Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,491   Posts: 1,542,961   Online: 918
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11
    stormbytes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New England, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    244
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Monophoto
    What size negative are you working with?

    There is a technique called "dye dodging" in which you use a small brush to apply a dye to the back of the film. The dye functions just like a dodging wand, except that once the dye has been applied, the negative can be printed many times with the same doding effect.

    Obviously, this trick works best with larger format negatives - certainly roll film, and preferably sheet film. It also is helpful to tape a sheet of clear (undeveloped but fixed and washed) film to the back of the negative - that way, if you aren't happy with the results, you can simply remove the dyed film to get back to the starting point.

    You can use ordinary spotting dyes for this purpose, but it's helpful to use colored dyes instead if you are printing on variable contrast paper. A yellow dye gives a lower contrast dodge, while a magenta dye gives a higher contrast dodge. Dr. Martin's watercolor dyes work well.
    Indeed an interesting and as far as I'm concerned, novel approach to dodging. I don't know that it's what I want to do today - seeing as my goal at this point is to obtain a fine print by way of simple dodging/burning methods, but clearly this is something I'd like to research in greater detail. It would seem that this method, given a good technique, would help salvage many a negative where dark-spots are too fine to be dogded conventionally.

    Thanks for the tip.

  2. #12
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,748
    Images
    52
    I agree with Dave Miller in that you are better off splitting your exposure into several increments. I usually print in increments of 3-5 seconds building to the total exposure. This gives me time to work on specific areas as well as helps to regiment my printing so that consistent results can be expected over the course of printing an edition. There is no need to be concerned with how this will change your overall exposure if you test using the same time increments. IMO a footswitch is an essential tool in printing in order to free your hands to be in position with whatever tool you are using before the exposure begins. As Dave said, plan your attack. For instance, you say one area needs 15 seconds while 2 areas need 5 seconds each. Say you've got a 30 second (6- 5 second bursts) exposure that encompasses these dodging times. Start dodging your 15 second area with the fist 5 second burst. Continue that dodge for the next 2 bursts of 5 seconds. That's your first half of the total exposure and the dodge for that area is complete. Then move on to an area needing a 5 second dodge for the next burst. Then move on to the next for the final 5 second area. This leaves you with one final burst over the entire image. Now any remaining bursts you may wish to add for burns can be done to complete the print.

    As for dye dodging, or anything that needs to be painted on your negative, I strongly disagree with that technique. Unless you are using opaquing material to block-out pinholes, I recommend keeping your negatives pure.

    Hope this helps!

    Bill

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Incremental printing exposures do not equal the same exposure as a single exposure. This has been reported over and over and over again. 6- 5 second exposures do not equal a 30 second exposure. While this is true of all light sources, it is most problematic with cold light sources. The thresholds of the light "power up" are the reason.

    Inosfar as dye dodging. Dye dodging is a tool that is used by a lot of well known photographers today. John Sexton, Howard Bond, and others use this method. It is a totally reversable and amendable procedure, provided the proper materials are used.

    Just wanted to set the record straight on this.

  4. #14
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Some LF films have a roughened base to make it easier to retouch the negative with a soft pencil. Just the same result as dye dodging, but with more familiar tools.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  5. #15
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    The main problem with multiple exposures is the warm-up and cool-down time of the light source. This can be avoided by using a card (or your hand) to block the light instead of using a timer. A metronome gives you the timing. I used that method before I obtained my AC1200 which uses the motorised filters to block and unblock the light in conjunction with its built-in timer.

    Cheers, Bob.

  6. #16
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,748
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Incremental printing exposures do not equal the same exposure as a single exposure.
    Agreed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    6- 5 second exposures do not equal a 30 second exposure.
    Let me clarify... When you have a test strip of 6 bands at 5 seconds each, you will get the same results in your final print on say 4- 5 second exposures as you did on your test stirp at 4- 5 second exposures. It is true that 6- 5 second bursts do not equal a ful 30 second exposure.
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Dye dodging is a tool that is used by a lot of well known photographers today. John Sexton, Howard Bond...
    I don't dispute this, but I still think it is a bad idea. My opinion only.

    Bill

  7. #17
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,748
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob F.
    The main problem with multiple exposures is the warm-up and cool-down time of the light source.
    I do understand this problem Bob, but it has never been much of a problem for me. There is rarely 1.5 seconds between my exposures and although I am sure there is some cooling, it would seem to be extremely slight. Your technique of simply blocking the light source may complicate things even further considering iserious' original dilemma.

    Bill

  8. #18
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    I use an RH f-stop timer which has the warm-up time factored into it's exposure times. In anycase having first done a test print, or should I say a practice print; adjustment will be made, and warm-up times become irrelevent. Such a system is much easier to repeat on subcequent prints. I advocate a base exposure of around 10 seconds simply because errors are minimised, by that I mean if you are one second slow getting in position you will only be 10% out, where as if you base exposure is 3 seconds, you have messed up a print.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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