- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,492
- Format
- 35mm RF
Do you believe everything you read?
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?
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:
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 1941but 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?
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?
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.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.
A "2/3 stop" burn had and has no meaning for me.
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?
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?
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.A "2/3 stop" burn had and has no meaning for me.
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?