Burning - Any Tips?

[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.

FWIW, here's the results of the printing, before and after:

[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.

FWIW, here's the results of the printing, before and after:

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.

FWIW, here's the results of the printing, before and after:

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...

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.