Some members have commented that alt-photo-process has been slow recently, so
I thought I would present this approach to printing to the group. Another
stimulus was the recent comments regarding whether questions of aesthetics
belong the alt-photo-process list. While this is strictly speaking a
technical description of my method of making prints, it unavoidably raises
the aesthetic issues which led me to explore this method.
This posting has in fact been sitting on my hard disk for quite a while; but,
I've been reluctant to present it to the group because of the flame-warfare
that has resulted from some similar questions in the past few months. I
hope that we can agree with the recent remarks of Ron Silvers about such
discussions:
>> ..I find that aesthetic and evaluative issues ...
>> ***can be handled in a civil manner*** ... [On the
>> photohst list,] it came when members began to respect
>> each other, when they combined analytic and evaluative
>> comments, when they showed that they were willing to
>> change their thoughts and judgments, and most
>>important, when they began taking responsibility for
>> what they declared. I think we can achieve
>> this. It's a continuous fragile possibility.
So, here goes. I'm sending this as three sequential postings, as I suspect
that some E-mail systems might choke on a single ~20KB file.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'll begin with a quote from Klaus Pollmeier's June 2 essay on this list,
which started the "physiology vs. sensitometry" thread:
>> The conventional s-curve of silver halide emulsions is
>> WRONG and it remains wrong no matter how carefully one
>> reads Ansel Adams' books or any other publication on
>> silver halide sensitometry.... Heinrich Kuehn showed
>> it clearly: Compared to human perception, silver
>> gelatin emulsions give insufficient contrast in the
>> shadows, place the mid-grey too low, and again give
>> insufficient contrast in the highlights. This drawback
>> can be overcome by complex negative masking ...
>> or--of course--by digital image processing.
For several years I have used a system of print masking which specifically
addresses and solves the problems which Klaus described. I developed it for
platinum/palladium printing. However, the method can be used with any
contact printing process.
The technique achieves these goals:
1. Better separation of tones in shadows and highlights, in order to
compensate for the compression of these values that is inherent in the long,
flat shoulder and toe of the Pt/Pd D/LogE curve;
2. Precise control over the tonal values of individual areas within the
print, independent of all other areas;
3. Increased local-area contrast within the relatively limited tonal
range of the palladiotype; and,
4. The ability to make a proof of the final print prior to the
time-consuming job of making and using a set of printing masks.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an outline of what I'll describe in the remainder of this posting:
1. SUBJECT MATTER AND LIGHTING FOR THE ORIGINAL
PHOTOGRAPH
2. MAKING THE NEGATIVE
3. MAKING A SERIES OF TEST PRINTS
4. CONSTRUCTING A MULTI-LAYERED PROOF FROM THE SEQUENCE
OF TEST PRINTS
5. GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT HOW THE MASKS ARE MADE
AND USED
6. MAKING THE MASKS
7. USING THE MASKS TO MAKE THE FINAL PRINT
8. ADAPTING THE METHOD TO DIGITAL TECHNIQUES
9. FINAL COMMENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. SUBJECT MATTER AND LIGHTING FOR THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH
This technique works best with subjects in soft lighting. I try to avoid
immediate juxtaposition of deep shadow and bright highlights. Good subjects
include landscapes on overcast days or just after sunset, portraits and still
life with soft directional light, and architectural interiors. However, I
have used the method on selected subjects having strong direct illumination.
2. MAKING THE NEGATIVE
I overexpose the original negative sufficiently to insure that all shadow
detail is off the toe and onto the straight portion of the film's s-curve. I
expose TMax400 at ISO 100 to achieve this result.
I start with a *very* contrasty negative which would be impossible to print
with conventional Pt/Pd methods. I usually work with a 4"x5" or 8"x10"
camera and try to make the original in-camera negative suitable for this
process. For subjects illuminated by soft indirect light I typically develop
the negative to completion, much as prints are developed: With TMax100 or
400 sheet film, I will develop in undiluted D76 for 15 minutes at 75 degrees
F in a Jobo processor (i.e., with constant agitation). The resulting
negatives are of course very grainy, but it doesn't matter as they are used
only for contact printing.
Even with such extreme development, an occasional negative doesn't have
enough contrast. So, I will make contact interpositive and a new negative
just to increase contrast (I haven't used intensifiers such as selenium, as I
prefer not to alter the original negative). Because I always have it on hand
for original in-camera work, I use TMax100 sheet film and D76 for
interpositives and new negs. Any of the other films normally used for such
work would probably be satisfactory, as long as the material can achieve a
relatively high DMax.
When working with enlarged negatives, I develop the original negative at a
more conventional time and temperature to avoid excessive grain and use the
two steps of interpositive/new negative to increase contrast. I enlarge the
interpositive to final print size and contact-expose the final negative, so
that the excessive grain of the interpositive isn't enlarged onto the
negative.
The final negative is often very dense and on visual inspection may seem to
have blocked highlights. However, with the TMax films the shoulder of the
curve doesn't begin until well beyond a density of 3.0, and I've never had a
problem with loss of highlight detail in these overexposed negatives.
***** End of part 1 *****
----------