Stump Rocky Gorge

A very intresting procedure, an awful lot of steps to achieve your final print. The print itself is very nice, and I like it. I guess my question is Why? If done as an excersize to see "can I do this" it is successful, however in my darkroom there would have been several other venues that I would have explored first.

I could not do the procedure you describe, because I don't have a program or if I did woulden't know how to use it. I have many times handled such a situation by making the best work print I could get from the original negative, then do the retouching necessary on the print, then make a final negative/copy and print it. Much like you did with PS, however I do it with tradishional "wet" methods. My final image would be six generations, thats a bunch. And I don't believe you ever can make a dupe or copy without losing some information that the original negative contained. There are other ways I am sure of doing this, but is the effort worth it? Is my way better than your way? Absolutely not in my mind!

Were I in your shoes this is what I would have done: Do as much retouching as possible on the original negative, pencils, dye, or abrading. Then make the best print possible with the retouched original negative. Do the final or finish retouching on that print. At that point display it.................................

Wow, I have used a lot of words but really haven't said much.

I guess I don't have a problem using computer programs for analog retouch work as long as it is not done to mislead the viewer into believing it is a "straight" print. Scratches. dust marks, hickeys etc. in my mind is acceptable, changing the image in my mind is not! Replacing a bland sky with clouds etc. Adding sharpening, contrast and tone in a scan is also unacceptable in my mind. Your "Stump" as displayed, to me is acceptable. I pretty much go along with Mortonsen, how you get a print is not nearly as important as the print itself. I am aware that many APUGER'S disagree with that statement, but it is the way I feel and most likely will continue to believe!

Charles,

First of all, thanks for commenting. Believe it or not, I was afraid to re-touch the negative 14 years ago when I made the image... Frankly, one of the reasons that I got involved in photography is that I was pretty bad in every other art form that I tried. I apparently have no manual dexterity. When I tried to re-touch negatives, I normally made them worse. I clearly agree with you that this required a lot of steps. It was very educational for me. Also, this picture has haunted me because I always looked at it as "the one that got away". When I learned about the digital negative process, I took the class just to "fix" this one negative. However, I am ambivalent about it because of my strident mindset about pure analog process. I assure you that I did nothing to this picture but take out the scratches. Where is there good info about the proper way to retouch negatives..? Maybe it's time for me to try again....
Thanks!!!

I see nothing wrong with making a digital negative if your original is damaged. I too, have tried retouching negatives and usually make them worse!

The only think I would be worried about is a large amount of quality that is lost in the process. Overall sharpness, textures, tones ect.

Ryan McIntosh

Well Ryan,
Just from a technical standpoint, would you have determined this to be a digital negative print if I had not disclosed that information?

esanford,
You did not ask me the same question you asked Ryan. I could not tell how you had made the print until you disclosed your procedure. I liked the image from the get go,
and your procedure for making it changed nothing in my mind. The problem with learning the retouching skills that I have used for over fifty years is most of us are gone that can do that kind of restoration or retouching. The new wave will all be using a PS type of program, because there are few if any places that know how to do it period, let alone try to teach someone else how it is done. Look at the ridiculous prices on ebay for Adams machines. My old machine is nearly sixty years old and still works like the day it did when I got it. I paid just under $500.00 dollars for it way back then. I averaged 15 to 25 thousand high school and college students a year, and every negative used in a year book was retouched by me.
You learn many shortcuts when you have this amount of work to perform. I learned very early that the vibration system of the Adams was much slower than I could do a negative without it. I used the machine as a retouch easel rather than have it move the negative. I learned to use various dyes and an AB Pasche air brush on 8x10 transparencies. All this I understand can all be accomplished with the computer. I frankly don't understand the difference of retouching a negative on an Adams and retouching a negative in PS. As I said earlier, the print is to me the final goal. I am aparently wrong in my beliefs as so many are so adament about about using the computer for any thing other than scanning.

I guarantee very few folks of today will ever learn or gain the actual skills necessary for a photographer to posess to be able to survive fifty years ago. When I first saw the SciTech and CrossField scanners operate 25 years ago I knew my days were coming to an end.

Thanks Charles.... I only asked Ryan the question because he raised the quality concern regarding digital negatives. By the way, I am humbled by your experience and dedication to photography. Embarassingly, I've never heard of an "Adams" machine....

My two cents... when I damage a negative to the point that it would take a great deal of retouching in any form I throw it away and reshoot it. If I can't reshoot it I move on and make more photographs. I try not to get too attached to any particular image. My time and energy are better spent making new work, that's what keeps me excited! With commercial work you may not have that option, in that case I say do whatever it takes to finish the job. One of the many reasons I quite doing commercial work. I find being an amature much more rewarding. doc

Doc... Thanks! I actually went back several times trying to get this shot again.... however, the lighting, water, and tree reflection was never quite right. You're right, I became obsessed with this one because I liked the object as well as the previsualization that I was able to turn into a print. Sometimes we are best served to move on. On the other hand, you have to "give in" to emotion from time to time. When I did this shot, I had a very stressful job in corporate America and photography was/is my way to relax and learn patience... So, I just kept the negative and technology allowed me to do "something" with it...

I think it is a valid procedure, I'm starting to do some contact printing, and since I only have 35mm and MF cameras digital negs are the way to go for me... at least.

Very good image

I have to say that although the result was great, I don't believe this is a valid method for this forum of revigorating old negs and prints.

I also do digital touchups when I'm in a hurry, when family/friends pop in with old photos that need a quick fix. I don't however consider the result to be a fix when authenticity should be maintained.

For example, my mother has a 75 year old neg that she would like me to print and fix up. The neg has enormous value historically.

Should I a) scan the neg and Photoshop it, and then print digitally; or
b) print the neg, touch up by hand, copy to film and reprint.

Obviously option (b) keeps the whole thing analogue and also results in better end quality, but option (a) will only take 2 hours instead of 2 days.

Graham.