How is that possible???
Ugh... That makes no sense, if I can properly expose a transparency, then I can equally expose all my negatives to the same exposure level and print them all with the same times or whatever...
You can do it in the field - provided that you have the same exacting control over light that can be had in the studio, or on some film sets.
Otherwise, there are no controls on your camera or in your procedure that will create the necessary results at the negative stage to permit perfect results on a straight print every time. It is just the result of reality - it offers way more than can "automatically" be represented in a medium that uses reflected light.
Because I might want my sky to be dark and moody but I may also have a person as the main subject of the photograph, therefore making a red filter a bit of a no-go since I don't want the skin to look weird, so I just figure I'll burn it in hard at the printing stage...Just like I might want that row of storefronts in the background to be a bit more subdued, without losing the effect of placing my subject in a certain locale...and maybe I want the text on the cover of the book they're reading to pop so I might hold it back during my soft-contrast exposure, and really hit it in the hard-contrast exposure...
Maybe photography is hard.
I keep seeing you say "they should" "it should", in reference to film/paper materials. That's like saying that phthalo blue oil paint is just not doing it for you, so you write a complaint to Windsor & Newton saying they need to make their phthalo blue "better" for you, instead of learning how to properly mix the tint you want from a combination of other paints.
Stone, I think your experiences with transparency may be preventing some clarity, so to speak, in understanding the some things about negatives and printing.
Hypothetical situation...
Can you conceive of a situation where transparencies (which you seem to prefer) of different brands or "models" would not, by design, be projected the same? Being different enough from each other to require different exposure based on the projector that would be used, or perhaps projectors with different settings to accommodate different types of transparencies?
Or perhaps look at automatic versus manual transmissions. Some swear by one, some the other. However, there are situations where one may be more versatile - certainly not out of the box for mindless operation, but for other intents. Ever use a line-lock? Why doesn't every car have one? Why does any car have one? Front or rear wheel drive? Skinny or wide tires (or tyres if some prefer).
Bridge those ideas into what we're trying to say about printing negatives.
How is that possible???
Ugh... That makes no sense, if I can properly expose a transparency, then I can equally expose all my negatives to the same exposure level and print them all with the same times or whatever...
You're talking wizardry... I don't dodge and burn my transparencies... Why should I need to do that to my negatives, I don't like they false creationism... I don't do that in any of my work, digital or film, ever... I hate that shit...
Then I have no idea why you're using film, or why you even bother with using anything other than JPG on a DSLR.
I'm sorry Stone, but you seem to have an enormous misconception of how black and white photography is actually done, both historically, and in the contemporary setting. People that brag about SOOC bullshit, and vilify advanced printing techniques for a perceived lack of authenticity, generally do so because they're not skilled enough to carry out such manipulations effectively.
Not sure what a line-lock is, you lost me there.
But no I don't conceive that a transparency should be projected at different light levels, if a transparent isn't exposed properly to me, by looking at it on a light box, then it's no good and it goes in the "no good" pile... All the images I've posted in color are properly exposed transparencies except one, which I only did as an experiment to see just how good scanners could compensate for terrible exposures so I could understand scanning better and know when I messed up and when the scanner was compensating.
But no, an image is either exposed right or it's not in a transparency.
I figured your being a precision driver you might be familiar with line-locks (though those are typically used in drag racing).
I'm not asking if you DO conceive of the hypothetical transparency scenario. I am asking you TO conceive of it. Play a mental game, and pretend the major film manufacturers were making transparency film to different specs that required different projection (and this may have occurred early on for all I know). It doesn't matter why they would do this - it could be from a theoretical idea of optimal, or to lock you into their products, whatever. Just pretend it happened and never standardized. As a transparency shooter, you would have to some how deal with this. You would then ether stick with one set of tools, or use the tools you like best and compensate to make them all work together. It is not a complete analogy, but I'm trying to tap into something you like (transparencies).
Imagine if there were a film/developer/enlarger/paper/developer combination that would make perfect negatives print as a perfect positive representation... but the film developer wasn't Rodinal and did not give the same edge effects of Rodinal that you like.
I believe exposed "right" for negative film means to capture all there is to capture, not to make a negative look like the final product.
Consider applying these concepts to filming a movie. There is always footage that does not make the final cut (and not necessarily due to quality). At the end of it all, they have to decide if something fits or detracts. Also, multiple takes - not because of mistakes, but a sort of bracketing. The one that works "best" is chosen in post. In other words, when filming a movie, they "capture" as much "information" as possible. When making the final print, they decide what "information" suits their purposes best, and what does not.
When a negative is exposed "correctly" it gets as much "information" as possible. When printing a negative, one can choose to use all of that information, or to print in a way to darken shadows (to the point of losing information), or to alter that information in a manner to suit one's purpose best. The extra "hoops" of negative film are not a weakness, they are a flexibility and strength.
Perhaps this is not how you do photography. Perhaps you do not wish to do it this way. That does not mean that you cannot comprehend it while choosing to do it your way.
I don't like or use M$ windows, but I do understand it.
There was a movie camera operator on APUG that was arguing that exposure latitude doesn't exist, that yes there is some flexibility in compensating in post printing but that there essentially IS a perfect exposure, because in the movie industry, all the rolls have to line up and all be exposed the same throughout the whole movie, they don't have the time to compensate for a poor exposure.
I agree with this, there is no such thing as exposure latitude... Either it's exposed right, or not, and anyone who thinks that it's ok to fiddle around and screw up an exposure and is ok with that because they can fix it later in the darkroom are just as bad as the idiots who photoshop everything to hell.
Ugh, I'm not saying there isn't a place for it, or that it's not art, I'm saying I don't want to work like that, and just because you do that doesn't mean it's the only way to create a photograph, so don't tell me I can't do photography because I'm not skilled enough and I won't tell you that you're not even a photographer you're just a graphic artist... Got it?
I think it's funny that you just used "just a graphic artist" as a veiled insult...I do a fair bit of graphic design and pre-press work, so...yes that label could apply to me as well, but that's more of an ancillary aspect of being an artist in the contemporary creative world, and it facilitates my ability to show my photographs more effectively, and more widely.
You know why I make negatives the way I do?
I would just as quickly call any of those examples a finished print of that photograph, depending on my mood, and whether or not I was making a print for the 15 piece edition, or if I was just examining a different interpretation of the negative. Interpreting your work and making it your own is part of your responsibility as an artist (forget the P word...you have a badge on your chest with a scarlet letter or something?).
I, and many others have tried, countless times, to offer advice, further your understanding, and answer your questions. Invariably, someone says something that upsets you, and you start complaining about how we shouldn't judge you and just let you proceed the way you want. That's all well and good, but you then insist on asking more questions and telling other people that they are wrong. As I said before, questions are good, don't stop asking questions, but you need to be receptive to the myriad of answers you are guaranteed to receive on an internet forum.
You seem to have this EXTREMELY misinformed perspective regarding dodging/burning/manipulation as only a corrective set of tools.
It's also adorable that you still think that photography is "honest".
Don't worry, Ansel and Santa also get together once a year for beers and pizza. The Easter Bunny brings the coke and weed and I've heard that the Tooth Fairy DJs for the event.
Can we get a lock on this thread already? Because this is just absurd.
You're talking wizardry... I don't dodge and burn my transparencies... Why should I need to do that to my negatives, I don't like they false creationism... I don't do that in any of my work, digital or film, ever... I hate that shit...
You're talking wizardry... I don't dodge and burn my transparencies... Why should I need to do that to my negatives, I don't like they false creationism... I don't do that in any of my work, digital or film, ever... I hate that shit...
I think we all want you to print
In your quest for "sharp" images, you are doing things to get edge effects, which really have nothing to do with the exposure (and arguably nothing to do with the real-life scenes you are photographing). They are effects. It is a manipulation in the process to make things look the way you want. There is nothing wrong with that, and it can look very good.
What I am saying is you are already doing in the development process something very analogous to what you appear to disagree with in the printing process. I don't think you see it that way, but it is very similar in concept. When viewed from that angle, perhaps what we are saying may make more sense. Also, you don't have to agree in order to understand what people are saying. You can even agree but simply not want to do it that way; it doesn't matter from a learning and understanding point of view.
Dodging & burning, and other techniques, are not about saving a bad exposure (though can do that).
It may be a worthwhile experiment to take one of your negatives (exposed and developed how you like it) and allow someone very experienced to print it optically to the same size as your digital print. Not to "fix" anything, just to show what can be done with optical printing. In addition to the "straight" print, this person could also produce a few others to show different possibilities from the same negative.
Then compare it to your digital print of the same negative. Now, to say one would be "better" might be seen as being very subjective. Also, it may not be to your taste, which is fine. However, it may illustrate how the various "manipulations" can change the character in a very positive manner, without being seen as a gross "alteration" of the image.
This can be seen as an argument of "realistically" representing the scene (but photography in itself negates this, and edge effects more so) versus making the print represent the scene differently in obvious or subtle ways. Sometimes real-life does not cooperate.
Perhaps an entire scene is "properly" exposed, but the sky (even though correct) could have illustrated the subject better if it was a bit darker in real life. That can be adjusted when printing. Maybe you exposed to block shadows and isolate a subject, but later thought it would have been nice to have items that were in the shadows add context to the subject. If the exposure were different, you could print either way.
By exposing to capture as much "data" (range) as possible, printing allows you to make the photo any way you want. You can still print just as you visualized - plus much more if the muse takes you.
There was a movie camera operator on APUG that was arguing that exposure latitude doesn't exist, that yes there is some flexibility in compensating in post printing but that there essentially IS a perfect exposure, because in the movie industry, all the rolls have to line up and all be exposed the same throughout the whole movie, they don't have the time to compensate for a poor exposure.
I agree with this, there is no such thing as exposure latitude... Either it's exposed right, or not, and anyone who thinks that it's ok to fiddle around and screw up an exposure and is ok with that because they can fix it later in the darkroom are just as bad as the idiots who photoshop everything to hell.
I'm saying I don't want to work like that
I think it's funny that you just used "just a graphic artist" as a veiled insult...I do a fair bit of graphic design and pre-press work, so...yes that label could apply to me as well, but that's more of an ancillary aspect of being an artist in the contemporary creative world, and it facilitates my ability to show my photographs more effectively, and more widely.
You know why I make negatives the way I do?
I would just as quickly call any of those examples a finished print of that photograph, depending on my mood, and whether or not I was making a print for the 15 piece edition, or if I was just examining a different interpretation of the negative. Interpreting your work and making it your own is part of your responsibility as an artist (forget the P word...you have a badge on your chest with a scarlet letter or something?).
I, and many others have tried, countless times, to offer advice, further your understanding, and answer your questions. Invariably, someone says something that upsets you, and you start complaining about how we shouldn't judge you and just let you proceed the way you want. That's all well and good, but you then insist on asking more questions and telling other people that they are wrong. As I said before, questions are good, don't stop asking questions, but you need to be receptive to the myriad of answers you are guaranteed to receive on an internet forum.
You seem to have this EXTREMELY misinformed perspective regarding dodging/burning/manipulation as only a corrective set of tools.
It's also adorable that you still think that photography is "honest".
Don't worry, Ansel and Santa also get together once a year for beers and pizza. The Easter Bunny brings the coke and weed and I've heard that the Tooth Fairy DJs for the event.
Can we get a lock on this thread already? Because this is just absurd.
If that's your attitude, you're going to be a terrible printer. At best, you'll get very average prints, lacking drama and any reason to hold the viewer's attention. You'll never get a print that "sings". If mediocrity is your goal, you're on the right track... Frankly, if your adamant about never burning/dodging, you should forgo wet printing. It would be a shame to waste silver on your results. Leave the paper for someone who cares about creating expressive images.
Stone:
Chris isn't talking wizardry, he is talking nuance and shading - much like a performing artist.
There are darkroom wizards - Jerry Uelsmann comes to mind: http://www.uelsmann.net/
But it is certainly fine to choose a different approach to your work. Just make sure it is an informed choice, and don't denigrate others who make different choices.
Maybe you will have a path that is more like Henri Cartier Bresson - who didn't do his own printing, but worked with a printer who understood his vision.
By the way, IMHO it isn't the moon that makes "Moon over Hernandez", it is the grave stones.
And it wasn't the exposure that really challenged AA when he first started to work with the negative, but rather that it was under-developed. Thus his later decision to intensify it.
Could you have made an exposure of a scene like that without the aid of a meter?
Stone, that operator is right, but only in that "special case". Being in the movie industry I'm surprised you don't get this.
On a movie set how much lighting gear is used? Scrims? Makeup? ... Yep, makeup is a lighting modifier; it can make a face lighter or darker in relation to the rest of the scene.
All that lighting gear on the movie set is there because burn and dodge is the other alternative. Burn-and-dodge and controlling-the-lighting have exactly same the job; controlling the placement of various subjects in relation to the rest of the scene.
It is imperative when shooting at 30fps (or whatever the fps rate actually is) to make sure all the frames are exposed the same because they are part of a set that will be used together. Essentially a whole movie scene (all 10,000 "or so" frames) could be considered the equivalent of a single frame we might shoot.
On the movie set the lighting situation is maintained for the whole scene.
With our 4x5's, outside of a studio, it is likely that we might expose one holder in a given scene/lighting situation then move the camera. Outside of a controlled lighting situation when we move (even turn) our 4x5's we completely alter the lighting.
Every movie set gets its own well planned lighting setup and a no-latitude attitude so that they don't have to burn and dodge 10,000 "or so" frames.
Setting up a shot and using artificial lighting is real work. When we shoot a couple frames with the camera pointed one direction is that work worth it or is it more efficient just to do some burn and dodge when I print.
For me it's not a matter of "if" I will manipulate, it is simply a matter of where. That is true for a movie too.
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?