Becoming a better printer

Greg Davis said:

It may have just been a personal thing, but one other way I improved greatly was printing other people's negatives.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. It really helps to be able to approach a negative without any pre-conceived ideas.

I'm not sure though how much of this is due to the fact that it is more fun to blame someone else for the exposure and developing .

Oh and by the way, here is a shot of my recycling bag, showing discards from yesterday's printing (I print on RC paper, and my local recycler accepts it with the plastics):

I appreaciate all of the responses very much! I'll keep reading through. I have lots ahead but I think I am figuring on how to get my feet wet the next time I print! Long live the darkroom!!

Ektagraphic said:

I appreaciate all of the responses very much! I'll keep reading through. I have lots ahead but I think I am figuring on how to get my feet wet the next time I print! Long live the darkroom!!

Click to expand...

If you are getting your feet wet when you are printing, check the plumbing!

Have fun!

Greg Davis said:

It may have just been a personal thing, but one other way I improved greatly was printing other people's negatives.

Click to expand...

i agree ---

other people's negatives and found objects ...

I just spent a chunk of today printing, and I smiled when I read the OP's first post.

One of the negatives I was working on was a bear to print - fiddly dodging and burning, and a central highlight area that is critical, but is also of a tone that is right on the cusp of the paper (extremely easy to print too light or too dark).

If you are trying to improve your printing, don't spend too much time at first on negatives like this .


Takes me back all of 30 years, it does....nothing motivates a guy to make a good print from a poor negative more than having photographed a female, volunteer, nude subject. There is just no acceptable justification for not coming up with at least one good print!

(But other than that, the advice is sound )

Hi Guys- I have been trying to find ways to make a better print..I have read a few books most giving the same tips...I am going to probably look into a copy of Ansel Adams' The Print.

Click to expand...

Also check out Ralph Lambert's book.

proper exposure of a print. Is it really just a matter of opinion.

Click to expand...

Yes, your opinion as the printer. One reason why I can't see how someone else can print one's work, unless you are right there with them.

Are there some of you out there that are so good at printing you can look a negative and just see what the exposure

Click to expand...

Actually one can come within a stop by looking at how bright it is on the baseboard when stopped down. Or stopping down to the 'brightness' one has become accustomed to seeing after many years.

Thanks in advance for any advice that you may give..

Patrick

Click to expand...

Two things:
Make prints that are brighter or darker than your 'best' exposure by altering the exposure by a factor of 1.4 or 1.26 up and down. Then examine the three of them the next day. Look at them in different lighting conditions. you may be surprised. .

Same with contrast. If you image looks good with the 2 filter, make a print with 1.5 and 2.5 and look at them the next day. See which one you like better.

Experimentation, thats the way to do it.

Also, if you negatives are underexposed then just push them into the garbage because they will be difficult to print. (my definition of push processing )

Had photographic masters of the past pushed their underexposed shots to the trash we'd be without some great photographs.

I'm not saying to embrace underexposure by any means but only printing perfect negs is not the way.

I do notice that it's mainly the rocks and trees guys who adopt the perfect negative style.

clayne said:

Had photographic masters of the past pushed their underexposed shots to the trash we'd be without some great photographs.

I'm not saying to embrace underexposure by any means but only printing perfect negs is not the way.

I do notice that it's mainly the rocks and trees guys who adopt the perfect negative style.

Click to expand...

I don't think the OP is yet working on mastering the process. Sounds like he is just trying to get better. Making good negatives is part of being a better printer, especially when starting out.

Once you know how to make a good negative and can print it effectively, then move on to problem negatives. But I would not recommend starting out with crappy negatives and spending all day trying to figure it out and getting frustrated before establishing some skills. Besides, if you throw away (or file in the B-grade folder) too many negatives for being underexposed you will start to wonder why that happens and fix the process rather than spending a lot of time trying to print them. I don't think subject matter has anything to do with developing good craft.

I have to strongly agree with clayne here.

ones trash is anothers gold, different processes , different looks, all need different negs, who says what a perfect neg is ?????
try burning throught a five stop over exposed neg , onto lith paper you will be happily suprised.
thin weak looking negs when printed on high grades can give a wonderful look.

not saying practice on percieved bad negs , just don't throw them out , you may find some hidden treasures there.

clayne said:

Had photographic masters of the past pushed their underexposed shots to the trash we'd be without some great photographs.

I'm not saying to embrace underexposure by any means but only printing perfect negs is not the way.

I do notice that it's mainly the rocks and trees guys who adopt the perfect negative style.

Click to expand...

I save almost all my negatives, because I can sometimes learn from the mistakes or print through a sub-optimal negative. My point was that it is preferable to learn how to print a good negative well first, and then develop skills for more difficult negatives. He could try intricate dodging and burning, masking, bleaching, reducing, intensifying, toning, pyro, and so on but without learning how to make a consistently good print from a consistently good negative is mostly inefficient goofing around.

Sometimes when I have the time it is fun/rewarding to look back through old negatives and pick a challenge to print. I don't mean to portray myself as an expert printer here. I think this is more of a principle of how best to learn something new in general.

I think the best way to become a better printer is to first shoot a bunch of film of a paticular series.
Then by a bunch of rc paper, go into the darkroom over four days and print a couple of hundred images,

fast and furious, no looking backwards at tests, no test strips just full sheets, dodge burn , get density balanced, do not worry about dust , crops and such just practice with the enlarger, timers, fstops, easals.

Next look at all the crap you have produced and see if there are some winners.

Next printing session take in four negatives with 11x14 fibre paper and make four images . Keep the darker and lighter prints.

Evaluate them and decide what you like best,

Next session go in with two negs and 16x20 paper and make exhibition/show gallery prints that you are happy with.

two good images out of a couple of hundred is a pretty good average.:munch:


I still do this today with my own work after 25 years printing for others.

Having just read all these posts I can't help but notice how the majority of the responses are recommendations either of technique (read this book, buy this densitometer, make this variety of exposures etc.) or towards one's work ethic (variations on the old "practice makes perfect" chestnut). One could have all the technique in the world and go through endless reams of paper and still be just as far away from an aesthetically pleasing result if they have no idea what they're aiming for. If you were setting out to write the great american novel without knowing what that is would you be better served memorizing Strunk and White and holding yourself to a daily work regimen or by reading "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"? Ronald's point needs to be reemphasized - if you're interested in making silver gelatin prints you must first steep yourself in looking at other photographer's prints. Determine what you want within the limitations of the medium.

I had the good fortune of studying under Richard Benson. At that time I was already a decent printer, albeit an overly technical one. The most valuable lesson I learned from him was to keep your attention focused on the print's overall effect and resist getting lost in detail and technical minutae.

clayne said:

Had photographic masters of the past pushed their underexposed shots to the trash we'd be without some great photographs.
.

Click to expand...

Good point, but to someone that wants to 'print better,' I'd recommend mastering a full tonal print first, then go from there as one's style develops.

ic-racer said:

Good point, but to someone that wants to 'print better,' I'd recommend mastering a full tonal print first, then go from there as one's style develops.

Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense from an educational point of view!

Dear Patrick,
U have to learn it by yourself. If u have an experienced photographer near by- consult him. I can say the followings

1st you have to understand the negative i.e negative grade. this will tell u the filter u need to use. Try Ilford Mannual of photography for help. Try to visualise the tonal scale of your final print and base ur exposure accordingly. later on dodge or burn the shadows/highlights accordingly.
AND DEVELOP UR PRINTS TO FULL DEVELOPMENT TIMES.

My advice is to (1) absorb as much info here (and from Ralph's book) as you can; (2) participate in print exchanges (make it clear that you want critique though, because some people get offended when critique is given!), and if you can afford it, (3) go visit several master printers and learn their ways firsthand (go see Per Volquartz!).

Visiting local photographers is a great way to get a quick start and it's a pretty good option if you can't afford (3).
I agree with what was said above by ic-racer and Ralph, it's like test driving a car, first and foremost you need to know what the paper can do. Just one word of caution: don't overtechnify it early on.... remember, printing is fun.

Seeing a lot of good prints is a start
Owning a lot of good prints is better
Having lots of superb prints off YOUR negs from a master is the best of all. This way you can look, learn and hone your own output but with something proven to work towards.

I have improved more in a year than in the previous nine as a result of the last point. What I learned most is that it is not a technical thing per se. Its not about darkroom magic. Its about understanding subtle tonal relationships and being able to weave these into an emotionally satisfying print. I still have a lot of improving to do, but I am enough better now that I have thrown out vast number of images that used to satisfy me because I can now see how much better I can print them (or already have).

I went into the dark last night and I got some work done using some of the recommendation here and I ended up coming out with one print...but that one print is more or less the best I feel it could be. I used the filter set effectively and did dodging and burning where in the past I had let it go. Thanks so much guys.

I agree with Tom. It is not a technical thing per se. I agree, you have to master
the technical aspect, but when it comes to prints that catch the eye and which you
keep looking at, it is the "good eye for pictures" that the printer has, know where
to burn and dodge, know how to make the print dramatic,...
I think this is where the master printers excel.

I myself do not have that talent, but I enjoy making prints nevertheless of course

I think 80 percent of it is vision (i.e. "a natural eye") combined with practice (i.e. hard work and lots of time). The last 20 percent is more technical.

The technique is the easy part, relatively. There is not all that much to learn. The hardest part of it is learning how it relates to the vision. Having the eye is out of your hands, as that was determined as you were raised. The practice is all up to you and your work ethic.

One man's two cents. YMMV.

patrick

why don't you have the photo teacher at your school help ( or the folks at AS220 )
isn't that why you are taking photo classes ?

ralph's book is a great place to start if you have to do it all on your own

Lots of good information here. On the debate between those who value 'good printing skills' over the 'learn to make a good negative' people, I'd say the two views are opposite sides of the same coin - but that they probably represent stages a fledgling photographer must go through to become a good photographer.

At first novice photographers find the darkroom most interesting ; it's an exciting new experience and the reward of making a sparkling wet print is stunningly immediate. Whereas, in comparison, learning how to use the camera well and process film consistently seems dry and boring. Worse still, the rewards of camera and processing are deferred, so it's easy to see why absolute beginners find printing most pleasurable.

Later, as the beginner becomes a more competent printer, he/she starts to understand why more consistent negatives would make things easier in the darkroom and, so, exposure and processing begin to get greater attention. Soon, the photographer realises how much more he/she could do with better negatives. Then, instead of fire fighting to salvage a tolerable result, it becomes a case of exploring and unlocking the potential stored within the negative. In the mature photographer shooting, processing and printing become complementary components - each one contributing towards the whole.

On the subject of "all those great images that would have been thrown into the bin because they weren't great negatives". I think it's a basic misunderstanding of how the business of photography works - especially in social documentary/photojournalism & fashion. In reality, most of these photographs are shot by a photographer who then hands the images over to a professional printer and it's the printer's job to extract a good image out of the, often shoddy, negatives. Sure, there are exceptions to this but, in reality, it doesn't make sense for a jobbing photographer to print his own stuff when he/she can earn much more money shooting.

Professional printers are the unsung heroes of photography. Next time you see an exhibition have a hard look at the images and try to work out how consistent the original negatives really were. Look very closely at, say, whether the lighting on each subject was actually very different, despite the pictures themselves seeming very consistent. That's the sign of a great printer at work.
A good case in point is the Tate Britain's Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition that I saw recently in Eastbourne. Yes, there were a lot of great images, but if it wasn't for the printer (not named, as far as I could see) pulling all the images together into a cohesive whole with his/her superb technique, the exhibition would have been much less coherent and convincing...

practice, practice, practice.

look at good prints, read about printing, read about photography. If everyday you immerse yourself into something photo related it will give you a better eye and a better understanding of what it is we do as photographers.

as other have mentioned, there is a lot to the technical aspect but its actually quite simple. the hard part is learning how to see and how to use those simple technical aspects you know to make a good print. i.e. i can teach you contrast grades and what they do in 10 minutes....BUT learning how and when to use them comes with experience and can take years

jerry lebens said:

...the debate between those who value 'good printing skills' over the 'learn to make a good negative' people...

Click to expand...

These two things are extremely far from being exclusive of each other.

Those who advocate a strong technical focus on crafting the negative are not doing so in order to have this take the place of strong printing skills. They are doing it to enhance what one can achieve with his or her printing skills.

One thing I've learned, printing will only get you so far. Good printing is important and can make a photograph really sing. But if the negative isn't right, there's little that printing can do to make up the difference.

For example, if the negative contrast isn't right, there's no grade of paper nor VC contrast filter that can make up the difference. It just isn't the same.

So, how does one achieve an excellent negative? For black and white, I use Ansel Adam's (and Fred Archer's) Zone System, which puts method to exposing for the shadows, and later developing for the highlights. It works, because it's based on the fundamental characteristics of film. Note that the important concept is exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. The "Zone System" is only one way of doing this.

This approach is important to me because of the kind of photography that I do. I'm in it for the beauty of the photograph, the textures, tones, etc. I work on a tripod, so I'm not into action. I'm into careful consideration of every aspect of the composition. So, my kind of photography gives me the time to be fussy in considering exposure and subsequent development.

With this said, an important part of good printing for me is consistency and reproducibility. When I develop film, my temperatures don't vary more than about 0.2 or 0.3 degrees F. I use both Zone VI compensating timers for developing and enlarging. I'm careful about dodging and burning in a way that the same effects can be reproduced later. I keep notes on how I print individual negatives. The more consistent one is, the better they will be able to maintain subtle refinements in the photograph as one works towards the fine print.

Another lesson for me was drying the photograph for evaluation. I have dry-down adjustments on my enlarging timer. But, I find it works better to dry the print for evaluation. So, I have a Premier print dryer that enables me to dry prints in a convenient time period. (Final photographs are air dried on a fiberglass mesh.) In reproducing photographs later, I always keep the best photograph, so that I can use this as a model. I compare work to this "best" print only after the work is fully dry. Again for consistency, I have a particular light source and place that I use for comparing and evaluating prints.