+1 for flashing. It can help a lot in situations such as you describe.
Printable View
+1 for flashing. It can help a lot in situations such as you describe.
Yes, flashing is by far the easiest and most efficient method for printing this type of negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W
There are two major approaches.
1. Pre-flash the paper with a very dim light and no negative. It can be done under the enlarger, or with a 5 watt bulb some distance from the paper. The purpose is to put enough light on the paper so that it is just below the threshold. In other words, if developed at this point the paper would remain white, but if exposed to any additional light a slight grey will appear. A simple step test is all that is required. Make note of the light source strength and distance from the paper. Expose in 2 second increments up to about 30 seconds. It is important to remember exactly the maximum exposure. after processing and drying, find the portion which is just darker the white. Count backward from the maximum exposure to determine the exposure of this section. With a fresh piece of paper give it the computed exposure then expose it to the negative for your pre-determined exposure time. you highlights should just begin to have texture.
2. Flashing with the negative still in the enlarger requires some good diffusion material like the old Kodak Diffusion material, or several layers of vellum. The use of this method does take longer to explain than I wish to take here, but it is my preferred method.
A trick I like to use is to do a print on a smaller size of paper (5x7 for an 8x10 or 11x14 enlargement), trim that smaller print along the demarcation line and then use that trimmed print ar your burning tool.
It helps to stiffen the trimmed print with a piece of cardboard.
Cheers for all the advice. The only time I tried to flash a sheet resulted in a very muddy print. Obviously I had over exposed the paper during the flash. I had contemplated it for this print, but I was being a tad lazy, as I didn't want to take the neg out of the enlarger. I will give it a try again next session with some properly flashed paper.
Cheers
Perhaps look at your original exposure and development.
1) I find when making natural light fine art prints, skies almost always need to be burned in to suggest the color appropriate to the natural situation as determined by your visualization of the scene. Twice or thrice base exposure is normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffy
2) Keep the burn card constantly moving and far enough from the paper to create a wide penumbra.
3) Some situations involving man-made structures with straight lines forming boundaries (buildings jutting skyward) with areas to be burned, narrow projections like singular trees, and the like may be impossible to burn to desired tones without masking. However, cutting outlines of failed prints to burn (projection masking?) with has never worked better for me than technique 1.
4) Dodging and burning is part of the "art" of print making, and can (should) take time to master.
5) see Making a Fine Art Print. Note there is a slight "burn line" at the mountain/sky interface. It is nearly unnoticeable on the actual 8x10 print required for computer scannning, but emphasized by scanned digital representation. It is a natural occurrence of the sky that it is lighter at the landscape bound horizon. Still, the larger actual fine art prints of this scene show no obvious burn line, because they are printed on larger paper sizes, allowing more room for burning and more diffusion of the burn car's penumbra.
6) Try shooting with some blue–absorbing filtration, perhaps to as far as a deep yellow, in order to get a head start on the skies before the printing stage. Orange and red filters tend to wipe out natural scene tonalities in favor of overly dramatic, unnatural, and sophomoric (IMO) representations.
OK, as I said on page 1, I'd scan in once they had dried. Image 1 is the mask that I used. I also had a square piece of card held underneath for the long burn in, which was removed when I did part 2 (main exposure of the land/Obelisk and a small burn of the sea. Image 2 is obviously the bad burn in. I held the mask up to high in the picture and didn't move it.
Image 3 is not as bad, but I can see a slight halo around the left side of the Obelisk and darkening on the right.
Without any burning in, based on the base exposure of 26 secs, there was zero detail in the sky (I never actually did a base print, only test strips of the sky....I'm a tight wad, OK)
Cheers
Attachment 45385Attachment 45386Attachment 45387
Image 3 is not as bad, but I can see a slight halo around the left side of the Obelisk and darkening on the right.
Well you could have fooled me. This looks damn near perfect. Projection into the sky is a devil's own job to deal with.
pentaxuser
Good job - I would try adding a very little overall diffusion to the obelisk and the cliff
Since you have the mask, might as well add some menacing clouds to really up the atmosphere! Half the work is done for the photomontage just find a nice image of dark clouds from your collection. :)
