Flashing still used with Multi-Contrast papers ??

[Steve Sherman]

Steve, I read your article and plan on giving this a try. I use your EMA process for my negatives with great success and have no reason to believe that this will provide similar results.

I am still rather new to this art form so this question may be obvious to everyone but me. Do you flash before exposing through the negative or after? I assume this is done before, but hope you will confirm this.

I know that some feathers have been ruffled in this thread, but I always discover new things to try. If they work for me, I keep them. If not, I still learn something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Jim for the kind words.
In answer to your question, you can flash either before or after the exposure as been made with the negative. All flashing does is add a predetermined amount of light so that the threshold of the paper is met and all light thereafter should have nearly immediate impact in creating tone. One thing I did not go into simply because I did not want to further confuse the issue is, almost always I tried my best to direct the flashing light to the most dense areas where it has the most impact. After I have completed all print manipulations I'll use a dry erase pen at the very edge of the paper on two sides. Extending lines inward from those two dots, where the lines intersect is the center of the area I wish to impact with the flashing light. Once the flashing is complete the print goes to the developer and I quickly rub off the water soluble Dry Erase marks so full development happens right out to the edge of the print.

Enjoy your time in the Dark

[PRJ]

Steve,

What irks me most about this whole thread, however, is the way you disingenuously asked a leading question, prompting responses from forum members who thought they were helping you, while all the time having the goal of shameless self-promotion. I find this use of the forum to be objectionable and even unethical. Manipulating a thread with the sole interest of promoting your videos and workshops for your personal gain is not what this forum is intended for. While I don't begrudge you your livelihood, I do find such exploitation of what is supposed to be a neutral platform, where all advertising is forbidden, and which is intended to provide an objective and commerce-free exchange between members, deceptive and unacceptable.

I feel tricked, taken advantage of and conned; I'll not be participating in your discussions in the future if they continue in this vein. If I were a forum moderator, I would warn you most strongly about ever doing such a thing in the future with the threat of excluding you from the forum if you ever did. I think you owe us all an apology and a change of behavior.

Doremus

Yeah. He went from "anyone know anything about flashing" to "I invented it!"

Glad I didn't see this thread until today, although my answer pretty much would have negated his whole article because I've been flashing that way since the 90s. And I didn't invent it. I learned it from Nocon.

I guess whatever gets suckers to sign up for his workshops. But yeah, total dirtbag move. The ol' shuck and jive....

[bob carnie]

Flashing was used in photo comp extensively, we would combine transparancies and hard copy onto the same film and we had to flash one of them so they would balance out to the same contrast ratio. This was in the mid 80's when we were doing this each and every day.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doremus

Sorry you feel that way, actually very sorry as I respect your work and knowledge. The only reason I can put to my wording, my interest was to attract experienced printers and not the masses who expound on virtually every topic. Also, I never imagined that I would be the only silver printer using the Flashing technique in the manner. I can assure you, my only intention is creating greater mid-tone contrast, in that regard my focus and use of the technique is not traditional in any form.

However you to choose to spin it so it sounds like traditional flashing is your call. Flashing in it’s traditional sense is used to reduce high light contrast as you point out, with “graded” papers. However, I would imagine, as I did for years, that with MC papers and the Green / Blue relationship to shadows and highlights would suggest to almost all silver printers the technique has out lived its use.

Therefore, in the manner I am suggesting it is quite simple, when the amount of Green exposure which is “projected thru and from above” the negative can be reduced, in this case by means of bringing the paper to threshold there is a gain in mid-tone contrast. Of course it’s because the highlights realize a grey tone sooner, my interest is solely the benefit seen in the mid-tones and not in greater tonality in the high ligths.

So, in my opinion, as much as you wish to twist my words around to suit an explanation of the traditional use of Flashing, I can easily defend that by saying my question was “Is anyone using the Flashing technique to control contrast ?? Increase or decrease contrast ?? I never eluded to the high light region or used the word "traditional", that is a label you assigned to what I am doing, and with some disdain in your wording. I believe many simply assumed that is the target purpose of Flashing as I believe you did initially.

It's unfortunate that you feel the need to use the word disingenuous in regard to my intentions. While I don’t often contribute on these forums for a variety of reasons, I have over the years read scores of responses and opinions from you, never do I recall such a strongly worded response. Further, based on your response it’s apparent you didn’t take the time to read the linked article, which would validate the technique in the manner I am suggesting and possibly open your eyes to the purpose of this thread.

The damage your comment further reinforces, those reading this tread in the manner I am suggesting the Flashing technique will quickly discount it not because of the quality of your printing or mine, those are unknown to the masses. What is known, your contributions on this forum far out number mine, therefore, the louder voice always carries the day with regard to the veracity of my claims.

Steve,

Let me clarify:

I'm 100% willing to have a discussion about flashing in the context of an open forum where information is freely given. It doesn't matter if I disagree with you about particulars. That's not the real issue in my mind.

My disappointment was that you didn't ask your question in good faith, i.e., wanting to learn from the participants here, nor did you freely offer information on the new technique you think you have discovered. You didn't really want answers; you wanted to direct us to self-promotional material. That is not the purpose of this forum.

You baited and switched. You linked to an article (which I did read in its entirety) that ends up being nothing more than an infomercial for your videos and workshops. Advertising in that manner is forbidden by the forum rules. The surreptitious way you went about luring responses and then redirecting everyone to your advertisement is what rankles me.

You're very right that I have never taken anyone to task in such strong terms on this forum in the past. The intensity of my response was partly due to my own chagrin at being fooled by your ploy; not recognizing the subterfuge till I was taken in, and partly due to my disappointment that such a deception would come from someone who is a respected member of this forum.

I am more than willing to continue a good-faith debate on your flashing technique (which, by the way, is useful) in the context of this forum, which assumes a free and open exchange of ideas without ulterior motives of personal gain or promotion. I will continue to object to the forum being used as a means to bait and switch unsuspecting members and responders and as a means to generate business for you or anyone else. That is contrary to the spirit and the rules of the community here.

If you wish to advertise here, be up front and become a sponsor, advertise in the appropriate sections (Workshops, et al.) and leave your promotional urges at the door when you enter here for discussions.

I sincerely hope that you can amend your practice and behavior in this regard. My wish is that you recognize that you have stepped over the line this time, apologize to those involved and re-engage us all in an honest and open conversation about matters photographic for the edification of us all without any intent to garner customers. There are other, more appropriate places for you to do the latter.

Doremus

[Steve Sherman]

Steve,



My disappointment was that you didn't ask your question in good faith, i.e., wanting to learn from the participants here, nor did you freely offer information on the new technique you think you have discovered. You didn't really want answers; you wanted to direct us to self-promotional material. That is not the purpose of this forum.

You baited and switched. You linked to an article (which I did read in its entirety) that ends up being nothing more than an infomercial for your videos and workshops. Advertising in that manner is forbidden by the forum rules. The surreptitious way you went about luring responses and then redirecting everyone to your advertisement is what rankles me.


Doremus

Doremus,

I thought long and hard about this for most of last night after reading your scathing comments. The only thing I remotely regret is posting the link to the article too early in the conversation. People are simply trying to connect dots that aren’t there, why you reacted with such vigor is a mystery, yes you reason out why you reacted, however, there was such disdain in your response, and that’s unfortunate. I actually thought I could pass on a significant piece of silver printing information, obviously I was mistaken. Would it have been better received if I titled the thread, “Hey look what I am doing"

Nowhere in my opening question did I ask “how the flashing technique is done” I asked if anyone was using the Flashing technique with MC papers, either to decrease or increase contrast, that’s a quote. Most of the answers dealt with reducing highlight contrast, bordering on a lesson back at me which I never requested. Never for a second did I believe I was the only one using the technique in the manner I am suggesting. When Bob Carnie answered in the context of reducing highlight contrast I began to think I could offer the manner in which I’m using flashing as a benefit to the community.

Yes, I do offer workshops and premium videos for sale, nowhere did I point to those options ?? I simply linked to a “free” article, describing in detail what I’m doing, sharing knowledge, up to that point in the thread no one had offered up my scenario. Where did I say I invented something ?? People are jumping to conclusions. I specifically asked Bob Carnie, “I am most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ?? Even Bob did not immediately jump to the conclusion of “reducing the amount of Green light projected thru and from above the negative” could increase mid tone contrast. Is there some wording I could of used to ask my question any more clear ?? Even when you quoted my aforementioned question to Bob you offered an explanation with regard to highlight compression with little to no impact on the shadows, nothing about mid-tones at all. That is the # 10 reply to the original question, not one mention of Mid-tone contrast and what the benefit could be. I’m not yet convinced anyone here uses the flashing technique in the manner I described, or at least for the end result I’m suggesting. Even in Bob’s response today he makes an off hand reference to the 80’s, as though this was being done years ago. Once again, Bob does not address the topic of Mid-Tone contrast.

It’s now clearly known my interest was to share the technique with the community with no mention of $$. Obviously, the manner in which I chose to share was unfortunate and regrettable. In the article there is a 12 minute video spelling out exactly what I’m doing, yet you clearly believe and outright claim for all to see I am self-promoting for some financial gain, and only for financial gain. The entire PDF that accompanies the Premium video is included in the article for free, yet again somehow I am hawking my videos. I’ve contributed to this forum a bit over 700 times in 18 years, somehow I am self promoting when others have over 10,000 posts in half the time. I simply don’t get it.

Sure, I'd love for this to end amicably as my reputation has been impugned, but an outright apology from me would have to be met with one coming back my way, clearly the entire thing has degraded to a place neither of us wishes to remain.

[esearing]

Doremus, there is a whole lot of stealth marketing going on here in these forums including your own link to your website where you sell your images. Steve just happens to sell workshops and his expertise in the way he works. But stealth marketing usually requires you give something of benefit away and allow the recipient to find your products and decide if they want to continue a relationship or not. How many posts here are created so that the poster can then go sell something in the For Sale forums. Ever notice how those pop up right after a discussion? Your knowledge of Photography is not the same for everyone and the information shared will be there long after Steve retires. I am amazed at the number of people who use Pyrocat HD that have never heard of Sandy King and his original instructions or Steve's EMA agitation scheme or Bob Carnie's printing methods. Plus a ton of other great contributors including book writers, technicians, engineers, and true artists all who sell various products but also give away their thoughts and methods for the betterment of the photography community.

I think we have all been cooped up too long.

[gphoto120]

I was hoping a discussion on flashing techniques was going to be just that...a discussion. Unfortunately, it took a quick turn south....one of the reasons I mostly read responses on a forum and don’t respond is that the written word can be interpreted in many different ways....the inflection in my inner voice when read, the mood I’m in , any prejudice I might have on the subject, etc. That said, these are trying times, and many are inwardly aware that life itself as we know it is in peril. Emotions are running high these days.
One of my instructors years ago advised that if you have a strong opinion on a subject in written discussion, to perhaps write it down, but let it sit a day and come back with a clear, open mind and read it. This has saved me many possibly embarrassing situations. Another mentor always brought up the old adage “ Never Assume What You Think I Said” ask me....and I will help give you a further explanation if needed.....Perhaps some of the vitriolic responses here could have been avoided if we only took time to think things over and if your feelings are that strong, a PM instead of posting on the forum would bring the respondents to a better understanding of what was meant by a posted question etc. just my two cents.

[bob carnie]

Doremus,

I thought long and hard about this for most of last night after reading your scathing comments. The only thing I remotely regret is posting the link to the article too early in the conversation. People are simply trying to connect dots that aren’t there, why you reacted with such vigor is a mystery, yes you reason out why you reacted, however, there was such disdain in your response, and that’s unfortunate. I actually thought I could pass on a significant piece of silver printing information, obviously I was mistaken. Would it have been better received if I titled the thread, “Hey look what I am doing"

Nowhere in my opening question did I ask “how the flashing technique is done” I asked if anyone was using the Flashing technique with MC papers, either to decrease or increase contrast, that’s a quote. Most of the answers dealt with reducing highlight contrast, bordering on a lesson back at me which I never requested. Never for a second did I believe I was the only one using the technique in the manner I am suggesting. When Bob Carnie answered in the context of reducing highlight contrast I began to think I could offer the manner in which I’m using flashing as a benefit to the community.

Yes, I do offer workshops and premium videos for sale, nowhere did I point to those options ?? I simply linked to a “free” article, describing in detail what I’m doing, sharing knowledge, up to that point in the thread no one had offered up my scenario. Where did I say I invented something ?? People are jumping to conclusions. I specifically asked Bob Carnie, “I am most interested to know if a printer of your stature and talents uses the technique to increase Mid-tone contrast ?? Even Bob did not immediately jump to the conclusion of “reducing the amount of Green light projected thru and from above the negative” could increase mid tone contrast. Is there some wording I could of used to ask my question any more clear ?? Even when you quoted my aforementioned question to Bob you offered an explanation with regard to highlight compression with little to no impact on the shadows, nothing about mid-tones at all. That is the # 10 reply to the original question, not one mention of Mid-tone contrast and what the benefit could be. I’m not yet convinced anyone here uses the flashing technique in the manner I described, or at least for the end result I’m suggesting. Even in Bob’s response today he makes an off hand reference to the 80’s, as though this was being done years ago. Once again, Bob does not address the topic of Mid-Tone contrast.

It’s now clearly known my interest was to share the technique with the community with no mention of $$. Obviously, the manner in which I chose to share was unfortunate and regrettable. In the article there is a 12 minute video spelling out exactly what I’m doing, yet you clearly believe and outright claim for all to see I am self-promoting for some financial gain, and only for financial gain. The entire PDF that accompanies the Premium video is included in the article for free, yet again somehow I am hawking my videos. I’ve contributed to this forum a bit over 700 times in 18 years, somehow I am self promoting when others have over 10,000 posts in half the time. I simply don’t get it.

Sure, I'd love for this to end amicably as my reputation has been impugned, but an outright apology from me would have to be met with one coming back my way, clearly the entire thing has degraded to a place neither of us wishes to remain.

Steve

.....From my Post #6

What I do to increase mid tone contrast is to dodge in the basic exposures to steepen the curve (so to speak) much like soft light in PS. This technique is done in all the image even if I am burning in I will still be dodging, kind of like highlight protection negatives that were sandwiched with contrast control negs in cibachrome.. I believe this is the way to direct the viewer to areas of prints with local contrast methods, flashing is a very key element for nailing tone in negatives that are tough.......



I believe this is a way of increasing contrast in the midtone Steve In fact it seems to me to be just a different method of achieving the same thing.. you are suggesting flashing to get the initial tone which does not reach into the midtones therefore allowing less exposure using low filter.
I suggest and have practiced since 1998 that dodging during the low filter exposure will increase the mid tone contrast by backing off some of the exposure light. I believe in effect gets us to the same point.

Does this not in effect increase midtone contrast... Look at Soft Light in PS and understand they needed to come up with a way of mid tone contrast.. basically they replicated dodging and burning methods that could be used in multi contrast papers .
Contour masking was introduced in the 60's for increasing / decreasing mid tone contrast... Pencil and Red Coccine were introduced in the mid 30's to do the same thing, I was lucky enough to have a European taskmaster who actually used both methods for all his black and white work , I saw his negs and they were impressive.

Your method has much merit as it single handedly solves a problem most printers face with extreme lighting situations. I am not sure it solves the solarization I have seen with the 0 filter though but is worthy of tying out. As I see it you are solving two problems... gaining initial density to hold in highlights and two increasing contrast specifically in the midtones by allowing less low end exposure...


I have participated in this thread willingly and now it seems the thread has the potential for getting pretty nasty.
From this point on though I would appreciate my name not being used here for this discussion, I have enough problems keeping my printing business afloat than worring about reputations.

Bob

[Steve Sherman]

I have participated in this thread willingly and now it seems the thread has the potential for getting pretty nasty.
From this point on though I would appreciate my name not being used here for this discussion, I have enough problems keeping my printing business afloat than worring about reputations.

Bob[/QUOTE]

I’m checking out of this tread now regardless of how nasty it becomes will not lie at my doorstep. I’ll say this in parting, I think what when on here has been subliminally perpetuated by the political leaders here in the states, from both sides of the isle, it has become all to common place for this behavior.

Wishing all great light !!

[Doremus Scudder]

I have participated in this thread willingly and now it seems the thread has the potential for getting pretty nasty.
From this point on though I would appreciate my name not being used here for this discussion, I have enough problems keeping my printing business afloat than worrying about reputations.

Bob

I’m checking out of this tread now regardless of how nasty it becomes will not lie at my doorstep. I’ll say this in parting, I think what when on here has been subliminally perpetuated by the political leaders here in the states, from both sides of the isle, it has become all to commonplace for this behavior.

Wishing all great light !!

Steve,

In the interest of smoothing things out and steering this thread toward a more objective tone, I'm requesting that we bury the hatchet and re-evaluate; both of us. The last thing I want to do is to be responsible for nastiness here. Let me make the first move.

I've read and re-read your posts and the article as well as posts from others, in an attempt to understand your point of view and with an understanding that I may have overreacted. I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

The last thing I'm doing is trying to ruin your reputation. I don't know your work or your methods well except for the things you've posted and linked to, but I'm certain that they are excellent and work well for you. Nor do I think it untoward that you are trying to make a living disseminating what you know. Furthermore, while my response to this thread was strong, I believe I addressed substance and did so civilly, without personal attacks or insults. I hope you recognize that.

Let me explain my reasons and motivations so you can hopefully understand how I felt taken advantage of.

I, perhaps naively, value this forum for its honesty and its civil and constructive tone. I participate out of a desire to learn for myself and to help and instruct others. It is the character and good faith of the members that make this such a rewarding forum.

When you started this thread, you posed a question, which I assumed was a request for information and assistance. I, and quite a few others, responded to your query in that spirit, i.e., supplying facts, information, theory and instruction.

When, in post #11, you revealed that you neither wanted nor needed any of that information and help that was so freely given, but instead wanted to instruct us, I felt taken advantage of (why did I have to spend my time trying to help and formulating a response that you didn't even want...) and fooled. Fooled, because, yes, I took your first post at face value and thought you were sincerely asking for our help. That wasn't the case.

Perhaps, in my chagrin at being taken in by this and my disappointment that this happened to me here, I reacted more strongly than necessary. In any case, my response seems to have had the opposite effect of what I intended, which was to, yes, reprimand you, but in a spirit of comradery and of maintaining the decorum that I so greatly value here. My remarks were on my behalf only, and not intended to represent anyone but myself.

If your intent was simply to share information with us, then I misinterpreted that completely. Maybe you could be more transparent next time and avoid misunderstandings. For example, you first post could have been, "Hey fellow photographers, here's technique I use to ... Hope this helps someone!" Then you wouldn't have got nine responses trying to help you when you didn't need any (and I probably wouldn't have responded at all, since you know your stuff and don't need my help).

Furthermore, while the article you linked to does lay out your technique, it also contains a lot of promotional material. To me, it seems more like an infomercial than an article solely intended to inform. Perhaps if you had simply linked to your article in the first post, the promotional content would not have been so objectionable to me. However, by the time I got there, I was feeling taken advantage of and fooled, so, yes, I likely reacted more strongly than I would have if I had not already been "primed," so to speak, to view things cynically.

I'm more than willing to meet you halfway on this, so please accept this "half-apology" for my possibly misunderstanding and overreacting. I hope you'll respond with the other half and restore my confidence, banish my cynicism and foster a congenial relationship.

Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to respond publicly.

We can argue about flashing some other time

Doremus