Advices for less waste and better results

[cliveh]

If you read his writings, or see pictures of the negative itself, plus various versions of the prints he made over the years, you will see that he did all of those things.

Do you believe everything you read?

 

[Milpool]

Do you believe everything you read?

It’s not just readings. We have well documented images of early prints, work prints and the negative itself, in addition to first hand accounts from his assistants (I saw work prints/straight prints at a John Sexton workshop, for example).

None of this should even need to be said though. Many, many great prints by many of the best photographers have required lots of work. There’s nothing wrong with that. Even so called technically perfect/ideal negatives can require a lot of effort to print to the photographer’s satisfaction.

 

[MattKing]

The world out there isn't designed to ensure that your film is easy to expose for negatives that are straightforward and easy to print.
Whether or not the light is changing rapidly, or your meter doesn't fall to hand.

 

[AnselMortensen]

AA also 'spotted in' the letters "LP" on a hillside.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The book "The Making of 40 Photographs" was written by Adams himself. It's hard to get closer to the truth than that. Yeah, recollections fade - but it is as close to the true story as one is likely to get. And there is the corroborating story from his assistants. And the negative is in storage at the University of Arizona where it is available for scholarly research (meaning, I guess, that I, and most people, would be unable to take a gander at it).

In reading the book I was rather taken the number of times the images were not made with the classic Zone System place/fall and N+/- development. My experience with the ZS is that it produces really boring straight prints with little drama - however as all the information is in the negative there is now a solid foundation for creating a broad range of print interpretations.

Adams was a virtuoso of dodge & burn. There is an old film of him working showing him making an 8x10 contact print and waving hands and wands above the printing frame like he was conducting a piece of music. As he said "the negative is the score, the print the performance." His home-made horizontal LF enlarger had a bank of lights for illuminating the negative with each light on a dimmer switch as an attempt to reduce the amount of D&B gymnastics required.

Somewhere in one of his books is a print of "Clearing Winter Storm" made without any manipulation. It looks like something I would have gotten back from the drugstore where my reaction would have been "Meh," filing the print in the back of some box somewhere. There is little more boring than the machine-made B&W print, and a print made without manipulation/interpretation falls under that rubric.

Part of AA's genius was being able to see the dramatic image that could be created starting from a rather mundane scene that most of us would pass by.

 

[Molli]

This is the chart I use, but, I know, in the 6th column I wrote a mistake: 27,7 must be 24,7 (erreur de frappe), and I couldn't find a way to correct that pdf file yet, sorry...
But it works very well as I am in the luxury having an enlarging timer allowing settings in tenths of a second (I am rather picky on that).

And if "...less waste..." means less water, then the Ilford washing method might be interesting.

I hope you don't mind, Philippe-Georges, I've taken a bit of a liberty here and corrected the typo for you:

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I hope you don't mind, Philippe-Georges, I've taken a bit of a liberty here and corrected the typo for you:

Dear Molly,

I am very grateful to you for that!

Thank you,
Philippe-Georges

 

[Bill Burk]

Do you believe everything you read?

I saw a dup neg of Moonrise, Hernandez at Jim Alinder’s studio in Gualala. It’s very thin and a straight print from it would be ugly

 

[cliveh]

I saw a dup neg of Moonrise, Hernandez at Jim Alinder’s studio in Gualala. It’s very thin and a straight print from it would be ugly

Does that mean the dup neg was exposed badly and thin? Or was the original badly exposed and required much manipulation to produce a good print?

 

[MattKing]

Does that mean the dup neg was exposed badly and thin? Or was the original badly exposed and required much manipulation to produce a good print?

The highlights on the original Moonrise negative are very well exposed.
The majority of the rest of the foreground of the image fell into reasonably detailed shadows or near shadows that exhibited lower than ideal contrast.
I think we can agree that those foreground details are critical to the image:
By Ansel Adams - https://www.moma.org/collection/works/53904, PD-US, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33596857

 

[xkaes]

Many, many great prints by many of the best photographers have required lots of work. There’s nothing wrong with that. Even so called technically perfect/ideal negatives can require a lot of effort to print to the photographer’s satisfaction.

Apparently there are some people that have a hard time understanding this. Completely baffles me.

AA said himself -- the light was disappearing FAST. He had only seconds to set up, and had to "guess" the exposure. I would have done the same, and ended up with a less-than-perfect negative as well -- as AA described it.

BUT, if it were me, I would have added at least another foot to the black sky -- but that's yet ANOTHER improvement I could add to the PERFORMANCE IN THE DARKROOM!!!!

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I saw a dup neg of Moonrise, Hernandez at Jim Alinder’s studio in Gualala. It’s very thin and a straight print from it would be ugly

 

[mikestr]

I’m new to silver gelatin printing....How many images do you print? How many iterations does it take for you to get to the final print? Is my workflow right, and how can it be improved?

On forums like these the responses will tend to be technical, and some of the suggestions offered are good. But one thing that caught my eye in your post was your history of printing from digital negatives. I think that this is more than a technical difference: Your entire way of conceiving the image has to be quite different because you are working in Photoshop and can visualize and implement the final result on screen. When facing a negative on a light box there is no direct visualization of the print. So, in effect, you are having to make a number of prints just to see merely what is possible with the image. Then you must decide what you want, and print more copies to see the results and make more adjustments. Of course with time and experience you become better at planning the photograph, reading the negative, and so on. But it seems to me that this cycle can be compressed dramatically using a bit of modern tech. Why not scan the negative and work out all the aesthetic and technical decisions in Photoshop? Then, at least, you will have a clear target.

As practical matter in the darkroom, start by printing with as low a contrast grade as needed to render all the important detail from shadow to highlight. It is much easier to find the right tonality by increasing contrast than by starting with too much contrast, which can obscure much of the detail critical to rendering the scene expressively. This is your first draft. Once you achieve a good overall print you'll be able to see where you must dodge and burn.

 

[hiroh]

On forums like these the responses will tend to be technical, and some of the suggestions offered are good. But one thing that caught my eye in your post was your history of printing from digital negatives. I think that this is more than a technical difference: Your entire way of conceiving the image has to be quite different because you are working in Photoshop and can visualize and implement the final result on screen. When facing a negative on a light box there is no direct visualization of the print. So, in effect, you are having to make a number of prints just to see merely what is possible with the image. Then you must decide what you want, and print more copies to see the results and make more adjustments. Of course with time and experience you become better at planning the photograph, reading the negative, and so on. But it seems to me that this cycle can be compressed dramatically using a bit of modern tech. Why not scan the negative and work out all the aesthetic and technical decisions in Photoshop? Then, at least, you will have a clear target.

As practical matter in the darkroom, start by printing with as low a contrast grade as needed to render all the important detail from shadow to highlight. It is much easier to find the right tonality by increasing contrast than by starting with too much contrast, which can obscure much of the detail critical to rendering the scene expressively. This is your first draft. Once you achieve a good overall print you'll be able to see where you must dodge and burn.

After more than 20 years working in Photoshop, both professionally and for personal work, my brain is wired to a digital environment and logic, and it's a challenge for me now to switch to the analog environment. For example, I did dodging and burning in Photoshop before I knew these tools were inherited from the darkroom. I did it heavily and became pretty good at it. However, now in the darkroom, my dodging and burning are sloppy and very bad.

I already have scans of all my negatives, and my favorite photos are manipulated in Photoshop and Lightroom. What I thought of the other day is to test how closely dodging and burning in the darkroom and digitally by the same amount of stops would compare. How close will burning by +2/3 stops look in analog print and digital file. I'm really curious. As you say, that would help to pre-visualize the final result. And I'm sure AA would do it if Photoshop had been available back then! I also bring my laptop into the darkroom. That's my contact sheet. Probably terrible practice for most people here, but why not if it's already scanned and I can see the large negative and positive on my screen.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I also bring my laptop into the darkroom. That's my contact sheet. Probably terrible practice for most people here, but why not if it's already scanned and I can see the large negative and positive on my screen.

For a 'digital contactprint', I use Filmomat's Smart Convert app on my iPhone.

 

[hiroh]

For a 'digital contactprint', I use Filmomat's Smart Convert app on my iPhone.

Just downloaded it and it's awesome. I used to invert my phone screen to check negatives on the light table, but this works much better! Thanks for the tip.

 

[pentaxuser]

I can't recall ever seeíng the two prints behind AA before so thanks Philippe-Georges. I assume that the one behind him to his right is the straight print from the negative and the one on his left is the "famous " print after manipulation?

I wasn't there - wasn't anywhere in 1941 but it looks to me that the straight print is as it looked to the naked eye. Isn't that all the proof that anyone needs to dismiss any idea that that exposing the negative "correctly " is all the photographer needs to do?.

If that idea has now been dismissed then my apologies for even posting this reply except for the thanks to Philippe-Georges

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I can't recall ever seeíng the two prints behind AA before so thanks Philippe-Georges. I assume that the one behind him to his right is the straight print from the negative and the one on his left is the "famous " print after manipulation?

I wasn't there - wasn't anywhere in 1941 but it looks to me that the straight print is as it looked to the naked eye. Isn't that all the proof that anyone needs to dismiss any idea that that exposing the negative "correctly " is all the photographer needs to do?.

If that idea has now been dismissed then my apologies for even posting this reply except for the thanks to Philippe-Georges

pentaxuser

I expect that those two prints are merely two different examples of how he printed it over the years.
I wonder if Ansel Adams ever offered for display or sale or publication any "straight" print?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I expect that those two prints are merely two different examples of how he printed it over the years.
I wonder if Ansel Adams ever offered for display or sale or publication any "straight" print?

Why on earth would AA, or any other (professional/art-) photographer, sale or publish a straight print, unless a straight version was the best one?

Isn't 'working' on a negative-while-printing the real fun in the darkroom?
Isn't it so satisfying, when turning on the white light, to see that the burning-and-dodging and the 'FARMER-ing', you experimented with, came out so good?

To my very personal opinion, in analogue photography, the MANUAL struggle to reach the best possible result is the ultimate satisfaction, be it while 'taking the shot' or while printing the negative.

Perhaps AA might have published a straight— besides a final print as an example to show his printing skills, or as an explicatory example, in one of his technical books.
For that last case I will have a look in 'The Print' later today, I haven't seen this in his book '40 Examples'.

 

[MattKing]

Why on earth would AA, or any other (professional/art-) photographer, sale or publish a straight print, unless a straight version was the best one?

Every once in a long while I end up with a negative that essentially "prints itself".
In other words, a straight print is as good a print as I'm likely to get from it.
Almost invariably, that comes as a result of a photographic subject that I come upon and photograph relatively quickly and intuitively, rather than working at getting something with the intention that I later make something from it later in the darkroom. And that fortuitous situation is almost always that way because of the light!
I asked my question because it is my impression that AA was almost always planning on incorporating future darkroom manipulations while he was exposing the film. He was visualizing a result that would intentionally deviate from a straight print.
I've encountered lots of photographers who care very little about enhancing the result in the darkroom. For them, the appearance and effect of the print matter little - they are much more oriented to the content of the subject. And to the extent that they are able to control lighting and other factors, their goal is to end up with straight prints.
When I used to photograph weddings, attractive straight prints were my goal, because they were much more profitable than custom prints.

 

[mikestr]

After more than 20 years working in Photoshop, both professionally and for personal work, my brain is wired to a digital environment and logic, and it's a challenge for me now to switch to the analog environment. For example, I did dodging and burning in Photoshop before I knew these tools were inherited from the darkroom. I did it heavily and became pretty good at it. However, now in the darkroom, my dodging and burning are sloppy and very bad.

I already have scans of all my negatives, and my favorite photos are manipulated in Photoshop and Lightroom. What I thought of the other day is to test how closely dodging and burning in the darkroom and digitally by the same amount of stops would compare. How close will burning by +2/3 stops look in analog print and digital file. I'm really curious. As you say, that would help to pre-visualize the final result. And I'm sure AA would do it if Photoshop had been available back then! I also bring my laptop into the darkroom. That's my contact sheet. Probably terrible practice for most people here, but why not if it's already scanned and I can see the large negative and positive on my screen.

That really does sound like digital thinking. In the darkroom, which I first entered in a serious way, well, let's just say when there was no digital imaging or Photoshop, I thought only in terms of time: so many seconds for the main exposure, holding back (dodging) so many seconds here, burning so many seconds over there. A "2/3 stop" burn had and has no meaning for me. When I eventually got the print I wanted I drew a map of these actions and filed it with a print, so I could return to that result and build on it or depart from it if desired. Often the times were just multiples of the main exposure; it was very simple.

I'm glad I learned photography when I did; the traditional camera and darkroom skills are easily transferable to today's technologies. It's very easy in digital work to produce highly unnatural effects; with analog materials you could make an image too light, too dark, or too contrasty, but that's about it, so one developed a good sense of what was convincing and what was not. We also learned the value of patience, really hard work, and perfectionism. We studied the masters, took every opportunity to see their prints; they were our models. Who does this today?

 

[Don_ih]

A "2/3 stop" burn had and has no meaning for me.

That's interesting. I make a print and think in terms of how many stops it's off. A test strip exposed for 3, 6, 12 seconds shows the difference between stops - just double the amount of light. I can look at part of a print and see how much exposure double the amount of light will give it.

We also learned the value of patience, really hard work, and perfectionism. We studied the masters, took every opportunity to see their prints; they were our models. Who does this today?

Probably many people do all that today and you don't get to see what they do. I mean, you studied the masters - which means they're all but done, now, and are still the masters. What about the new masters?

 

[Milpool]

That really does sound like digital thinking. In the darkroom, which I first entered in a serious way, well, let's just say when there was no digital imaging or Photoshop, I thought only in terms of time: so many seconds for the main exposure, holding back (dodging) so many seconds here, burning so many seconds over there. A "2/3 stop" burn had and has no meaning for me. When I eventually got the print I wanted I drew a map of these actions and filed it with a print, so I could return to that result and build on it or depart from it if desired. Often the times were just multiples of the main exposure; it was very simple.

I'm glad I learned photography when I did; the traditional camera and darkroom skills are easily transferable to today's technologies. It's very easy in digital work to produce highly unnatural effects; with analog materials you could make an image too light, too dark, or too contrasty, but that's about it, so one developed a good sense of what was convincing and what was not. We also learned the value of patience, really hard work, and perfectionism. We studied the masters, took every opportunity to see their prints; they were our models. Who does this today?

Lots of people do this today.

 

[Pieter12]

A "2/3 stop" burn had and has no meaning for me.

When you make an exposure, do you think in stops? Do you think, backlit subject, add 1 stop to the meter reading? If you use the zone system, you are really just looking at the range of light in a scene in increments of stops. F-stop printing should come naturally to anyone who takes photos, being able to look at a proof and saying, that could use a 1/2 stop more exposure here, 1/3 stop less there...and when you mention that your burning and dodging times were just multiples of the main exposure, well, that's stops.