Didn't Work Prints

[Roger Hicks]

Don Cardwell coined the magnificent term 'didn't work prints', which prompted the following thought:

There is a choice between giving up when you cannot get a good print without using an inordinate amount of paper, or carrying on and on, as (for example) Ole describes with one of his more refractory negatives.

At what point do you decide that you are flogging a dead negative, and that you might do better to switch to something else? What is the largest number of work prints you have made before (a) getting the print you wanted or (b) giving up -- and which, a or b, do you do more often?

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[Marc Leest]

Sometimes, in the taking stage I visualize the completed print before me. Later, I examine the contact print/negtive to see what is possible in the printing stage. Then, I make the workprint - mostly technically accepable the first try. Than i decide to go on or not.

I could add that i waste a lot of paper by trying new brands of paper.

M.

 

[Muihlinn]

If I couldn't make it work after two or three well thought work prints with some variations based on tests strips, I note the details and give up for a couple of days. A fresh mind helps more than a lot of didn't work prints. Keep on trying usually leads to frustration and a waste materials instead a fine print.

 

[John Bragg]

Hi Roger,
It has been known for me to make a dozen or so "DIDN,T WORK" Prints when I put all my youthful and inexperienced trust in film manufacturers data supplied with the film. Since learning not to trust these GUIDELINES, and actually how to produce a more user friendly negative to start with I guess two or three usually nails it for me. J.B.

 

[firecracker]

When there's no deadline, there's no deadline to meet other than your satisfaction. So, as long as I'm breathing, I'll be working on the images I care about. There's no end to it.

I have not given up anything yet. If I have to give up, I'll be pretty miserable for the rest of my life. That's for sure, and I won't be able to do anything else.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Roger

They don't call me Mr. 200% for nothing. I usually spend about 4-6 hours with a new neg at first. After that, I get 'blind' to the image. Most of the time, I'm still looking at a 'almost works' print at that point. So the next day' I'll take another look, and if in doubt, pin it up for a few day. During that time, room for improvment becomes obvious. So, I give it another try, and another... Consequently, it's not unusual that an image 'grows' over a certain period of time.

I certainly don't recommend this method to everyone, but it is what I do with images that count. The others are 'filed' in the trash can. I have a big trash can.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

At what point do you decide that you are flogging a dead negative, and that you might do better to switch to something else?

When I have a better and more interesting negative, which is usually the case.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My sympathies lie most with David on this, but I completely agree about the 'fresh eye' approach and letting an image 'grow' over days, weeks, etc.

This all started (this thread and the earlier one) because Frances realized that she wasted a lot of time and paper by working obsessively and non-stop on one image, and that she often did better by giving up after three prints (or so) then coming back to the image later.

As for 'giving up' I think this is akin to the Buddhist 'letting go'. It doesn't mean that you can't come back: it just means that you don't waste any more of your life than you have to.

The differences in approach are very illuminating and we are both grateful for the ideas!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Steve Roberts]

This thread sems to me to show that the profits of photographic paper manufacturers are based on the same premise as those of Colman's Mustard, ie it's what the consumer doesn't use rather than what he does that keeps the shareholders happy!

Steve

 

[Neal]

1) I usually realize that it wasn't that grat a photograph to begin with.
2) Dozens.
3) a

Neal

 

[df cardwell]

Thanks Roger

I wish I HAD coined the phrase; it was grizzled old lab jockey's response to a smarmy kid from art school, showing him his 'work prints' to get a job at the lab. Unfiltered Lucky Strike in the side of his mouth, glasses on his forehead. Flipped through the stack of pictures. "Looks like these are your 'didn't work prints', kid." Turned on his heel, went back to the darkroom. I was just standing there, watching it happen. Glad it hadn't happened to me.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I wish I HAD coined the phrase; it was grizzled old lab jockey's response to a smarmy kid from art school, showing him his 'work prints' to get a job at the lab. Unfiltered Lucky Strike in the side of his mouth, glasses on his forehead. Flipped through the stack of pictures. "Looks like these are your 'didn't work prints', kid." Turned on his heel, went back to the darkroom. I was just standing there, watching it happen. Glad it hadn't happened to me.

Thanks! I can always use a good laugh over morning coffee

Murray

 

[Jim Chinn]

If I have a negative that seems to have potential but I just can't seem to get there after the first few sheets, I will take my last best effort and file it away for a few weeks or even months. Sometimes I will go back and have another go at it, realizing a couple of new apporaches, but often when I go back and look I dsimiss it and move on.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

What I consider a 'fine print' is a continually moving target.

As time goes by and I learn more, there's more I can put into a print and in many cases a fine print from ten years ago is a good work print today. I now think of printing much the same as a stage actor probably does about perfoming...if a 50 year old actor revisits a role done in his 30's, there's no way it'll be the same perfomance because of all he's learned since then.

I don't want to start counting how many sheets of paper I've thrown away!!!

Murray

 

[jovo]

I like to make the best print I can, let it dry, and put it in a mat and frame (held in place by friction only) for a while. I look at it in different lighting, and from different viewing distances for perhaps weeks until I decide it's good, not good, or that it's worth changing to 'fix' what I've come to not like about it. It's also a nice way to avoid stale 'decorating'.

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

About 5 work prints is the limit, if it's not there then I'll give up. I'll only bother doind this with a compostion I really like.

Often it's only 1 or 2. The scale can change the composition a lot from proof to enlargement and sometimes I wonder why I bother making one work print. I guess I'll get better at judging proofs sooner or later.

 

[papagene]

After one "straight work print" it usually takes about 4 or 5 prints for me to give up. I usually can tell by then that it is a "Won't Print."
Sometimes I do revisit it again with fresh eyes... sometimes I just lose interest.

gene

 

[jd callow]

by the time I get the density/colour close I know its a loser. Unfortunately (your asking in the BA/WY forum and Iamb talking colour) I sometimes won't admit to myself that it was worthless until I've printed a set and moved on to a worthwhile neg.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I have this great shot which I had visualised and risked falling off a very steep cliff into the sea for the shot, but I couldn't get a decent print at all. I realise now that a new paper is needed, but I'm undecided how to print the neg.

Why don't we have a "didn't work negative exchange" with the new printer posting the results?

 

[df cardwell]

....edit...

Why don't we have a "didn't work negative exchange" with the new printer posting the results?

That's brilliant.

i think the biggest problem we have with a neg we care about is that we don't really see it for what it is: the 'need to see' doesn't stop when we push the button !

Fresh eyes can be a shock.

d

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Why don't we have a "didn't work negative exchange" with the new printer posting the results?

We tried a neg exchange once, and it was hard to get off the ground, but it was an interesting experience (for me, as it was a chance to print someone else's Pyrocat-HD neg, without having to try Pyrocat-HD for myself), and I'd be curious to try it again.

 

[Gary Holliday]

If the neg/ negs were sent to multiple printers, we would have so many interpretations of the same photograph. I think this would be great to see.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yeah, the tricky part was, that you had to send the neg from one person to the next, and they had to do it in a reasonable amount of time, and then the prints were to be exchanged among the group. In our group, I think two or three of the four of us actually did it, and somewhere one of the negs was lost, and I sent out my prints way after it all started, and never saw the others, so it was a bit of a flop.

I think if you wanted to try it again, the thing would be to get everyone to commit to printing within a week and sending the neg along, and confirming that with the next person before sending the neg, so that if they can't print it that week, it would go to the next person and maybe come back to the one who couldn't do it that week.

 

[Gary Holliday]

For me, my habit is to take multiple photos of the same shot (for security) and a few variations of the same photo; so I would send the negs to everyone at the same time. But I'm not sure if anyone else wastes an entire roll of 120 on a single shot!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Why don't we have a "didn't work negative exchange" with the new printer posting the results?

Dear Gary,

Nice idea!

Cheers,

Roger