How many prints does it get you to make an OK print?

[hywel]

Why would you want to know what I do? I can't think that anyone would aspire to my darkroom technique. But Michael Kenna. He's a man who makes good looking prints and I read an interview with him somewhere recently in which he said an hour to four hours to make his perfect print. (Then once he'd got it perfect he'd do a lot of copies.) After four hours I'd think he'd got through a lot of paper, even after just an hour more than a sheet or two.

Hywel

 

[removed account4]

it all depends on the negative ...
sometimes not too much paper, sometimes more.
and if i have to print a whole sequence taken at the same
place at the same time ... "the last print made" is a good
starting point for "the next one to print" ...

for jobstuff, i never make just one print, usually a handful of extras "just in case"

 

[rusty71]

It depends more upon my mood and concentration than the negative. I used to work as a commercial printer, so I've printed just about every format of negative and with every possible exposure variation. No commercial printer I knew ever relied on the Zone System. Not saying none ever have, I just never saw it. Customers bring you all kinds of negative exposures.
The best day I ever had printing I made 14 excellent 16x20 fiber prints using 15 sheets of paper. The 15th sheet was for test strips. Otherwise it usually takes me a couple of test strips, and then maybe a whole or half sheet of paper to see where all the dodging and burning needs to be.
Color printing is tougher. It's easy to go back and forth a few points. I rarely print color analog anymore. More because of time than anything else

 

[PVia]

There was a thread recently where someone mentioned that he likes to get a decent straight print quickly and then look at it for a few days before returning to refine it (contrast adj, burn, dodge, etc)...

That seems to work for me, as it gives me distance to evaluate it in different light, and generally, just reflect on it. Drydown is much easier judged, obviously, and sometimes it really helps to just take a step back.

 

[Andrey]

Thank you all for responding.

This is really helpful.

 

[Dietmar Wolf]

I need 3-5 for the first print. Dodging and burning usually 1-2 more. Then, after some days, I might review the image and do some adjustments.

I do not count the paper. This doesnt interest me much, because its a cheap hobby I have.

 

[Dave Miller]

Lots.

 

[Andrey]

I need 3-5 for the first print. Dodging and burning usually 1-2 more. Then, after some days, I might review the image and do some adjustments.

I do not count the paper. This doesnt interest me much, because its a cheap hobby I have.

I think that's the way to look at it.

If one counts how much one spends on thinking, shooting, developing, printing... the time investment is incomparable to the cost of even the most expensive materials.

 

[BobNewYork]

Standardization is definitely the key - but standardization of the whole process from loading the film to mounting the print. After a lot of frustrating years trying all the systems I finally evolved a system which is a combo of ZS, BTZS, Picker and experience. But it took me a long time to finally realize that I had to really understand the underlying principles instead of reading someone else's understanding of them. I'm thinking of naming my technique the " 'Cos it Works For Me System"! I contact print everything and from these I decide which negs are worth pursuing. That done, I'll get a good print first time and on the right grade, (I print VC) from which I'll then decide what burning and dodging is needed if any. This can take another two or three sheets. Keep notes! If I have a print that requires extraordinarily complicated manipulation I'll make a 4x5 copy neg of the final print for future use.

 

[Snapshot]

I can usually get a good print on the 3rd try, which isn't too bad. I don't use a test strip but rely on my notes. What's really impeding better productivity is that I keep changing developers.

 

[goldenimage]

usually within 3 sheets, for a working print. then it varies for a print that im happy with, depends on how much dodging and burning i need to do

 

[Stephen Frizza]

First go if the photographer has balanced the lighting to the film type, exposed the film correctly and processed it normal. If not I can get it on the second go.

Although I must say clients who arn't professionals or clients who are "art" photographers and want to view the test strips GOD HELP ME!!!!! hehehehee.

 

[Lee Shively]

Familiarity with the type of paper and developer and experience with looking at negatives help. If I'm using an unfamiliar paper or print developer, it can take several tries to get to a good print. It can also get you off kilter if you change magnification a lot. I try to print close to full frame with only minor cropping no matter what format I'm using. If I'm using familiar products and have arrived at a baseline exposure with my paper, I can hit a good print with one try and a second print to do a few minor improvements. I never make contact sheets. I consider them a total waste of my time. I cannot tell doodley squat from a 35mm contact sheet and very little from a 120 contact sheet. I can read a negative much better.

 

[stillsilver]

It really depends on how good I made the negative. I always start with a 8x8 (I shoot square) proof print ( with a #2 filter). I know the approximate exposure for a given enlarger height. Then factor in the filter change (if necessary). If I use a test strip, it is a half or quarter sheet placed in the most important area of the print. Usually I can good work print in 2 or 3 tries including the test. I let the prints ‘rest’ for a few days and then use a Sharpie to make notes for dodging and burning. If I can’t get the print right in less than 10 tries, I’ll move onto another neg. I will go back to the problem neg if the image is a strong one. If not, then it will get placed on the back burner to try again another day (month, year).

Mike

 

[Eric Rose]

always do the contact sheets...it will give you a heads up on the entire process and immediately alert you if something has gone wrong...I try to do mine with a vc paper and a grade 1 filter...try it and see how it will make a difference..opens up the shadows so you can judge them better..it's the little tricks that make you a better printer.
Best, Peter

yes this is something I forgot to mention in my post. Using a Gr. 1 or 0 filter is the best for contact sheets.

 

[nworth]

It depends. If I'm just starting work and I have a reasonable negative, I can usually get an acceptable - not good - print in three or less tries. Continuing with similar negatives, I can often get a decent print in one try. (I cheat and use an on easel photometer to do that.) To get a good print often takes me a quite a bit longer. But not always. It depends on the amount of manipulation required, the sort of things that need to be done, how well my eyes are calibrated at the moment, whether there really is a good print in that negative, how clumsy I am, and a whole lot of other things. With a good negative, a good print comes pretty easily.

 

[Mark Fisher]

Between 1 (if I just printed a similar neg) and 8-10 (lousy neg, I'm tired and careless, etc). Three (inc test strip) is probably typical to get a decent work print (minimal burn/dodge)for standard printing. Five is typical for lith for me because I hate using test strips for it and exposures vary more.

 

[John Bond]

As has been mentioned numerous times, consistency and familiarity of a few films, developers and papers is key. Keeping things simple also helps tremendously. When I was in high school some thirty five years ago and was photography editor of the high school year book and newspaper, I almost exclusively used tri-x and D76 for film and devloper and Kodabromide, grades 2 and 3 and Dektol for paper and paper developer. I exposed for a middle gray tone and developed the film exactly the same every time. Because I was using graded paper, contrast was not an issue. Most print exposures were very close to the same time from picture to picture and from roll to roll. I exposed prints for the entire roll and then developed them three or for prints at a time. The great majority of the prints would be acceptable. Some of the remaining were not worth fine tuning. Some might be corrected with one or two adjustments with exposure or changing grade of paper. And, a few that seemed outstanding or important might require a half a dozen or so prints before I was satisfied or gave up.

In this day and age, variable contrast paper seems to be the rule and I find that I spend a lot more time juggling print exposure and contrast filtration than I ever had to with graded paper. The first print of the roll is always the most difficult, but once I get in the groove, the later prints go a lot faster.

 

[Ole]

Somewhere from 1 to 60.

Some print right the first time, and all attempts at "improvements" turn out to be deletorious.

With others I can see the potential, and keep improving in small increments over a period of several years until I finally get what I wanted. Since I also tend to put these away to "mature" for long periods, I inadvertently retrace my steps several times. It may be lots of wasted time, effort and paper; but every once in a while I get a good one. As an example, last year I tried some outdated paper with a rather weird tonal curve. I couldn't think of anything I could use it for, until I remembered a negative I had struggled to print a long time ago. I finally found the negative - filed under "1973" - and it was perfect, first print!