Anyone else feel like this?

[Bob Carnie]

By the way ,,, isn't Ralph L in Florida right now ,, he can make some pretty shit hot prints I hear, why not ask him to come to your darkroom and spend a day with you... I do not have any commercial interest in Ralph only respect in what he talks about here.

 

[tkamiya]

Bob,

You have SO MUCH experience.... the process may seem natural to you. To me, accurately judging the effects of dry-down is not possible. I can get close but not close enough. So I wait until it dries. Otherwise, I'll print pages that I don't like any of.... One thing though, I decided to use JUST ONE paper and one texture. So in time, I may get better. It took me awhile before I found a paper that I liked enough to stick with for time being.

Yeah, I'd love to sit with Ralph, even to just watch him print. I've been to his area... not too far from here. An hour and a little maybe?

 

[Bob Carnie]

Yes I do amaze myself in how incredibly talented I am...Dinesh will probably jump in here about now.

All I am trying to say is make the darkroom experience easier for yourself and you will make better prints. Also I cannot help but wonder how much wastage of paper is going on with time lapses introduced in your workflow.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have the opposite problem. I can't make a print I don't love.

I'm not saying I'm great or anything. On the contrary, when I go into the darkroom to print I always worry that I am not sensitive enough. I know from reading Fred Picker's accounts working with Paul Caponigro that you should toil over prints until the "water looks wet."

Sometimes this worry about being insensitive overwhelms me so much that I get out the D-76 and develop negs instead of pouring Dektol for prints. I did that several times in a row past few weeks before finally mustering the courage to print. What finally got me going was all these negs that were just burning to be seen.

Last weekend I made one print on Grade 2 from a contrasty negative. Highlights were hot enough to dry down and I know I dodged the shadow just enough to make it hold. Got what I wanted. Next negative was supposed to print on Grade 3 (N+2 developed to N+1) so I did a test strip on Grade 3 and picked a result I liked. Went to pick out a sheet but the Grade 3 box was empty so I pulled a sheet of Grade 2 and printed using the exposure from the Grade 3 test print.

Came out quite different than what I picked from the test strip. Lighter for sure. But I think what I got perfectly captured what I saw in the original scene. So what do I do? Take credit for the beautiful print? Or just humbly admit that I would have ruined it if I had been in control?

Lately I've been on a bit of a dark kick that started when I read a Wynn Bullock quote to the effect that you can make a straight print and it would be a good record. But if you print it down a bit it loses that pedestrian quality. Well, this wasn't Wynn Bullock's Palo Colorado Road which looks great printed down, it was granite. And granite looks great interpreted literally.

Looking at the dry test strip, I see the darker result might be interesting. But I am sticking with what I got this time, and will consider maybe giving the darker treatment to the next negative.

 

[tkamiya]

Bob,

Right now, I am not thinking too much about efficiency. It's a least of my problem. A box of paper costs $50 or so and these days, you can't do much of anything else with $50. Since this is my hobby time is not money either.

My goal is to make a print that reflects my thoughts and do so predictably. I'm perfectly willing to spend an entire box of paper for one image or spend a months in darkroom - if I think I was going somewhere and my success doesn't depend on luck. I'm an engineer by trade. In order for me to say "I can do this", the process has to be repeatable and document-able. The skill has to be generic enough that I can apply to "an image" not just that image. I'm far away from that....

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I think you are too hard on yourself, you depend too much on the theoretical aspects and expect a 100% return from that theoretical thing, which never happens.
You already have all the basics needed to print. Just take pleasure and "feel it". To make your own vision, your own print.
I'm looking at your last post and you need to drop your engineer background when you enter the darkroom. You will feel much liberated.
That kind of logic doesn't apply with printing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think G is onto good thoughts here. Art is something that's an expression, something that isn't easily calculated and engineered.
My own work flow is a lot by feel. Even though I make notes for every print I make, next time I come back and re-print the negative, I want to print it differently anyway, based on the mood I'm in. To feel what's right for the picture is definitely the style I ascribe to. There is absolutely nothing calculated about it, other than having negatives that easily fit the paper I use.

I think you are too hard on yourself, you depend too much on the theoretical aspects and expect a 100% return from that theoretical thing, which never happens.
You already have all the basics needed to print. Just take pleasure and "feel it". To make your own vision, your own print.
I'm looking at your last post and you need to drop your engineer background when you enter the darkroom. You will feel much liberated.
That kind of logic doesn't apply with printing.

 

[Bill Burk]

I was just thinking something simple... here's hoping some of my problem will rub off on tkamiya... and vice versa...

 

[tkamiya]

Obviously, there are many different ways to approach a lot of things. Some people just "feel it" and some people analyze it. Sometimes, it's combination of both. Cooking, for example... (which is another one of my hobby...) Creating a great dish is an art. But, creating that same dish the same way, every time, is science. I tend to work mostly by analysis rather than "feeling it". I'm sure some people feel more and analyze less. I can't change 40+ years of doing many things this way.

I actually "feel" what kind of treatment might work for the image. Sometimes, I play around until I get my thoughts straight. Sometimes, I know what I want right off the bat. That much is "art."

My problem starts when this concept needs to become reality and I have to actually make it happen. That, I think is mostly experience and science. Doing tests, making samples, and repeating that result on the product. I don't ask for 100% return on my "calculations". But it needs to get me close. Otherwise, how do I make the same image twice?

Anyway, I'll be going back to my darkroom in a few days to try few things out. Let's see what happens..... I got some more paper left in my box, I think....

 

[tkamiya]

Yes I do amaze myself in how incredibly talented I am...Dinesh will probably jump in here about now.

WHO is Dinesh?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

WHO is Dinesh?

You may regret asking that question.

 

[lxdude]

Creating a great dish is an art. But, creating that same dish the same way, every time, is science.

Science? Substitute the word impossible. If it's a great dish. Each time is a new work.
If it's created the same way, every time, it's fast food.

Otherwise, how do I make the same image twice?

Why would you make the same image twice?

 

[NB23]

Hey, go back to RC! No drydown, no fuss, no extra wash... Just plain old plastic.

Ok, FB is totally worth the hassle, after all!

I have wasted almost an entire 16x20 Forte elegance FB box (50 sheets) on a single negative. The drydown effect was so steep I just couldn't understand it. 200$, countless hours and countless frustrations down the drain. The only lesson I learned was that it's best to stick with a known combo. And that the darkroom is not a place to go crazy on new techniques and overly artistic/fabcy stuff.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Dinesh is watching us in silence... he is around, always

Repeatability is really an issue. If you want to have let say 15 identical prints, the ideal would be to do it the same day on a same batch.
Because everything, chemical, water, paper, your state of mind, are the same.
That applies also (even more) with toning.

If one of the variables change, you get a different print.
It can be your taste.
It can be the chemicals. And often, even with an exact same setup, it's impossible to get back the same results. That can be very frustrating.
I do Lith and repeatability is sometime, very often, an issue. And now with my chromo series I enjoy the non... repeatability !

But all of this is what makes the beauty of darkroom. You don't press a button like in digisboub.

A note about Bob Carnie who is almost an Alien from planet darkroom.
You have 2 Bob.
The first one is the artist who prints for himself and does whatever he likes.
The second one is the professional who prints for others.
There he needs repeatability.
He also needs to adapt to the different desires and taste from his clients. And that is amazing.
So in fact there are more than 2 Bob !

 

[Rick A]

Mr Kamiya-
Consistancy starts in the camera. Same film, same method of exposure, same development procedure, etc. Tweak your negatives first, then the printing will become easier, almost to the point of the negatives almost printing themselves. Learn to expose for a single grade of paper and then the real fun of printing begins. Put away your MG paper and buy some grade 2 or 3 bromide paper to figure this out.Print everything on one grade and you will soon learn how to expose correctly. Noone seems to realize the importance of this anymore. The mindset these days is VC will take care of everything -- ROT! I learned to print on grade 2 paper years ago, and tossed many thousands of crappy prints in the trash until I figured out how to correctly expose for my paper. Though I use VC paper these days, I still prefer to print on single grade paper, less variables to contend with.

 

[Bob Carnie]

****I'm not saying I'm great or anything. On the contrary, when I go into the darkroom to print I always worry that I am not sensitive enough. I know from reading Fred Picker's accounts working with Paul Caponigro that you should toil over prints until the "water looks wet."- from an earlier post from Bill Burk.****

I think this pretty much sums up a funny chapter and learning curve on what it takes to be a good printer.. My personal experience may be slightly different than Bills.

I bought every newsletter Fred Picker put out,, back in the old days before APUG his notes were mailed and cherished... Fred at that time was bone crushingly dominant as a teacher of fine art black and white prints as well manufactured all types of products an eventually some pretty nice paper.
Tkamyia- in the mid 80's I was trying to become a better printer and I was convinced if I got the sample print Fred made which showed snow and water and hang it on my darkroom wall as he suggested I would become better overnight as I would have an example to strive for.

I dished out the money and waited patiently for the master to make me a print so I could look and learn.. three weeks later a package arrived at my door and low and behold it was the holy grail... I almost ripped the package apart to get my first glimpse..

OMFG it was the worst piece of shite I have ever seen.. Ok not the worst but the blacks were dead the snow was burned out.. I learned something that day.( I came to the conclusion that I was not so bad at all and just decided to stop striving for a perfect print}
Don't believe the story's - we can advise you , but you need to make prints and show them, get feedback and absorb the comments and find your style. Becoming a better printer will only happen by making prints and enjoying them.

If you ever get the chance to go to Louisville , go to Paul Paletti Gallery, Paul has an incredible selection of work from the Adams to Shatz, Izo to Schwab, Ullesman to Weston, basically a who's / who's of great prints. My favorite print by far was a print by Gary Winnograd, and as well Brett Weston print. But within the walls of Paul's Gallery you will see how the different printing styles work with each other and stand alone as great prints. By certain people's standards not all of the work would pass as great prints, but when you see over 100 different well know artists hanging in the same room it makes you feel better because within that group there are prints that may match your style.

Yesterday a print came in here that was printed by a printer in this city, It was on matt paper and looking at the print I could not see what I could do to improve it. I know I could make the print but what could I improve on.. ( I would need to talk to the photographer and discuss how she/he would want it different.}
For me a great printer is one who can consistently walk into a darkroom and produce high quality prints for people and not have them reject them at the front counter.

I appreciate some of the nice comments here about printing, and do indeed dread what Dinesh (who by the way I have one of his prints on my wall at home) will say here. But I know that on this site alone, I won't mention names as I will miss one, but I have seen a lot of their prints and boy are they good. Different styles, different processes and compelling bodies of work.
I am sure Tkamyia you are a lot better than you are letting on and are trying to shake every ounce of wisdom from us posters here, but remember the Fred Picker story above, as it sure changed my mind.

 

[K-G]

Bob,

Right now, I am not thinking too much about efficiency. It's a least of my problem. A box of paper costs $50 or so and these days, you can't do much of anything else with $50. Since this is my hobby time is not money either.

My goal is to make a print that reflects my thoughts and do so predictably. I'm perfectly willing to spend an entire box of paper for one image or spend a months in darkroom - if I think I was going somewhere and my success doesn't depend on luck. I'm an engineer by trade. In order for me to say "I can do this", the process has to be repeatable and document-able. The skill has to be generic enough that I can apply to "an image" not just that image. I'm far away from that....

In fact you may be very close. It may be your thoughts that have been messed up ( probably by listening to all digital photographers around you ) and your prints are a perfect reflection of them.
I'm also engineer from the beginning but has luckily been saved to analog photography. Beeing an engineer helps you to maintain your darkroom equipment, making fairly detailed notes on what you did when the print turned out good and helps you with trouble shooting when the prints don't turn out good next time even though you followed the notes to the point. What you say about a month in the darkroom and ( at least ) one box of printing paper seems to be a good starting point. Just as the pianoplayer has to practice continously, even though he/she has detailed notes, we need to train our eyes to see how the subtle nuances change by exposure and filtration. I think the most important capacity we need to have is the lust and desire to work with our beloved prints. Keep working ! thats what helps.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[MattKing]

tkamiya:

This will repeat some of what is said above.

It is not a "fault" that prints vary in their qualities. That is part of what makes them special.

Don't look for the "perfect" print. Look for the strengths and individual characteristics exhibited by each of several, and learn to appreciate the fact that there are differences.

To use a familiar analogy, remember that negatives are like the "score" and prints are the "performance". It would be a sad world indeed if all performances were perfect, but the same.

 

[brian steinberger]

tkamiya, this happens to me often, usually when I put myself in the darkroom for long periods of time, or night after night after night. It gets draining and seems monotonous. I have worked hard a few nights in a row to make a print, only to not be satisfied with it. But I will keep the prints and I store them away. I have dug up the same prints a month or even a year later and said "OMG this is an awesome print!" I think that maybe staring and working with one image for too long becomes draining. But it's hard for me to move on to another negative if the current negative I'm working on is dust free and already in the carrier and focused.

Guillaume's point about variables changing between printing sessions is very true. Making a series of prints that have to be absolutely identical should ideally be done in the same session. Things like body heat heating up the air and then the developer just a little bit, or an enlarger bulb losing intensity, or even the age of the paper you're using can have an affect on the prints you're producing, and if you wait days or weeks or more between printing the same negative any of these factors and other may have an affect on your results. I prefer to get the final image in one or two sessions at most. When I get there I make 2 or 3 more identical prints, then if I have time tone them, if not that can be done at a later session.

Some things to think about before going in the darkroom to print. Contact sheets are absolutely priceless to the printer. I make all my contact sheets at grade 2. Some make them at even lower grade. I also scan all worthy frames and save them on the computer. The frames that have the most potential go into PS and I mess with them. Lighten, darken, dodge, burn, even simulate different tonings. I find this process absolutely priceless to me as well as I can already see how I want my print to look before the negative is even in the carrier. At this point I go back to the contact sheet and stare at it, then stare at the "simulated" final image on the computer screen and I go back and forth predicting exactly how I am going to print the image, what grades I will probably need to use, whether I need to split grade print it or not, and where to dodge and burn and most likely with which grade. And since I already figured out which toning I prefer best in the computer I can predict for the contrast increasing effects of selenium toning, or the need to print slightly darker in the highlights if sepia toning warmtone paper. This is my workflow and I wouldn't have it any other way. I can enjoy the scanned images in the meantime on the computer and after a month or more may decide the image is not worth going into the darkroom with. If I didn't have the ability to scan and play in PS first I'm not sure I'd be as good of a printer as I am.. well maybe, but I wouldn't have a clear vision going into the darkroom, and this could be viewed as being a bad thing or a fun thing. Regardless if you scan or not, you need to focus on your contact sheets and try to visualize which grade or grades you may need and also where you're important highlight and shadows are to begin to make test strips, and where burning and dodging may need to be done. Best you can do is be consistent not only in your printing workflow but also shooting workflow as others have mentioned. If you're feeling overwhelmed at all with the process or feel like you wanna give up it's definatly time to take a step back for a day or more and regather your thoughts.

Here are a few threads I started which are similar to this one you or others may find interesting:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[tkamiya]

So.... who IS Dinesh, again??

 

[MattKing]

So.... who IS Dinesh, again??

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Bob and Dinesh seem to be close

 

[Bill Burk]

I'm a little disappointed with the direction this thread is going in. Ok, for some people the process is nice and fluid and they're sure about every move and that's nice. For others, it takes a lot of work and analysis of work prints, to get every detail where they want. And there is nothing wrong with that either - and if you are that kind of detail- oriented person, I have to say I'm not in agreement with the approach of going easier on yourself and feeling like there is something useless going on if you use 25 sheets of paper to make a print.
...
After all, what's better - making 10 good prints in a month, or one or two you're really happy with?

Sorry if I made it sound like it should be easy, or suggested following me down the path to lower standards. It's an idea I have to produce work "not as good as" the best photographers printing Silver Gelatin, because it seems like an idea that fits me.

tkamiya, I have some negatives that defy printing that I have mentally "condemned" as lessons learned. If I were to pursue printing them again I could easily finish off a pack of paper and still be dissatisfied. Last week I deliberately skipped over printing the ice field. I still haven't made the texture of ice come out the way I want it. Yes it "begs" to be white, but my mind sees the grit. But I do have a river that I printed too light, and it looks like ice. I am going to use that failed print as my reference when I pick up the ice field picture again...


Found a quote from Ernst Haas 1970... "An artist for me is a man who can build his own vision, his own world, and force others to live with this vision."

 

[Bertil]

tkamiya, I think Brians advise to work with with the scanned negative is very useful, I also do that all the time. It gives a good idea if the negative is worth printing; the histogram could be used as a hint as to what kind of negative you have; if you need to make such sofisticated adjustments in the editing program in order to get the print you are after, adjustments that is not (normally) available in the drakroom, give it up and take another negative; keeping track of what you do in the editing program gives you good information on what to do in the darkroom. The scanning and editing is a marvellous tool for the analog printer, as far as I can judge.

A little advise that I find very useful, particularly as to the problem of judging the dry down affect. In most cases the dry down effect my be bad on the brilliance of the highlight. When I'm unsure about the dry down effect I don't selen tone the print before I can inspect the dry print. If the higlight has lost some of its brilliance (and perhaps also some middle tone has gone a little bit too dark, perhaps also some shadow detail is gone but hiding in the dark), I think I have saved many prints from the trash by using Farmers reducer (1 part of A and 2-3 parts B, perhaps also some after fixing), a pencil and carefully ligthen up some parts that has gone wrong. Not untill I have the dry print as want it (as close as possible as the wet print, which unfortunately always looks nicer!) do I use the selen toner which normally just deepens the darks and in that way add something to the contrast. At least I use a lot of adjustment with Farmer also before drying - burning some part for the dark and middle tones may ruin some highlights that Farmer then can save. At least this works quite nice for me and saves a lot of prints from the trash.
/Bertil

 

[Bob Carnie]

Please .. I beg you do not wake him..

So.... who IS Dinesh, again??

 

[RalphLambrecht]

sometimesbut it usually passes quickly sfter an hour or two with photoshop!