Enlarging without dodging.

I find this discussion deeply depressing. It makes me question why I would want to engage other photographers at all.

cliveh said:

I dodge or burn probably less than 5% of my prints. If you make the correct negative exposure and correct development of the negative for the type of enlarger you use to print, followed by the correct print exposure, without any contrast control, then it is rarely nessesary.

Click to expand...

@cliveh , I think that the part of the linked article that deals with first making a "reference print" probably describes the type of end result print you normally envision at the time you expose the film and then subsequently set out to make. Having that as your vision/process/goal is entirely your choice - and a very reasonable choice it is.
However if due to some strange set of circumstances you were ever to ask me to instead make a print for you from your negative, I expect that our discussion would lead me to understanding your vision, and I probably could come up with a result that you would be happy with.
But that is as much about the process of my coming to understand your preferences/wishes as it is about the contents of the negative itself.
If by an even weirder set of circumstances, that same negative were to fall into someone else's hands, and the finder were to bring it to me to have it printed, any print that resulted would reflect their preferences/wishes (to the extent I was able to understand them) rather than the preferences/wishes of you, @cliveh the photographer.
And just to add a third option, if either you or that negative finder told me to print the negative the way that I thought best - and that does happen with some people - then the result would reflect my preferences/wishes, and would be different again from the previous two.

There are people who argue very strongly that cropping to make the final image shows weakness. Then there are people who say you shouldn't need to dodge and burn a lot. Or just burn and not dodge. Whatever. I don't think any of those people go far enough. Making a positive from the negative is altering the photograph. Just exhibit the negative. The viewer should be able to interpret the transformation from negative to positive themselves. If they can't, obviously the original photograph is not strong enough.

MattKing said:

A few years ago, several people on APUG (as it then was) participated in an exchange where a few sets of negatives were made as identical duplicates, and then one of each was distributed amongst the participants. Each printer was tasked with making their own decisions about how to interpret the negative they received.

Click to expand...

The same excercise could be held today: Post a full-scale unmanipulated image; have the participants download it and 'improve' it in Photoshop/Gimp/whatever; and then upload their interpretation.

I am with Clive in that I rarely manipulate images any more. I find this ironic, what with being a producer of darkroom equipment with over-elaborate facility for dodging and burning.

reddesert said:

There are people who argue very strongly that cropping to make the final image shows weakness. Then there are people who say you shouldn't need to dodge and burn a lot. Or just burn and not dodge. Whatever. I don't think any of those people go far enough. Making a positive from the negative is altering the photograph. Just exhibit the negative.

Click to expand...

The definitive last word on the subject. I like it, though I am of the 'everything goes' bent myself.

Of course, there is the case of making and projecting slides where manipulation is rare, outside of a bit of electrical tape masking off the unfortunate intrusion of the odd thumb.

The fact is, most combinations of enlargers and enlarging lenses don't produce perfectly even illumination of field, unless the taking lens itself had comparable falloff. People burn in edges and corners for that reason as well.

retina_restoration said:

I find this discussion deeply depressing.

Click to expand...

There seems to be at least three different "discussions" going on at the same time in this thread. In barely two pages. Might be a new Photrio record .

I wonder whether Mr. Sanderson would have chosen to take the following photo of mine, or whether if he did, how he would have chosen to make the result "expressive"?
Roughly speaking, the unmanipulated image, without much realization of its potential:


The eventual printed result - or at least a decent facsimile of it:

For the framed version of the print, I elected to flip it top to bottom.
In real life, the subject is actually spread on the floor.

This kind of blog is meaningless and kind of a waste of time because the only way to learn is in the darkroom.
Then comes expectation, subjectivity to a higher level, skill or not, desire or not, sloppiness. etc.

So for me (subjectivity) a perfect negative doesn't exist.
A good negative allows you to get a good print easily and a beautiful print with some light intervention, to make it your own (subjectivity, skill and pushing the envelope or not)
A bad negative limits the options and you have to do a lot to get it there. If you want to or not, if you can or cant.

So there is no final print without any intervention being dodging or burning or whatever you like to do.
Because you are not making a proof sheet you are making a print.
This is where you take control of what you want to show and how you want to render it.
This is where you own your neg And you do whatever you have to do to succeed.
No limits and even no rules.

I learnt printing from a photographer. He used to give me one neg per day. And I would print and show to him, then go back and do it again, back and forth back and forth, until he would agree. Giving me some hints everytime. Now I realize how important that was. Because many times I was fuming but I learnt how to get it better. How to become subtle. and the obvious, you dont see the dodging or the burning.

Few years later I was lucky to start exhibiting and used to go to pro printers to have my prints done because I was not confident enough and didn't have the space to make big prints.
The amazing thing to be with a printer and see what he was actually doing on your neg for an exhibition was mind blowing and a huge learning experience.
Then you keep coming, you become friend, you hang out and you watch and you learn the tricks.

At Picto in Paris they were 3 printers.
One of them never talked, small, with his white blouse, always a cigarette in his mouth. Always busy, printing HCB pictures almost everyday. HCB negs were in the vault at Picto and this guy was just doing that. So he knew these negs by heart. The ballet of his hands under the enlarger was just amazing, a magnificent dance of dodging and burning.
Then he would go to the sink, drop ashes on the developer, smile at you, and slide the print in the developer.... Sweet memories !

Some years ago, 15 years ago ! Time flies ! I went to Bob carnie in Toronto to do some mural lith prints. What a fun experience, because when you meet him it's one thing.
But when he goes in printing mode, wearing an orange suit, it's another story.
The same thing happens, hands are flying under the enlarger, the transe is there and you watch in awe.
And toning murals each of us having respirator masks... I will never forget !


Anyway... The beauty of all of that ? Everyone of us has his own set of rules. In the end it's the print that talks.

So no blog. Darkroom !

Alex Benjamin said:

There seems to be at least three different "discussions" going on at the same time in this thread. In barely two pages. Might be a new Photrio record .

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

I wonder whether Mr. Sanderson would have chosen to take the following photo of mine, or whether if he did, how he would have chosen to make the result "expressive"?
Roughly speaking, the unmanipulated image, without much realization of its potential:
View attachment 406333

The eventual printed result - or at least a decent facsimile of it:

Net Loft Floats #10

• MattKing
• Nov 18, 2024
• 2

A detail from some of the nets and floats on display at the Net Loft building at the Brittania...

For the framed version of the print, I elected to flip it top to bottom.
In real life, the subject is actually spread on the floor.

Click to expand...

Matt,
This is you who decide. No need to explain. You like it. It's like that. Period.

reddesert said:

There are people who argue very strongly that cropping to make the final image shows weakness. Then there are people who say you shouldn't need to dodge and burn a lot. Or just burn and not dodge. Whatever. I don't think any of those people go far enough. Making a positive from the negative is altering the photograph. Just exhibit the negative. The viewer should be able to interpret the transformation from negative to positive themselves. If they can't, obviously the original photograph is not strong enough.

Click to expand...

Or just have slide shows...stay positive!

Guillaume Zuili said:

Matt,
This is you who decide. No need to explain. You like it. It's like that. Period.

Click to expand...

I totally agree Guillaume.
In the case of the example I just shared, the camera used was a relatively rudimentary ~70 year old 6x6 TLR. I envisioned a result that wasn't square, that was dark and warm in tone, that was lit reasonably dramatically and that emphasized the shapes and textures. I also didn't want the result to look like I was shooting down to a subject on a floor, even though that was what it was. I knew that each on those elements could only be achieved through the combination and application of controls available at the time of exposure, controls available at the time of printing, and controls (e.g. toning) available at the time of print finishing. In addition, as expected, a white mat and a light tone frame helped.
The Sanderson article/blog is, I would suggest, an attempt to help people turn their hopes and expectations into prints that fulfil those hopes and expectations.
Personally, some of the "how to" techniques suggested in it aren't the way I approach the task with most negatives - for one, I often mix dodges and burns, because for me using both helps avoid results that look obviously manipulated - when that isn't what I seek.
Sometimes though, I don't mind how apparent the manipulation is. In that Article, I think the "Appleby, Cumbria. 1982" image is an example of that.
The part of the article that does resonate with me though is the emphasis on the importance of making your prints "Expressive".
I like prints that have mood and elucidate "feeling". Some prefer that the subject of a photo be the main source - perhaps nearly the only source - of those sorts of elements. I would hazard a guess that @cliveh is amongst those people.
I happen to be particularly fond of prints where the choices made while printing and while finishing the print are major contributors to those elements.
Thankfully there is room in the photographic world for variety.

Vaughn said:

Koraks -- you are way out of line...I suggest getting your own panties untwisted first before posting. Your mention that you would someone else's prints differently is meaningless and as mentioned earlier -- ridiculous.

Click to expand...

The statement I made was about the notion that print manipulations are a matter of 'necessity'. I think that's a problematic notion and that's what I intended to illustrate. I could have referred to any body of work, or no body of work at all, to make the same point and it wouldn't have made a difference. My statement was not an assessment of anybody's work. It was a response to a thought, and a thought I happened to disagree with.

There was no judgement, no valuation, no stating that the work wasn't good (which this isn't about in the first place), no suggestion that any other approach would be inherently better - it was merely an observation about the inherent differences in personal preference, and my suggestion that the decision to apply print manipulations is subject to such preferences and hence is not a matter of 'necessity'. If someone wants to disagree with that line of thought, that's fine. I can see a few ways to meaningfully criticize it. However, calling that notion 'ridiculous' (which has happened twice now) seems like an odd and frankly rather rude response. That's what triggered my 'panties' remark. The rudeness of calling my remark 'ridiculous' was uncalled for. It was the first time it happened, it still is now.

I do want to apologize for the panties remark; responding with rudeness to earlier rudeness wasn't the correct way of handling the matter.

cliveh said:

I dodge or burn probably less than 5% of my prints. If you make the correct negative exposure and correct development of the negative for the type of enlarger you use to print, followed by the correct print exposure, without any contrast control, then it is rarely nessesary.

Click to expand...

How do you = cliveh mean with you ? Is that cliveh the printer of your negative, or me or everyone that reads this post ?

pentaxuser said:

Not sure what "Student Quality paper" is nor who makes it Presumably Andrew has a specific paper or papers in mind but it would have been helpful to say what these are for the sake of those wishing to avoid such paper


pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Hello Mike,

He's probably referring to resin coated variable contrast papers. Why would anyone want to avoid them?
They're perfect suitable for beginners to darkroom printing whether students or not.
I'm sure some will want try FB papers when they become more experienced.

Carnie Bob said:

His examples were quite terrible, obvious with no subtle workmanship. So poor in fact I could not really read the article , but if he is saying dodging is not required but rather employ burning I would say he does not have a clue about printing. The dodging tool is IMO the weapon of mass destruction ( good) excessive burning a bad thing.

Click to expand...

I believe that the author was just pointing out that if enough exposure was given for a maximum black for the clearest part of the negative, then the rest of the print just needs additional exposure rather than it being the actual way he exposes his darkroom prints.

More an article to think about how we produce a print rather than being a technical article.

If you make a "proper" exposure and do "proper" development of your film, then expose the print "correctly" - you can still burn in whatever you want to make the final print look the way you want it to.

Making a print is all about making it look the way you want it to. If you want it to look like exactly the scene you saw through your viewfinder, then maybe you'll almost never dodge or burn. But if you want to make some parts darker than others, burn them in. It's a skill that takes practice. And a lot of the final look of the print, what you're satisfied with, depends on what you personally like and want in a print.

Maybe Andrew Sanderson likes halos.


I'm sure lots of people have seen that photo and the horizon has a very noticeable halo. But if that's what he wanted, that doesn't mean he couldn't have printed it differently.

I don't like noticeably false transitions like that in my own photos. If I burn in the sky, I try to make it more gradual. But maybe he does. I'm free to not like the photo because of it.

I'm also free to think, when I look at someone else's photo, "Gee, I'd like that better if the left side was burned in a half-stop." or anything else that comes to mind. And I'm free to not like something because it wasn't done the way I'd do it. That's what liking and not liking can be about. You can't expect someone who also makes prints to not think in terms of what they would do when looking at your prints. Saying what they'd do is not the same as saying you should do what they'd do.

So pentaxuser, have the usual suspects performed as you imagined?

Alex Benjamin said:

Basic premise of the blogger's argument is quite debatable. When he writes:



I understand that's what works for him — what constitutes "mood," contrary to what he seems to believe, is a very subjective matter — but you can't make it a universal rule.

Sometimes everything is lit, and that's when the good photo is. Contrary to the cliché, there's no rule that says you can't take photos between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. or even full noon — sometimes, that's when the good photo is —, and there's no rule that says light must "reveal" or "accentuate" something, or, to put it differently, that somethings must be hidden. Sometimes, the good photo is when all is seen, sometimes, the good photo is when you want your viewer to notice everything and you make that happen.

I'll add that it's totally fine if there is no black is a photo — if that weren't the case, 85% of Robert Adams' photographs would have to be thrown away. To tell people to "Look for the first appearance of black on the test strip and then check what the highlights look like at that exposure" is most absurd if everything in your photo goes from zone IV or V and up.

Click to expand...

I think Alex makes some very good points here, why do we not shoot between 11 am - 2pm - the light is harsh straight down on the subject, but if you turn the camera on the side now you have complete side lighting with your composition... Rules are dumb.......Compare hundreds of different photographers prints , lets say from Sudek to Brandt to Kenna - to Brett Weston. All different and all beautiful , would we tell them what to do. I learned at a very young point in my printing career to become the chamelion, ( find out what the client wants or what style they admire) then make prints and see if I am on the right track. I also made it a point to deliver three prints when a photographer was ordering 1 print, I made slight adjustments on the two others and let the client pick. This simple trick cost me two sheets of paper but saved me from having to ever redoe the print.
I am currently working with some very tough photographers and we seem to get along really well if I do some initial research on what they like and dislike.. After that if they still do not like my printing then its obvious the relationship is going nowhere for me and I end it.

I don't think Andrew's blog post is intended to be interpreted as "I'm telling you what to do". He's just sharing some ideas about how he approaches his darkroom work, and I quote:

"this article is about the ways that I use expressive printing to subdue or emphasize different areas of an image to make the picture more powerful." (emphasis mine)

I really don't get why so many people are interpreting Andrew's post as if he's dictating how a person must print their negatives in the darkroom. He's just offering suggestions for how someone who is seeking to improve their prints might add a new skill to their darkroom vocabulary. The pushback I'm hearing is mystifying. (But my experience informs me that this is not a very forgiving crowd)

Maybe take a look at Andrew's portfolio "At Home" and get a better idea of what his work looks like. His prints are not typically as heavy handed and obviously manipulated as the examples in his blog post — perhaps he simply wanted to make it really obvious what he was talking about and chose examples accordingly.

retina_restoration said:

Maybe take a look at Andrew's portfolio "At Home" and get a better idea of what his work looks like.

Click to expand...

Thanks; on the basis of a quick peek, the print manipulations are more subtle and less intrusive in this series. The subject matter is different as well, of course, as are the compositional choices. Overall, much more compelling than the apparently unfortunately chosen examples on that specific blog entry.

retina_restoration said:

I don't think Andrew's blog post is intended to be interpreted as "I'm telling you what to do".

Click to expand...

Perhaps, and that's a fair point to make. The line between "this is what I do" and "...so this is what I think you should be doing as well" can be thin and sometimes hard to spot. Sometimes the line is intended, but it's hidden beneath unfortunate formulation (note how @gary mulder highlights an "I vs you" issue above). Sometimes, the line is blurred by how we read or understand something. And sometime the line really isn't such a clear line at all, and someone just doesn't distinguish between preference and norm.

retina_restoration said:

I don't think Andrew's blog post is intended to be interpreted as "I'm telling you what to do". He's just sharing some ideas about how he approaches his darkroom work, and I quote:

"this article is about the ways that I use expressive printing to subdue or emphasize different areas of an image to make the picture more powerful." (emphasis mine)

I really don't get why so many people are interpreting Andrew's post as if he's dictating how a person must print their negatives in the darkroom. He's just offering suggestions for how someone who is seeking to improve their prints might add a new skill to their darkroom vocabulary. The pushback I'm hearing is mystifying. (But my experience informs me that this is not a very forgiving crowd)

Maybe take a look at Andrew's portfolio "At Home" and get a better idea of what his work looks like. His prints are not typically as heavy handed and obviously manipulated as the examples in his blog post — perhaps he simply wanted to make it really obvious what he was talking about and chose examples accordingly.

Click to expand...

You summed up my thoughts exactly. I'm beginning to regret posting the link to his blog now.

Interesting article. I won’t nitpick it or the subsequent comments since for all of us YMMV but much of what the article covered reminded me of the Fine Print class I took at Cal State Long Beach in the 80s from Neil Chapman. He had us go though much of the same procedures. He also brought in his friend John Sexton to give us some pointers. John even gave us signed posters of one of his works. It hangs in my man cave, next door to my darkroom. And, yes, all that did improve my printing.

retina_restoration said:

don't think Andrew's blog post is intended to be interpreted as "I'm telling you what to do". He's just sharing some ideas about how he approaches his darkroom work, and I quote:

"this article is about the ways that I use expressive printing to subdue or emphasize different areas of an image to make the picture more powerful." (emphasis mine)

I really don't get why so many people are interpreting Andrew's post as if he's dictating how a person must print their negatives in the darkroom. He's just offering suggestions for how someone who is seeking to improve their prints might add a new skill to their darkroom vocabulary. The pushback I'm hearing is mystifying. (But my experience informs me that this is not a very forgiving crowd)

Click to expand...

It's good that you bring this up. I might have gone overboard in my annoyance, and am willing to believe that his intent was other than what his tone suggests.

That said, reading the piece again, there are many passages in which the nuance between "this is the way I do it" and "this is the way to do it" is far from clear. I believe it's a problem that has a lot to do with blogging itself. Many bloggers don't consider it writing, in the sense that there is little drafting, re-reading, editing. You're quickly throwing down ideas mixed with opinions, and not always checking to make sure your intent comes across correctly.

Not to mention the fact that many bloggers write in order to get a reaction, which, on the Internet, is the main way to get engagement. I do think the ideas expressed in this blog post would have been better received and discussed if not for a few deliberately provocative passages.

Keith Tapscott. said:

I'm beginning to regret posting the link to his blog now.

Click to expand...

You shouldn't be. The question about whether or not dodging and burning is a necessity is an interesting one to discuss.

Sorry if I was one of those who managed to derail the conversation elsewhere .