Film negative is just a start

[radiant]

Lately I've been hit with a thought that film negative is just a basic start for a photograph. The story ain't even half way there when you have developed the film.

The story isn't over if you for example scan the negative and discard the frame because it doesn't look good straight up. There are so many things one can do from a negative!

For example in normal darkroom print; splitgrade, burning, dodging, toning. - check out Kit Young's instagram, many good examples of contact print vs final prints. Some frames are almost like different photographs! https://www.instagram.com/kityoung135/

Alt. processes: lith pring (a real game changer for me), bromoil, salt, carbon print. These all change the outcome dramatically. You can change the mood of the negative maybe completely by just using different process.

And displaying; all alone putting print into passepartout or even to a frame makes the prints come alive. In my world this is the only thing I'm aiming; framed print. I have plenty of exposed paper lying around but I don't see those as anything complete. This sounds strict but I would assume I'm not alone on this.

I'm tossing an idea; by scanning the negative and using the scan as the final outcome I think you are killing the frame. It is like eating sprouts of an apple tree and thinking why you never get apples.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this!

 

[Ai Print]

While I don’t disagree with the notion of the negative being just the start, I do somewhat disagree that if you initially evaluate the negative and it does not live up to expectations, then you have yet to extract it’s potential.

For me personally and what I aim to derive from photography writ large, the moment, light, framing and overall execution of the photograph as seen has to be straight up solid for me to even give it a second glance, regardless of process.

Otherwise one is living along the lines of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Agreed. I view taking film, scanning it, going through Photoshop, and then presenting the result on the web is, I don't know, a waste of film. If it were me I would shoot digital and be done with it.

My goal is always a displayed permanent print with an optical chain of custody end-to-end. Yeah, I'll scan the prints occasionally and put something in a web gallery from time to time but that's not what I'm aiming for.

But I grew up on silver photography. After doing something for 60 years I feel my way is the only 'proper' way to do something, while simultaneously realizing my attitude is a load of crap.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I also don't disagree with the notion of the negative being just the start, but I do also disagree with "extracting its potential". There are some dings on your car door that you can fix with a light sanding, others may require slightly more effort but can be fixed in the long run. But if the door is smashed in a broadside car accident, no amount of effort is going to replace it. Some negatives are just like the broadside accident and you just have to toss them after scanning, or contact sheet printing.

 

[ic-racer]

This thread should be in the lounge or Hybrid. Why create a thread on scanning in the analog section?

 

[ChristopherCoy]

This thread should be in the lounge or Hybrid. Why create a thread on scanning in the analog section?

The point of the conversation, in case you missed it, is discarding a negative after proofing in some form. I suspect the OP only mentioned scanning because it's his process. I believe what he is trying to say is that by discarding a negative after viewing it with whatever proofing method you choose, you are not allowing that negative to live up to its full potential since there are so many techniques you can use to draw out the image's story.

 

[radiant]

This thread should be in the lounge or Hybrid. Why create a thread on scanning in the analog section?

This is not about scanning. It is about the possibilities of negative in analog use. The reference to scanning was just a counter-example of my point.

Let's not convert this (too) to arguing about digital, we have seen it enough. Let's keep this analog..

 

[radiant]

While I don’t disagree with the notion of the negative being just the start, I do somewhat disagree that if you initially evaluate the negative and it does not live up to expectations, then you have yet to extract it’s potential.

You got me wrong, that was also my point. I try to explain that we should look beyong the negatives as-is and see them as just collected information which is then portrayed.

Was it Mr. Adams who said (the already worn out) phrase that negative is the score and print is the performance. That is so true. You have to perform the score to have something. Otherwise it is just archived somewhere without an audience. The performance matters. Bad performance will probably ruin a great score.

 

[gone]

Well, if you have no negative that means no picture (in enlarger photos), so I'd say the negative is relatively important It pays to get it as "right" as possible in the camera to avoid losing your options on the printing end.

In my mind, there's printers, and then there's photographers. The printer IS a photographer of course, but they put in a lot of time in the darkroom and really know their trade. The photographer is more concerned about getting the neg right, then prints it pretty much as it is or turns it over to a printer. I make darkroom prints, but am not a pro at it. After a while, you figure out which end of it you're more comfortable with.

 

[MattKing]

I also don't disagree with the notion of the negative being just the start, but I do also disagree with "extracting its potential". There are some dings on your car door that you can fix with a light sanding, others may require slightly more effort but can be fixed in the long run. But if the door is smashed in a broadside car accident, no amount of effort is going to replace it. Some negatives are just like the broadside accident and you just have to toss them after scanning, or contact sheet printing.

Even the "broadside car accident" negatives can reveal potential down the road. I agree that if you are struggling with a negative, it is often a good idea to put it aside and to go on to another. But don't toss them.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

They are all tools. A means to an end. Photoshop might not require the same type of craftsmanship, but the goal remains the same.

 

[radiant]

The photographer is more concerned about getting the neg right, then prints it pretty much as it is or turns it over to a printer.

I think you might miss an opportunity to make the print even greater and portray the feeling better. If you are doing reproductions then maybe this way is the best.

I agree that if you are struggling with a negative, it is often a good idea to put it aside and to go on to another

Yeah sure. I don't mean one should try to print negative all over again if it doesn't work. But maybe change technique then?

They are all tools. A means to an end. Photoshop might not require the same type of craftsmanship, but the goal remains the same.

Point here is not to diss any method or medium.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Taking a picture is the start. If that's done poorly, the rest won't help.

 

[radiant]

Taking a picture is the start. If that's done poorly, the rest won't help.

Why? That is actually rethroical question. My idea is that poorly done negatives might work if you use those just as base material. Well sure if you have heavily underexposed or underdeveloped the changes to use the negative are quite low, of course. I'm trying to say don't give up until the game is played.

I tend to skip negatives quite fast because of some preconception of what I should do. I see limited possibilities in my head, or maybe even just one when I look at the negative and skip it because it doesn't fit in my mind. And that is mistake; limited thinking is bad.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I see limited possibilities in my head, or maybe even just one when I look at the negative and skip it because it doesn't fit in my mind. And that is mistake; limited thinking is bad.

I also realized this in the recent past, and I've tried to start limiting my handling of an image. Once the film is developed, I like to wait a week or two before I go back and look at it. It's also why I wouldn't edit a wedding that we shot until two weeks after the event, when we were in business. Taking time away lets the emotions die down.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Why? That is actually rethroical question. My idea is that poorly done negatives might work if you use those just as base material. Well sure if you have heavily underexposed or underdeveloped the changes to use the negative are quite low, of course. I'm trying to say don't give up until the game is played.

I tend to skip negatives quite fast because of some preconception of what I should do. I see limited possibilities in my head, or maybe even just one when I look at the negative and skip it because it doesn't fit in my mind. And that is mistake; limited thinking is bad.

My point that great pictures start with taking a great shot is that many photographers, including me, often get caught up in the technical aspects of picture taking such as choosing the film, camera, lens, processing, papers, etc. Was it Adams who said many people take sharp pictures of fuzzy ideas?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Taking a picture is the start. If that's done poorly, the rest won't help.

I agree...
All a photograph can be, is defined by composition, exposure and development.
Then, even if there are people of all kinds all around, there are two different ways, the American way, and the European way: in Europe the photograph is finished after clicking. Printing has to be well done, just to reflect reality, but that's not considered a creative part of photography. In America, printing is used to change reality and surprise viewers with the surface, with localized contrast changes that don't reflect the negative nor reality.
I feel myself closer to human condition and reality than to printing schemes.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Lots of negative "defects" can be overcome at the printing stage.

Heck, that's what normal print manipulations are all about; one dodges, burns, changes contrast grades, split-contrast prints, bleaches, etc. just to get a different result than a straight print..

I often intentionally "overexpose" negatives to get the shadows off the toe and onto the straight-line section of the characteristic curve; especially with 320Tri-X. Some of these negative "proper-proof" completely white, but make great prints.

I've bleached and redeveloped negatives to get more shadow detail and contrast. I've intensified negatives for the same reason.

I have a really nice print made from a light struck negative due to bellows separation; managed to burn in the offending areas to my satisfaction during printing.

I've retouched away flare, dust, hairs, etc. on countless prints.

Even if the "score" is a bit frayed, one can often still realize an excellent performance from it.

However, lots of defects are image killers and relegate those particular negatives to the trash bin.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Lots of negative "defects" can be overcome at the printing stage.

I remember my teachers telling me real defects in negatives are related to content, and not to surface.
Printing can be done by others, photographs only by photographers.
Most historically decisive masters (Nadar, Atget, Cartier-Bresson, Frank, Winogrand) are concerned with content, and not with printing.
Creation, and what's truly photographic, is never done at the printing stage.
Take the five most iconic images from each of those five masters: not a single one is technically superb, and none shows highest possible sharpness or any other technical top possibility: those things are part of the photographic gear and sensitive materials sellers only.
Photography as a mature expression media has nearly nothing to do with printing, just like a novel doesn't depend on how sharp the words are printed on each page. Of course the novel needs words sharp enough as to be read, but no more than that.

 

[Craig75]

I find it so shady in.photography that the printer is very rarely attributed.

In music the sound engineer is credited.
In film everyone is credited
In books the editor, even the font is credited.

But photography... the printer so often gets omitted.

Ive taken enough good photographs that ive totally ruined through crappy printing.

 

[MattKing]

Creation, and what's truly photographic, is never done at the printing stage.

This is completely incorrect.
Many fine photographers create their work at every step throughout the process - either by themselves or through meaningful collaborations.
When I "take" a photograph, I am almost always thinking about how I am going to "make" a photograph, and only part of that "making" happens at the camera.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I find it so shady in.photography that the printer is very rarely attributed.

In music the sound engineer is credited.
In film everyone is credited
In books the editor, even the font is credited.

But photography... the printer so often gets omitted.

Ive taken enough good photographs that ive totally ruined through crappy printing.

I have been thinking about this since yesterday. So much of photography is focused toward image capture, and rarely is image production mentioned. Even if the printer and photographer are the same person. When a photo is exhibited, everyone wants to know which camera and lens were used to capture the photo, no one ever asks how many seconds the paper was exposed for or which areas were burned or dodged. Why is that?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have been thinking about this since yesterday. So much of photography is focused toward image capture, and rarely is image production mentioned. Even if the printer and photographer are the same person. When a photo is exhibited, everyone wants to know which camera and lens were used to capture the photo, no one ever asks how many seconds the paper was exposed for or which areas were burned or dodged. Why is that?

Burning and dodging take intense work. People want to become better photographers more easily than that. So they think changing cameras or lenses will do the trick. That's easy to do.

 

[warden]

I agree...
All a photograph can be, is defined by composition, exposure and development.
Then, even if there are people of all kinds all around, there are two different ways, the American way, and the European way: in Europe the photograph is finished after clicking. Printing has to be well done, just to reflect reality, but that's not considered a creative part of photography. In America, printing is used to change reality and surprise viewers with the surface, with localized contrast changes that don't reflect the negative nor reality.
I feel myself closer to human condition and reality than to printing schemes.

This is the first time I’ve heard that Europeans don’t consider printing a creative step in photography. (??) I also didn’t know there was an American way to print.

 

[Horatio]

As far as “trash negatives” Moriyama was hailed for printing his culls, even those trampled under foot. In art, it seems, anything goes.