Went to a demo of "print flashing" last night and the result was very effective. I tried it once but my minium exposure I could 'flash' with was too much (all the highlights turned grey) and since it was in the wee hours of the morning at the time, I gave up. Haven't got back to it but this demo has revitalised my quest for knowledge.

Anyone got any resources bookmarked (does AlanG have a page?) or got an hints and tips. One tip that was demo'd was using a difuser filter below the lens that allowed the neg to be left in the carrier (exposure meter showed little variation across the print area) and also reduces the light output to managable levels.

Others?

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), July 24, 2000

Answers

That's how I do it. Doesn't atke much light to turn the whites grey. Be careful. And remember you don't have to flash the whole image area of the paper. You can flash just the area you need to. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 24, 2000.

Has anyone tried using a small flash gun for this purpose? I'm theorising (make that guessing), that the papers response to short exposure times is very slight.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), July 25, 2000.

I haven't done much flashing, but I have found that you can difuse and limit the light hitting the paper by turning the paper upside down. The paper base acts as its own difuser and blocks some of the light, but you must remember to turn the paper over when you're ready to print.

Regards,

-- Pete Caluori (pcaluori@hotmail.com), July 25, 2000.

Nigel, what is your minimum exposure? I'd think that stopping your enlarger down all the way and lighting the bulb a tenth second or so wouldn't produce grey paper, especially with a piece or two of tissue paper in the negative carrier. But then I've been using VC filters so long I don't recall much about flashing.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), July 25, 2000.

The trick I have found works great. Get some Translum or a frosted diffusion filter from your camera store. After your regular exposure, let's say it is 10 sec., give it a 1 sec flash (with the negative still in the negative carrier) with the diffusion material under the lens. No more than 15% of the initial exposure should give the results you want. Cheers, Scott

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), July 25, 2000.

sells a that is precisly timed and has consistant output. In a recent (a few months ago) article in Practical Photography on can see this very unit attached to Les McLean's enlarger. Others that are using it seem to sing its praises also. The cost listed on the web site is 60 pounds sterling. I have no idea how that translates to dollars right now, but it is probably in the $100 range or so.

-- Fritz M. Brown (brownf@idhw.state.id.us), July 25, 2000.

Sorry about the bungled HTML. Anyway the links are: RH Designs Their paper flasher

Once again sorry about the HTML faux pas.

-- Fritz M. Brown (brownf@idhw.state.id.us), July 25, 2000.

I've had good results holding a diffuser under the lens with the negative still in the enlarger. Stop the lens down as necessary to keep exposure times manageable. You can also dodge/burn the flash to localize the effect.

-- Chris Ellinger (ellinger@umich.edu), July 25, 2000.

thanks for the replies... so many in so little time! :)

Keith, I did stop down my lens to f22 and my timer only goes down to 1 sec, which was too much.

Fritz, thanks for the link.. some good info there, especially on the Printflasher manual page. RH Designs make some nifty products only trouble is I'm in Aust and when I finally found a supplier for their devices, they were extraordinarily expensive. The 60 pounds would probably triple in my $ terms.

Some good suggestions to get around this eg paper upside down. I guess it doesn't matter how you achieve it, as long as you're consistent in applying whatever works for you. Somewhere I have an old translucent body cap that I might try out.

Since there seems to be a bit of interest, I'll describe the demo.

1. The diffuser was fitted to the enlarger lenses and a test strip was made. Marks were made on the paper so that we could count up the number of strips that had been exposed. A group decision was made as to where you could see the change from paper base white.

2. Two pieces of paper were flashed, one the chosen time and the next longer one.

3. The negative that was used has been used as a work negative for other demonstrations so a base print time was known, but since a different lens was being used (to enable the filter to be screwed in) another test was made to confirm the time.

4. The 2 previously 'flashed' pieces of paper were then exposed for the required time according to the test print.

5. The results were compared to the basic print (no flashing) and it was very easy to see the (positive) effect it had on the highlight areas. The print was vastly improved. The difference between the two flashed prints was noticeable and probably got down to personal choice over which was more pleasing to the eye. The one with more flashing was still ok, but any longer would probably have tipped over the edge into grey highlights.

Overall, a great weapon to have up your sleeve when confronted with that 'unprintable' neg!

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@unite.com.au), July 25, 2000.

One of the problems associated with using a neutral density filter of any kind "and" the neg still in place is that you will never have a basis to flash with any precision when another neg of different density is used. It is standard practice to get a separate light to do your flashing. It doesn't have to be near the enlarger and all that is necassary to use it is a timed switch of some sort. I use the neg in the enlarger and a neutral density filter to flash just because a lot of my negs needing to be flashed are all the same density anyway. But the times also change between formats which has to be taken in to account. Flashing is a very valuable tool to learn. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 25, 2000.

Good point James! ta!

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), July 26, 2000.

Also, one other thing. I find that when flashing, you do lose about 1/2 of a contrast grade so this is to be kept in mind... Cheers

-- Scott Walton (scotlynn@shore.net), July 27, 2000.

you should also look into flashing the negative at the time of exposure. I believe both of these methods can be found in AA's series of books.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 31, 2000.