Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,656   Posts: 1,481,405   Online: 1074
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    232

    Highlights/Shadows separations in a grayscale digital negative

    I want to try if it is possible to print with liquid emulsion (silver that is) over a cyanotype. I know that there are people that print over cyanotypes with Van Dykes or Gum bichromates... I don't know if it will work with silver or if the cyanotype chemistry won't react well with the silver developing baths... I'll run some test to check those kinds of possible problems, but still I have another problem that I should solve now.

    Let's suppose I have a scan from a bw negative. I want to print the highlights with the cyanotype chemistry, while masking the shadows and - viceversa - print the shadows with another negative in liquid emulsion. The problem is: how to create two different negatives from one single grayscale image that will produce an almost correct and pleasant split-toned picture.

    I've been working with photoshop for hours yesterday and I couldn't find any good trick to do that... Have tried with select->tonal range and then highlights or shadows... But then the midtones are left behind and the problem is how to create a smooth separation in between... One of the two negatives should include the shadows and let's say 50% of the midtones... the other the highlights and the remaining 50%... So when I'll try to print those two by contact I shouldn't have the same areas exposed twice, resulting in a ugly dark-gray area between shadows and highlights... I don't know if my explanation was clear enough, I'm sorry but english is not my motherlanguage.

    Of course I already use digital negatives and have the right curves for both cyanotype and silver.

    thanks in advance

  2. #2
    Joe Lipka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cary, North Carolina
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    808
    Dan Burkholder has a method for using two negatives to do what you want to do. One is prepared for the highlights,the other for shadows. You would need to used register pins to make sure that the negatives and paper stay perfectly lined up. This is discussed in his second book.
    A New Project! Transformations 02/02/2014

    www.joelipkaphoto.com

    250+ posts and still blogging! "Postcards from the Creative Journey"

    http://blog.joelipkaphoto.com/

  3. #3
    Jim Noel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,760
    Blog Entries
    1
    Forget photoshop and make your negatives in the darkroom, it is faster and easier.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Lipka
    Dan Burkholder has a method for using two negatives to do what you want to do. One is prepared for the highlights,the other for shadows. You would need to used register pins to make sure that the negatives and paper stay perfectly lined up. This is discussed in his second book.

    Thanks for the answer... I will check his homepage later.

    By the way, I made a test... I completely forgot that fixer for silverprint might contain sodium thiosulfate and other very alkaline agents... They act as a strong bleach on the cyanotype and kill it. Actually some tome remains but I would seriously doubt of the stability of the print. Tomorrow I'll try by protecting the cyanotype with a layer of gelatin and try again, just for fun...

    bye

  5. #5
    Dracotype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    El Cerrito, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    63
    You might try doing the silver print first, and then the cyanotype. That would avoid the extreme bleaching of the cyanotype.

    Drew
    "But what is strength without a double share of wisdom." --John Milton

    "Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at something that doesn't really matter." --Unknown missionary

  6. #6
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel
    it is faster and easier.
    No it's not.

    Don Bryant

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Dracotype
    You might try doing the silver print first, and then the cyanotype. That would avoid the extreme bleaching of the cyanotype.

    Drew

    yeah... that's also an idea, I'll let you know. Now I've exposed a couple of papers as cyanotypes with no negatives in top of them. Means I have two nice blue papers now. If the blue doesn't completely fade away in the silver developing and fixing process and perhaps will leave some nice trace of blue-yellowish behind the bw image.

    Bye

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel
    Forget photoshop and make your negatives in the darkroom, it is faster and easier.

    I made enlarged negatives for alternative printing in the darkroom for almost two decades, using both regular positive-to-negative method and reversal processing. I now make enlarged negatives digitally.

    If your goal is to do top quality work neither method is fast or easy. Both require a lot of time and work to master. However, concern with what is fast or easy is not high on my list of priorities. For me the goal is to make top-quality prints so I will use what is IMO the better method, regardless of how easy or fast it is. However, discounting the learning curve, which exists for both traditional darkroom and computer work, there is no question in my mind but that the digital method offers much greater control over your process, which for me equals better results.

    I don't discourage anyone from making enlarged negatives with traditional darkroom materials because the procedure is challenging, gives good results, and is probably less expensive than the digital route. But it is neither fast nor easy. Mastery of a thing is rarely fast and easy.

    Sandy

  9. #9
    donbga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,053
    Quote Originally Posted by sanking
    I made enlarged negatives for alternative printing in the darkroom for almost two decades, using both regular positive-to-negative method and reversal processing. I now make enlarged negatives digitally.

    If your goal is to do top quality work neither method is fast or easy. Both require a lot of time and work to master. However, concern with what is fast or easy is not high on my list of priorities. For me the goal is to make top-quality prints so I will use what is IMO the better method, regardless of how easy or fast it is. However, discounting the learning curve, which exists for both traditional darkroom and computer work, there is no question in my mind but that the digital method offers much greater control over your process, which for me equals better results.

    I don't discourage anyone from making enlarged negatives with traditional darkroom materials because the procedure is challenging, gives good results, and is probably less expensive than the digital route. But it is neither fast nor easy. Mastery of a thing is rarely fast and easy.

    Sandy
    Actually Sandy once you've done all of the testing and other foot work I've found it faster and easier to print a digital negative than going into the darkroom and having to wet process. That's what I meant by faster and easier.

    Don

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,813
    Images
    5
    Don,

    Well, I still find that it takes a lot of time to make a digital negative if you start with the original scan and then count all of the time you do in Photoshop. To say nothing of the calibration one must do to get the right ink setting and curve. All of this takes me a lot of time, though granted probably not as much as wet processing. But the bottom line is still quality. If I could get better results with wet processing that is what I would do. But I can't and I don't.

    Sandy




    Quote Originally Posted by donbga
    Actually Sandy once you've done all of the testing and other foot work I've found it faster and easier to print a digital negative than going into the darkroom and having to wet process. That's what I meant by faster and easier.

    Don
    Last edited by sanking; 03-09-2006 at 08:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin