I did some dodging!

VirtualAdept

VirtualAdept

Messages
2,137
Name
Mads
Edit My Images
Yes
I know thats an entirely normal thing for most of you, but last night was the first time I did anything even remotely different from "expose for x seconds, develop, stop and fix".

After much mucking about, I'd more or less figured out the exposure for one side of my print... and it came out like this

ship5x7001-p1enobbuq8116tjgn1jqg1fj5qd8 by Madison S, on Flickr

Oh noes! How in hell do I fix that? The left part of the print would require 20 seconds, the right hand side around 10. So I thought I'd give the, albeit easy, bit of dodging a go,

ship5x7002-p1enobbq9643jeiq1nr314us1qbi by Madison S, on Flickr

I think the next step (apart from learning to use a focus finder) would be to burn in the top right corner a bit so the sky matches left to right.

As a first attempt though, I'm fairly pleased with that.
 
I think perhaps you have over cooked it a tad. The sun is apparently coming from the left so a bit of burning in would do the trick to show a bit of texture on the boat's side but leave a 'sparkle'. The right side is perfectly natural because it is in shade, so I would say at a very rough guess about half the extra exposure on the left would have done the job and given the image more punch. To get the 'right' extra exposure, make a test strip with the original exposure, then do a step wedge test strip on top of the original exposure to judge what you think would give the little bit of lift.

I would leave the top right hand side alone as well. That is cloud, whereas the left hand side is a weak blue sky with the edge of the cloud. Darkening the cloud in my opinion would make it look un-natural.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
darkroom12 said:
I think perhaps you have over cooked it a tad. The sun is apparently coming from the left so a bit of burning in would do the trick to show a bit of texture on the boat's side but leave a 'sparkle'. The right side is perfectly natural because it is in shade, so I would say at a very rough guess about half the extra exposure on the left would have done the job and given the image more punch. To get the 'right' extra exposure, make a test strip with the original exposure, then do a step wedge test strip on top of the original exposure to judge what you think would give the little bit of lift.

I would leave the top right hand side alone as well. That is cloud, whereas the left hand side is a weak blue sky with the edge of the cloud. Darkening the cloud in my opinion would make it look un-natural.
Click to expand...

So, just to confirm I've understood, dial back the exposure on the left side a bit so its less uniform, making it more obvious which side is in shade?

What do you mean by a step wedge test strip please?

I'll have another bash at it tomorrow evening I think.
 
Yes as you put it, 'dial- back' the exposure to the original exposure this will leave the left side of the boat under exposed as it was in the 1st exposure. You have now set your base level.
Now take another piece of paper and expose it as before. Cover over most of the paper and expose the uncovered piece of paper for a further percentage of the time, I suggest 25% so if the basic exposure is 16 seconds, the 1st step would be a further 4 seconds the second for a further 4 seconds etc etc, so on and so forth. Now develop that piece of paper and you have created a step wedge with different exposures. One of which should be close to the optimum. If one is too dark and the one before is too light try a print for the time in the centre of these two steps. So if the total exposure for one step is 10 seconds (too light) and the next step is 12 seconds (to dark) try 11 seconds
What you are looking for is the lightest tone to be a shade of grey, enough to seperate it from the sky and a range of other tones, but not necessarily a black, although that would help to give it a bit of punch.

It is all down to experience and learning from your mistakes, it really isn't difficult and you may lurch from failure to failure until BINGO! You just hit on the right formula of how to do it right. But don't loose heart it does get easier. And yes use the grain focuss magnifyer.
!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry Mads I read the title as dogging. :oops: :$ :ROFLMAO:
 
Cockney said:
:ROFLMAO:
On topic. We cleared the farage out today and I threw out my temp controlled chemical heater. Quite sad.
Click to expand...

If only someone had cleared him out years ago we'd be much better off now :)
 
Mads, Have you considered a dabble with split grading ?
I’m still very much a novice at darkroom processes having until recently only spent a little time sharing the mad professor bit with a friend when I was a teenager.
Surprisingly all of what I learnt back then , which wasn’t a lot lol, has come back to me.
Sadly dodging and burning is not something I got to grips with then and having tried again, it’s not as easy ( for me) to make an image retain a natural look.
As mentioned by others, practice will make it easier.
Instead I decided to try the split grading technique and similarly that requires practice and a knowledge ( from making test strips/ prints) of how the different filter grade and exposure duration affect the image.
Personally I have found it to be an easier approach than D&B although the two methods could of course work very well together depending on the desired result.

There’s plenty of tutorials on the net so perhaps worth a look.
 
I've considered some split grading but I've never managed to get my head around it. I think I'll have another look at it on youtube later
 
Without intending to sound condescending or patronising, split grade printing is another level altogether. I would suggest that you get you mind around getting a good print from a single grade every time. Most of the times split grade is used, from experience (As long as MG2 paper has been available) this can be achieved by selectively dogging or burning. It is also quicker and less wasteful of paper.
There are other simple ways of controlling development such as dunking a sheet of exposed paper in plain water during the development stage to slow down development in denser areas. Or if a light area is reluctant to achieve density then I have used a paint brush (1/2") with neat developer to bring it on. Both of these are 'suck it and see' situations because you don't know how it will react.
 
Like most skills printing is largely a matter of practice. Before I went to college I had already taught myself to print, and had made many hundreds of contact prints and enlargements, from the age of 10 onward. Only graded paper was available at that time. And it became second nature to choose the right grade and exposure. It was rare to use more than a couple of sheets...
The main secret was getting standard exposures out of the camera. And developing to a standard contrast.

Dodging and burning was mainly done with manipulating the hand shapes, and keeping them moving.
Much like playing an instrument things became pretty automatic through practice.

it must be difficult to become proficient, for today's amateur, who probably only makes a few prints a year.
 
VirtualAdept said:
I'll be honest Toni, I've no idea what modelling from the light source means
Click to expand...

It's how the manner in which light falls gives a shape the appearance of having 3 dimensions. The first image, while rather lacking tonal range, did give clear 3 dimensionality, while the second image much less so. John (darkroom12) described this using different words, which were more meaningful to you:

VirtualAdept said:
So, just to confirm I've understood, dial back the exposure on the left side a bit so its less uniform, making it more obvious which side is in shade?
Click to expand...

The thing about mono is that the tones need to convey something, and it's better to let shadows block up a bit and whites lose a *little* detail if that can impart some feeling or dynamism to an image, than it is to get all the tones even with lots of detail in the greys, but without excitement.
 
I must confess to feeling a little bit deflated, having been so excited to have done something new.
That said, you've all given me some wonderful advice and insight, and I'm going to take all that onboard and work on improving my technique.

Thank you all for your advice and feedback

Mads
 
Don't be disheartened! You DID do well, but it's a really challenging thing after just waving a 'brush' around in Lightroom to fix stuff (though it's actually extremely similar in principle, if not practice).
 
ancient_mariner said:
Don't be disheartened! You DID do well, but it's a really challenging thing after just waving a 'brush' around in Lightroom to fix stuff (though it's actually extremely similar in principle, if not practice).
Click to expand...

No no, I made a step forward without any prior practice, now its just down to refining it, which the advice I've had here will certainly help with :)
 
VirtualAdept said:
I must confess to feeling a little bit deflated, having been so excited to have done something new.
That said, you've all given me some wonderful advice and insight, and I'm going to take all that onboard and work on improving my technique.

Thank you all for your advice and feedback

Mads
Click to expand...

Just don't give up, it does get easier.
 
darkroom12 said:
Without intending to sound condescending or patronising, split grade printing is another level altogether. I would suggest that you get you mind around getting a good print from a single grade every time. Most of the times split grade is used, from experience (As long as MG2 paper has been available) this can be achieved by selectively dogging or burning. It is also quicker and less wasteful of paper.
There are other simple ways of controlling development such as dunking a sheet of exposed paper in plain water during the development stage to slow down development in denser areas. Or if a light area is reluctant to achieve density then I have used a paint brush (1/2") with neat developer to bring it on. Both of these are 'suck it and see' situations because you don't know how it will react.
Click to expand...

I fully agree about trying to obtain a result from a single grade but if the tones of the negative are difficult to work with and the D&B abilities of the tog are lacking ( no criticism there as mine are carp) then is it not a sensible idea to follow a method that does workfor the tog?

Wether split grading is another level as such, I wouldn’t like to say..... to me it’s simply a different way of achieving what I want, and one that I personally find easier to work with.

Fair enough one can use a reasonable amount of paper but that can that not also be true from dud attempts at D&B?

Tbh,i think it’s simply a finding a process that the individual is confident in and from which can obtain the end result that he/ she is happy with.
That is not unlike most aspects of photography. Metering being a prime example.
 
Asha said:
I fully agree about trying to obtain a result from a single grade but if the tones of the negative are difficult to work with and the D&B abilities of the tog are lacking ( no criticism there as mine are carp) then is it not a sensible idea to follow a method that does workfor the tog?

Wether split grading is another level as such, I wouldn’t like to say..... to me it’s simply a different way of achieving what I want, and one that I personally find easier to work with.

Fair enough one can use a reasonable amount of paper but that can that not also be true from dud attempts at D&B?

Tbh,i think it’s simply a finding a process that the individual is confident in and from which can obtain the end result that he/ she is happy with.
That is not unlike most aspects of photography. Metering being a prime example.
Click to expand...

Split grading is very similar to what we do every day in digital PP. when we add contrast to local burns. it is not in any way a difficult process in digital or analogue working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top