- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
my apologies to the OP for my going on in his/her thread but
what suggested previously in this thread " doesn't work? ?
===
i had a print a while back that looked like it was made from a "normal" looking
35mm negative. it wasn't dense at all, in fact it was kind of on the thin side.
i printed it on seagul warmtone fb paper grade 3.
everything printed just fine except for what i needed to burn in.
even wide open burning in for 6 minutes i couldn't get the hot to not be hot.
i did what i was told in all the manuals, the books, &c nothing worked, and i wasted maybe 10 sheets of paper.
then i thought outside the box ...
i made the exposure i needed to make and halfway through the development in the tray
maybe at 1 minute, i removed the image from the developer, rinsed off some of the developer,
aligned it back under the enlarger and burned in the hot spots, maybe 30 seconds of burning in stopped down
... i put it back in the developer .. and the print came out perfectly. i made 2 of them.
if i had done all the stuff people usually suggest i would have been out 50 sheets of paper, and have no print
at the end of the day.
sometimes it is necessary to know alternatives to the main road.
and allowing only one point of view to be expressed is a road to disaster.
I'm sorry to differ with you, but we owe it to less experienced people to point them in directions which will help them learn properly and minimize confusion. It takes some practice and experience before one is able to sort through what one reads on the internet.
OP asked for a source. I gave him some. I believe that is every bit as helpful, if not more so than advising him to simply listen to what everyone says.
I'm sorry, but this thread is as good an example as any other. Some good information. Some bad information. How is OP to know where to begin?
The trick IMO is to make sure that when the print is finished, your D& B is not obvious
Unless you want it to be obvious! Sometimes you just want that black sky at the top of the print. Only way to get it (unless you filter a hell of a lot) is to burn it in. Everybody know it's burnt in, but sometimes it just works.
[/QUOTE]There is obvious burn for aesthetic reasons with purpose and then there is Kitchy Burning for drama, we are all familiar with both.
QUOTE=Bill Burk;1661253]mr rusty,
Some people have the guts to break the rule that says try not to make burning and dodging obvious...
NB23 is an example member here, who effectively eschews that rule...
There is a distinction to be made between manipulations which are obvious in the sense they not realistic, and those that are obvious because of bad technique. In the first case it may simply be a matter of aesthetics and choice, and everyone can argue about that at will. I think the more relevant case as far as OP is concerned is the second, which concerns technique.
Why? Some prints are obviously highly manipulated in the sense the viewer can clearly tell they are not "literal" representations of the original scenes.
However if one lacks adequate technique, this type of manipulation becomes more obvious because of the unintended telltale artifacts left behind: halos around dodged areas, sky burns that darken areas below the horizon, etc etc. I'm giving a landscape example, but the same applies to portraiture, documentary, or any other photographic style.
cliveh,
It's hard not to be confused by all the different things people say about dodging and burning.
Not burning or dodging at all.
While learning, making mistakes and either under-doing or over-doing it.
Deliberately under-doing or over-doing it with the intent to look like beginner mistakes.
Dramatically doing dodges and burns to create moods and effects.
Judiciously doing dodges and burns to resolve deficiencies and improve visual effectiveness.
Have I named all the categories?
Thanks for the advice everyone...
Where is 'these parts' Paul? I have yet to update my profile properly, but I am in Canterbury, Kent.
Care to elaborate?
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?