Establishing a repeatable process.

In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. A lot of them begin with exposure of the camera negative. I have come to believe the more expedient and repeatable process must begin with the printing paper or print medium. Until we know the contrast range of the print we can not know the proper exposure and development of the camera negative.

What are your thoughts on this?

I think this is more a distinction of working the process from the endpoint versus working the process from the starting-point... just to end up at about the same place.

There is enough variability throughout the process to allow for both.

I start at the beginning... but have plenty of respect for those who do otherwise. Honesty, it seems that sometimes too much focus on the details of the process can detract from capturing a decent image in the first place... or the joy of photography as an art.

Az Prospector said:

In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. ...

Click to expand...

For the past 30 years I have used mutigrade paper. Covers most situations I encounter. I have gone to sometimes extreme measures to ensure my enlargers can properly expose the multigrade paper in the darkroom.

IDK seems like it is 6 of 1 1/2 dozen of another.
i think if you are using 1 paper you can dial in your negatives to partner with it
but who knows if that is necessary with vc papers these days ( sure helps )
i don't believe in repeatable i think 1/2 the fun is NOT repeating anything and
interpreting things differently every time.
one thing that helps is making bad negatives on purpose
or printing rubbish from the recycle bin and learning how to print anything that comes your way.
cause the problem is, if you are only used to having great negatives you're gonna be up the creek without a paddle
if/when you make a big screwup or get a screwup from a lab &c and have to print film that means something to you ...
i started practicing printing both things i mentioned between 1988 and well, i never stopped.
its like being someone with a bunker in the backyard and stocking up on peanut butter and saltines.
you never know ...

I began by targeting negative densities as advised by A Adams. What I found was I had no idea of the reflection densities of a given paper. Later (years later) when I actually measured both reflection and transmission densities I found, while my prints were good, they failed to achieve optimal and repeatable results.

I try to get the best negative possible, and then get the best print from that negative. My thoughts on trying to match the negative to your printing paper is printing papers change. Plus, I don't always know how I'm going to print a photograph at the time of negative exposure or even development. I might scan it and print it from the computer. I might use an alternative process technique. Also, with a wider range on the negative, I can always dodge and burn if the negative extends beyond what can be printed straight.

I'm much less interested in technical perfection than artistic vision anyway. I even sold my densitometer.

I understand. Am I correct in assuming you do not previsualize at exposure of the negative?

It might be best to define a few terms: optimal, repeatable, and previsualize. That way we’ll be sure to be talking about the same thing.

Az Prospector said:

In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. A lot of them begin with exposure of the camera negative. I have come to believe the more expedient and repeatable process must begin with the printing paper or print medium. Until we know the contrast range of the print we can not know the proper exposure and development of the camera negative.

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

The way I've seen the Zone System taught here in the UK is a very simple easy to grasp approach which works well. This doesn't involve and densitometers etc and is a practical approach and does relate to the print material and controlling negative exposure and contrast to achieve the best results. By best results that means a negative that you can print easily and often interpret in different ways.

We aren't talking about a slavish adhesion to a mystical Zone System, rather the simpler approach Ansel Adams suggests for 35mm and 120 film. Essentially we are just adding some basic ground rules for the old adage "Expose for the Shadows, Develop for the Highlights".

Many well know photographers use this approach, John Davies, the late Fay Godwin, John Blakemore etc. It's been taught in Colleges and Universities as well as workshops for well over 30 years. I've seen students on workshops grasp the concept in about half an hour.

So yes a very repeatable way of working which means images I made 30 years ago can sit happily alongside my current work.

Ian

I've always calibrated negative exposure and development using my favorite printing paper. Of necessity, this has changed over time. Nevertheless, the "calibration" has remained essentially the same, which would indicate that the different papers I calibrated to were not that different. I like fiber-base glossy, white base, neutral tone paper. Possibly, if I used matte paper or warm-tone or whatever, the calibration would be somewhat different. Still, I tend to think that the differences in paper when calibrating are likely not as much of a variable as conditions in the field when shooting (variances in luminance range from that calibrated, metering, etc.). I guess what I'm saying is that the approach of targeting specific negative densities for particular "Zones" is likely a viable method as long as some general idea of how the end tones will be reproduced in the print is taken into account. I can't imagine that the Zone System was developed any other way, so, basically, the printing paper was being taken into account from the very beginning; the values one gets from Adams and others for targets were not just arbitrarily chosen.

I still use the visual method using proper proofs and my current favorite paper(s) to determine and refine exposure and development. But there is inherent inaccuracy in calibrating and even more variation in the field. I spend a lot of time printing on a different grade/contrast setting than that calibrated to, despite careful calibration. My goal is simply to get close enough to my calibration that I can handle any discrepancies with the contrast-adjustment tools I have at hand in the darkroom. I rarely have an "unprintable" negative, which tells me that my calibration has done its job.

My use of the Zone System is primarily to be able to visualize what a final print from a given scene would look like under several different scenarios and then choose one that suits my purposes or decide not to make the photograph in the first place. Determining exposure and development of the negative is important, but secondary.

Best,

Doremus

sorry for the unrelated post her -- but how do i make a new forum post? having trouble and am new here

Go to the forum area where you want to post eg. "Wet and Dry Hybrid prints " and at the top right there is "Post New Thread" option.

BrianShaw said:

I think this is more a distinction of working the process from the endpoint versus working the process from the starting-point... just to end up at about the same place.

There is enough variability throughout the process to allow for both.

I start at the beginning... but have plenty of respect for those who do otherwise. Honesty, it seems that sometimes too much focus on the details of the process can detract from capturing a decent image in the first place... or the joy of photography as an art.

Click to expand...

Is enough emphasis given to making an "easy-to-print" negative in this group? I had rather have that any day over a negative that is a struggle to make into a decent print. To do this, I think you need to "start at the beginning", expose and develop properly and end up with an "easy to print negative which then makes a good print. In other words there "are no" shortcuts. Everything is connected.......Regards!

If I repeat, fine, but I try not to make it a habit.

I do not separate the negative from the print from the experience...all linked in the crucible of creation.

Ah good so many friends have pitched in to help.

The Zone System and the ASA standard both aim for Grade 2 paper. So if you use either approach (ZS spot shadow, place on Zone III or set camera to ASA and shoot on auto), you should be able to print on Grade 2.

I once realized, about the time I was going to calibrate to my paper, that I had two negatives that were not hard to print but were just on the edge of what I wouldn’t want thinner or more contrasty.

From those two negatives I found my boundaries between which I will want all my negatives to fall. The differences were pretty extreme... the process of printing in black and white under the enlarger are pretty flexible...

BrianShaw said:

I think this is more a distinction of working the process from the endpoint versus working the process from the starting-point... just to end up at about the same place.
There is enough variability throughout the process to allow for both.
I start at the beginning... but have plenty of respect for those who do otherwise. Honesty, it seems that sometimes too much focus on the details of the process can detract from capturing a decent image in the first place... or the joy of photography as an art.

Click to expand...

Why bother aiming for just 'decent' images? ...realizing that 'decent' can be a moving target. Can one make better than a 'decent' photograph without the equal consideration of vision/image, capture, neg processing, printing, and presentation? For me, the past 40 years have been a process of concentration on the whole process. Otherwise, to me it would be like saying breathing is a distraction to living.

Making my own printing material makes creating a generic perfect negative a non-starter, so YMMD.

Az Prospector said:

In over forty years spent in photography, I have heard a lot of different approaches to process. A lot of them begin with exposure of the camera negative. I have come to believe the more expedient and repeatable process must begin with the printing paper or print medium. Until we know the contrast range of the print we can not know the proper exposure and development of the camera negative.

What are your thoughts on this?

Click to expand...

Hi, I've spent a lot of years heavily involved with what we called "quality control," which in our case about 2/3 of this was what the photo processing business knows as "process control." Now a "process" can basically be anything you want to decide that it is, so I'll narrow it a bit. We considered "process control" to generally be only the film and paper development-to-dry portions. Having said that, let me jump elsewhere.

BrianShaw said:

It might be best to define a few terms: optimal, repeatable, and previsualize. That way we’ll be sure to be talking about the same thing.

Click to expand...

I agree. The title of this thread seems to be about "repeatability," but the original post suggests that we must consider response characteristics of the printing paper in order to know what sort of exposure and development aims are needed for the negative. So in my world these would be seen as "process specifications" and being able to stick close to the specs is roughly the "repeatability" (this is not exactly correct, though). Once you have decided on the "aims," then the combination of trying to meet these and doing it consistently is what I generally consider as "process control."

I spent more than a few years overseeing this sort of thing in a large photo processing lab. I would say that the number one thing you would need to do to be assured of being repeatable is to set up some sort of MEASURABLE guidelines. Without such, there's really no way to be sure what's going on. Now, I'm saying "measurable," suggesting that you might need something like a densitometer. But anything that you could assign a value to would essentially work; perhaps you have several reference images that have varying exposure or contrast; you could rate your freshly-processed work with respect to these (closest to sample 'A' or 'B' etc.) See the method that Bill Burk uses as an example.

Anyway, the topic can get a lot deeper than most people would expect. If you want to get your feet wet on this, you can download Kodak pub Z-133, essentially an instruction manual for "monitoring" a b&w process. (The monitoring procedure is basically the foundation of a process control system.) I appreciate that you probably don't do the sort of volume that makes this sort of system worthwhile, but it can give you the sense of how such a system can work; you might find that you can adopt an idea or two from this.

As a note, a lot of photographers tend to look at something like this and say that this techie stuff is not for them; they put more stock in the "vision, or "artistry" of the thing. I would say that the comparison is along the lines of a mass production system, with interchangeable parts, vs a system where everything is individually hand-fitted. If you're gonna do it for a living in a competitive situation, there's a lot to be said for the "mass production" aspects. Anything else, well it probably doesn't matter so much.

Vaughn said:

Why bother aiming for just 'decent' images? ...realizing that 'decent' can be a moving target. Can one make better than a 'decent' photograph without the equal consideration of vision/image, capture, neg processing, printing, and presentation? For me, the past 40 years have been a process of concentration on the whole process. Otherwise, to me it would be like saying breathing is a distraction to living.

Making my own printing material makes creating a generic perfect negative a non-starter, so YMMD.

Click to expand...

Hi Vaughn. Good points. But “decent” is on a spectrum that ranges from “acceptable” to “really good”. I think most of your comments are aimed at the lower part of the spectrum... but nonetheless are completely valid. A photographers interest (or ability) is also on a spectrum. I applaud folks like you, Drew, and the others who are in it for the sake of art, perfection, and a sustained career... but I’m not. I’m like a lot of other folks who do this for a hobby and have other life ventures to manage. For me, “decent” in the middle or upper end of the spectrum is indeed sufficient. I’d like to, but can’t, breath mountain fresh air with every breath.

Arklatexian said:

Is enough emphasis given to making an "easy-to-print" negative in this group? I had rather have that any day over a negative that is a struggle to make into a decent print. To do this, I think you need to "start at the beginning", expose and develop properly and end up with an "easy to print negative which then makes a good print. In other words there "are no" shortcuts. Everything is connected.......Regards!

Click to expand...

I’d certainly agree that these relationships are real and matter. This is good clarification of the somewhat nebulous initial post. Thanks! How much allowable variance at each step is where there are also valid differences of opinion based on need and intent.

Mr Bill said:

As a note, a lot of photographers tend to look at something like this and say that this techie stuff is not for them; they put more stock in the "vision, or "artistry" of the thing. I would say that the comparison is along the lines of a mass production system, with interchangeable parts, vs a system where everything is individually hand-fitted. If you're gonna do it for a living in a competitive situation, there's a lot to be said for the "mass production" aspects. Anything else, well it probably doesn't matter so much.

Click to expand...

Yup... but I think there’s another slice of life... folks who are vision oriented but not able/willing to invest the time/effort in the hand-fitted method to develop the most perfect artistic print possible.

Interestingly, many years ago I saw an exhibit of St Ansel’s prints... several of the same neg printed at various eras of his “vision”. They were not only vastly different but most I didn’t like. I really left wondering what his previsualized vision really was because it obviously wasn’t static. That was the moment I became more oriented toward “decent” negs of interesting subjects with good composition and lighting rather than slaving over the perfect neg that would print to some notion of a previsualized “perfection”.

Bill Burk said:

Ah good so many friends have pitched in to help.

The Zone System and the ASA standard both aim for Grade 2 paper. So if you use either approach (ZS spot shadow, place on Zone III or set camera to ASA and shoot on auto), you should be able to print on Grade 2.

I once realized, about the time I was going to calibrate to my paper, that I had two negatives that were not hard to print but were just on the edge of what I wouldn’t want thinner or more contrasty.

From those two negatives I found my boundaries between which I will want all my negatives to fall. The differences were pretty extreme... the process of printing in black and white under the enlarger are pretty flexible...

Click to expand...

I can expose and develop a negative to a density range of .75 and it will print quite easily on grade two paper. But what is the density range of a given grade two paper? Does it exhibit the same toe and shoulder characteristics as my chosen film? I have found that after many years of following the edicts of St Ansel while my prints were quite good they were not achieving the full characteristics of the materials I had chosen. It was only when I did the work of determining the reflection densities of my printing paper complete with the characteristic curve and then matching my negative exposure and development to the "scale" of the paper that my process allowed both a more satisfactory print and a repeatable process.

Az Prospector said:

... It was only when I did the work of determining the reflection densities of my printing paper complete with the characteristic curve and then matching my negative exposure and development to the "scale" of the paper that my process allowed both a more satisfactory print and a repeatable process.

Click to expand...

Uh... This is what Zone System calibration was all about. BTZS also and even more accurately. If you calibrated otherwise to determine your exposure and development times, I think you missed the point. Sure, AA gave some density values as targets, but these were only ever intended to be starting points for refining your individual system.

I calibrate visually, but make Zone Rulers and do tests to see just how the tone reproduction for different values relate to each other. Still, given the inaccuracies and margins of error inherent in practical field work, getting close to the benchmark is good enough, as long as I can compensate using the tools for adjusting contrast, etc. when printing. If you can somehow match every (or even a majority) of negatives to a specific printing paper's curve without shooting under controlled studio condition with extremely well-calibrated equipment, then my hat is off to you!

Plus, what do you do with that negative that was exactly matched to print perfectly on grade 2 Seagull G when developed in xxx developer when the paper is discontinued and you need to print on a different paper stock?

I really think a good printer can make a variety of excellent prints from the same (and often not ideal) negative. Just like a piece of music, deciding on a particular interpretation is often difficult and many are possible.

Best,

Doremus

Last time I looked, the subjects of photography, and the existing light that illuminates them, vary wildly. As do presentation environments.
I never aim for anything particularly repeatable, because very little in the world repeats.
I do aim for something I can work with and, where possible, something that I can work easily with.
But light happens!

BrianShaw said:

Hi Vaughn. Good points. But “decent” is on a spectrum that ranges from “acceptable” to “really good”. I think most of your comments are aimed at the lower part of the spectrum... but nonetheless are completely valid. A photographers interest (or ability) is also on a spectrum. I applaud folks like you, Drew, and the others who are in it for the sake of art, perfection, and a sustained career... but I’m not. I’m like a lot of other folks who do this for a hobby and have other life ventures to manage. For me, “decent” in the middle or upper end of the spectrum is indeed sufficient. I’d like to, but can’t, breath mountain fresh air with every breath.

Click to expand...

Understood -- sort of like the discussions we have had here on "good enough". But for even the hobby photographer, I hope the goal is to always to improve, but I realize that a good enough decent print is fine for many people -- thus the draw and success of digital photography (very easy to get a decent print).

MattKing said:

Last time I looked, the subjects of photography, and the existing light that illuminates them, vary wildly. ...

Click to expand...

That is what always made me chuckle when people ask what development time one should give a film. It is not a cast-in-stone number...varies with the SBR and what process one is using to make prints.