Does every print require tons of time/treatment/trash?

[Jim Jones]

I agree with those who have suggested that fine prints begin with careful capture on film. Sometimes a slight change in camera position can conceal distracting elements that require more work to reduce in the darkroom. Of curse proper exposure is optimum, but even after 70 years in photography I sometimes bracket. Film is often cheaper than time. Exposure in the darkroom is fairly easy to estimate, but intelligent use of an enlarging meter saves paper. When using one, first guess at the optimum exposure and then meter it. You'll soon learn to make accurate guesses.

 

[Arthurwg]

I do find high-contrast negatives very difficult to print, especially those that are back lit. My digital friend says those are much easier in Photoshop. Anyway, an old photography teacher of mine said it takes six prints to get to the final exhibition print. That gets rather expensive in 16x20.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

A couple years ago I started using an Ilford EM-10 meter. Makes life much simpler. No wasted time with testing. One of these days I will share how I do it. You can try Ralph Lambrecht's method though if you have an Ilford meter. They are pretty inexpensive.

I use two different enlargers these days with two different sources of light, so my old way of just looking at the baseboard and guessing the time and contrast no longer works. Lol. Basically, if you print a lot, you get in tune with the enlarger to the degree that you can just print without doing tests. As they say, there is no substitute for experience.

I should add too that using tons of paper to get a good print just means you are a bad printer, and waste a lot of money. I knew a well known printer and he always said he could have the print in three sheets of paper.

 

[NedL]

I should add too that using tons of paper to get a good print just means you are a bad printer, and waste a lot of money. I knew a well known printer and he always said he could have the print in three sheets of paper.

There's a lot of truth in this, but one thing that sometimes happens to me is that the goalposts move while I'm printing. As I see what is possible, my idea of what I want the print to look like changes. If you allow that to happen, it will never take only 3 sheets of paper!

On the other hand, that can kind of suck the fun out of printing and turn it into an endless chase of unobtainable perfection. Usually I try to visualize what I want, do the best I can, and allow some serendipity and luck to play a role. Then I'm often happy after one or two or three tries ( if I'm used to the film and "in a groove", no test strips required... otherwise a session might start with a couple test strips to get in the ballpark )...usually one to home in on the exposure and another one or two for dodging and burning...

 

[David Brown]

Make friends with a painter. Have them educate you on the costs of canvas, paint, etc.; and how many hours they put into a painting. And how many they start over. And how many they never show to anyone. Photography is not for the feint of wallet, but none of this is cheap.

 

[Arthurwg]

David I'm sure you are right. But let's remember that Manet's "Mademoiselle V in the Costume of an Espada" was painted in two hours.

 

[Sirius Glass]

David I'm sure you are right. But let's remember that Manet's "Mademoiselle V in the Costume of an Espada" was painted in two hours.

Most painters are not that good. Manet was exceptional hence the popularity.

 

[DWThomas]

"Does every print require tons of time/treatment/trash?"

No -- only when I have limited time and am trying to meet a deadline!

(As in -- last night.)