Basic Printing Question on Printability

[clayne]

What makes a negative "unprintable?" I don't mean what at the typical symptoms (although I'm sure they'll come up in discussion) but what about the negative makes it incapable of being printed?

 

[Ian Grant]

Extremes of exposure and over/under development. Having said that if there's some detail in a negative it's usually possible to make a print, even if not good. I used to print for other people and some expected a print off every frame, unless blank

Ian

 

[optique]

What Ian says, and how much darkroom time and effort do you devote to rescuing a very marginable photo?

 

[clayne]

That depends on how important the subject or moment is. Fidelity is less of a concern, although it's a desire, if it's something you really want printed.

I was under the assumption that when someone says "unprintable" they mean it's absolutely impossible to make a print from it - rather than "well, it'll take a while and be a hassle." Is the latter the case, or the former?

Obviously blank negs don't matter here.

 

[reub2000]

I've seen many things make a negative unusable. I've fogged my film, I've accidentally double exposed sheets of film, have had filmed ripped while rewinding, etc. Some of this is printable, but not very usable. Go out there, shoot, and learn from your mistakes.

 

[MattKing]

Terminal dust, and crud ground into the emulsion.

Matt

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Been down this road also. A person handed me eight rolls of film, with the 'winners' clearly marked, and the expectation to make exhibition prints from nine of the negs. Eight were fine, the ninth a bear (with claws). No matter how I tried, I couldn't get highlight detail. None. Completely blocked up. Even at grade 00 on Varycon paper wouldn't yield anything, so I ended up with a more wild interpretation of that negative than I normally explored with other people's negatives. Thankfully, customer was happy.

Unprintable is a term that will be different in each printer's mind. To me, unprintable means that I cannot explore the negative like I had intended when I exposed it. Film defects, processing errors, completely blocked up highlights (unless intended that way), etc. To me, no easy answer.
A printable neg might even be an intentionally ruined negative, which we have seen from Emil Schildt among others. Cigarette ashes, tears, put on concrete floor and stomped on... It's individual.

Extremes of exposure and over/under development. Having said that if there's some detail in a negative it's usually possible to make a print, even if not good. I used to print for other people and some expected a print off every frame, unless blank

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree that many negatives can be unprintable or rather unusable as exhibition prints particularly if they are to be part of a coherent set.

Ian

 

[clayne]

So what we're really finding is that technically, everything is printable. It's just that some people do not want to print said negatives due to various reasons, problems with the negative, etc. correct?

I was under the assumption that one could end up with certain negatives that physically could not be printed. Good to hear that isn't the case.

 

[Curt]

I received all of the family negatives of which half were already printed. The negatives that are not printable with any reasonable result were made in the 1940's, mostly of my dad in the Pacific Islands during the war. These might be good for AZO contact prints even though they are small sized. I tried to enlarge them at a very small size but was so frustrated that I put the results in a box and haven't visited them in years. Yes I think there are some negatives that can't be printed. That said it depends on what you expect the final result to be. In my case it comes down to something or nothing. I'll probably try some again some Winter so the descendent's can have something. I'll probably write on the prints, Hard to Print due to condition of negative.

 

[clayne]

I don't expect perfection, I just expect an image that's recognizable as an image without incredible amounts of distraction and "noise" causing an issue. Graininess, scratches, other defects can be taken care of.

 

[wogster]

So what we're really finding is that technically, everything is printable. It's just that some people do not want to print said negatives due to various reasons, problems with the negative, etc. correct?

I was under the assumption that one could end up with certain negatives that physically could not be printed. Good to hear that isn't the case.

There are various reasons why printing a certain negative and getting a usable result is difficult, shooting errors and processing errors are probably the biggest ones. What makes a negative unprintable though has a lot to do with the value of the negative.

For example a photograph of a rose in the garden, that can't be printed with your standard exposure and development on your normal grade of paper, could be unprintable, because you have 15 other exposures of the same thing, or can simply trudge back out and reshoot. The negative is not worth spending additional time on.

Another photo is of a Sasquatch, it's very thin because you forgot to push process it, but as the only photo of the beast that isn't out of focus, you spend weeks in the darkroom trying to get a print of it, because you know that you will get at least $5,000,000 from the media for it, if you do get a decent print.

I also think that printability is easier now, because the flow of information on alternate processes is much better, so even if your normal printing methods will not work on a specific negative, some other process might like negatives that are done that way.

 

[Maris]

An "unprintable" negative is one that simply does not contain what you are looking for. Making positives from negatives is a mature art 170 years old that was gained at the price of extended diligent effort. If it's in the negative it can be revealed in the positive.

At least that is what I tell people who bring problem negatives to my darkroom. Whether the final picture is nasty or nice is another problem.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

This is an interesting thread. Robert Capa's D-Day photos, when held up to any documentary standard, would be considered unacceptable. But, there they are!

 

[ic-racer]

I understand 'unprintable' as referring to negatives with a density range in that is beyond that which will print on the 'conventional' paper grades. I take it as a figure of speech and suspect most experienced printers can print these negatives with reduction, intensification, masking, and/or alternate paper developers.