I think TXP has retouching surfaces on both sides. I too want to learn retouching. I never considered trying to retouch 4x5; I think 8x10 will be challenging enough for me.
I think TXP has retouching surfaces on both sides. I too want to learn retouching. I never considered trying to retouch 4x5; I think 8x10 will be challenging enough for me.
The bigger the film, the easier it is, because of generally less magnification in the
final print. That is one reason why the old-timers sometimes shot portraits on 11x14 instead of 8x10 film, even when they were enlarging. And traditional films like TXP
and HP5+ typically have the best retouching surfaces. I wouldn't call myself much
of a retoucher. I do it to get rid of blemishes or like minor auromatic dodging and burning. But there are also aspects of this useful to corrective masking in color
printing too.
you can retouch txp without a problem, i used to all the time ..
grain is your friend ...
take your pencil ( is it a wooden pencil or in a lead-holder? )
get a few leads a 2 a 3 and a 4 ... depending on the tooth of the film one might
work and the others might not ...
and take some emry paper really fine grit. fold the paper in half so it is a square
and the sand is on the inside ... put the pencil lead in there,
and sharpen it running the paper on the lead so it is razor sharp
you want to sharpen about 1-2" of the lead. ( be careful you can stab yourself ! )
use a magnifier and lightly run the lead on the base side to mask
the shadow or blemish or ??
it takes a very light touch but once you have figured it out it is not too hard.
some people use figure 8's, some scratch marks, some swirls ..
figure out what works for you ...
make a contact print of the negative and see how it worked
you can wash the lead off and start again if you can notice your strokes ..
when you get very good, it is no problem enlarging to 16x20
you won't see any of your retouching strokes ...
have fun !
john
Alan Ross has a white plexi masking system on his website...take a look:
http://www.alanrossphotography.com/s...g-vc-printing/
It was common to also use a layer of varnish for films that have little tooth to improve this. If you google you should find a couple of venerable and ancient texts which give details on the recipes and process
"In the field of observation chance favours the prepared mind" -- Pasteur
There is a technique called "dye dodging" that is related to what you want to do. Instead of crocein scarlet, it uses relatively common dyes available at many art supply stores - Dr. Martin's is the most common brand.
One trick from dye dodging that is generally useful - instead of applying the dye (or pencil) directly to the negative, attach a piece of unexposed, fixed and washed film to the negative with tape. This second negative should be applied on the back of the negative, but with it's emulsion side toward the negative. Then, apply the retouching on the back of the second negative. This approach avoids retouching the actual image negative, so if you don't like the results, you get another chance. And the fact that the retouching is separated from the image layer that you are focusing on when you make a print by two thicknesses of negative means that you have the effect of the retouching but without hard edges.
Chip Forelli had some great articles about dye dodging in Camera Arts many years ago.
The base of Tri-X 320 is indeed different from that of other films in regard to retouching. I tried to retouch Tri-X on the back side with a pencil, and I found it extremely easy. It was almost like drawing on paper. On other films the pencil simply slides on the glossy base without leaving anything more than a very faint trace.
Kodak used to sell a retouching fluid, which was smeared on the back of the film to make the pencil or dyes "take" better. I believe it's now discontinued. Does anybody know of anything else that could replace it? What was actually that fluid made of?
Older books on retouching, as in books from the 30s, 40s and 1950s, often have good instructions on these types of retouching methods.
In one of my books on Hurrell, there's an unretouched picture of Joan Crawford along side the finished picture, which required 6 hours of pencil retouching.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
sometimes it was not just the negative that was retouched but the print as well.
print surfaces used to have a tooth to them as well which could be
scraped a little bit, and graphite dust ( from sharpened retouching pencils )
rubbed into the surface ( if it was too "hot" ) ...
maybe some of the european papers have a tooth to them
and allow for this sort of retouching ..
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks