Unsharp Masks - When Not Worth the Effort

[Drew Wiley]

Most people I know that are really good at digi color printing seem to spend as much or even more time trying to get things right than they once did in the darkroom. Plus you need a scan with its own film cleanup steps before and after. It's a lot of work either way. Depends on what you enjoy, and what you don't. The downside of doing it in the darkroom is that it is a chemical process, some color chem can be unhealthy, and sheet film is getting more and more expensive. Once you get into actually making CDUII dupes, Pere, I think you'll realize how much need to go into it to get it right. Hopefully, you won't thaw your film until you've got a good handle on what's involved. Monochrome work is a lot easier and safer. A single basic unsharp mask is usually plenty for b&w silver printing needs, and doesn't even need to be nitpicky in terms of precise tonality. But one does need careful with fog, alignment, and dust issues.

[interneg]

seem to spend as much or even more time trying to get things right than they once did in the darkroom.

Mainly because you end up having to do multiple manual steps that happen automatically in the darkroom...

To paraphrase a comment I once read about letterpress printing, the nominal technical restrictions (of darkroom printing) can actually be incredibly artistically freeing.

Darkroom printing is another war, we have many image manipulation tricks, but we cannot manipulate the tonal curve like in Ps, and manipulation may take a great effort and large paper waste.

You could just use a different film. Too much effort is expended on finding the 'magic' developer & not enough on using the materials competently. If you can't get extraordinary prints from either Xtol or Rodinal developed negatives, the solution does not lie in mixing them - that people apparently do get ok negs from this blend has more to do with good luck & the manufacturers designing in enough latitude in the materials that they resist the tender ministrations of amateurish photochemists. If you need a more active developer, use one that is a known quantity as a starting point, then tweak it with alkali or restrainer - it'll make keeping track of process adjustments much easier.

[Pere Casals]

If you can't get extraordinary prints from either Xtol or Rodinal developed negatives, the solution does not lie in mixing them - that people apparently do get ok negs from this blend has more to do with good luck & the manufacturers designing in enough latitude in the materials that they resist the tender ministrations of amateurish photochemists.

RodinX is not a solution, it's a resource. It's not about if it's technically better or worse, image crafting may take advantage of technical imperfections, this is well understood with lenses: since a century ago Universal Heliars have a ring to add spheric aberration, shifting from optimal performance.

RodinX has a natural look that one may want or not, this is a YMMV, so I see no debate.

You could just use a different film.

To make a full optic process I see two approaches:

>> One is finding a materials-process combination that suits our taste, in fact ZS tells how to acomodate our visualization to the materials. With classic films, in general, what we place in Z-II or Z-III will be more compressed in the negative, for example, and this starts to pave the way to obtain the print we want.

>> There is another approach, this is making a linear capture and later in the printing we may manipulate the tonal curve to fit the scene range in the paper range with a certain style. This conserves more flexibility for the printing, but it requires a superior effort. A man promoting that is John Sexton, no secret.


One thing is not better than the other, but IMHO a film photographer that ends printing in the darkroom needs to master both approaches to a certain point at least, many times we combine both.

Of course those liking the image "optimization" in the printing may tend more to the second approach, while others will prefer to spend more time with the camera: à chacun son goût.

[Drew Wiley]

John Sexton is a nice guy, Pere. I've stumbled onto him and had a few brief conversations a long time ago, which he probably wouldn't remember. He had barely dabbled in masking at that time, not very successfully, and came pretty late to the game. But the printing industry as well as color film printmakers understood curve redistribution via masking and routinely applied it to certain procedures before either he or I were ever born. There were substantial resources behind it - all kinds of specialized films from Kodak and Agfa, along with lengthy tutorials by men like Bob Pace. Because specific films and even the printing industry has changed so much in the interim, it's hard to directly apply a lot of the old advice. But everything we're discussing in this thread is just about getting to first base. No need to overcomplicate it. But, referring to a different comment of yours, there simply is no contradiction between the quality of time spent in the field optimizing the shot itself and an equal level of dedication spent in the darkroom. A chain is only as good as its weakest link.