Enlarging without dodging.

Bill Burk said:

Haaa, that might have been more intriguing than the reality. (Cal Poly SLO).

Click to expand...

I had a hunch this was the correct answer and just asked my wife if that is the name of the student paper there (she’s an alum), but you responded before I could say anything!

Nicholas Lindan said:

Most photographers favor negatives that range from normal to contrasty or that range from normal to soft. The approach they will champion will be the one that works for their negatives.

Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense. Put me on the normal to high contrast negative team. I like to fall between negatives that will look good on grades 2 or 3 and I struggle when they’re underexposed and flat.

Mike Lopez said:

I had a hunch this was the correct answer and just asked my wife if that is the name of the student paper there (she’s an alum), but you responded before I could say anything!

Click to expand...

A bunch of old friends are getting together tonight to see Weird Al and they called to razz me for skipping out. (I saw him last week.)

Russ Young said:

I signed up for one of Ansel's workshops for the summer of 1984. Alas, he passed away between registration and the workshop. John Sexton led the darkroom portion of the workshop, using Ansel's MOONRISE OVER HERNANDEZ as an example. It had to be burned, dodged, bleached and toned to create a print that satisfied Ansel.
Russ Young, F.R.P.S.

Click to expand...

I saw (I’m sure it was a copy) that negative at Jim Alinder’s gallery about the time Mary’s f.64 book came out.

Glad John Sexton carried on with the workshop, but that must have been an awful heartbreaking experience.

Bill Burk said:

I saw (I’m sure it was a copy) that negative at Jim Alinder’s gallery about the time Mary’s f.64 book came out.
...

Click to expand...

Visiting the Adams house in Carmel in the late 80s on a Friends of Photography Workshop and sitting in the living room, we were shown the Moonrise negative...the the person showing it (too long to remember who) dropped it, almost -- much to the shock of all us participants. We all jumped... We were never told, but later I assumed it was a copy neg.

DREW WILEY said:

I wonder what print the horse was eyeing - a dodged one or a straight print? We should ask its opinion.

Vaughn - I don't think Australia is in Nevada, but you never know. There are plenty of big open spaces and strange creatures in Nevada too, and weird tribal celebrations where either dust storms or flashfloods seem mandatory.

Click to expand...

He sold all rights for a carot.

Don_ih said:

That's a great photo. I really like it (and I'm allergic to horses)).

All tools are good if they get you what you want.

Click to expand...

That's it I've quit my day job and moving to the country, build another darkroom and dodge and burn without a care for evermore.

Nicholas Lindan said:

he "highlights first" approach is true

Click to expand...

Nicholas Lindan said:

A "shadows first" approach is best

Click to expand...

Why would you formulate it like this, if ultimately, you arrive at this conclusion:

Nicholas Lindan said:

as we are all doing this for fun, it matters not one whit which method one employs or champions.

Click to expand...

I'd add that even those who don't do it for fun (alone), they'd still obviously be entirely free to do as they please.
And whether it 'matters not one whit' - I don't know. I think it does, really. But we're evidently free to do as we please.

Of course, I understand that you're offering your insights based on your extensive professional experience as well as an objectively sensible line of reasoning, and that the approach you suggest should reliably yield prints that span the full density range of the paper while also showing differentiation in all (relevant) parts of the image. Which will probably be fine for many printers - but by far not all, and it's certainly not a matter of 'true' or 'best'. So why formulate it that way? It implies that there's a right and a wrong way to do it. Especially inexperienced printers who can benefit the most from solid advice are often confused by this. We see it all the time in the questions novice darkroom workers ask, which often feature an undertone of "I want to do it correctly."

I advocate distinguishing more explicitly between someone's requirements/criteria and how different approaches can realize (entirely or in part) those requirements. While it may seem/feel like a lot of work and require more words than a simple "here's how to do it," I think it really does help those who arrive at the scene and are trying to make sense of the seemingly conflicting information.

Personally, my approach is different from yours, and much more similar to that of @AndrewSandersonPhoto, where I moreover determine the contrast grade that will encompass part of the tonal range I want to print, but not all. The rest I fill in with burning and/or flashing. I do this because it allows me to optimize (within my visual criteria) contrast where I want it. I'm not advocating that this is somehow a 'correct' way of working, or universally recommended. It's one way of doing it, which I personally use much of the time, and at this particular stage in my printing 'career'.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Yeah, printing plates are exposed using UV, and it seems Sharpies pass a lot of UV. I imagine Sharpies would make a lousy sunblock, expectations to the contrary.

Click to expand...

That is what makes them nice for UV. By not blocking 100% UV, I am less likely to get noticable marker-lines. I apply it (on the few negs I've used it with out of 1000s) partway thru the exposure on the glass of the contact printing frame to reduce, not block, the UV. I have a jar of the Kodak red paste...but it would be harder for me to control in this case. Applying on the outside of the glass allow the thickness of the glass to also keep the Sharpie lines from looking sharp. Sharpie cleans up with a touch of acetone...and who doesn't like the smell of acetone in the morning.

The waterfall got 'the treatment' on this 5x7 carbon print.

I can't help not thinking about what Les Mclean said to me and others years ago about printing. When editing he would make a normal contact sheet and then do two others , one stop darker and one stop lighter , just to see if printing down or up would produce images of worth. He was absolutely right IMHO and I knew him very well for a few years and he was open to any printing style possible, I took his approach and opened my eyes as well to the possibilities.

Carnie Bob said:

I can't help not thinking about what Les Mclean said to me and others years ago about printing. When editing he would make a normal contact sheet and then do two others , one stop darker and one stop lighter , just to see if printing down or up would produce images of worth. He was absolutely right IMHO and I knew him very well for a few years and he was open to any printing style possible, I took his approach and opened my eyes as well to the possibilities.

Click to expand...

His "Creative Black & White Photography" is an excellent book. I go back to it quite often.