Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,331   Posts: 1,537,219   Online: 868
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    I have been reading one of Tim Rudman's book, Master Printing, and was wondering if anyone here had used the technique he describes of projecting the image and using clear film, of the same size, and outline the area to be exposed with initial exposure, and 'Painting it with photo opaque (sp) paint'...what would photo opaque paint be? I would assume it is paint that blocks the light and allows the areas that need to be burned in.

    Any way, has anyone here done this? Have you had success and are there easier ways to do this?

    Thanks,
    Mike C

    Rambles

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    30
    Being a bit of a DIYer, I might personally try a red Sharpie. The safety filter is red after all. I know from experience that a black sharpie is not opaque on film; it smears and won't cover uniformly. You might also consider making an initial print and then cutting out any areas you want to burn in. This then leaves the possible problem of too-obvious edges on the burned in areas. Maybe a smaller print... for example, make a 5x7, cut out your areas to be burned, and then print an 8x10 while holding the 5x7 halfway between the lens and the paper. Of course, you'll need to project the image with the safety filter engaged to line up the 5x7 first.

    Just thinking out loud... hopefully something will be helpful. I honestly can't think of anything that would be easy to apply to film that would remain uniformly opaque. Check out some of the bigger photo supply shops online maybe?

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,963
    Images
    1
    I've done this to dodge eyeballs. I used some clear acrylic sheet that I used to use for contact sheets. I stuck a little (2-3mm) bit of paper in the middle of the sheet and dodge each eye seperately (two exposures that made up the total time)

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    270
    There are products specifically designed for this purpose. One is 'Perfect Liquid Opaque', can be applied with a brush straight or diluted to blend edges. There is also a paste. Photo stores usually carry it, just a few dollars an ounce. There is also a red opaque that is available at graphic art suppliers.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    I have and found the technique more trouble than what is worth, might as well just make a mask and be done with it. Is good if you have small areas you want to work specifically, but something like the example he shows of ths sunglasses, that takes way too much time and can be acheived easier with a mask. Not a bad technique, just too time and effort consuming IMO.

    Gitta say, though this is the best book by far on darkroom tecniques.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    near Amsterdam, Holland
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    747
    Images
    9
    I normally use the back of an old rejected print to make a mask. Aurore is right about "too obvious marks", but I avoid this by laying the old sheet face down on a pile of boxes of photo paper, so that the projected image is smaller than the new print I want to make. I then draw around the edges of what I want to dodge or burn, and cut out the mask. All I need to do then is estimate how high I need to hold (and move) my mask above the new print.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    southern california
    Posts
    11
    I too found the technique not very satisfactory. It is hard to be very precise with the dye or pencil let alone opaque. Better to make a film positive mask if you need one. Better yet to learn how to use the material to it's best advantage.
    james

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    30
    "Better to make a film positive mask if you need one"

    I am still relatively new to the darkroom (a little over a year) and there are SO many techniques that simply cannot be found in books. Will you elaborate on this? Perhaps it is something I already am familiar with, but the way you phrase it, it sounds new to me. Would be interested to hear a little more detail about this method you are suggesting.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, soon to be Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    111
    Images
    2
    I usually cut masks as Annemarieke described, so the mask is smaller than the image and i can hold the mask above the print. The closer you hold the mask to the enlarger lens the softer the shadows edge. (therefore making easier to blend the dodge/burn in)

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Aurore
    "Better to make a film positive mask if you need one"

    I am still relatively new to the darkroom (a little over a year) and there are SO many techniques that simply cannot be found in books. Will you elaborate on this? Perhaps it is something I already am familiar with, but the way you phrase it, it sounds new to me. Would be interested to hear a little more detail about this method you are suggesting.
    There are several ways of making masks. The simplest is to overlay the camera negative with clear acetate and block out the areas that you don't want exposure through with opaque. This requires some type of registration...the simplest would be to mark the camera negative boundaries with red lith tape on the negative carrier so that the mask can then be position in the same location for fairly precise burning of the areas that you wish. The same thing could be done by making a dodge mask that would be sandwiched with the camera negative for a portion of the exposure. Again the lith tape will position the negative/mask fairly accurately. Without a registration system it will not be as precise as the method that follows. However it will enable burning and dodging more precisely then not using masks.

    The method that I use is to make a photographic sharp mask with lithographic film by contact printing the camera negative in register with the lith film then developing the lith film in paper developer or AB developer to arrive at a high contrast and sharp postive of my camera negative. This will work as a dodge mask by sandwiching it with the camera negative for a portion of the print exposure time. By taking this another step and contact printing the high contrast sharp positive mask with another sheet of unexposed lith film I make a high contrast sharp negative image of my camera negative and this will work as a burn mask by either using the mask alone or for very precise printing in of details in a sandwich with the camera negative in a second exposure. Typically I follow this with an unsharp mask to blend demarcation lines and to increase apparent sharpness by "edge effects". This is very precise if you have a registration system for your enlarger/negative holder/punch and mask printing frame. Hope this answers your questions.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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