Anyone else feel like this?

Bill Burk · Jul 3, 2012

Old-N-Feeble,

Hope it gets better for you...

You can still be a catalyst.

Dinesh · Jul 3, 2012

Thomas Bertilsson said:
You may regret asking that question.

Indeed!

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 3, 2012

Dinesh said:
Indeed!

He has arisen.

M. Lointain · Jul 3, 2012

If you are having problems with recognizing highlight density then simply teach yourself to do it. Cut a wet print in half, dry one half then compare the dry to the wet. After you do that a few times you should be able to see what you need to see. I evaluate prints in the fix. Works fine as long as you know what you are looking for.

It sounds like you like "open" prints, so another tip for you is to look at the wet print then hold it up to a strong back light. If you see more detail in the shadows you might be printing it too dark for your tastes. I personally have a tendency to print too dark because I really like blacks and deep prints. I have to fight myself on this but at least I realize it which is half the battle.

I am with Bob as far as burning with a #5 but like everything it depends. I also typically dodge with a #5 or #00 filter blue-gooed to a flexible wire. Frankly there is nothing worse to me than a dodge halo and it is nearly impossible to get one if you are using a filter. I also use filter sheets typically to dodge vast swaths of the print, like a foreground for instance. I rarely use cardboard for dodging.

I like things as simple as can be so I follow the old principle of Occam's Razor. Usually the simplest solution is the best. Once I saw a printing diagram for a print from a popular photographer and the only think it told me was that the diagram was made to make the image look like it was impressively difficult to print. Printing really is a simple thing. All you are doing is getting the right amount of light onto the paper to make the image look the way you want. Simple. Try not to over complicate it.

Bob Carnie · Jul 3, 2012

+ 1 on using filters for dodging and burning
****Printing really is a simple thing. All you are doing is getting the right amount of light onto the paper to make the image look the way you want. Simple. Try not to over complicate it.****
sums it up for me as well.

M. Lointain said:
If you are having problems with recognizing highlight density then simply teach yourself to do it. Cut a wet print in half, dry one half then compare the dry to the wet. After you do that a few times you should be able to see what you need to see. I evaluate prints in the fix. Works fine as long as you know what you are looking for.

It sounds like you like "open" prints, so another tip for you is to look at the wet print then hold it up to a strong light. If you see more detail in the shadows you might be printing it too dark for your tastes. I personally have a tendency to print too dark because I really like blacks and deep prints. I have to fight myself on this but at least I realize it which is half the battle.

I am with Bob as far as burning with a #5 but like everything it depends. I also typically dodge with a #5 or #00 filter blue-gooed to a flexible wire. Frankly there is nothing worse to me than a dodge halo and it is nearly impossible to get one if you are using a filter. I also use filter sheets typically to dodge vast swaths of the print, like a foreground for instance. I rarely use cardboard for dodging.

I like things as simple as can be so I follow the old principle of Occam's Razor. Usually the simplest solution is the best. Once I saw a printing diagram for a print from a popular photographer and the only think it told me was that the diagram was made to make the image look like it was impressively difficult to print. Printing really is a simple thing. All you are doing is getting the right amount of light onto the paper to make the image look the way you want. Simple. Try not to over complicate it.

Bob Carnie · Jul 3, 2012

I just hope his sidekick MM does not surface as well.

Thomas Bertilsson said:
He has arisen.

K-G · Jul 3, 2012

M. Lointain said:
Printing really is a simple thing. All you are doing is getting the right amount of light onto the paper to make the image look the way you want. Simple. Try not to over complicate it.

True , but different parts of the print need different amounts of light and often of different filtering. Just as the painting artist doesn't paint evenly with one color all over the canvas ( of course it's possible but it doesn't use to result in a masterpiece ) , the printer has to put in some effort to raise the photograph from a strait print to a real good one.
Many years ago I attended a few workshops with the Norwegian photgrapher Morten Krogvold. At a darkroom session he first made a strait print with a few minor dodgings and burnings to show us. We all were amased by the quality of the print but Morten looked at it and said "it needs more improvement". He started to do more dodgings and burnings, with only his bare hands , with the skill of a true wizard. After three or four prints he came out with the most stunning masterpiece. From the beginning it was impossible for our untrained eyes to see the potential in the negative.
Thats what hard work and training over a long time can give you. Skill !
Good luck with your training.

Karl-Gustaf

tkamiya · Jul 3, 2012

Bob Carnie said:
I just hope his sidekick MM does not surface as well.

Huh? There's MM also? Are there NN and QQ, too?
Is this a family affair??

Bob Carnie · Jul 3, 2012

Dinesh and MM together are too much to handle, I just hope they stay away.
Well they do seem to be close I am not sure if they are related but if ugly was a family trait they would be identical twins.

tkamiya said:
Huh? There's MM also? Are there NN and QQ, too?
Is this a family affair??

paul ron · Jul 4, 2012

I see we are having a bad day. It happens and I kinow the feeling well. Solution?... shut down for a while n take up another hobby till this cloud blows over!

When I fire up the darkroom, I generally have at lest 4 rolls of images backed up. So spending too much time on any one images isn't happening. Either it prints or it doesn't. I use my junk paper I call it, the cheap stuff, as my proofs. I make my prints for the night, dry n press em out. The next day I inspect em for composition n improvements making notes right on the print in question.

Next time inthe darkroom I concentrate on the few I've selected.. but remeber I told you I am backed up by at least 4 rolls so there still isn't much time to spend on any one negative. Either it works or it doesn't.

If an image has gotten my fancy n is truely special it will talk to me and I will spend more time on it but that goes on for a few more darkroom sessions... but remeber I am always backed up 4 rolls. I don't fire up my darkroom for any less thaan 4 rolls.

It's a hobby not a job.. I retired n have many hobbies to futz with if any one of em isn't behaving. You really have to know when to walk away n give it a rest.

Hey, maybe your negatives need improvement, not your printing at all? Exposures, development.. you know the drill.

.

RichardH · Jul 4, 2012

I have often wondered if Ansel Adams liked what he printed. Maybe that is why he had other darkroom assistants. I don't think there has been a time that I didn't like what someone else has printed. Unless it was just bad printing. Stains or whatever. I think I am over critical of my stuff but I do have a stopping point. If you sell your photos, then if it sells, you have done something right to please them.
I remember when I had a studio, I sometimes would point out something I didn't like in the photo they were buying. I found myself telling me to shut up because they were oohhing and aaawwwing over it. They walked out smiling and I was to for them buying it. I have won state association contest with prints I didn't really like. I guess the judges had a different view that I had on what it should or shouldn't look like.
Slow down and smell the roses.

Richard

Old-N-Feeble · Jul 4, 2012

I'll agree that taking a short break might help but don't ever let other things in your life keep you away from what you love. Otherwise, it can be very difficult to get motivated to start again. If you have other hobbies then concentrate on those for a short while. Or maybe there are other things you need to get done?

henk@apug · Jul 4, 2012

I am a very moderate printer, and I know that, but I enjoy the whole proces
of analog photography very much and that is why I keep on going.

When I see what one get out of a negative like in Larry Bartlett B&W printing workshop book, I think that is just amazing. I know I will NEVER achieve that kind of skill, but I guess that is what is called talent. Nevertheless, I am having a great time with it.

Have fun !

jglass · Jul 4, 2012

Bob Carnie: I just wanted to ask you to clarify this sentence from an earlier post (page 8 on this thread) where you said:

"I suggest burning with both depending upon your needs,
I look for slight difference between the white under the easel blades and lets say a white sky, the moment I see the line of the blades is when wet I stop. Same goes for snow."

I'm just not sure what you mean by "the moment I see the line of the blades is when I stop"??

Thanks. I'm learning from this thread.

Bob Carnie · Jul 4, 2012

Good question

A lot of prints just need minimum white, the white under the blades is receiving no exposure and is paper white.
If snow , grey/white sky, or fluffy white cats come to the border of the print the point you start seeing the easel blade is where I stop.
I take in account dry down .
It will show as a line of the blades holding the paper down.
when matted one will only see the white, and any density below the white will show as darker tones.
This white/blade line is controlled by the main exposure and in situations is aided with lower filter burn.
A grade 5 burn will not get you the line, but the grade 5 burn will darken tones that will accept it and create more details in white.

Hope that makes sense.

Bob

jglass said:
Bob Carnie: I just wanted to ask you to clarify this sentence from an earlier post (page 8 on this thread) where you said:

"I suggest burning with both depending upon your needs,
I look for slight difference between the white under the easel blades and lets say a white sky, the moment I see the line of the blades is when wet I stop. Same goes for snow."

I'm just not sure what you mean by "the moment I see the line of the blades is when I stop"??

Thanks. I'm learning from this thread.

tkamiya · Jul 4, 2012

Bob Carnie said:
Hope that makes sense.

Bob

Yup, it does. Thank you.

Do you guys need something funny to laugh about? There was a print I was having so much trouble and I wanted to print well. This print spawned this thread. It's a photograph of a mother holding a baby. It was captured at a birthday party I was invited to as a photographer for the day. Since this mother wasn't the hostess for the day, I had no idea who that was. This was someone who attended the party. But, since it was a nice image, I wanted to print it and pass it along to the mother as a gift.

Well, finally, I made a print I was reasonably happy with. Not extremely pleased with myself but everyone I showed it to said it was a great print. Indeed, I can point out a fault or two in it but it captured the mood that I wanted. So I called it DONE.

I made a scan of it and showed it to the host (who is my coworker) to find out who it was. Now, drum rolls, please....

He says the child does not belong to the mother. She just picked up someone else's baby and was playing with her. Now I have a print, a nice print, mounted, matted, sleeved, and ready to go, with no one to give it to!!!

I am not quite sure what I feel about this whole thing but I decided to be happy about it because I actually learned a lot from the process.

Anyway, that's how this story is going to end.... I have a nice print with no recipient.

PKM-25 · Jul 8, 2012

Most of the people who buy my work do so for how the image was seen and shot, not printed, that goes for my buying of work too. I usually end up with prints I like in a short period because how the final prints looks is 90% dependant on how I shot it. I am very consistent in my development, only changing times or dilutions in very rare cases.

I don't think I will ever be a "Master Printer" because I like to spend as little time as possible printing so that I can spend as much time as possible out shooting. The print is merely the device in which people view the photograph I made, the effort in the darkroom is always highly secondary to the effort I put into the camera...

eddie · Jul 8, 2012

PKM-25 said:
The print is merely the device in which people view the photograph I made, the effort in the darkroom is always highly secondary to the effort I put into the camera...

Wow... I completely disagree with this. I don't see how you can separate the two, or give less effort in one. If your printing isn't to high standards, you'll never convey whatever it is you're trying to bring to the viewer.

PS- from the images you've posted, it appears as if you do make an effort in the printing stage.

PKM-25 · Jul 8, 2012

eddie said:
Wow... I completely disagree with this. I don't see how you can separate the two, or give less effort in one. If your printing isn't to high standards, you'll never convey whatever it is you're trying to bring to the viewer.

PS- from the images you've posted, it appears as if you do make an effort in the printing stage.

It's not that I don't want to be a good printer, I do and will have to master it to a large degree over time. It's that the printing stage is not where most of the work is for me, it is out in the field, pre-exposure. I use somewhat of a journalistic ethic in all my "Fine Art" work so coming home with great negatives really makes the job on the printing side a lot easier, more consistent. Like others have said on here, I keep it as simple as possible, including using only one paper for the final and RC for quick and dirty eval prints, hand outs for friends.

I like to keep the percentage of darkroom time to shoot time at around 25%......I loathe being indoors...

eddie · Jul 8, 2012

OK. I get what you're saying. I think we all try to put the effort into getting the right negative, to simplify the printing process. I got caught up in your use of "merely" and "always highly secondary" as being dismissive of the printing part of the process.

BradleyK · Jul 8, 2012

PKM-25 said:
It's not that I don't want to be a good printer, I do and will have to master it to a large degree over time. It's that the printing stage is not where most of the work is for me, it is out in the field, pre-exposure. I use somewhat of a journalistic ethic in all my "Fine Art" work so coming home with great negatives really makes the job on the printing side a lot easier, more consistent. Like others have said on here, I keep it as simple as possible, including using only one paper for the final and RC for quick and dirty eval prints, hand outs for friends.

I like to keep the percentage of darkroom time to shoot time at around 25%......I loathe being indoors...

+1. In the past, it had always been my habit to put off my darkroom work as long as possible. I, too, prefer being out of doors - shooting, hiking, canoeing, cycling, etc. (I can say with pride that I have never owned a television set - I make a lousy spectator). Returning home to the Left Coast last fall the habit re-emerged with vigor, underwritten by the reminder of the return of the rainy season (I spend a disproportionate of my leisure time from late October to early April developing negatives and printing).

tkamiya · Jul 8, 2012

How do you guys do THAT? Average scene has something like 12 to 14 stops of shade, often more. Film captures way over 10 stops of light. The visible part of paper is only about 7 stops. If we simply lowered the contrast and print, it'll end up with very flat print. If we printed with normal contrast, parts of the image will be blow out or blocked. It's absolutely necessary for most prints to have some manipulation.

So far, I only have ONE print that didn't need any manipulation and it was quite satisfactory. By necessity, to make a print I end up spending quite a bit of time in my darkroom.

Rafal Lukawiecki · Jul 9, 2012

Great discussion, thanks. I have to agree with Michael, that a lot depends on the purpose of one's photography, and so on its final output. If a print is the primary output, I suppose it is necessary to become a good printer. Sure, I wish I could print like the respected masters, but I realise I am unlikely to achieve that dream. The alternative, however, or simplified printing has not satisfied my goals, hence the constant learning. Perhaps, if the primary purpose was just the act of taking of a photograph, maybe to be shown just once, as it seems to be for most people, I would not care so much about printing. Even with digital, I do not like sharing pictures without some level of adjustment, to make them communicate the feelings, or observations, which I wished to share, when I took them.

John Sexton once joked (or was he being serious?) that if he had a negative that would print straight, he would find an area of it to dodge, and then to burn it back in.

PKM-25 · Jul 9, 2012

Devil's advocate here...

If you look at a printed photograph who's impact is undeniably in the subject matter, framing, timing, lighting, the seen mastery of it all and it looks great in print, but printed super easy, perhaps just needing the correct contrast filter and no dodging and burning, is it not a great print?

What is a great print then, a sheet of silver gelatin paper that has been labored over that just happens to contain a photographic image, boring, incredible or otherwise...?....or simply a *great* photograph well printed..?

I only ask this because if I were to spend hours on a print only to see a boring photograph afterward, it would not be a great print, even if "Masterfully" printed.

tkamiya · Jul 9, 2012

Well?

I've printed such an image. Stick the paper, put in #2 1/2 paper, set it to f/8 and 19 seconds. Dev, stop, fix, fix, HCA, and wash! Great print!

But most of the images I have require quite a bit of manipulation to bring out the best.

The way I see it, I'll have to have an image with a great potential first. Then it'll be up to me, either a straight print or a month long trial and error to put that on paper.

Technique alone won't make a great photograph - or any art. Sometimes I have to remind myself of it.

Anyone else feel like this?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency