Controling highlights in a wet print

[fstops]

Hi, I'm new here. I was recommended this forum by a friend when I asked him some questions about analog printing.

My question might sound stupid but I was wondering when making a wet print (b&w), how do/did you decide how light the highlights should be?

Just to clarify, with digital one can push/pull the highlights until they clip, with wet printing how did highlight control worked?

One aspect of b&w analog prints that really appeal to me is that highlights are really light which gives the image a 3D-like look. How was this achieved during printing?

Sorry for the incoherent questions but hopefully those with experience know what I'm talking about.

[sleepyhead]

Well, this is a question connected to a lot of areas, such as exposing and processing a good negative to begin with.

But, first remember that unlike digital exposure a piece of printing paper starts white, not black, and that the highlights therefore start off "clipped" and you then add detail to them by increasing exposure to the paper (sometimes differentially such as by burning in whilst dodging the shadows.)

'Hope this starts you off.

[ray*j*gun]

Test prints using your best guess then adjusting the time/aperture until the print looks as good over all as possible. Then I burn or dodge the highlights until i get what I want or close. If part of the neg is clear or black there is often not much you can do.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Set exposure for the highlights, then adjust the shadows by changing paper grade. Dodge and burn to refine small areas.

[x-ray]

Different papers dry down more or less meaning there is more tone in whites when the print dries. It all a balance of exposure and ma ny times requires dodging or often in my case burning in the highs. Sometimes they need bleached.

[muser53]

Optimally you should start at the beginning of the chain. Which is to say expose and develop your film in a way that retains the level of detail you desire. If your negatives are overexposed (i.e. too dense to retain highlight detail) than the highlights in your prints will likewise be washed out. One last thought regarding negs. As a general rule of thumb if you place your negs on newsprint you should be able to read through the densest part of the neg. Negatives that print well generally look kind of flat to the eye.

[Turtle]

What Chris says, but with a large BUT//

Experience.

There are other techniques you can use, like pre-flashing, that will allow you to produce the highlights you want, but with more contrast throughout the rest of the range of tones if that is what you want. Starting with what Chris says is the best bet and then make a heck of a lot of prints and experiment. If you find you cannot hold the highlights at the paper grade you need to get the desired mid-tone separation, then try pre-flashing, but do all you can to learn without pre-flashing until you can do no more!

Then practice some more.

Scream a lot (in the soft red glow of your safelight of course)....

..... then print some more. I't is easy to become quite a reasonable printer who can tackle most negs. It is a very different thing to become a brilliant printer who can produce a super print out of almost any neg. The good news is that you should enjoy it along the way.

I think getting highlights right can be the hardest thing in wet printing. For some prints it does not seem to matter, but for others it seems a tremendously difficult balancing act.

[rlouzan]

+ only specular highlights should be paper white.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Set exposure for the highlights, then adjust the shadows by changing paper grade. Dodge and burn to refine small areas.

Exactly right.

[Murchu]

Some great info here, and am learning a lot. As someone who does not wet print, but looking to dip my toe in again and perhaps make a concerted effort to become a reasonable printer, can I confirm one thing - when you say, set exposure for the highlights and adjust the shadows by changing paper grade, will changing the paper grade move the band of contrast on both ends (shadows & highlights), or just adjust the shadows?

Thanks in advance

[Jockos]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Set exposure for the highlights, then adjust the shadows by changing paper grade. Dodge and burn to refine small areas.

Does this mean that you don't use variable papers and split contrast with color filters?

[Moriturii]

Originally Posted by Jockos

Does this mean that you don't use variable papers and split contrast with color filters?

Same thing in spirit.

[Jockos]

What would the benefits be for using graded papers versus VC? Excuse me if it's a stupid question, I got my darkroom ½ year ago, and know only what I've read on the Internets

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Jockos

Does this mean that you don't use variable papers and split contrast with color filters?

Changing paper grade can be done with filters on VC. That's actually how I do it. Split-grading the main exposure is a waste of time, its been scientifically proven to give identical results to using a single filter, but like many religious beliefs, it has a lot of vocal priests. Using different filters for burning is a useful technique for lowering contrast in very bright highlight areas. I did that a lot.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jockos

What would the benefits be for using graded papers versus VC? Excuse me if it's a stupid question, I got my darkroom ½ year ago, and know only what I've read on the Internets

Very few. The very hardest grade (5) is harder in graded, and some textured papers can't really be coated with VC. But from the point of view of overall quality, VC caught up 20 years ago or more.

Cheers,

R.

[.... _]

Originally Posted by Jockos

What would the benefits be for using graded papers versus VC? Excuse me if it's a stupid question, I got my darkroom ½ year ago, and know only what I've read on the Internets

today the differences are largely subjective. VC has convenience factor of many grades in one paper and ability to print different parts of one image at different grades.
However, for people who take their printing to a higher level, then print colour, surface finish and how any paper responds to toning come into play and that is often a deciding factor. For example when lith printing.

[Turtle]

I concur. I only use filter changes for local adjustments. That said, I do often use setting that are approximately 1/4 grad variations. Sometimes it seems to matter a lot, but most of the time 1/2 grade intervals are fine.

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

Changing paper grade can be done with filters on VC. That's actually how I do it. Split-grading the main exposure is a waste of time, its been scientifically proven to give identical results to using a single filter, but like many religious beliefs, it has a lot of vocal priests. Using different filters for burning is a useful technique for lowering contrast in very bright highlight areas. I did that a lot.

[jordanstarr]

also...learn how to bleach to control local contrast an pop out highlights.

[Moriturii]

Originally Posted by jordanstarr

also...learn how to bleach to control local contrast an pop out highlights.

Now this I want to know more about, please elaborate or possibly, links that I could read?

I remember watching things like a HCB documentary. Someone printed out a picture, and a woman took out a small paint-brush and "painted" something something. She was bleaching then?

[fstops]

I really learned a lot about the complexity of wet printing from all the great responses to my question. Thanks, I really appreciate it.

But I'm going to disappoint by saying that I'm not currently wet printing or even planning to do so, my question came about with my struggle with digital post-processing where IMO the highlights are never light enough and the shadows are never dark enough.

If I may turn the question around and ask those of you who post-process with photoshop, how do you translate these wet-printing techniques and experience into digital?

[Lawrence A.]

If the negative is too contrasty, and dodging and burning become too difficult for one reason or another you can try two bath development of the print, though this works best on graded fiber papers. Develop your highlights fully in selectol soft, with infrequent agitation, then douse the print in Dektol to add shadow density and contrast. It's tricky and takes some tests, but can be useful with stubborn negs.

I should add I've been out of a darkroom for a while and don't know if the even make selectol soft anymore.

[jbrianfoto]

Originally Posted by Moriturii

Now this I want to know more about, please elaborate or possibly, links that I could read?

I remember watching things like a HCB documentary. Someone printed out a picture, and a woman took out a small paint-brush and "painted" something something. She was bleaching then?

That was potassium ferricyanide - some printers liked using this stuff to spot bleach areas of their prints. You take the print out of the fixer, blow (with your mouth usually) dry the spot taht you want to lighten, then carefully wipe on a little of this stuff, then resubmberge into the fixer and wipe it off. It is a hit-or-miss technique, some can do it well. I never liked the idea.

Try reading The Zone VI Workshop, I have had great luck using its described method for producing a good, solid negative everytime. I only use one film, one developer and one paper. Once you nail down a propper processtime for your film, and you make tests to determine your actual film speed, you get excellent negatives every time (as long as you follow the rules).

Enjoy yourself too, that is most important. It is fun to be in the darkroom, fun working with craft.

[.... _]

Originally Posted by fstops

I really learned a lot about the complexity of wet printing from all the great responses to my question. Thanks, I really appreciate it.

But I'm going to disappoint by saying that I'm not currently wet printing or even planning to do so, my question came about with my struggle with digital post-processing where IMO the highlights are never light enough and the shadows are never dark enough.

If I may turn the question around and ask those of you who post-process with photoshop, how do you translate these wet-printing techniques and experience into digital?

use levels to expand the range of your image at either end or both ends and adjust the middle bias accordingly to suit your taste. i.e. to increase or reduce separation in the highlights relative to shadows or increase or reduce separation in the shadows relative to the highlights. Levels are your friend. Some people do it with curves. I prefer levels unless I'm being real picky about a specific region of the image and then I'll create a feathered layer of that region and play with just that bit of the image.

[fstops]

Originally Posted by tog

use levels to expand the range of your image at either end or both ends and adjust the middle bias accordingly to suit your taste. i.e. to increase or reduce separation in the highlights relative to shadows or increase or reduce separation in the shadows relative to the highlights. Levels are your friend. Some people do it with curves. I prefer levels unless I'm being real picky about a specific region of the image and then I'll create a feathered layer of that region and play with just that bit of the image.

Thanks I will try that.

[.... _]

Originally Posted by fstops

Thanks I will try that.

When you go into levels you see a histogram. You just pull the sliders at either end in to the start of the histogram. Any further and you are clipping. Some people will tell you that you should never clip but that isn't always the best approach. Often clipping the shadows adds some real punch to an image by giving it a full range from black to white. Greater care is required if clipping highlights. It should be done very judiciously if you do need or want to do it.