Advice needed for printing blown highlights

[jose angel]

Hi all,

I discarded this 4x5" shot time ago because the blown highlights (on the calla lily flowers). Now I have found a *perfect* place to saddle an image this kind, so I`m trying to get the most of it... too difficult.
(Actually the real print looks much better than here, below it`s just a dirt fast scan)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VS4ZrBICb1E/UIm5a1YnHZI/AAAAAAAAAKA/ZGEejwN5Lps/s1600/workprint.jpg

I`ve tried it by several ways, different contrast levels (lower in the flower area, higher to have rich blacks at the door&fence, selective burning, with no sucess. The eyes go directly to the lack of texture in the blown flowers (at least mine!).

My best working print is as above; contrast #3 on Ilford MG (FB glossy) and with a little more exposure for bottom half. The flowers show just a tiny bit of detail/texture in certain areas, but still clearly blown... what could I do?

Maybe to flash the paper a bit in the lower area? To brush the negative with a bino loupe (10X) using Farmer`s reducer?

To move on... ?

What do you think? Ideas are welcomed. Thanks.

[ROL]

You can certainly try flashing the paper, or split printing with the lilies in mind. My own feeling is that the lilies don't bother me as much as the blown sky, and lawn patches. I also think that there is not enough balancing contrast, but honestly, I don't quite comprehend why the image is important enough to print (though you certainly may). From the scan, I'm not seeing the large negative value of it. Perhaps you could elaborate, "saddle". I'm not even sure that contrast and lily resolution is the main issue. Have you looked at cropping the composition? Perhaps recomposing to the upper left.

[jose angel]

Thanks. I see you think I should forget it and move on... :) Well, I`d like to give a pic from this place to a person, but I only have a couple shots... not good ones, I know. I know this old lady will find a meaning on this pic (I hope so!).
If I crop the bottom half, maybe the "main" attraction is lost. The only attractive I see on it could be on the enjoyment of the extremely detailed textures and tonalities of the calla leaves, I think. I agree that the grass and sky area should be burned a bit for better balance.

[Paul Bujak]

I think the flowers are given too much emphasis (about 50% of the picture area). So I am not sure exactly what is the main subject. Perhaps, cropping out the lowest three flowers will restore better balance and give a sense of looking over a border of flowers into the space of lawn and the gate and wall beyond. Cropping out the sky and part of the wall on the right could remove distracting objects and a little burning in of the tree at the top could help frame the gate. I wouldn't worry too much about the blown-out lilies. You still get enough leaves to show the texture.

Just my low-value two cents worth.
Paul

[jeroldharter]

I would crop the lowest 3 flowers and crop the right side of the print to eliminate the blown lawn and sky areas. That gives some balance among flowers, door, tree. Then try flashing the foreground. Before doing that, I would increase the contrast but then burn the foreground flowers with your lowest contrast filtration to see what happens with the lillies before going to the trouble of flashing.

Depending on what happens with the print as a whole, you might find a good print but muddy lillies. In that case you could then bleach back the lillies.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know what you can do to add texture or detail to the blown out flowers in a darkroom if it isn't there in the negative. Flashing or burning will just make the flowers darker, neither technique will add texture or detail that isn't there in the negative. In Photoshop it would be possible to fix or disguise the problem fairly easily.

It sounds like the photograph will have sentimental value to the elderly lady. If so I'd guess the blown out highlights wouldn't bother her nearly as much as they do you. I'd just do the best you can do to make the overall print look as good as possible and not worry too much about the highlights in the flowers.

[Frank Petronio]

Darken the highlights only in curves, add noise, save as a snapshot, undo, paint with variable pressure from the snapshot state, don't over do it.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Make a carbon print! :-):)

[matthew blais]

Make a lith print... :)

[Jim Noel]

If you are going to stick with silver gelatin print - flash the paper, or make a contrast reducing mask.

[Richard Wasserman]

My advice is to stop listening to all this "advice". Make the best print you can—flash, burn, whatever—and give a copy to the woman. She will be delighted.

Did I just give advice? Don't listen to me I guess....

[sanking]

If the 4X5 original is a B&W negative then I am sure you have detail and texture in the highest values of the flowers. You could reduce the contrast of the negative with a reducer, but you need a little experience working with reducers as a mistake could ruin the negative. Working with purely analog methods making a highlight mask would be idea, but learning how to do this is no walk in the park. If it were me I scan the negative and make a digital print after corrections. Then again, if the highlights are really dense, you might not be able to pull the detail out of the highlights with a cheap scanner.

An alternative printing process is not a bad idea. You could reproduce the highlight detail with carbon transfer (maybe have Jim make one for you), or with a simpler process like vandyke.

Sandy

[jose angel]

I suspect there is anything inside the blown highlights, but I wonder if my V750 could extract anything from there... yes, it is TMY.

I have used Kodak`s Farmer Reducer several times (in my life), I know it`s a bit tricky. I fear about having a botched job. Not a big experience here.

BTW, Jim Fitgerald, that carbon prints are beautiful.

Ok. I`ll print it as good as I know, burning&dodging, nothing else. Flashing didn`t work, as the flowers look dull. I`ll also made a cropped print as mentioned (bottom -three flowers-, and left side -sky and highlighted grass area-). Certainly it looks much better balanced this way, and get rid of that problematic areas. Next week it must be finished.

Not so many opportunities to talk with other printers in person around here, so your comments are highly welcomed. I`m also taking this work as an exercise, I need to improve my skills.
I`ll be checking if there are more contributions. Thanks a lot.

[Bill_1856]

This would have been a piece of cake with Agfa Portriga -- sigh! I don't know you could do it with conventional printing, but it took about two minutes to "fix" it in PSE 11.82603

[Bill_1856]

At first look I thought the best thing to do with it was file 13. After "fixing" it, I think that you've got a Great Image there. I'd really like a platinum print!

[Richard Wasserman]

My other advice would be to print the image with a bit less contrast and darker before trying anything else. If that doesn't work then I would would try flashing the paper. If the flowers are muddy after flashing, it may simple mean that it was flashed for too long a time—this takes some testing and practice. Also when flashing I have found it necessary to bump up the contrast a bit, and shorten the exposure over a non-flashed print. I hope this helps.

[Lenny Eiger]

Here's yet one more approach.... take a little developer and put it in a jar in the microwave. (No, don't boil it, just warm it up just a little.) Put it in an extra tray. Take the print out of the developer and then dip the top corner in the warmer developer for just a few seconds. If you want to be even more careful, you can use qtips to apply it. It's an old pro's trick...

Lenny

[jose angel]

File 13... LOL. Bill, that`s what I`m looking for. Actually the print in the hand doesn`t look that bad. On the enlarger is difficult, I know.

At first I printed on #0 and #1, but the flower area got too flat. The beautiful textures on the leaves were lost. And yes, I have found that flashing is not that easy. I need to work on it... looking for flashing info I`ve found a dedicated device for paper flashing. I`m not buying it but if someone is interested, it`s here (http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/paperflasher.html). I see that the difficut thing is to get that very slight fogging level. I need more practice.

Lenny... I `ll try it next monday! (I don`t have a darkroom this weekend). Thanks for tip!

[Maris Rusis]

I'd burn in each flower using a burning card with a small hole in it. The big flowers nearest the bottom of the frame deserve the most work. There are only 33 flowers by my count so its not that big a job if you are chasing absolute perfection. Just hope your client doesn't love the picture enough to order a couple of dozen more prints to match the first one!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I wish you had a dupe negative. I'd make a carbon print for you!

[Jon Shiu]

Here's something to try for flashing. If you have an under the lens filter holder, the kind that swings away, you can just put a piece of thin white plexiglass on it and (leaving the negative in) flash for a fraction of the time of your regular exposure. I start with 1/20th of the regular exposure, but of course it would vary with your acrylic thickness and density and paper type etc. Also block the part you don't want flashed by holding a card between the lens and paper.

Jon

File 13... LOL. Bill, that`s what I`m looking for. Actually the print in the hand doesn`t look that bad. On the enlarger is difficult, I know.

At first I printed on #0 and #1, but the flower area got too flat. The beautiful textures on the leaves were lost. And yes, I have found that flashing is not that easy. I need to work on it... looking for flashing info I`ve found a dedicated device for paper flashing. I`m not buying it but if someone is interested, it`s here (http://www.rhdesigns.co.uk/darkroom/html/paperflasher.html). I see that the difficut thing is to get that very slight fogging level. I need more practice.

Lenny... I `ll try it next monday! (I don`t have a darkroom this weekend). Thanks for tip!

[tgtaylor]

Contrary to some of the posts above, I think that the composition is excellent and would be difficult to improve upon. The subject is clearly the structure in the background and the Lilly foreground communicates the artists affection or feeling for that structure. Cropping or otherwise diminishing that foreground would only serve to diminish it.

As far as printing, well as pointed out above if there is no detail or texture in the negative then there will be no detail or detail in the print regardless of how you printed it unless, of course, you interject (i.e., fake) it. The Lilly foreground is enclosed in a neat curve which should prove to be a simple matter to mask off allowing the background to be flashed or treated seperately.

If there is no detail in the important areas, then the best solution would be to simply re-shoot it under better light paying particular attention to the detail and texture desired – perhaps spraying water on the immediate foreground Lillie’s using an atomizer for an added visual effect.

The composition is certainly amenable to a multitude of alternative interpretations but the ones of which I am familiar with would require a denser negative obtained through extended development (or perhaps potassium dichromate).

Anyway, I think that you have a winner.

Thomas

[Charlie Strack]

1. You should be able to see by looking directly at the negative if there is detail in the highlights. If there is no detail, then there are no "tricks" that can bring it out. If there is detail, then there is hope.

2. If there is detail, then try different printing papers--papers have different shoulders & toes just like film, and a longer toe paper will likely bring out more detail. Try for a short exposure and long developing time?

3. If there is no detail, make a small print--4x5 or 5x7--and mount on an 8x10 board. The eye readily accepts loss of detail in a small area and readily objects to loss of detail in a large area.

Be sure to post your final results here--I'm sure we would all like to see how you work it out.

Charlie Strack

[Vaughn]

Just another country heard from...:)

I'd crop the top off until I was left with a square -- then just deal with the lillies. It becomes a much more intimate image that speaks (to me) of the place.