I wish to be able to selectively bleach areas of my prints, to enhance impact. I have heard of 'farmers reducer', which turns out to be ferricyanide. Sounds horrendous and unobtainable. If anyone can advise me on the procedure and chemicals they use.....

-- Lewis Buckle (lbuckleuk@compuserve.com), October 27, 2001

Answers

I use hypo and ferricyanide as per Barnbaum. A pinch of each. then more dilute the better

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 27, 2001.

Lewis:

Potassium ferricyanide is neither horrendous nor unobtainable. Become educated about a subject before drawing conclusions.

-- Ken Burns (kenburns@twave.net), October 27, 2001.

Lewis, You can get ferrcyanide from the formularly. If you need further information, email I will look it up. In addition to Bruce's book, ed buffalo (i think that is it) has a nice piece on bleaching. carol

Ken, You were a bit harsh. This is where we obtain information. c

-- carol maurin (cbmaurin@earthlink.net), October 27, 2001.

The name of the chemical is far more serious sounding than it is. Make a 10% solution of "ferri". Place about 10 drops into 5ml of very weak fixer, bleach those areas needed using lots of water. be sure to re-fix, especially if you are you to do any additonal toning. Farmers reducer is a combination of several chemicals. This is used for both negatives and paper. Many formulars are available in a large variety of books. This version is usually used for global bleaching rather than selective bleaching, however, like everything else in this process, there are many ways to create the final effect with everyone having their favorite. try different things and discover what works best for you and the results you are looking for.

-- Ann C lancy (clancya@mediaone.net), October 27, 2001.

also think about adjusting your personal film speed and development times before adding another step to your process.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 27, 2001.

Mark, not to spend a lot of time chasing rabbits, but how is changing personal film speed and development times going to duplicate bleaching selected areas of a print? Changing exposure and development affect overall contrast. I agree that if you are bleaching the entire print you should approach it from an exposure/development angle first. However, I think Lewis is talking about enhancement of parts of the print. Judicious use of bleaching (as a last resort), cannot easily be replicated by other methods, at least in my experience.

-- Don Welch (donwelch@hotmail.com), October 27, 2001.

I have an article in which I give details about selective bleaching, among other things: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Printing/printing.html.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), October 28, 2001.

Thanks everyone. Your answers have been very helpful. However it appears you are all American, where potassium ferricyanide is readily available, and it would appear, in common use. I am a Brit, the only source I can find is a chemical wholesaler who wants the full whys and wherefores and colour of socks before despatch. Even our biggest photographic suppliers don't hold these chemicals it seems. I appreciate I could buy over the internet, however believe it or not the nearest chemical wholesaler who stocks potassium ferricyanide is three miles from where I sit.

Thank you all again

Lewis

-- Lewis Buckle (lbuckleuk@compuserve.com), October 29, 2001.

Don, it has everything to do with it, I work to get an optimum negative ---once--- so that I don't have to do extra work ---everytime--- when printing. with tightly controlled methods, I don't have a need to do gross adjustments such as bleaching. people do it all the time, why add extra work?

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 29, 2001.

Mark, you must not understand the function of bleaching. I don't know any good printer that does not bleach and I know many of the best printers in the world. Making adjustments by bleaching goes along with Ansel's statement that "dodging and burning make up for Gods mistakes in establishing tonal relationships". Even if you have the most perfect negative possible does not mean that dodging or burning or selectively bleaching a print may not be desireable. Try it, you don't know what your missing.

-- Jeff White (jeff@jeffsphotos.com), October 29, 2001.

While it is true that correct exposure and careful development can optimize overall contrast, there is still what David Kachel calls the "key contrast core" in a photograph, which "is usually the area of greatest visual interest." This is the area where one sometimes desires to increase contrast by using selective bleaching, without changing contrast in the rest of the image. Kachel opines that one can best reduce local contrast through film manipulation, but that it is more effective to manipulate the print in order to increase local contrast. Bruce Barnbaum is one of the best printers in the business these days--one who actually makes a living by doing fine art photography--and he uses selective bleaching extensively. It is a very useful tool in skilled hands.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), October 30, 2001.

Jeff, just because I disagree doesn't mean that I don't understand it, I learned how to bleach years ago and have no need for it. I don't feel that it is reliable enough from print to print for repeatable results nor do I feel it is necessary. Speaking of Adams, he shows bleaching in "the negative", but advises against it.

when did I ever say that I didn't dodge or burn??????

Ed, this "key contrast core" is old news, area of most contrast is where the eye goes first--again bleaching isn't necessary for this, selenium toning the negative is much more reliable and stable, and when done is done only once--I don't have to worry about every single print like with bleaching.

Barnbaum one of the greatest? matter of opinion--I think his print quality is horrid.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 30, 2001.

>>Barnbaum one of the greatest? matter of opinion--I think his print quality is horrid.<<

I think that explains volumes about your opinion.

You might look at The Print where Ansel does talk about bleaching localized areas of prints. No matter what he says about bleaching, he did his fair share of it. Selenium intesification is a great tool but not possible in all situations, too small an area on the negative for example. For me bleaching is just another tool for print manipulation just like dodging and burning. I certainly would not do without it. I have my bleach formula ready and can bleach a print at a moments notice, it is not that difficult and is worth learning. I think that is why people post on these forums, to learn something.

-- Jeff White (jeff@jeffsphotos.com), October 30, 2001.

Jeff, you can like poor quality prints all you like, doesn't say much about your opinion, but it does say loads about what type of quality I could expect from your work.

As I said, Adams talks about bleaching in "the print" but does advise against it. so, how do you know that he did his fair share of it? please bless us with your inside knowledge.

Yes, Jeff, people do come to the forum to learn, and that means the exchange of ideas and opinions. I guess that doesn't seem to count around here when you don't hold the popular (read easy) opinion. so keep "fixing" whatever is wrong with your prints by bleaching and pretending that your opinion is the only/right one.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 30, 2001.

Mark,

I'm almost sorry that I questioned your first reply to begin with, since this has degenerated into an insult-fest and meanwhile, poor Lewis Buckle's question and his resulting difficulty in obtaining chemicals in Britain have been lost in the noise.

I said I'm ALMOST sorry, but not enough to keep me from getting back into this.

First, I agree with you about Ansel's distaste for bleaching. It is clearly stated. And in my first answer above I qualified the use of bleaching as a last resort. So, I'm not a fan of bleaching. However, I find times when it is the only thing that will accomplish what I need, so I do it. I also dodge and burn practically every print I make, and that can get complicated enough that it becomes hard to make every print exactly the same. So what?! I really enjoy the fact that it's not easy. When everything comes together perfectly I have something worth keeping. Should I consider dodging and burning a "fix" to what is wrong with my prints? Sure, or I wouldn't do it. But going by your view of bleaching as a "fix", I should always be able to correct any problems on the negative before I print, so dodging and burning wouldn't be necessary. And I could look down on anybody who isn't as good as I am. Oh, but wait, you DO dodging and burning.

Didn't you start out this whole side issue by asserting that the need for bleaching could be avoided by adjusting personal film speed and development times instead of adding more steps to the process? Isn't selenium toning of the negative another step in the process? Aside from your apparent obsession with not having to do anything more than once, I can't see how you can advocate selenium toning as part of the process of creating your perfect negative but treat people who want to bleach a print like that's stupid.

-- Don Welch (donwelch@hotmail.com), October 30, 2001.

why doesn't anyone read my messages?

Don, to equate the two (doging and burning and bleaching) is just silly, I've stated my reasons why the two are different and the negatives (to me anyway) justify not using it.

how many times must I repeat myself???

again, as I stated, selenium toning (in my opinion) is much more reliable and exact than bleaching--and it doesn't have to be repeated over and over again --to me thats a plus--

don't point the finger at me for saying someone is stupid, I remained civil until I was attacked by others in a personal way, just because you agree more with others doesn't mean you have to be biased against me or completly deny/ignore what I have said.

go back and re-read please.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 30, 2001.

If one considers Bruce Barnbaums print quality to be "horrid", whose print quality do you consider to be good or excellent? And why would you consider Barnbaums print quality to be so low? No bashing on this one, I am just trying to figure out why one considers the quality of a generally admired master printer to be so poor?

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), October 31, 2001.

Wow. I'm reminded that at work I prefer to speak to people in person about delicate situations because I always seem to get crossways with them when I exchange e-mails. I truly hope that no one had any intention of "attacking" anyone else in this discussion. For the most part, the people who post here are quite cordial, and I would sure like to keep it that way. I'm going to let this whole discussion remain, as a friendly disagreement, but let's try to keep it as friendly as possible.

I agree that Ansel Adams warned about the difficulties of using bleach too freely, and in reading about how he made his prints I do not recall him ever stating that he used selective bleaching to improve a print. But Ansel was a perfectionist, and I have heard that he sometimes worked all day to produce a single print he was satisfied with. I, personally, probably only use selective bleaching on 1 out of 20 or 30 prints. But it is a useful tool, like many others. I do know that Ansel used silver intensifier on the lower portion of his "Sunset, Hernandez, New Mexico" negative, and I have read that John Sexton often uses selective intensification with selenium on his negatives. This doesn't seem much different from selectively bleaching a print. My working assumption is that any manipulation is acceptable for artistic purposes. But what constitutes art is a very subjective matter--hence our (friendly) disagreement over Barnbaum.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), October 31, 2001.

Mark (and Ed)

In keeping with Ed's gentle reminder about cordiality, I want to apologize if I stepped up the level of attack. Mark, I have read and reread your messages and I don't get anything different out of them than I did at first. However, I will gladly receive your last clarification in the proper spirit and I agree with you about the reliability of selenium toning vs. bleaching. It's apparent to me that when we each come up with what works for us, it can be miles apart from what someone else does, but not objectively better or worse. Thanks for your answer.

-- Don Welch (donwelch@hotmail.com), October 31, 2001.

ed,

you hit the nail on the head, many times I have misinterpreted comments simply because of the lack of a face to place it with. What really tweaked me was the jeff white comment which boils down to "I don't agree with you so you don't know what you're talking about", and it went down from there. sorry for those of you who suffered from the fallout.

Yes bleaching is a legitimate tool, but one I choose not to use for the above stated reasons. I simply prefer to use selenium for additional manipulations. I did say and retract comments such as "covering up mistakes", which was said in the heat of the moment.

All I tried to say was that maybe the poster needed to look elsewhere for a solution rather than to jump onto another step in the process.

Don, no need to apologize, you did nothing wrong, I just have a hard time putting on the brakes once I get going.

Dan,

I find Barnbaums prints to be overly harsh and contrasty,--too heavy-- and many of his images just don't do a lot for me(but maybe I just haven't seen enough of them). To be fair, A Adams prints during his last years seemed way too heavy to me, said by some to be because of his cataracts.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 31, 2001.

to be fair, I have done a more exhaustive search and have found many Barnbaum images that look better to me in relation to print qualities, however I still must say that aesthetically he just doesn't do it for me.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), October 31, 2001.