Enlarging notes

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Now this is cool!


http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

 

[MDR]

Thanks for the link. It would be interesting to see the original darkroom notes and compare them with Iniro's notes would they be the same or are they very different due to the introduction of multigrade paper etc...
Again thanks

 

[Dave Martiny]

After reading the article, scroll down and read the comments until you get to the one by Andy Umbo. He basically says that in his experience, that level of manipulation in those prints would be wishful thinking, and that most likely none of them received anything like what the markings indicate. Unlike him, I make no claim to being an expert printer, but just based on my admitedly limited experience with dodging and burning, it does seem to be a bit of a stretch, that so many changes would be necessary to achieve the final result, or that the result of so many changes could be so seemless. In fact to me, some of the changes seem almost random, with two identical adjacent regions being given different times, with no discernable difference apparent in the final print.

I'd be curious to hear opinions from some APUG printers.

Regards,

Dave

 

[David Brown]

After reading the article, scroll down and read the comments until you get to the one by Andy Umbo. He basically says that in his experience, that level of manipulation in those prints would be wishful thinking, and that most likely none of them received anything like what the markings indicate. Unlike him, I make no claim to being an expert printer, but just based on my admitedly limited experience with dodging and burning, it does seem to be a bit of a stretch, that so many changes would be necessary to achieve the final result, or that the result of so many changes could be so seemless. In fact to me, some of the changes seem almost random, with two identical adjacent regions being given different times, with no discernable difference apparent in the final print.

I'd be curious to hear opinions from some APUG printers.

Regards,

Dave

I, too, make no claims to my printing expertise, other than to say after 40+ years, I'm pretty good. But, I think you might be on to something ...

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have been printing for a living since 1976 , those notes are a joke and completely useless and very misleading to young printers.
Basically turning a simple process into a complete useless diagram that nobody in their right mind would follow. It is very misleading and complete useless info.


I suggest that one should , look at the neg, look at the easel , and look at the print as it emerges in the developer, by observing one will make better prints.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The more I print, the more I agree with Bob, but I have to say that for me to actually remember the sequences when I print, I HAVE to write it down. Especially if I make a burn with a harder grade. My brain is not capable of remembering.

So, I have tons of printing notes, but when I go back and print a negative, years down the road, I never follow them anyway. I re-interpret the negative, just because it's more fun that way. I think with time we change how we see, how we print, and what we like, so it seems a little stifling, perhaps, to go back to printing a negative in a way that you don't appreciate anymore as an artist.

Then again, before this thread I was re-reading the Pablo Inirio piece, and his print notes and scribbles of famous photographs are so complex that my head spins. I don't think I could work that way.

Perhaps there's a bit of a personality thing baked into what approach we take too. Or 'schools' of thought that are simply different?

 

[cliveh]

I agree with all above, but thought I would let others comment first. It makes him look skilful though.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

So true

I have been printing for a living since 1976 , those notes are a joke and completely useless and very misleading to young printers.
Basically turning a simple process into a complete useless diagram that nobody in their right mind would follow. It is very misleading and complete useless info.

I suggest that one should , look at the neg, look at the easel , and look at the print as it emerges in the developer, by observing one will make better prints.

These are just notes. A tool to help him save time when he wants to go back and reprint the negative. Nothing beats years of experience in the darkroom.

 

[ann]

I have seen copies of Richard Avedon's printing maps and they are very intense.

For years I kept notes, and recommend that to my students; on the other hand with years of experience and the loss of materials those those aren't that important.

In Larry Bartletts book on Black and White printing (which i highly recommend , ) he shows printing maps, much simpler and certainly make more sense.

Perhaps some of these where work notes, ideas, not necessarily carried out when once working under safe light.

 

[Bob Carnie]

We are putting tones on paper, this is a visual thing not a written thing, you should concentrate on the negative and let its natural balance come out.
50 % of dodging and burning is to compensate for the generational loss of density mainly at the edges of the print.
the other dodging and burning is to lead the viewers eye to areas of interest.
This is a very simple concept and after a few prints obvious to printmakers.

One would have to have 30 years of experience in printmaking to believe that what the OP is showing is the way to make prints. Those notes are silly and any compentent printer would throw them out.


If one is concentrating on notes like this to make prints then good luck with that, IMO these notes are simple wank.
Printing should be simple and no my standards are not low if that is what you are implying.

 

[Bob Carnie]

We can disagree , I saw you post as an diss on simple printmaking that I enjoy doing.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Making prints is just another art form

We can disagree , I saw you post as an diss on simple printmaking that I enjoy doing.

Making prints is also another form of expression. We have different philosophies on how to approach it. There are no right and wrongs here. As Adams says "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." How you interpret the score is up to you.

 

[cliveh]

Making prints is also another form of expression. We have different philosophies on how to approach it. There are no right and wrongs here. As Adams says "The negative is the score, and the print is the performance." How you interpret the score is up to you.

How about the image is the music and the capture is what you hear.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

How about the image is the music and the capture is what you hear.

What's the print, then? The recording?

 

[cliveh]

What's the print, then? The recording?

Yes and if you dodge and burn when you play it back you are using the wow wow pedal.

 

[Tom1956]

I suppose that much dodging and burning is possible, if your job is to spend all week perfecting one photograph.

 

[cliveh]

I suppose that much dodging and burning is possible, if your job is to spend all week perfecting one photograph.

No, it's just Bull shit.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree, my point in a nutshell, its marketing bull to make ones work look more complicated than it really is.

I agree with all above, but thought I would let others comment first. It makes him look skilful though.

 

[lxdude]

I can't claim to even begin to understand all that notation. Not that I'm capable of judging any printer's technique.
Given that my monitor is not going to show subtle tones, I don't see many of the differences in gradation which the selective manipulation indicated would give, such as in the sky. It seems like the main difference is the final print is lighter. I actually like the more somber look of the first marked-up print if it were made a bit lighter overall, with just a little more lightening up in a few places. It would appear from the the intentions conveyed by the notes that there would have to be significant masking of straight lines.
I'm wondering if these notes are a plan or just a record of what was done.

 

[Bill Burk]

I can envision a professional darkroom technician, working for a major photographic consortium, having to (or being taught by mentors how to) use markup such as was illustrated - so that additional prints could be made by other printers.

Working for myself, I make sketches on my notes. But they are very rough - generally a few dodge/burn notes (that I would know anyway if I reprinted the negative). I re-read my notes later to see what I used for f/stop and enlarger height - the notes are reliably useful for that. I get it that some printers don't need notes, or ignore them if they make them. Most of the time I am printing a new negative anyway, so the notes don't help in that case.

When we try to expose and develop negatives for the perfect printable negative, it's not because we expect to be able to print without controls. It's just to improve the statistical possibility that any one negative won't be really hard to print. It's just a plain good habit.

Most of my negatives do not require such heroic measures as the sketches show. But then none of my prints has hit the heart and soul of the public. I hope if it happens, that the particular negative is easy to print. Otherwise, I will farm out the work to Bob Carnie.

But I imagine things are different when the negative you have to print has ALREADY hit the big time. Then you HAVE to work with the negative you've got. Chances are it's a bear to print, because the wonderful photographer who took the photograph... Was most likely NOT as capable a technician as you. I am speaking statistically, not with any one photographer in mind... A photographer who takes an amazing photograph is statistically likely to possess less technical ability than the typical APUG correspondent.

My point is that I think it's practically a given that a "Lottery Winner" will require complex dodging and burning. I think the drawings are real.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

My point is that I think it's practically a given that a "Lottery Winner" will require complex dodging and burning. I think the drawings are real.

I've never been able to duplicate a print from notes I've made of past printing. If I'm reprinting an image I may as well start from scratch using proven elevation and f- Stop but base exposure, burn and dodging simply don't hold up over time.

 

[Bill Burk]

I've never been able to duplicate a print from notes I've made of past printing. If I'm reprinting an image I may as well start from scratch using proven elevation and f- Stop but base exposure, burn and dodging simply don't hold up over time.

Since I have a fluorescent light source that has no regulator, I've not been able to duplicate one print next to the following one. And my dodging is never the same. Sometimes I will get the moves just right and sometimes I will wonder how the light got around my thumbs. But hopefully it's "all within tolerance", and that makes my time in the darkroom "interesting".

 

[Bob Carnie]

You're agreeing with this guy??? Yikes. I'm gonna have to get Dinesh in here to clean up this mess.

I yams what I yams as popeye would say. bring on Dinesh.

 

[ic-racer]

Since I have a fluorescent light source that has no regulator, I've not been able to duplicate one print next to the following one.

Bill, I worked with a similar primitive setup and was eventually able to establish good repeatability. I posted about it back in 2007, I believe. Did you ever see that? The workaround was to only start a printing sequence or test strip when the lamphouse was at 40C. The second point was to not alter the sequential order of dodging and burning steps.

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill, I worked with a similar primitive setup and was eventually able to establish good repeatability. I posted about it back in 2007, I believe. Did you ever see that? The workaround was to only start a printing sequence or test strip when the lamphouse was at 40C. The second point was to not alter the sequential order of dodging and burning steps.
View attachment 74343
View attachment 74344

That sounds great! You know I added a CdS cell connected to an Ohm-meter (lit up by a Jobo Minilux) and I document the Ohms readouts on my notes.

Then - like you wait for 40C, I wait for about 400K Ohms. Literally meaningless, but if the numbers stay in a range ~390K - 500K Ohms, then the work for that session will be "within tolerance". But this doesn't give me more than, say, 1/3 stop exposure control. Which, if that makes or breaks a print of mine... then there are going to be some that are better than others in the final stack...