Then make the post-flash at the exposure determined above. Be sure to stop down the lens enough to give yourself at least several seconds during the post-flash. During the post-flash, dodge the areas of the paper that don't need the treatment (going by memory of the projected image on the paper). You don't need to be terribly precise in the dodging...with practice you can assure that you've flashed the area that needs it and feather to the rest of the print so that the local flash is not noticeable.

This will bring out some detail in the blocked-up area and maintain the sparkle in the highlights of the rest of the print. It will also avoid burning down the shadow areas in the blocked up area as seen in your last posted example.

Scott

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks, everyone. I have a lot to learn. :rolleyes:

FWIW, here's the results of the printing, before and after:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_hay00.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/hay00.jpg) http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_proof.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/proof.jpg)

Don't take all the life out of the image by burning or flashing the highlights down so much. They should be textured with very small areas of pure paper white.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks, everyone. I have a lot to learn. :rolleyes:

FWIW, here's the results of the printing, before and after:
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_hay00.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/hay00.jpg) http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/th_proof.jpg (http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j185/bliorg/proof.jpg)

I think you overdid it. What used to look like water now looks like mud. While some burning may have been in order I think you could cut your time in half, maybe even more. Also, as long as you're burning I'd burn that bright white rock in the foreground down a little. You don't need to make it black, just tone it down to a light gray so that it isn't the first thing you notice when you look at the print. But aesthetics aside (and others may disagree with my suggestions), you did a great job of burning.

[domenico Foschi]

All of the suggestions mentioned above are good, but many times I see that a combination of them is what works best.
I would consider also pre bleaching the image after exposing the paper before developing it.
This is a trial and error procedure, that can lead to good results.
The image you displayed doesnt seems overly difficult, I am sure that if you flash the paper locally just a bit, then lightly dodge the darker tones and burn the highlights you can achieve good results.

[Paul Metcalf]

I always struggle with this sort of thing not being an art school graduate so I don't really know what the objective is for some, but for me I always want to preserve the direction of light, even if it's harsh (harsh light really does exist!). Your second (burned) image no longer shows that direction in the lower 2/3rd's of the image (to my eyes anyhow), but there's still the light area in the upper left that looks kind of like flare. If I was seeking a final print with this (FWIW) I'd leave the lower 2/3rd's alone and try to make the upper left spot look less like flare and more like the bright light source it is and the reason the water is lit up like it is. And while it does draw the eye, I like the bright rock, wet rocks are really bright when reflecting light.

[bob carnie]

Ditto what Brian and Kirk said, you actually can see your burn now in the new print, back off until its seamless.
A slight 0 flash in this area as Robert said would probably do the trick with a bit of a burn using a higher filter to keep a decent contrast without turning the area muddy.

[Scott --]

Wow, tough crowd... :D

Ok, FWIW, this is graded paper, so (I don't think) contrast filters'd help me. Try to remember: I am completely new to this. Lots of what you guys are saying is going over my head. For instance - how do you "flash" paper?

Maybe I need to pick up a book now. Suggestions?

Thanks,
Scott

[Don Wallace]

I really like what Paul had to say about preserving the direction of the light. I have never really thought about a print that way before, but it has really got me thinking. I guess I (and maybe others) have always thought of a print in two-dimensions. Of course it IS, physically, but it is also the result of light, and light does have direction, even if it is a kind of full, all-embracing light.

Thanks, Paul. I am just getting back to serious printing after a long absence, and this is going to make me think more about dodging and burning with regard to the implied space inside the print, in three dimensions.

[John Berry]

Wow, tough crowd... :D

Ok, FWIW, this is graded paper, so (I don't think) contrast filters'd help me. Try to remember: I am completely new to this. Lots of what you guys are saying is going over my head. For instance - how do you "flash" paper?

Maybe I need to pick up a book now. Suggestions?

Thanks,
Scott Don't worry about the perceived steep learning curve being pushed at you. I've never seen this crowd push anyone without potential. The composition of your shot showed me someone who has the ability to see. That is one large hurdle to get over if you want your star to shine. Looks like your doing fine there.
John
P.s.: I agree, too much burnin.