What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?
You're going to hate printing in the darkroom when you get around to it...
and b/w negatives are not like transparencies. either get used to that fact or get used to making substandard prints.
Now all you need is an Imacon, and the discussion will finally be over.
I had one (older model) for a while and it was okay. Still uses a ccd instead of PMT's.
I own a couple Screen dts-1030ai's now but that's not up for discussion here. I paid $225 for one and $99 for the other! Both on ebay.
You're going to hate printing in the darkroom when you get around to it...
and b/w negatives are not like transparencies. either get used to that fact or get used to making substandard prints.
What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?
What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?
I can't answer for Chris but, for me, making a negative is a technical exercise. Making a print is an expressive one. It requires more effort to make a good print than a good negative. Add all the other decisions (paper/surface/developer/toning/etc.) and printing necessitates much more thought.What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?
What's the purpose of scaring people off? Stone, printing is easy enough, I would recommend you to read a good book on printing when ready and stick to it.
Yep.
Have you read "The Negative" by Adams?
What's the purpose of scaring people off? Stone, printing is easy enough, I would recommend you to read a good book on printing when ready and stick to it.
Everyone is different.
But you don't need technical perfection in a neg or print to get a print in an exhibition or to sell.
You don't need to look at pixels or silvergrains or edge sharpness.
You do need silver in your zone 1 'shadow' areas preferably without intensification.
Some mid tone differentiation and not too much blown in highlights.
Some people can split burn and dodge a bad neg and have a keeper appear in the tray in 15 minutes. I know one. Myself I can destroy a 25 box of gillee and a 25 box of AgBr in one weekend on one neg all rejects, note I proof hybrid.
If you are doing a 8x10 you need to look at it from 24 inches. If you can see grain it may not matter. If there is blur it may not matter. If parts of a face are zone 0, that may not matter, you might have burnt them in.
Is it going to be a happy pill on a bedside table in 40 years time, for some one else, is a possible pass criteria.
Will you get sufficient 'payback'.
Note my 8x10s have plenty of grain...
What does that mean? They aren't like transparencies, you mean a well exposed B&W negative WONT be easy to print?
I think what Chris is getting at Stone, is that "perfect" exposure is actually not the most important factor in printing a negative. Negatives across a wide range of exposures can be printed very nicely.
Consistent camera exposure does make printing easier in that you won't need to adjust enlarger exposure as much, that only means your starting point will be the same.
Adjusting contrast to match the paper though is a completely different animal, and it's an animal you are not practicing with. Each adjustment to contrast takes an adjustment to exposure, and those changes require a test print that takes a significant amount of time. Fine tuning contrast for a single negative shot in the wild (outside a studio where all the variables are controlled) may take me 5-8 hours spread over several weeks when I'm fine tuning.
Same thing with the warm/cool tone balance.
Burn and dodge and selective bleaching and other techniques can also make significant improvements.
Sure you can get something on paper pretty easily, but getting it where you like it... ????
I try to shoot so that the image I get is the exposure I want it to be, so I feel that I shouldn't have to adjust that much because if my exposure is made for what I want it to look like (over or under exposed on purpose for example blowing highlights on purpose for a "look" etc, shouldn't it print just as I've exposed it? Why would I have to fiddle with it TOO much if it's properly exposed?
Wish they made 4x5 paper already cut, cutting in a dark tent is hard and I've tried cutting down larger film sheets to smaller and in the dark bag I just don't have the technique for it, if I had a darkroom that would be another story I suppose, but I don't really enjoy it and would rather it be done for me.
I try to shoot so that the image I get is the exposure I want it to be, so I feel that I shouldn't have to adjust that much because if my exposure is made for what I want it to look like (over or under exposed on purpose for example blowing highlights on purpose for a "look" etc, shouldn't it print just as I've exposed it? Why would I have to fiddle with it TOO much if it's properly exposed?
You're gonna like printing, once you start. I do fear an exponential increase in your posts, though, when you do...
4x6 Dead Link Removed
4x5 Dead Link Removed
You are thinking that there is some absolute perfect exposure with a negative that will define paper placement, there isn't.
The enlarger is your camera, the film is your scene, the paper is your film.
Just as you have struggled with your choices about which film and developer and how to develop and all that jazz and more; all those variables exist for the printing process.
For example changing from glossy to pearl surface paper, or vice versa, may make you rethink the paper grade choice.
Post #376 about sums up the whole problem with this guy.
This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.
This seems dumb to me, I'm surprised by now they don't have a definitive paper that exposes as the film was exposed like a transparency would appear correct if it were exposed correctly. Seems stupid to make people jump through hoops to produce something they already shot and developed to be a certain way, why struggle to print it when you've gone through the trouble of exposing/developing it a particular way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?