Digital BW, The Print

In order to achieve a decent contrast range in any of my prints (on 
EAM or Photorag & MIS inks) I always have to duplicate the Background 
Layer (with varying opacities) and set the Blend Mode to Overlay. 

If I dont, I never get a decent contrast with a good black tone. To 
try and give you a "picture" - in traditional printing I favour grade 
3 or 4 rather than grade 2 or 1.

Is this a perfectly acceptable method of working or am I doing 
something wrong further up the line. Are others using the same trick

thanks
Frank

In order to achieve a decent contrast range in any of my prints (on 
EAM or Photorag & MIS inks) I always have to duplicate the Background 
Layer (with varying opacities) and set the Blend Mode to Overlay. 

If I dont, I never get a decent contrast with a good black tone. To 
try and give you a "picture" - in traditional printing I favour grade 
3 or 4 rather than grade 2 or 1.

Is this a perfectly acceptable method of working or am I doing 
something wrong further up the line. Are others using the same trick

thanks
Frank

You might also try a soft light blend rather than overlay, subtle, not so
destructive to your histo... also try a contrast mask on the overlay or soft
light so that only those areas you want effected will be.

Rather than duping the background layer, use a curve or levels adjustment
layer, don't set anything within the adjustment but set the layer itself to
the overlay or softlight mode, that way, you get the same effect without
doubling your file size... Sometimes if warranted I'll do a curve adjustment
within the blend mode.

I assume that a curve adjustment just isn't kicking it enough? Have you
tried using the eye droppers to set endpoints, rather than just moving the
end points in in the histo, giving a better depth?

Carolyn

> 
> In order to achieve a decent contrast range in any of my prints (on
> EAM or Photorag & MIS inks) I always have to duplicate the Background
> Layer (with varying opacities) and set the Blend Mode to Overlay.
> 
> If I dont, I never get a decent contrast with a good black tone. To
> try and give you a "picture" - in traditional printing I favour grade
> 3 or 4 rather than grade 2 or 1.
> 
> Is this a perfectly acceptable method of working or am I doing
> something wrong further up the line. Are others using the same trick
> 
> thanks
> Frank
>

I use both Overlay and Soft Light blend modes, experimenting with 
each at various levels of opacity.  I typically use the eraser to go 
back to the original image in places where the blend mode goes too 
far, one way or another.  I find that I often need a curves layer 
after the first print to bring up the contrast or some part of the 
tonal range.  One question -- is reducing the file size the only 
reason to use a blank adjustment layer rather than copying the 
background?  I should add that I also use a soft light medium gray 
layer to burn and dodge -- by varying the opacity of the brush you 
have very fine control over the process.

Steve

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Frayn 
<carolynfrayn@s...> wrote:
> You might also try a soft light blend rather than overlay, subtle, 
not so
> destructive to your histo... also try a contrast mask on the 
overlay or soft
> light so that only those areas you want effected will be.
> 
> Rather than duping the background layer, use a curve or levels 
adjustment
> layer, don't set anything within the adjustment but set the layer 
itself to
> the overlay or softlight mode, that way, you get the same effect 
without
> doubling your file size... Sometimes if warranted I'll do a curve 
adjustment
> within the blend mode.
> 
> I assume that a curve adjustment just isn't kicking it enough? Have 
you
> tried using the eye droppers to set endpoints, rather than just 
moving the
> end points in in the histo, giving a better depth?
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> > 
> > In order to achieve a decent contrast range in any of my prints 
(on
> > EAM or Photorag & MIS inks) I always have to duplicate the 
Background
> > Layer (with varying opacities) and set the Blend Mode to Overlay.
> > 
> > If I dont, I never get a decent contrast with a good black tone. 
To
> > try and give you a "picture" - in traditional printing I favour 
grade
> > 3 or 4 rather than grade 2 or 1.
> > 
> > Is this a perfectly acceptable method of working or am I doing
> > something wrong further up the line. Are others using the same 
trick

> > 
> > thanks
> > Frank
> >

> I use both Overlay and Soft Light blend modes, experimenting with
> each at various levels of opacity.
Sometimes, again image dependant, I'll add a multiply curve layer, using the
inverse of the mask I created for the softlight/overlay or screen layer.
Softening the mask will help with the transition.

>  I typically use the eraser to go
> back to the original image in places where the blend mode goes too
> far, one way or another.
I don't use the eraser. If you give your adjustment layer a mask, then paint
the areas out on the mask, then you can go back and edit. Same holds for
your background but, erasing or masking your background with an overlay
blend overtop leaves nothing for the pixels to react to underneath, can have
good effects for art if you have various images underneath that though. Do
you mean you erase your overlay/softlight layer?

>   I find that I often need a curves layer
> after the first print to bring up the contrast or some part of the
> tonal range.  One question -- is reducing the file size the only
> reason to use a blank adjustment layer rather than copying the
> background?  
Yes. This goes to my commercial image files where the can reach over 1.5
GIG's (8.5 x 11 output) prior to flattening. Also, I always save layered
files and their edits, this saves space.  ...and if you are like me after
obsessing over some small detail you end up liking a previous version days
later.

>I should add that I also use a soft light medium gray
> layer to burn and dodge -- by varying the opacity of the brush you
> have very fine control over the process.

Yes.  If I do this I will fill a layer with gray, and then paint on a mask
again. Screen and Multiply work well for burn and dodge. You might like to
play with that if you haven't already.

Carolyn...

Carolyn,
Thanks very much for your informative reply - I will work on trying 
your suggestions - 

1. making a contrast mask on the  overlay or soft light duplicate 
layer to only affect certain areas (first I have to figure how to :-) 

2.creating a new adjustment layer and setting it's blend mode to 
overlay or soft light - Do I have this straight ?

I can get a good looking image on screen with the Curve or Level 
adjustments but it just doesn't "kick it" as you put it, on the 
print. And yes I have used the droppers to set a black point. 

Funny thing is that although I have not had the opportunity to use a 
calibrating tool or software, I do have good wysiwyg from screen to 
print by using
a. adobe gamma
b. using a 21 step (and even a 100 step) wedge, I can see all the 
steps on my screen and they all print distinctively (is that the 
right word - I can distinguish between them all)to my printer. So I'm 
not sure why I dont get ""kick" in my prints
Frank

Carolyn Frayn wrote:
> You might also try a soft light blend rather than overlay, subtle, 
not so
> destructive to your histo... also try a contrast mask on the 
overlay or soft
> light so that only those areas you want effected will be.
> 
> Rather than duping the background layer, use a curve or levels 
adjustment
> layer, don't set anything within the adjustment but set the layer 
itself to
> the overlay or softlight mode, that way, you get the same effect 
without
> doubling your file size... Sometimes if warranted I'll do a curve 
adjustment
> within the blend mode.
> 
> I assume that a curve adjustment just isn't kicking it enough? Have 
you
> tried using the eye droppers to set endpoints, rather than just 
moving the
> end points in in the histo, giving a better depth?
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> > 
> > In order to achieve a decent contrast range in any of my prints 
(on
> > EAM or Photorag & MIS inks) I always have to duplicate the 
Background
> > Layer (with varying opacities) and set the Blend Mode to Overlay.
> > 
> > If I dont, I never get a decent contrast with a good black tone. 
To
> > try and give you a "picture" - in traditional printing I favour 
grade
> > 3 or 4 rather than grade 2 or 1.
> > 
> > Is this a perfectly acceptable method of working or am I doing
> > something wrong further up the line. Are others using the same 
trick

> > 
> > thanks
> > Frank
> >

Hi Frank,


> 1. making a contrast mask on the  overlay or soft light duplicate
> layer to only affect certain areas (first I have to figure how to :-)

with all other adjustment layers off and your image background highlighted,
click "command + option + tilde" on a mac... sorry, don't know Pc equiv...



Then with those marching ants, highlight an existing blank layer mask and
fill with black... or with  marching ants, while in an adjustment layer,
click the mask icon and this will create a mask.

From there you can inverse the mask, or soften it, or paint over it, or any
numerous things you wish to do.

You can also give the image a tweak with a curve layer prior to selecting
it, keep the adjustment layer "visible", then do the above (highlight image,
"command option tilde"), this will make your mask with the adjustments,
sometimes giving you a better mask, more contrast to work with.

> 2.creating a new adjustment layer and setting it's blend mode to
> overlay or soft light - Do I have this straight ?

A curve or levels adjustment layer, yes.
just eliminates having to duplicate your image, and lessens the file size.

> 
> I can get a good looking image on screen with the Curve or Level
> adjustments but it just doesn't "kick it" as you put it, on the
> print. And yes I have used the droppers to set a black point.

Have you set the droppers to the blackest black, or are they default press
colors?  Double click them to find out. Also set your white point. Setting
black and white end points with the eyedroppers  can give the contrast you
desire as it maps the entire tonal range rather than just clipping off the
ends. (not sure I'm explaining that right)

> 
> Funny thing is that although I have not had the opportunity to use a
> calibrating tool or software, I do have good wysiwyg from screen to
> print by using
> a. adobe gamma
> b. using a 21 step (and even a 100 step) wedge, I can see all the
> steps on my screen and they all print distinctively (is that the
> right word - I can distinguish between them all)to my printer. So I'm
> not sure why I dont get ""kick" in my prints

Nothing wrong with using that tool to achieve what you need in a closed loop
workflow if it works!.  Give your image an "s" curve to punch it up a
little? You have to take paper into consideration, proper paper/ink
profiling is usually the key.  The steps are showing you good seperation of
tone, the contrast will vary with your image... difficult to know where the
issue can be addressed without seeing your file.  Sometimes the image will
look great on screen but due to the paper color, the way the inks lay down,
it will look flat in print. When you "kick" it up on screen it still looks
good there, but better in print. So it's never truly wysiwyg... can't be in
my opinion when one is reflective and dependant on paper source, the other
on light.  One of the reasons the cmyk with paper white soft proofing is so
cool!  And so telling! ;-)

Carolyn

Hi Frank:

You didn't say whether you were working in RGB or Grayscale mode.

You can make an adjustment layer using any technique you want. 

If you are working in GS mode, you might want to try converting back 
to RGB (temporarily), then making an adjustment layer 
using "Selective Color". Then select "Blacks" and pump up the black 
slightly. This may darken the entire photograph. But, if you add a 
layer mask and fill with Black (or Hide All), you can then "paint in" 
only where you want the increased contrast. If you mess up just paint 
with white or start over.

When you're done, convert a copy back to grayscale.

If you are still in RGB mode, chekc this link out for extraordinary 
control in color-GS conversions. 
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/photoshop.html (look at "Seeing in 
Black & white). Lots of other good tips there, too.

Rich
www.rcodaphotography.com

on 12/15/2002 4:35 PM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> b. using a 21 step (and even a 100 step) wedge, I can see all the
> steps on my screen and they all print distinctively (is that the
> right word - I can distinguish between them all)to my printer. So I'm
> not sure why I dont get ""kick" in my prints
> Frank

I feel the same way. I don't get "kick" in my prints either.  Then I started
printing on glossy paper and spraying Krylon clear acrylic on it for
protection.  The prints can now feel similar to the screen version.
Why?...Because the blacks are not dark enough on matte paper using pigment
black ink. When all the tones are represented the result is a flat print.
This is why there has been so much interest in coating prints to get more
depth and dynamic range (please, I'm not starting a discussion on this
again!)
 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

Bruce wrote:
> Why?...Because the blacks are not dark enough on matte paper using pigment
> black ink. When all the tones are represented the result is a flat print.
> This is why there has been so much interest in coating prints to get more
> depth and dynamic range (please, I'm not starting a discussion on this
> again!)

no problem, no discussion necessary...   what you say is misleading to those
who haven't printed a properly readied file. I have very "kicky" prints,
mine and others.  All different rag papers, different pig's, printers, and
negative/scanner sources... not flat at all, a flat print can be traced back
to a flat digital file.

Carolyn

Thanks to all for the guidance on getting more "snap" out of my 
prints. It will take a while to learn and try out these new 
techniques on a few images. Will post back on progress later.
Frank

> Hi Frank:
> 
> You didn't say whether you were working in RGB or Grayscale mode.
> 
> You can make an adjustment layer using any technique you want. 
> 
> If you are working in GS mode, you might want to try converting 
back 
> to RGB (temporarily), then making an adjustment layer 
> using "Selective Color". Then select "Blacks" and pump up the black 
> slightly. This may darken the entire photograph. But, if you add a 
> layer mask and fill with Black (or Hide All), you can then "paint 
in" 
> only where you want the increased contrast. If you mess up just 
paint 

> with white or start over.
> 
> When you're done, convert a copy back to grayscale.
> 
> If you are still in RGB mode, chekc this link out for extraordinary 
> control in color-GS conversions. 
> http://www.russellbrown.com/tips/photoshop.html (look at "Seeing in 
> Black & white). Lots of other good tips there, too.
> 
> Rich
> www.rcodaphotography.com

> Bruce wrote:
>> Why?...Because the blacks are not dark enough on matte paper using pigment
>> black ink. When all the tones are represented the result is a flat print.
>> This is why there has been so much interest in coating prints to get more
>> depth and dynamic range (please, I'm not starting a discussion on this
>> again!)
> 
> no problem, no discussion necessary...   what you say is misleading to those
> who haven't printed a properly readied file. I have very "kicky" prints,
> mine and others.  All different rag papers, different pig's, printers, and
> negative/scanner sources... not flat at all, a flat print can be traced back
> to a flat digital file.
> 


ps... sorry if that sounded grumpy. What I was trying to say was that on the
matte paper surface you can achieve good contrast with a good file. You
won't achieve a silver traditional print look, but a quad print doesn't have
to look "flat"...

C