Multiple negative technique for dodging, burning, contrast etc

[steffen]

Saw this on http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/printing/black-and-white.htm :

Serious B/W on a Computer
Serious workers print from negatives in a darkroom, and can use Photoshop for corrections.

How?

People use a fast scan of the image as a tracing background, and use Photoshop's painting tools to paint yellow, gray and magenta over the image.

The gray is for dodging.

Yellow and magenta are for local contrast manipulation with variable contrast paper.

These artists then load transparency film into their $99 inkjets, and sandwich this as a mask along with their negatives in their enlarger!

This is a brilliant technique. It allows all the 3-D detail from a direct optical print, and allows minute adjustment, and repeatable results.​

Anybody here tried this?

My first post, so: hello everybody! Been lurking around a few weeks, I'm shy that way. Made the switcharoo from digital (just sold my 1D mk III today) to film rangefinders after realizing it was a rangefinder I really needed all along. Anyhoo, coming from a digital background this darkroom technique sounded interesting to me so I am hoping someone can point me in the right direction to try this out.

 

[Mudman]

Sounds like a lot of work to me that could be done with multiple scans of the film and combining them in layers in Photoshop.

 

[steffen]

Sounds like a lot of work to me that could be done with multiple scans of the film and combining them in layers in Photoshop.

I was hoping to do my B&W printing in the darkroom which can also at the same time be easily reproduced. It also sounded like a pretty good way of accurately working with the images "quasi-digitally" before printing them like I would a normal negative.

 

[Bryce]

I haven't tried this exact routine, but something somewhat similar.
I scanned images from slides into photoshop, altered them to my liking, and then printed them on OHP material as contact sized negatives to use under the enlarger, which is just a light source for this purpose.
I was never happy with the results for several reasons:

•Nothing I tried made a fine enough image to make scan lines from the printer less than obvious on the final print. Scan lines just aren't aesthetically pleasing like grain can be!
•I could never get the ink on the transparency material dense enough to cover a full range of tone on my paper. I tried various colors and densities of ink, but the results never worked without burning in the shadow areas and dodging the highlights by hand.
•Getting the range of tones seen on screen to reproduce accurately was a challenge of its own, though with enough trial and error it is possible. Due to the other problems, I gave up before really nailing that though.

These trials on my part happened a couple of years ago, and using a printer that is pretty well obsolete now. I used an Epson 785EPX, as well as a few attempts with a friend's newer and generally better Canon S9000. So maybe things have changed.
I'd be really skeptical of enlarging the mask made with the printer, judging by the image quality problems I had with contact sized transparency material.
Maybe if you came up with a way to suspend an almost print sized mask a little above the print being enlarged you could diffuse the mask and eliminate the IQ problem?
Anyway, the method shure sounds like a good way to make a print; the hard to reproduce methods in the darkroom are the very ones it replaces. Ansel would've approved wholeheartedly- given that it was made to work really well.
I hope I'm not stopping someone else from experimenting by posting my experiences. Progress happens when people take a good idea and persevere until there is success. As I pointed out, my printer isn't the best, and of course different materials work differently. Maybe my contrast problems were a result of the paper I was using? Maybe the ink in my printer just isn't very compatible with the Pictorico OHP material I was using? Maybe I'm really picky about micro detail in prints; at the time I was using medium format for nearly everything because 35mm just was too gritty to my eye...

 

[rogue_designer]

sounds interesting. especially since they're not trying to produce a digital negative - which I've been dissapointed by - just making modifier layers.

I don't know if I'd bother - personally, just because I can see myself losing my layers somewhere, and having to start over.

But then I also lost my printing notes from 1994-1998, so I had to start over with several series then too. *shrug*

 

[40oz]

This actually sounds promising, with a few caveats.

I think the idea is to use the original negative in conjunction with the transparency masks generated in Photoshop.

I would concur that the transparencies+negative method does seem like the long way around. Dodging and burning is not something I typically use, as I strive to put everything on the negative I want in the print. So my opinion is not from an expert's point of view.

I use 35mm film, and there is no way, NO WAY my $200 printer could possibly put that much fine detail in a transparency. But it could generate a "blank" mask for a region, and let all the details come from the negative. Alignment could be done with registration marks outside the frame on the transparency. I'm thinking including the rebate in the scan would let a person line up the sprocket holes. If a person took the idea and ran with it, it could certainly prove useful.

Using medium format or larger would make this approach more feasible, I'd think.

IMHO, straight enlarger prints with no manipulation beyond contrast is the way to go to start. I see no reason you couldn't use transparencies made with scans in photoshop to effectively dodge and burn, but I would think you'd want a good straight print to work from, a number of attempts to establish what to dodge and what to burn, before hitting the computer. And a great deal of experimentation to determine what shade of what color would accomplish the goal.

I doubt it's as simple as "use photoshop to dodge and burn." In concept, the idea is wonderful, but in practice, I'd be impressed by any who could pull it off. Which of course is a good reason to try, I suppose 🙂

And one nice thing about wet prints - they are a crafted object, not easily reproduced precisely. That makes each successful "copy" valuable as a testament to the printer's art.

It is interesting that the short article shows no example of the practice. I'd think if it were "that simple," there would be a few samples showing what is possible. I am tending to think Mr. Rockwell was simply brainstorming.

 

[steffen]

This actually sounds promising, with a few caveats.

I think the idea is to use the original negative in conjunction with the transparency masks generated in Photoshop.

I would concur that the transparencies+negative method does seem like the long way around. Dodging and burning is not something I typically use, as I strive to put everything on the negative I want in the print. So my opinion is not from an expert's point of view.

I use 35mm film, and there is no way, NO WAY my $200 printer could possibly put that much fine detail in a transparency. But it could generate a "blank" mask for a region, and let all the details come from the negative. Alignment could be done with registration marks outside the frame on the transparency. I'm thinking including the rebate in the scan would let a person line up the sprocket holes. If a person took the idea and ran with it, it could certainly prove useful.

Using medium format or larger would make this approach more feasible, I'd think.

IMHO, straight enlarger prints with no manipulation beyond contrast is the way to go to start. I see no reason you couldn't use transparencies made with scans in photoshop to effectively dodge and burn, but I would think you'd want a good straight print to work from, a number of attempts to establish what to dodge and what to burn, before hitting the computer. And a great deal of experimentation to determine what shade of what color would accomplish the goal.

I doubt it's as simple as "use photoshop to dodge and burn." In concept, the idea is wonderful, but in practice, I'd be impressed by any who could pull it off. Which of course is a good reason to try, I suppose 🙂

And one nice thing about wet prints - they are a crafted object, not easily reproduced precisely. That makes each successful "copy" valuable as a testament to the printer's art.

It is interesting that the short article shows no example of the practice. I'd think if it were "that simple," there would be a few samples showing what is possible. I am tending to think Mr. Rockwell was simply brainstorming.

On his about page, Rockwell warns that some portions of his site is pure bull****, so this just might be one of them. As to the lack of examples, he made the point that he's not doing any black and white work anymore, pointing to 'b&w pros'.

Thanks for the all the good input 🙂 The problem I guess is knowing exactly how much the exposure is affected by just drawing randomly with color, as photoshop won't give me any feedback on how the image is affected. I'll definitely try it out, though. Some time. He he.

 

[Pablito]

I do a lot of available light work requiring careful printing and I have found over many years that there is much to be said for simplicity. If you find yourself with a very complex dodging and burning routine and/or other manipulations, then you should probably re-think the entire approach, find a different base exposure, etc etc.

 

[Bryce]

NikonWebmaster-
I looked at your links and don't see the point. The first one, Joseph Holmes' site, talks about color management and inkjet prints if you scrounge around long enough. Nothing about B+W or hybrid printing techniques except that he mentions they exist.
The other has nothing about B+W at all that I could find, or printing techniques of any kind.
Huh?

 

[40oz]

NikonWebmaster-
I looked at your links and don't see the point. The first one, Joseph Holmes' site, talks about color management and inkjet prints if you scrounge around long enough. Nothing about B+W or hybrid printing techniques except that he mentions they exist.
The other has nothing about B+W at all that I could find, or printing techniques of any kind.
Huh?

I'm guessing he just doesn't think much of Ken Rockwell. Can't say I really disagree. But there is wheat in the chaff.

 

[Bryce]

I see.
40oz, couldn't agree more. Except that I like the presence of a few Ken Rockwells out there; when they challenge conventional wisdom, they challenge me to think through it.
Mr. Rockwell's DOF calculations have served me well in medium format shooting. So there definitely is wheat in the chaff!
I hope that anyone here who tries the ideas presented here will let the rest of us know how you make out, for better or worse. Getting more reliable results in manual printing is a worthy goal, as is expanding the range of techniques available to darkroom workers.