A little rant about contrast, beginners, and gaining experience printing

[brian steinberger]

Photography is such a craft of trial and error, and learning a lot on your own. I've been doing alot of printing lately, and the more I do it the better I am getting at it. But one thing that stands out to me the most is that the more experience I gain at printing, the more I'm realizing that I used to print with too much contrast.

I've heard before that beginners tend to print with too much contrast due to the "wow" factor. A higher contrast print always wows a beginning printer, but doesn't hold the viewers attention as a nice long scaled print with beautiful gradation from black to white. Obviously this is subject to personal taste and aesthetics as well, and this, ultimately, is the printers choice.

In the past I was printing to nail down a black in the shadows and many times drowned out the other subtle shadow detail around it. Then once I selenium toned I killed all detail. It's taken me years to get to this point of realization, and much wasted paper.

My personal experience lately is that now that I've realized this, I have been making prints at lower contrast grades than I previously did. Once highlight exposure is obtained (with a nifty test strip printer modeled after Ralph's in his book "Way Beyond Monochrome), the test strips may not show absolute black, but experience is also telling me that once selenium toned these areas will become black, and also sometimes now I'm realizing that these areas don't have to be black! The result? I'm creating some of the most beautiful prints so far in my photography "career."

So I just wanted to throw this little story out there to others and beginners in particular that if you wish to print negatives with a full range of tones, don't drown all the detail out dialing in a higher contrast than necessary. Let some areas fall a dark gray instead of black (if there is detail there in the negative). Learn dry down for your paper. I dry all my test strips for this reason. Some figure out a percentage of time to lessen the exposure. If selenium toning at higher concentrations (I tone at 1:9), take into account the fact that this will darken your shadows as well.

And here I was at the point of thinking I was developing my film for not enough time, since I was frequently printing at grades 3 1/2, 4, 4 1/2, when really I was just not letting my negatives sing!

 

[2F/2F]

The important thing with beginners is avoiding generalizations, and avoiding passing ones opinion off as fact.

Beginners need to learn to make a high contrast print when they want a high contrast print, and vice versa. It is as simple as that.

I do not find that beginners print with "too much" contrast. I find that they just can't print at all, with the problems being there independent of specific tendencies. Unless they have a natural ability for it from the start, most cannot print, and never will be able to...but usually those who can photograph well can also print well.

I find that beginners are a varied group, consisting of mostly people who have no innate visual skills with a camera or an enlarger. IMO, a good printer is a good printer from the start. Those who purposefully print with "too much" contrast usually just want a pic with some contrast. As long as they are going for what they want, and learning how to get it, I am happy. The best beginners, IMO, are the ones that are the least impressionable.

 

[paulie]

i think the switch from rc - fb can be difficult for beginners, the contrast leap and dry down , + selenium or sulphide .

i always think that if the print looks great in the tray then you have likely overexposed it and its time to bleach or start over

i think that most negs will print many different ways and it just worth exploring all these differences

 

[mikebarger]

I guess that's why some people test against a dry toned print. Testing your materials/equipment lets you determine what the facts are for you and your process/materials. Not many people shoot gray scales in white light.

There are a lot of ways to skin a cat in this hobby.

Mike

 

[nickandre]

i think the switch from rc - fb can be difficult for beginners, the contrast leap and dry down , + selenium or sulphide .

I ruined about a dozen sheets before I figured out what was going on after a few years of RC work...

I don't recall noticing myself having too much contrast, though I have begun to dial back recently. I do want black blacks and white whites however. I typically run test strips to give myself a black black off the base of the negative with the filter I think I'll need. If the whites look good, I print, if they don't, the contrast goes up and I repeat the test strip. The one thing I did want was thicker and thicker negatives--I wanted to be able to see what was there clearly and have a lot of detail. Well, I ended up printing one of my negatives at 00 and then decided I had gotten enough density.

Now I have begun stand development with rodinal because I don't feel like sitting by the sink constantly for hours. I just set up the developer and leave for an hour.

I think a lot of things change with experience, but they're not necessarily the same for everyone. Some people use too much contrast, some people don't know what filters are...

 

[DaveOttawa]

... I do not find that beginners print with "too much" contrast.
...As long as they are going for what they want, and learning how to get it, I am happy.

Two points that match my experience in teaching.
Beginners in fact seem to often be afraid of straying too far from the #2 filter, at least in my experience.
When you think about it it isn't easy to define what "too much contrast" actually is in any objective way so I am happy if a printer can achieve the contrast they want anywhere from 00 to 5; i.e. be accountable for that aspect of the finished print.

 

[Peter Schrager]

contrast

trick from Bruce Barnbaum....proof with the number 1 filter and you will begin to see how you have been printing the whole time with too much contrast
it really does work...
Best, Peter

 

[Chuck_P]

I've heard before that beginners tend to print with too much contrast due to the "wow" factor. A higher contrast print always wows a beginning printer, but doesn't hold the viewers attention as a nice long scaled print with beautiful gradation from black to white. Obviously this is subject to personal taste and aesthetics as well, and this, ultimately, is the printers choice.

As long as the negative will provide it, print Dmax is equally achievable with low contrast filtration (more shades of gray between Dmax and Dmin) as it is with high contrast filtration (fewer shades of gray). When hard filtration is relied upon for that "wow" factor that you describe, fewer shades of gray can be utilized in the print and, IMO, will fail to "sing" because of the lack of a robust range of print tones. Of course this is subjective, but I rarely view a black and white print and feel that it "sings" or "pops" because there's a lot of very low print tones and high print tones, it's always because of robust mid-tones in combination with subtle low and high print values.

I'm not at all suggesting that it is always an easy thing to do. For sure it is not, but the better the quality of the negative, the better and easier will be the job of printing it as visualized.

 

[Reinhold]

"Way Beyond Reality Contrast" has a counterpart in those people who go crazy with sharpening in FeauxTeauxShop.

There's a place for printing that looks like an ad for a carnival, but it gets old pretty quick...
Good printing doesn't need extra lipstick.

A long time ago I discovered the need for appropriate lighting when viewing a wet print.

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com
if that doesn't work, try: http://mysite.verizon.net/res14rg7y/

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

I'm with you, Brian. Except now, either the negative prints itself or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't. I have the attention span of a circus monkey when in the darkroom.

Years ago, I spent a day printing a portrait of the wife and our dogs. I mean a full day. I became very tired and frustrated at the results, and wadded them up and threw them in the garbage. My wife fished them out, chose one, rewashed it and toned it, and it has been on the wall for a long time now. For the record, you can actually wad Ilford MGWT fiber paper into a ball, let it get tacky-dry, then rewash it and dry mount it. It works.

 

[Vincent Brady]

In camera club competitions the higher contrast prints often catch the judges eye and as a result can do well . A more subtle print is often overlooked in the task of judging so many entries and will reveal it qualities slowly, it can in fact be said to improve with age. Beginners are not aware of this fact and are inclined to go for the high impact print. I equate it to buying music, I have found that a CD that grabs my attention on first play soon bores me. Whereas CD's that I find disappointing on first listening often grow on me and become firm favourites after repeated plays.

 

[mike c]

I'm with you, Brian. Except now, either the negative prints itself or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't. I have the attention span of a circus monkey when in the darkroom.

Years ago, I spent a day printing a portrait of the wife and our dogs. I mean a full day. I became very tired and frustrated at the results, and wadded them up and threw them in the garbage. My wife fished them out, chose one, rewashed it and toned it, and it has been on the wall for a long time now. For the record, you can actually wad Ilford MGWT fiber paper into a ball, let it get tacky-dry, then rewash it and dry mount it. It works.

Some thing like that has happen to me,Its really nice to get someone else's veiw of your printing after a long frustrating developing session.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm with you, Brian. Except now, either the negative prints itself or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then it doesn't. I have the attention span of a circus monkey when in the darkroom.

Years ago, I spent a day printing a portrait of the wife and our dogs. I mean a full day. I became very tired and frustrated at the results, and wadded them up and threw them in the garbage. My wife fished them out, chose one, rewashed it and toned it, and it has been on the wall for a long time now. For the record, you can actually wad Ilford MGWT fiber paper into a ball, let it get tacky-dry, then rewash it and dry mount it. It works.

Rich, I've had plenty of darkroom sessions like this as well! And they are very frustrating. I'll usually put that negative away for a long time after something like that. But you're right, sometimes a negative will just print itself and that makes for a wonderful and productive darkroom session. And sometimes when a negative doesn't print itself I can still get a great print with other methods, and this is even more rewarding. Sometimes it's a love hate relationship with printing, but the more experience you gain the more you will love it.

 

[brian steinberger]

In camera club competitions the higher contrast prints often catch the judges eye and as a result can do well . A more subtle print is often overlooked in the task of judging so many entries and will reveal it qualities slowly, it can in fact be said to improve with age. Beginners are not aware of this fact and are inclined to go for the high impact print. I equate it to buying music, I have found that a CD that grabs my attention on first play soon bores me. Whereas CD's that I find disappointing on first listening often grow on me and become firm favourites after repeated plays.

Another thing in competitions is lighting. I find there's usually not sufficient lighting in many lower end competitions and a nice long scaled print can look drab and dull.

Couldn't agree with you more about the music!

 

[Kevin Kehler]

I tend to get mad with the sentiment "in today's society, we want everything instantly". However, I think it is very true at times. Why is digital so popular? Some (but not all) is due to the fact that we can see it instantly, which is why the 1-hour Photo store and Polaroid were popular (the latter for additional reasons). The idea of honing a craft is becoming lost and we forget Michelangelo did not paint the Sistine Chapel on his first day of painting; it takes real work to make truly great prints, something that only time, effort and a lot of frustration in the dark can produce. I don't think your born a printer but only a "true" printer will continue after realizing how hard it is to do.

That said, I look at my first prints and how aweful they are. I look forward to looking at today's prints in 20 years and lamenting their awefullness.

 

[wclark5179]

I found one of my best friends in the darkroom is a garbage can!

It seems many of us learn and learn and learn or un-learn!

This what makes this adventure so much fun!

Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder!

Smiles!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It only took me about two years to become a decent printer. It took me longer than that to fully understand the relationship between my negative exposure, film processing, choice of paper and paper developer. It is a system, for sure, and while you can eke out more quality by being a good printer, learning the whole system seems best and makes prints that sing the songs of the negative easier to achieve.

With the help of utterly generous mentors and friends, I have become pretty good at it all. I learned to choose my paper and developer first, and then go make negatives that fit the paper. That alone has helped immensely.
I don't relate with the 'too much contrast' sentiment that Brian talks about, but I think it's individual what we like and what we practice. Choice of contrast I think depends on the subject matter.

One of those aforementioned mentors has told me a few times: "Show me the damned picture!" It's so easy to confuse a good print for a good picture, isn't it?

- Thomas

 

[brian steinberger]

I tend to get mad with the sentiment "in today's society, we want everything instantly". However, I think it is very true at times. Why is digital so popular? Some (but not all) is due to the fact that we can see it instantly, which is why the 1-hour Photo store and Polaroid were popular (the latter for additional reasons). The idea of honing a craft is becoming lost and we forget Michelangelo did not paint the Sistine Chapel on his first day of painting; it takes real work to make truly great prints, something that only time, effort and a lot of frustration in the dark can produce. I don't think your born a printer but only a "true" printer will continue after realizing how hard it is to do.

That said, I look at my first prints and how aweful they are. I look forward to looking at today's prints in 20 years and lamenting their awefullness.

Well said...

 

[brian steinberger]

Thomas, I'm still don't completely understand the choosing a paper to match a negative. That's one thing I haven't learned yet.

When I speak of printing with too much contrast I think what I mean is I used to think every print HAD to have a pure black and some bright white paper base. I made a print a few months ago in which I realized I didn't want a true black and it was a revelation. It's little things like this that may seem silly to the season veteran printer, but to me are little moments of realization that come with learning this craft.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Brian, the paper has characteristics similar to your negatives, a tonal curve, if you will. By picking your paper first, and understanding what it's capable of, you can then start to work on making your negatives 'print themselves' on that paper.
The negatives I print today work beautifully with Ilford MGIV matte and replenished Ethol LPD. But, I can not print them very well using Dektol, because of the added contrast from that developer. By using the Ilford/LPD combo I know exactly how to process my negs in order to print them well. It actually influences what I see in the viewfinder of my camera when I shoot, because I know instinctively what I need to do to make it look right in the print. It's hard to explain, but I can 'feel' it.

I think I understand better now what you mean by printing with contrast. I guess it's easy to fall into the pit of maximizing contrast in each and every print when it may actually not be needed or even desirable, based on what's in the picture and the subject matter. Perhaps it's best to judge each picture by what it needs contrast and tonality wise.

I love it when I have epiphanies in the darkroom!

 

[brian steinberger]

Thomas, my paper of choice is MGWT, though I also use MGIV sometimes as well. I looked at the curves on the Ilford page. They look pretty similar. I use LPD as well. Can you give me an example of a type of negative where you might choose one paper over another?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I guess this is an aesthetic issue. For me I like to go to museums view photographic prints. If you're a musician, you go to concerts, if you're a chef you eat in fine restaurants. What I've discovered about printing photographs is that every photographer has their own style of printing. Ansel Adams printed differently than Ralph Gibson. Who is prints better?

 

[2F/2F]

Who is Prince Better?

Never heard of 'im.

 

[Chuck_P]

I found one of my best friends in the darkroom is a garbage can!

This discussion was reminding me of one of John Sexton's sentiments that, (I'm paraphrasing) he found one of the best tools in his darkroom is his garbage can.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The comment was posted by a dyslexic. We're joining forces to rebel against those aren't dyslexic. Dyslexics untie!

BTW Prince shoots Nikon. Never saw his prints.

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/does-prince-shoot-with-the-nikon-d700.html