highscore
Hi everyone,
I’ve had another go at wet exposure when enlarging.
The aim was to use automatic masking to enlarge a negative that was far too thin.
However, the results aren’t really up to scratch.
I do get more detail in the shadows, but these images tend to turn out rather grey for me.
So I’m wondering whether I’ve actually understood the process at all.
Could someone who has mastered this particular process describe how they carry it out in the darkroom?
Or is this process, by its very nature, unsuitable for negatives that are too thin?
Regards
Highscore
moma
Good morning
€
Maybe this will help...
€
http://www.silberbild.info
€
Best wishes
highscore
Yeah, thanks, Mum
?
I’d already read that article.
Urnes
So, if I’m reading this correctly, this would be useful for trees with underexposure. If the branches are exposed correctly, there isn’t enough detail in the sky, so you end up with high overall contrast. Personally, in a case like this, I’d try using split-tone printing: first, perform soft exposure, then expose the shadows using grade 5, or pre-expose the paper. There are many darkroom techniques aimed at salvaging images. The question is, however, whether you really need to. In other words, is it worth going to a lot of trouble to salvage a sub-optimal image when you have other shots on the roll that are technically and visually fine? There’s also nothing to stop you retaking the shot in similar light. But I agree with you – the technique is interesting.
Regards, Sven.
highscore
Hi Sven.
?
Yes, wet exposure was now the only way to produce a halfway decent positive.
However, it didn’t work out and the negatives have already ended up in the bin.
Thanks for the split-grade tip, but I’ve always used split-grade since I started developing my own again after a 30-year break.
I’m reluctant to tackle fixed gradations.
?
What prompted me to start this thread, though, is that the positive has developed a grey haze.
And that’s exactly what shouldn’t happen. So there must be a mistake in my process.
?
Perhaps your advice might help me when I try wet printing again.
After all, I can’t really get much more than a little extra detail in the shadows from this process anyway.
And if I’ve botched the negative as badly as I have here, nothing will work out.
?
Regards
Marcus
jonny
Essentially, wet exposure is a greatly simplified version of a classic contrast mask. The latter would be the more controllable and elegant method, though also significantly more labour-intensive.
To do this, you make a special contact copying of the negative onto film, which is then developed to produce a very soft gradient. This results in a very thin, soft positive. This is then enlarged in a sandwich with the negative. Masking the shadows in the negative ensures that you can use normal or hard gradients without the shadows in the positive turning black. Of course, the process cannot conjure up detail where there is none in the negative. The negative must be worth the effort. This is a standard procedure in analogue colour enlargement, but it is also suitable for black and white, particularly when the complex composition of an image makes partial masking or post-exposure very difficult or impossible. The process is described in more detail, for example, in Ctein’s ‘Post Exposure’ (available as a free PDF download from the author on the internet).
highscore
Yes, Elizabeth.
?
That really was a waste of good film.
The negative wasn’t worth it. Especially as I can take the photo again.
But the experience I gained was worth it to me.
?
I’m going to try the process again with a ‘good’ negative. On the one hand, to practise.
And secondly, to get to the bottom of this pesky grey haze, just as it appeared in my case.
Perhaps I’ll then find out how to prevent this blurring.
?
I’ll take a closer look at the article you recommended.
?
Thanks
Marcus
jonny
Link to the book:
http://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf
€
(Diffuse) pre-exposure is another technique that can be used for this purpose. You can read all about it on Ctein’s website.
highscore
Oh yes, thanks Elizabeth.
?
I’ve done that before too.
To get a bit more detail in the dead spots on a nice negative.
?
Well, in my case there just wasn’t enough light on the negative.
So my exposure adjustment didn’t do any good either.
The best solution is simply to produce good negatives.
?
(Maybe the spot light meter I’ve just picked up on eBay will help me with that. Hopefully the thing actually works.)
?
Regards
Highscore
