Unsharp Masks - When Not Worth the Effort

[Pere Casals]

Pere - I think what Drew is getting at is that you want to minimise the mask's impact on the original negative's highlights (hence the restrainer) but don't want to make the mask too dense either, because that will make the shadow values in the final print look rather unnatural. Essentially it boils down to: don't overdo the masking, otherwise it looks really fake/ obvious. Having BTDT, I'd agree with Drew. It doesn't need a lot of mask density to have a big impact on the final print. And quite often controlled flash/ fogging with diffusion can eliminate the need to make masks.

interneg, I only discuss the additional effect of the toe-cutter. As the USM mask is a soft interpositive, if a toe-cutter is added in the mask developer then we simply expose more the extreme highlights when we print the sandwich on paper.

Interneg, you are correct about what I was implying. Pere, it's interesting to hear about your Xtol tweak.

I had no Benzo

Time ago I asked Peter de Graaff about that x+r:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterd...n/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/page5

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional micotonality and highly nuanced acutace that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone. But yes, not everyone finds darkroom work relaxing. I do.

Based upon a previous discussions with fellow photographers on this specific topic I did some research and learned that masking is factually a "compromising" craft that sacrifices some part of the tonal range of the negative for an aesthetic improvement within other areas being represented. As a result I am not of the opinion that masking is technically better in any way it is utilized than the insitu complete negative that is executed with precision. This then leads directly into the grey area of what the photographer saw or wanted to convey in the print and in this regard there is no definitive conclusion that can be drawn and I am acknowledging that.

For me here is where the rubber meets the road. I feel I am probably not one standard deviation from the majority of other people that participate in this venue as I have for quite a long time. I readily admit that I am not a full time professional photographer as paying the bills and meeting my family and personal financial objectives mandates I maintain a day job outside of photography. That being said I dearly look forward to and am passionate about being able to extract as much joy out of this art form as possible. As a result I always come back to the term "efficiency". How can I maximize the time I have to photograph and produce prints that have the greatest total range and visual meaning for me and extract the greatest level of meaningful work in the time I have to allocate to LF/ULF photography? How does this translate to how I work and gaining this desired efficiency? It is really not that complicated. First run out of the box from my perspective is that each negative must be capable of being processed individually to its precise and delineated objective that was established at the instant it was exposed. That means an IF monocle and inspection capabilities that are aligned to that exacting objective which I accomplish with both tray development and gaseous burst development. Extreme N- and N+ negatives require Reduced Agitation Development (RAD) techniques using pyrocat individually processed in tubes or with my gas burst system that also afford individual negative inspection and RAD processing.

Many of the times I see very competent LF photographers processing large numbers of negatives in a single batch exposed under varied lighting conditions expecting to deploy the fallback option of variable contrast filters to arbitrate the variations of their negatives to prints they desire to produce. Yet when you look at the negatives on a light table the negative densities are all over the frigging place. Consistently over and under exposed and over and under processed from people that have been photographing for years. This is where I suspect the masking discussion starts to get legs. All I am saying is that if one were to take the time to process their negatives individually with precision, they would dramatically reduce the time they need to make quality prints.

Therefore I must conclude that: 1) some photographers are perfectly content with their own level of inefficiency and see no value in adjusting their process which is their choice, 2) some photographers actually enjoy the technical challenges of the various iterations of masking and 3) some photographers look forward to long periods of darkroom time. More power to them. I am just not one of them.

[Pere Casals]

As a result I am not of the opinion that masking is technically better in any way it is utilized than the insitu complete negative that is executed with precision.

One thing is true, if using masking to patch exposure/processing pitfalls then better to learn how to expose/process.


Of course we can solve the printing of some challenging scenes by accurately exposing and processing, but anyway acomodating the scene range to the paper range (depending on what we want) it may require a complex image manipulation in the printing.

_____________________________



Perhaps it could take a few clicks in Ps, but locally mainipulating the tonal response in a print can be can be a challenging situation.

This is a YMMV, there are no better or worse ways, a bullet proof negative may make sense and a complex manipulation in the printing also may make sense.

We may remember how John Sexton deals with that, just a particular way, he uses very diluted TMax RS with TMX to face even 15-stop contrast range scenes. He obtains a very flexible negative, and later he makes with the enlarger what a true master is able to do, with that he made Places Of Power. But there is nothing wrong in using toe/shoulder to solve most of the printing with film exposure/processing.

Anyway some manipulations should be made with masking... again, IMHO the Alan Ross way deserves a try by any wet printer.

[Jerry Bodine]

...Many of the times I see very competent LF photographers processing large numbers of negatives in a single batch exposed under varied lighting conditions expecting to deploy the fallback option of variable contrast filters to arbitrate the variations of their negatives to prints they desire to produce. Yet when you look at the negatives on a light table the negative densities are all over the frigging place. Consistently over and under exposed and over and under processed from people that have been photographing for years...

This sounds like the results obtained by photographers who've possibly succumbed to the roll film dilemma - excepting those who've chosen to learn and apply the zone system and use roll film cameras that offer interchangeable film backs (e.g., Hasselblads) which allow each back to be dedicated to a specific expansion or contraction.

Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional microtonality and highly nuanced acutance that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone. But yes, not everyone finds darkroom work relaxing. I do. If a masked print looks like it had been Photoshopped that's just an indicator of unrefined technique, and has nothing to do with the potential of such technique to do things eloquently instead.

Well said, Drew.

[Pere Casals]

Michael, what you term a bulletproof negative is just a starting point, and my idea of such a thing might or might not be a neg which prints as simply as possible, but one which bears the most potential. The primary purpose of a mask in this particular conversation is not something remedial, but for sake of bringing out exceptional microtonality and highly nuanced acutance that would be impossible using ordinary technique alone.

.... If a masked print looks like it had been Photosopped that's just an indicator of unrefined technique, and has nothing to do with the potential of such technique to do things eloquently instead.

+1

[Drew Wiley]

Michael. I still don't think you get the point. Masking is just a Swiss Army Knife in a kitchen drawer full of numerous other useful utensils. But there are certain things it does best. I really don't give a damn if it's popular or routine, or even allegedly adds quantifiable value to a print or not. It's not a headache, and is really rather easy and predictable with experience, at least at the basic level we're discussing here. I learned it for sake of color printing, where it's often mandatory for high quality results. So I already had the requisite experience and equipment, and it was a small step adapting that to b&w printing. Yes, some people get goofy with it just like any new toy, or in this day and age, some new digi app. But don't condemn the invention of trumpets and drums because of what a junior high marching band sounds like. I am a printmaker. And if certain tools or techniques facilitate an OPTIMAL result, that's what I'll do.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael. I still don't think you get the point. Masking is just a Swiss Army Knife in a kitchen drawer full of numerous other useful utensils. But there are certain things it does best. I really don't give a damn if it's popular or routine, or even allegedly adds quantifiable value to a print or not. It's not a headache, and is really rather easy and predictable with experience, at least at the basic level we're discussing here. I learned it for sake of color printing, where it's often mandatory for high quality results. So I already had the requisite experience and equipment, and it was a small step adapting that to b&w printing. Yes, some people get goofy with it just like any new toy, or in this day and age, some new digi app. But don't condemn the invention of trumpets and drums because of what a junior high marching band sounds like. I am a printmaker. And if certain tools or techniques facilitate an OPTIMAL result, that's what I'll do.

I get your point but let me add some perspective. This darkroom technique is like walking to you (hence your ability to refer to it as another tool in the tool box) but may not be for someone else just like the original person that made this post. I feel that we need to be cognizant of the need to not talk past less experienced individual participants here (ie the need to cast a wider net at times) and provide some balance perspective like a teacher. I am making my comments specifically targeting current and future forum photographers interested in refining their skills who may arrive at the belief that a natural progression for printing their challenging negatives is the investment in equipment and time for masking and its various iterations. Case in point. I am very hard pressed to believe that any photographer that produces a glowing full scale negative that prints effortlessly reverts to masking techniques to further enhance the result. If that is the case please correct me on this issue.

My ball toss to these individuals inquisitive about masking is nothing more than a potential less expensive initial iteration to carefully evaluate their negatives and how they are produced and ask themselves if they are the best they can possibly produce? Nothing more than a get back to basics reminder that I had to learn back I was heading down this road myself. We are all free to choose our individual path. Many times on this venue when i was trying to learn and grow I found that a polite reminder of an alternative can be a refreshing experience to stimulate one wrapping their head about where they choose to go with their art and craft.

[interneg]

I only discuss the additional effect of the toe-cutter. As the USM mask is a soft interpositive, if a toe-cutter is added in the mask developer then we simply expose more the extreme highlights when we print the sandwich on paper.

This is not correct, what the mask is doing is raising the density of the original negative's shadows, hopefully without affecting the highlights (which is the point of the restrainer when processing the mask). If you have made even a few contrast reduction masks you would discover that it's usually preferable to do anything necessary to prevent the mask interfering with the original negative's highlights.

I had no Benzo

Time ago I asked Peter de Graaff about that x+r:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterd...n/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterdegraaff/page5

Everything I have ever seen about this rather pointless mixture points towards a pH alteration of dilute Xtol having much the same effect. And it is well known that a less solvent, more alkaline developer will give less fog than one with high sulfite content. This is not really the same as modifying a developer to give the least possible fog for specific darkroom purposes. If it's what you have on hand, Rodinal plus a restrainer is probably a better place to start from than adding more sulfite. What Drew is trying to get is a highly contrast controllable, extremely low fog developer without (I assume) worrying too much about what the effective speed of the mask film is.

[Drew Wiley]

Contrast masking neg film, whether b&w or color neg, is like power steering on a car - very little has a significant effect, and is easy to overdo. Masking for color chrome positives is quite different.

[Drew Wiley]

Michael - nobody is stopping you from singing the praises of the Zone System or whatever. But this is a masking thread, and there are issues that masking addresses that the ZS or mere exp/contraction dev technique does not. Why not consider masking as the logical next step? Nobody is forcing anyone else to adopt this. But if one does decide to venture down this path, it's presupposes excellent exposure skills and highly predictable process control, and is therefore not a substitute for that at all, but more like graduating from high school and figuring out what University best suits your plans. It's not a BandAid. The proof is in the pudding itself.