How many work prints?

[climbabout]

I usually make from 3-6 prints before I'm really happy, but of course it depends on the neg - On a some occasions I get what I want with a straight print and then it seems like cheating. The more photography I do though, the more often this happens. Usually though, I live with what I think is my final print for days or sometimes weeks before I make the final toned version - referring back to it from time to time, sometimes that puts things in better perspective. After all this is art, not mass production - patience and discipline are a big part of the process for me. I don't do test strips any more as I am mostly making 8x10 and 5x7 contacts now, but I follow michael smiths procedure on rounding the print as detailed on michaelandpaula.com. It's a great technique and in the long run actually saves time and paper.
Tim Jones

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...then my wife (former art director and journalist) peeks in and I start over.

Mine Too!

She knows when I'm starting to run out of gas and about to settle.

Murray

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I consider most of my prints so far as "work" prints because I can't say that I've accomplished much since I started printing a year ago. I have one print that I consider "finished", and surprisingly it required me no effort besides getting the density and contrast on two trials.

For me, a finished print is when I am confident with the process that I went through, and that I also understand it properly. I have a lot of prints that I'm proud of, but I wouldn't consider them finished because I am still uncertain as to whether I could make more out of them.

 

[removed account4]

snip:

Now everything is d******y "proofed" first. I tend to work the image in Pshop before it ever hits the wet darkroom. It gives me a resonable facimile of what I want the finished print to be and has cut-down immensely on wasted paper and chemistry.

Bill

i am kinda the same way.
i see what it "might look like",
but i don't really have any idea how many work-prints/test prints
i guess it takes as many as it takes -- some more than others ...


- john

 

[John Simmons]

It takes me an average of 2-4 hours of constant work in the darkroom to get a great print. Once I figure out the printing formula then I can bang out multiple copies very quickly.

John

 

[ron mcelroy]

That's probably the average for me. Often when printing groups of negatives shot in the same location the number of test prints drop after printing the first couple of negs. When printing 11x14 or larger I often use test strips to ball park the exposure before using the larger paper.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Mattg,

Your point about waiting particularly interested me because Frances is currently working on an article about exactly that: waiting/coming back.

I thought I'd better let you know or you might think she'd stolen the idea!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Don,

I love the idea of 'didn't work' prints and Frances is going to steal the term shamelessly in the article mentioned above, credited to Don Cardwell (is that how you like your name to appear?). I've also started a new threat based on the idea of don't work prints.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[pauldc]

What paper do people make their working prints on? Do you stick to the fibre paper your final print is intended to be on? Or do you do a series of prints on RC paper (which is far cheaper) to get a sense of the negative and then convert the times to a known fibre paper towards the end?

I am fairly new to printing (1.5 years experience) so was wondering what you more experienced printers do.

Using fibre paper for a series of work/did not work prints can be fairly expensive. But is this simply part of the territory of 'doing it properly'?

 

[Curt]

But you gave yourself permission to "Bracket" so wouldn't you have a negative that is closer than say one that was planed for with the Zone system even though the development is a guess because of the variables?

The Black and White Handbook pg. 176 Negative "The easiest way to get a perfect print is to start out with a perfect negative". pg. 184 To ensure a good exhibition print use plenty of paper, even if it's twenty sheets. Even if you must cut out the wine and theater and other pleasure items because you are worried about the cost of paper. Wouldn't a more studied approach be in the offering? If Frances is doing all of your printing I think you should give her some time off and take her to the theater and have some wine after.

One could argue about a "perfect" print, as I did with MAS. To creep up to saying there is a perfect print is different than flat out saying that there "is" a perfect print.

It leads beginners to believe that a "perfect" print is the object of desire and nothing is more important than obtaining it, even if they must cut out parts of their life style to get it. They might be better off going to the theater and having a glass of wine and enjoying the reach to perfection and not be so worried with under performing in the darkroom. Nothing kills enjoyment like absolutes.

Regards,
Curt

 

[Ed Sukach]

The Black and White Handbook pg. 176 Negative "The easiest way to get a perfect print is to start out with a perfect negative".

True. The trouble is that I have never yet made a "perfect" negative. I am not yet convinced that such a thing exists.

I too, have made many "doesn't work" prints. I don't think I could apply an "average" number - at least not one with any relevance - to "getting to the point where I have to discipline myself to stop".

I do "proof prints" - to me necessary to see more clearly what is in there, and get some idea of how to do the EXHIBITION Grade print; from there ... possibly one, more likely three, really serious prints. I've been known to make fifteen or twenty "final" prints to get that one that I'll hang on the wall.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Curt,

You are absolutely right! Becoming obsessed with a 'perfect' print is not a good idea.

But against this, you have to allow that Frances likes printing so much that she says she feels guilty when she's doing that instead of 'real work'.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've also started a new threat based on the idea of don't work prints.

Well, talk about it if you like, but I don't see a need for threats.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear David,

My favourite threat is one I have long envisioned as a Reader's Digest headline:

ALARMISM -- IS IT THE BIGGEST THREAT FACING THE US TODAY?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mmcclellan]

For me it's usually 4 or 5 before I get to a "final" print that is close to acceptable. First is a general test strip. I work with two grades of paper (only graded in this case) with half a sheet to cover each of the two halves of the image. A general test strip is done, with the two halves developed together. Exposure increments are usually 3 to 5 seconds, 3 being the preferred time. These are then compared side-by-side to see which one has the best contrast and overall "feel" and "atmosphere."

If necessary, this step might also be repeated with a different development time. Although I usually use 2' as the optimum development time, 3' is occasionally necessary. This step determines that.

From that, I then zero in on the contrast (I only use three grades of paper -- S, N, and H for J&C's Museum paper) and what appears to be the best exposure and the right development time. I then make a FULL print using three exposures with the indicated one and one exposure unit on each side of that.

That one is then developed and studied under room light to nail down the final exposure. At this point, we have the contrast and exposure to within a couple of seconds. A full print is now done with what I think is the correct exposure.

From this print (the third or maybe fourth sheet of paper), I can look at dodging and burning issues and to see how all the tones relate to one another. The next 2, 3, or 4 prints will nail down any printing manipulations needed.

Once all that is finalized, I complete my "print recipe" and make three more "perfect" prints. Those final four perfect prints are then toned, washed, etc.

By the time I finalize that perfect print, I will probably have gone through 5 or 6 sheets of paper, on average. At the end of the day, though, I have four perfect prints, so it's well worth the "waste."

The main thing is to be methodical, in that you have a system and follow it closely to get to the best possible final image. Working methodically and intelligently will ultimately save paper, even if it seems like you're wasting it at the time. If I use 9 or 10 sheets of paper, but have four exhibition-quality prints at the end of the day, then it's all money and time well spent!

 

[mmcclellan]

What paper do people make their working prints on? Do you stick to the fibre paper your final print is intended to be on? Or do you do a series of prints on RC paper (which is far cheaper) to get a sense of the negative and then convert the times to a known fibre paper towards the end?

I am fairly new to printing (1.5 years experience) so was wondering what you more experienced printers do.

Using fibre paper for a series of work/did not work prints can be fairly expensive. But is this simply part of the territory of 'doing it properly'?

I would NEVER do "work prints" on anything but the paper I will use for the final print. You cannot really evaluate tonal relationships, depth of tone, dodging and burning, etc., without looking at the "real" paper the finished prints wil be on.

As I said in an earlier post, if I waste 5 or 6 sheets, but end up with 4 exhibition "perfect" prints, that's money and time well spent. A few sheets of paper is nothing compared to the costs and time spent in actually making the image in the first place!

 

[Ed Sukach]

... The main thing is to be methodical, in that you have a system and follow it closely to get to the best possible final image. Working methodically and intelligently will ultimately save paper, even if it seems like you're wasting it at the time. If I use 9 or 10 sheets of paper, but have four exhibition-quality prints at the end of the day, then it's all money and time well spent!

I think that you are correct. It will save paper, but some of us are so obsessed with "That Exhibition print that I want to use to display my `being'", that saving paper and time is not a major, or at times, even significant concern.

Now, before everyone jumps on me ... "Not a major concern" does NOT translate to "Doesn't mean anything". Of course one is careful, but not to the point where everything is governed by conscious content. "Intelligence"? Nice, but at times, really dumb mistakes are of great value as well.

Damn this photography - there is just no way one can carve everything in stone and make great art each and every time - automatically, with no mistakes, ever, at all.

But then, what would be the point of it all? Without the "bright sparks" in this ocean of frustration ... or even, without the "ocean" - I think the word that would be appropriate is "ennui" - to the max!

 

[Paul Howell]

I would NEVER do "work prints" on anything but the paper I will use for the final print. You cannot really evaluate tonal relationships, depth of tone, dodging and burning, etc., without looking at the "real" paper the finished prints will be on.

I do make prints on RC then move on to FB, but as I though about the the topic, I would have to call these RC prints just really big proofs, just what I have. But even when work with working prints, as I stated earlier, I may do several prints on several differnt papers until I find the surface and tone that I want.

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

Dear Roger,
If it was stolen, it wasn't from me.

This kind of ties in with editioning. Although I'm not selling any prints yet I've been thinking about whether I will offer editions (in the unlikely event someone wants to buy my photographs).

I've decided not to do editions because one of the things I like about other photographers prints is the way they change over time. So you get "vintages" that some feel are better than others and so on. Coming back some years later and doing a better print reinforces the fact that no two prints are identical anyway.

 

[wildbill]

I usually scan my negs and adjust the levels to match what i saw on the day then do a couple contact prints at the working height i expect to have the enlarger. This saves me time and paper since i like to print 16x20's from my 4x5 negs. I then may do 4 or 5 workprints to get something i'm happy with.

vinny