Monophoto

<p>Enrique -</p> <p>Cape Cod is a big place, but except for a few notable areas, it's not a place for grand landscapes. That means that photographic subjects tend to be smaller, and have to be searched for. The most readily accessible areas of Cape Cod are pretty heavily populated, so if you are looking to do photography, you would need to seek out some of the less obvious areas. As John H. said, the Outer Cape (roughly Brewster/Chatham and beyond) would be the place to look.</p> <p>I happen to like the Cape a lot - we've been going there every year for 40+ years. But if you only have a few days, then I think that you might find the Cape disappointing. The Cape is really a place for exploring.</p> <p>I'm not familiar with the White Mountains. But I agree with Donald's suggestion about Maine. If you are limited in time, the Kennebunk area is OK, but my preference is to go further north to Penobscot Bay. Rockport (MA) is a photographer's paradise; Pemaquid Point is also nice. Acadia is spectacular, but it's pretty far north. </p> <p>But there are some really nice things much closer to Boston. Boston itself is a fabulous city. Cambridge is a lot of fun (and great for people watching). Salem has a lot of history. Rockport (MA) and Gloucester are both very photographable.</p>

<p>1. Absolutely - if you apply it on the emulsion side, it will be absorbed into the emulsion. If you put it on the back, it can be washed off if you change your mind. But a better approach is to make a sandwich with a second sheet of film that has been unexposed but fully developed, washed and fixed. That way, you will have two thicknesses of film backing between the image layer in the negative and the dye layer - when you focus on the negative, the dye layer will be very slightly out of focus. That way, any imperfections in the dye won't transfer to the print. And if you change your mind, you can remove the dye without rewashing your negative.</p> <p>2. Yes. I allow a few drops of dye to dry on a white plastic plate, and then use a damp brush to pick up dye, smear it around on another area of the plate, add some water to thin it a bit, etc. It takes some practice to develop the skill, but it's really not that difficult.</p> <p>I would be cautions about using the term 'contrast' to describe the variations that result from dilution. Contrast has a very specific meaning in photographic speak. Instead, I would term those variations in dye density. But yes, using a less dilute dye will result in less dye density.</p>

<p>One of the best places to photograph sunsets is Cape Cod - which is definitely on the East Coast.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Jose's recollection is correct. In the distant past, it was customary for portrait photographers to retouch negatives using standard graphite pencils. Most 'portrait' films of those days were manufactured to provide the 'tooth' on the backing necessary to accept markings by pencils, but it was possible for pencil retouching to be applied directly to the image-bearing emulsion.</p> <p>There is a significant difference between dye and pencil retouching - pencil is very precise while dye tends to be affect larger areas of the negative. Back in the day when these practices were routine, the precision of pencil retouching was sometimes seen as a problem because sharp pencil lines could transfer to the print. One manufacturer made a retouching table that used a motor to introduce vibration into the retouching process to cause pencil lines to blur and be less distinct!</p> <p> </p>

<p>There is an old technique that can be useful in situations where there are small areas with insufficient negative density - dye dodging. Obviously, the larger the negative, the easier this is to apply. It's very effective with 4x5 and larger, but there's no reason you couldn't use it with 35mm or roll film if you are prepared to work very precisely using a magnifier.</p> <p>The basic premise is to use a small brush to add some dye to the negative in the weak areas. Beyond that basic concept, there are a number of options in implementation.</p> <p>You can add the dye directly to the negative. In that instance, putting the dye on the non-emulsion side of the negative means that it will be separated from the image layer by the thickness of the negative backing - so that the dye cloud will be very slightly out of focus when you make the print. An even better approach is to sandwich a piece of unexposed but fully processed and washed film on the back of the negative, and then apply the dye to the clear film. That separates the dye from the negative image by two layers of film backing so that it is even more out of focus, and also means that if you change your mind, you can either throw away the dye layer, or else wash the dye off the clear film for reuse.</p> <p><br />The color of the dye also is important. If you use a black or gray dye, then you will get some additional density in the thin areas, but using a colored dye means that you can simultaneously adjust the local contrast in the dyed areas when printing on variable contrast paper. In most instances, the best choice is a magenta color since that emulates the color of higher-contrast printing filters and causes an increase in contrast in the areas you 'adjusted' - so that in addition to adding overall background density, the extra contrast boosts the ability to print the detail in those weak area. Yellow dye causes a reduction in contrast - which has roughly the same effect as selectively flashing blown out highlights in the print using white light to add density without detail. Dr. Martin's Transparent Water Color Dyes are excellent for this purpose, however you should be aware that they aren't permanent and tend to fade over time (weeks to months) so if you choose to come back to a treated negative to make additional prints, you may have to renew the dye.</p>