Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,907   Posts: 1,555,998   Online: 1094
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11
    Charles Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorfull, Canon City Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,723
    Andy,
    This is where Pan Masking film really was the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Kodak hasn't made this stuff for years, and I am not sure if any other manufacturer makes such a film. You contact printed your negative
    on to the Pan masking film by using different thickness of glass with a sheet of diffusing material sandwiched in between. Develop the Pan Mask a positive as I remember and place it in register with your original negative. then print. The mask held back the thin areas of the negative and allowed the highlight to burn in. I haven't done this in over fifty years, but it did work back then. You mught have to make several tries to get the mask perfect, but once achieved you could make one print or a thousand all just alike. I am sure this can still be done today, but I admit I am foggy on the technique but I know I used 1/4 inch polished plate glass and 1/8 inch polished plate and Crystalene diffusion material. I placed the diffusion material on a sheet of 1/4 in glass, then the negative emulsion down over the diffusing material. then covered the negative with an 1/8 inch piece of glass.
    Next placed the 1/8th and 1/4 sandwitch over the Pan Masking film.

    (A sheet of 4x5 black paper is used over the easel or enlarger base to kill any reflection.) I used a seperate 1/4 inch glass sheet on the easel to help keep things flat. Then exposed the mask under my enlarger . Jeeze this sounds complicated.

    _________________________ 1/8 glass

    _________________________ Neg
    _________________________ Crystalene Diff.

    _________________________ 1/4 in. glass
    _________________________ Mask film. Emulsion up.
    _________________________ Black paper

    _________________________ 1/4 in. glass
    on enlarger base.

    The black paper keeps the light from bouncing back up through the masking film. I also used a litho reversal film with some success as a masking film. Any way, the post is food for thought! All, a long time ago in a place far far away...........

    Charlie.............................

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    Fiber would make it easier: you'd get another step in the whites.

    On fiber, I'd expect a two bath, or water bath, develoment to do the trick.

    With RC, Donald is right on.

    good luck !

    I haven't printed with RC in over twenty years. Hated the stuff then...see no need to print on anything other then fiber. BTW I would print it the way I said with VC fiber.

    I'd use your suggestions if I was printing on graded fiber.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Webb
    Andy,
    This is where Pan Masking film really was the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Kodak hasn't made this stuff for years, and I am not sure if any other manufacturer makes such a film. You contact printed your negative
    on to the Pan masking film by using different thickness of glass with a sheet of diffusing material sandwiched in between. Develop the Pan Mask a positive as I remember and place it in register with your original negative. then print. The mask held back the thin areas of the negative and allowed the highlight to burn in. I haven't done this in over fifty years, but it did work back then. You mught have to make several tries to get the mask perfect, but once achieved you could make one print or a thousand all just alike. I am sure this can still be done today, but I admit I am foggy on the technique but I know I used 1/4 inch polished plate glass and 1/8 inch polished plate and Crystalene diffusion material. I placed the negative on a sheet of 1/4 in glass, then covered the negative with an 1/8 inch piece.
    Then placed the 1/8th and 1/4 sandwitch on the diffusion material, then the Pan Masking film under the diffusion material then a sheet of 4x5 black paper
    and and another sheet of glass to keep things flat. Then placed under my enlarger to expose the mask. Jeeze this sounds complicated.

    _________________________ 1/8 glass

    _________________________ Neg
    _________________________ Crystalene Diff.

    _________________________ 1/4 in. glass
    _________________________ Mask film. Emulsion up.
    _________________________ Black paper

    _________________________ 1/4 in. glass
    on enlarger base.

    The black paper keeps the light from bouncing back up through the masking film. I also used a litho reversal film with some success as a masking film. Any way, the post is food for thought! All, a long time ago in a place far far away...........

    Charlie.............................
    Charlie,

    This is a method that works well even yet today. I use APHS ortho lith film developed in Dektol 1-30 for a contrast reduction mask. I use this method a lot when I print on graded paper. However with VC a whole new means of printing is opened up. That is that multiple contrast grades can be used on the same print. Something not afforded to us when we only had a single grade paper to print with.

    In the masking process I use, I use Duratrans and a clear sheet of acetate to separate the mask film and the camera negative. The emulsions of the two films are away from each other in order to arrive at a low contrast and relatively low density unsharp mask.

  4. #14
    Charles Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Colorfull, Canon City Colorado
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,723
    Wow I messed up in typing had to go back and do some editing, Darn where are the proof readers when you need them?

    Charlie.........................

    Duratrans is wonderful stuff! Much finer than crystalene!
    As I said, I havn't messed with it in a long time!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,974
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    I don't think that I would use a preflash in printing this negative. Preflashing the paper compresses highlight tonality. That is a sure way to lose the sense of light in this image.
    but would you agree with what I wrote?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Nige
    but would you agree with what I wrote?
    Nige,

    I would like to say that I agree with what you stated but I can't say that, in my experience, that the effect of preflash is always noticeably beneficial. A great deal depends on the density range of the camera negative. Sometimes the effect is noticeable and sometimes the density range is too extreme for preflash to be of any benefit.

    I am not a big proponant of preflashing paper for the reason that I indicated earlier. I personally find that compressing the shadow end of the tonal scale to be less noticeable and equally as effective. The practice of compressing the shadow end of the scale requires more work and technical ability but the results are better in my opinion.

    Ultimately the best results are obtained when one has a good grasp of their materials and technique to markedly decrease the need for these corrective measures at the printing stage.

  7. #17
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Wow! I love it when you post a query on APUG, go to bed, come back in the morning and find so much has developed!

    Thankyou everyone for your responses and advice! I plan to give this print another try tonight. Watch this space!


    -----------My Flickr-----------
    Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,565
    Images
    47
    You might want to try pulling the print from the developer early, and then swabbing the areas you want to develop a little more with a cotton ball soaked in developer. It's a low-tech answer. I tried it once a long time ago. Your print has quite a bit larger area so it might not be so effective, and might give you a muddieness in the areas of the print that were not in the developer for the whole time. In conjunction with split-grade printing, it might give you the results you seek.
    Rick Jason.
    "I'm still developing"

  9. #19
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,407
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    433
    I'd also try using SOME filtration dialed in on your color head for your grade 2 - while this adds some neutral density, it helps a lot with the contrast control. Depending on whose method you choose, grade 2 is either 10m or 41y 32m. Frankly, I would try split-grade printing first, and using a more dilute paper developer with extended development time to see if that helps.

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