Sharpening photos in the darkroom
In the past, we’ve covered why it is important to sharpen your photos, and how you can use the Unsharp Mask tool in Photoshop to make sure your photos look their best.
I am a firm believer of understanding how things are done manually, however. If you are to take shortcuts, you have to know the long road to get there first. So… If you have a darkroom, how can you sharpen your images without letting the film go anywhere near a computer?
Here’s how…
In the old days, limited film and lens quality kept the sharpness away from photography. When the negative techniques started evolving, and lenses and film became the bottlenecks, people started to experiment with ways to improve the image in various ways. Contrast became one of the first improvements, but this was comparatively easy to correct in the darkroom. Now sharpness was a different thing altogether.
The first cameras used horribly show shutter times; This increases the chance of camera and/or subject movement. Slight focussing problems also frequently occurred. Remember that a regular 24 x 36 mm negative is enlarged significantly, and even the tiniest blurriness becomes visual: Which is why some bright soul came up with a way to sharpen the final results.
How to…
If you want to have a go at using unsharp masking in the darkroom (heh - if you want to put yourself through stuff like that, let me tell you; I like you), here is a concise guide how it can be done. I have had a lot of surprises when using this technique - mostly positive surprises, but every now and then, things go very wrong. Even then, it looks interesting, if nothing else.
Right. Take the negative you want to have sharpened, and place it on a photographical-grade glass plate. Underneath the glass plate, put some unexposed film. Now, make a contact copy of the film, and develop the film from under the glass plate. That should leave you with a positive copy of your negative. This copy will be ever so slightly blurred (because of the glass plate), which is exactly what you want. Align the two film strips, and put them both in your enlarger.
Right - let’s have a look what has happened now. Theoretically - if the contact copy was 100% exact, you shouldn’t be able to see through your negative. Why? Well - what was light in your original negative should now be dark in your positive (effectively a slide), and all the gradations should be cancelling each other out. However, you don’t have (and didn’t want) an exact copy - you need the small differences. When turning on your enlarger, you will see a strange outline of your image.
This outline consists of the original highlights (which were black in your negative - cause it’s a negative, remember?), and the blur is introduced into the transitions in the shadows of the image. What this means? Well - your shadows will ‘take more space’ in the image, and eat into the blurred edges of your original negative.
So - what you’ll want to do is to just briefly flash this unsharp mask on your photographic paper, and then expose the paper normally, using only the negative.
You should be able to tell the difference between pictures that have / have not had this done to them.
So how long should you flash the enlarger? I wish I could tell you. I have spent endless days in darkrooms, and eventually it becomes second nature. You can tell approximately how much exposure a particular unsharped image needs - just keep practising, and bracket all your tries (yes - half step bracket your unsharp masked image, and then see what works best. Take notes to find out exactly how you can make it all come toghether perfectly.)
Good luck!
Did you like this post? Stay in touch!
If you liked this post, why not stay in touch with Photocritic going forward?
I'm on Flickr and Twitter, or you could add my RSS feed to your favourite feed reader. Or, if you don't fancy doing any of that, drop us a comment below; you can be anonymous if you want to, but if you add a link to your blog or similar, I'll promise I'll come have a look!
Insights, suggestions and comments
Hi.
Thanks for the article(s). ;)
We have a website containing professional articles about photography: http://www.akkasee.com
Yes, it’s persian, and can I use (translate) some of your articles, of course with your name?
Great post Haje,
It it always nice to know what they did in the pre PS days.
Do you have any pictures of the process to share?
- udi
I used to do color separations on 16X20 sheet film. I used a film made for the purpose, Kodak 4570 Pan Masking Film. It was different in that it had no anti-halation coating. (There is a dark coating on the back of most film to keep light from reflecting back up through the sensitive layers after it has come through them. It would create halos around points of light.)
The film was exposed through the base, with the emulsion on the bottom with one or two exposures through color filters. Then in the next step it was placed on a sheet of separation film in the same position using register pins, and the separation film was exposed through a color filter.
It is called unsharp masking because it would sound wrong to call it blurry or dull.
The masking film was used mainly for color correction for the four color process. The printing process used for color uses 4 inks, cyan, magenta, yellow, and black. The 3 colors are not perfect, and they act like there is a some mixture of the other colors in them. for example, the yellow should absorb only blue light, but it absorbs a small amount of green light, like it was mixed with some magenta ink. So the mask is made with a green filter. That makes the final yellow film lighter in areas where there is magenta ink.
This is more than you ever wanted to know about stone-age color reproduction, but once I got started thinking about it I just had to explain.
great post:)
Trackbacks
Share your wisdom