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: 1,481,406   Online: 1087
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81

    Advice sought on dodge and burn in this print.

    I have been tryimg to make a photograph where there are some big contrasts between a bright sunny day and a shaded underside of a roof.

    Here is a negative scan. As you can see there is detail in the front of the two trains.

    Here is a scan of one of the prints I have made so far. I have arrived at an exposure time for the roof and floor areas of 12 seconds at f/11.
    The problem is in burning in the two triangles of bright light to the left and right in order to show the detail in the trains. How do I do this without over exposing the cast iron roof support columns?

    Thanks in advance for any suggestions.


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

  2. #2
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,237
    Have you tried flashing or split filter printing, or (more likely to work) a combination of the two? Maybe if you mentioned details what you've done on the work print that would help elicit more helpful suggestions.

    Are you using VC paper, or graded?

    Lee

  3. #3
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Hi Lee. I'm using Ilford MGIV RC pearl paper. I have made several prints and so far it is looking like I will have to burn at least an extra 20 seconds to bring out the detail in the trains. I did try preflash but it made no difference.

    I am using a Meopta Opemus 6 Color enlarger, with the dials set to zero which is equivalent to a multigrade filter of 2. Any less contrast and the underside of the roof starts to look 'fogged' and loses it's blacks.


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

  4. #4
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Use lower contrast paper. The print scan shows a lot higher contrast than the neg scan; the negative looks to be very contrasty. You could try a fixed-grade paper; the curves are different enough that a completely different paper can give completely different results. If you really prefer VC, try Varycon (AKA ADOX) which has the slackest shoulders of any paper I've tried so far.

    For something like this I might even consider lith printing, the only way I have managed to produce a decent print of one of my "worst" negatives: Even with a compensating developer this negative from a 17 stop (!) scene is impossible to print normally.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails bro.jpg  
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,933
    If the preflash made no difference, you need to retest your preflash time.

    Also, what you're experiencing is why I rarely scan a neg to 'preview' it before printing. Two completely different beasts!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Andy,

    I would print the image at a grade one as a start. Determine the proper exposure to hold details in the trains and to arrive at the highlight tone that you want. You might even drop down to a grade one half for the first exposure. I would then burn in the roof only at a grade five to arrive at the black that you want for that area.

    The problem in this negative and consequently in the print is that you have three contrast areas to deal with. The first contrast is the one that everyone else has addressed that is the overall contrast between the blackest black and the whitest white in the entire print.

    The second and third contrasts are localized contrast in the sunlit area outside the porch (second localized contrast) and the area under the porch roof (third localized contrast). There is a vast difference in the localized contrast within and between these two areas.

    In order to arrive at a meaningful print you need to resolve the second and third contrasts while maintaining the first contrast in the print. The procedure that I outlined at the beginning will do that for you.

    I see no need to dodge this print at all. The only remedial step is the high contrast burn that I mentioned.

    Good luck.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Nige
    If the preflash made no difference, you need to retest your preflash time.

    Also, what you're experiencing is why I rarely scan a neg to 'preview' it before printing. Two completely different beasts!

    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.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    6,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    Use lower contrast paper. The print scan shows a lot higher contrast than the neg scan; the negative looks to be very contrasty. You could try a fixed-grade paper; the curves are different enough that a completely different paper can give completely different results. If you really prefer VC, try Varycon (AKA ADOX) which has the slackest shoulders of any paper I've tried so far.

    For something like this I might even consider lith printing, the only way I have managed to produce a decent print of one of my "worst" negatives: Even with a compensating developer this negative from a 17 stop (!) scene is impossible to print normally.

    Using a lower grade paper or printing at a lower grade will lead to compression of shadow detail. The print will lose it's impact when you do this.

  9. #9
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    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 !
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  10. #10
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,280
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Miller
    Using a lower grade paper or printing at a lower grade will lead to compression of shadow detail. The print will lose it's impact when you do this.
    That depends on the paper and the developer; it doesn't necessarily follow.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

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