6. MAKING THE MASKS
I separate the sequence of test prints in the multilayered proof and use them
as templates for making masks. The first mask (M1) is made from the
**second** print in the stack (P2). (I do not make mask from P1, as
nothing has been removed from it). I tape print P2 face down to a piece of
acetate or glass. Then, I turn the combination over and use a "Sharpie" or
other marker to trace onto the glass outlines of the areas which have been
cut out of the print; these are the areas which are to be painted. For
registration, I trace the edges of the negative onto the glass. I also
trace a few of the major outlines of the image. These tracings are used as
registration marks to align the mask on top of the printing frame over the
negative.
I continue making the series of the masks from the sequence of prints: M2
from P3, M3 from P4, etc. In the later masks, I frequently need to mask most
if not all of the edges of the negative, which need to be visible through the
mask for registration. On these, I trace the negative edges onto the glass
but don't paint the areas over the four corners of the negative; when using
the mask, I line it up using the corner outlines and then cover the corners
with black paper to complete the mask for print exposure.
I paint the outlined areas on each mask with black paint. I use a flat black
enamel, but any opaque paint will do.
7. USING THE MASKS TO MAKE THE FINAL PRINT
The masks are quite simple to use. Recall the exposure times for the
sequence of test prints in the proof. As an example, assume the following
times:
P1 = 4 minutes
P2 = 5.6
P3 = 8
P4 = 11
The initial exposure with *no* mask is the exposure given P1, 4 minutes.
Then, I put on M1 (which was made from P2) and expose for an additional 1.6
minutes to give a total of 5.6 minutes. I expose with M2 for a cumulative
time of 8 minutes and with M3 for a cumulative time of 11 minutes:
No mask (M0) = 4 minutes
M1 = 1.6
M2 = 2.4
M3 = 3
============================
Total exposure = 11 minutes
The first version of the print is usually not exactly what I want. I refine
the print by slight variation in the printing times with the various
individual masks.
8. ADAPTING THE METHOD TO DIGITAL TECHNIQUES
This entire process is easy to implement with PhotoShop. To make test
"prints", I use the Adjust Levels and/or Adjust Curve controls to make the
sequential series of images; each of these is stored as a separate file on
the hard disk. Then, I place the series of test images into PhotoShop layers
and use the PhotoShop Erase tool to "cut out" the areas in each level which
are too dark. If I want to undo my erasures in a level, I simply restore the
original file of that level from the hard drive. When I'm satisfied with the
final image, I merge the layers.
If there isn't enough RAM to support multiple layers, it is possible to work
with only two at a time: one can make two layers with P1 & P2, erase the
dark areas from P2, and then merge them; add P3 and repeat the process, etc.
etc.
It is often difficult to predict exactly how the luminous image on a computer
monitor, with a range of 6 or 7 stops, will translate into a palladium print,
with its limited range of about 3 stops. So, I use an inexpensive inkjet
printer to make proofs on paper. By playing around with the Adjust Levels
and Curve controls, it's quite easy to adjust the output to the inkjet
printer so that the proof prints bear some resemblance to my final output in
palladium. I can hear the groans in the background about my comparison of
inkjet to Pt/Pd -- remember, I'm just making a proof so that my most
egregious errors are corrected before they make it to the service bureau.
Even with the inkjet proofs, I sometimes get unexpected results with digital
negatives (300 LPI linescreen negatives made on an imagesetter). So, I will
sometimes use a mask or two to fine tune the final print.
The limitations in lighting of the subject matter which I described in
Section 1 are of course eliminated with digital methods. If necessary, I can
work the the image on a pixel-by-pixel basis, and the problems posed by
bright highlights immediately next to deep shadow, etc., become trivial.
Also, I can now work with medium format (or even 35mm!!) instead of 8"x10":
negative enlargement is a trivial problem with digital techniques, in
contrast to the aggravations involved in enlarging negatives by traditional
"analog" methods.
9. FINAL COMMENTS
How long does it take to make a print with these masks? I typically spend
two days working up a new negative. On the first day I make test prints and
the composite proof and paint masks. Then I use the masks to make the final
print on the second day. The real task is deciding on what tonal values I
want when making the multilayered proof; the rest is pretty much a
mechanical, rote process.
This technique is not a panacea: as is the case with most of us, my
successes are only occasional, and failures are many. But, this way of
working has fundamentally changed how I think about photographs, and it has
helped me not only with printmaking but also with "previsualization" at the
time of the initial negative exposure. For several years I used these masks
for all of my palladium prints, before converting my work to digital methods
in 1995. I still use them occasionally even with the digital negatives.
One of the problems of this list is that we can't provide illustrations for
these discussions of visual imagery. For those who are interested, I will
send a35mm transparency of a sample print, along with paper Xerox copies of
the masks used for the image. This will give you a better idea of how this
process actually works. Send me a self-addressed stamped envelope, and I'll
mail the material back to you.
I understand that this sort of elaborate image manipulation raises many
questions, both technical and aesthetic, and I welcome comments from list
members. To me, the final result matters much more than theoretical
considerations: when used properly, this masking system overcomes many of
the physical limitations inherent in our films and printing materials and
produces prints which are pleasing to the eye.
Charlie Palmer (CHPalmer@aol.com)
1506 Park SW
Albuquerque New Mexico 87104
USA
----------