How much negatives help analogue photographers in the past?

[AlexGrey]

Hi, my name is Alex, I'm looking advice from professional photographer, who used to work with analogue photos.
As I many know in the past photographer make photos without seeing result in realtime, so they make many many shots, and only later can process films and see in negatives all pictures. If some of them looks fine they will be produced (printed) in b/w or in color, is it correct?

I wonder how much important was looking at the negatives? Does it help you to understand about composition of the picture? Does it help you to see good contrasted photos or weak? And today, in digital era with all this realtime viewfinders do you miss the negatives part?

Thanks.

 

[analoguey]

Welcome to APUG! There's threads on contact prints and darkroom printing on sub forums here. Have a look!

Also, one thread just today on using one roll of film only!

(check the ' new/ latest posts' link for that)

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I have been shooting film since I was 8 years old, when my father taught me how to use his manual 35mm SLR. I've been processing my own black and white film since I was 15. Today, I shoot both film and digital. I can judge a negative pretty well, but I still need to see it printed or scanned (and converted to a positive on screen) to make the final determination of how well I think the shot turned out. What I do is this: After I develop the negatives, I put them in plastic print-file pages and look at the whole roll on a light table, using a magnifier. The ones that look good get scanned, then I throw out the ones that I decide aren't good enough once I see them as a normal image. In the past, I did a contact sheet in the darkroom then made a quick work print of the ones I liked, deciding from there which to do the work involved in making final exhibition-quality prints. I scan now because I have serious health problems that make darkroom printing impossible for me. I wouldn't be able to shoot film at all if it weren't for that, and I love BW film too much.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Hi OP, welcome to the forum.

I don't know, I don't take many shots like you indicate. When I'm seriously trying to get a good picture, I try to do most of the composition before I raise the camera so-to-speak and finalize the framing at the viewfinder. Then the film captures the light, gets developed, and then I review the negatives. I look through the negatives without a magnifier. I usually recall what I shot and that first look without a magnifier also helps me confirm the general composition of the frame (light and dark areas, arrangement of the major objects in the picture). Then I evaluate details and tweak the framing on the enlarger and make the print. So if prints aren't good it's more the limits of my skill and ability to compose a picture rather than limits of my equipment (ie limited by using film). But I'm learning.

So the ones I don't turn into prints were those where I was goofing around without trying, or trying to get action pictures of my kids or dogs. Usually I know the frame is going to be worthless for working in the darkroom when I actually snap the shutter (I do also get 4x6 prints for each picture when I get a roll developed...just like back in the pre-digital era). I don't often get surprised by motion blur or defocus (which comes from knowing my gear).

Obviously this means I don't go through film quickly. This is a very deliberate method of taking pictures, kind of opposite what you assume of film photography. It's also more in line with what medium and large-format photographers have to do (where every shot counts). What you describe is better for action or street photography I think. My method is more suitable for the landscape and portrait type of photography that I like to do.

So I guess my point is that I'm doing most of the frame composition even before I snap the shutter....long before I examine the negatives.

 

[Xmas]

Hi, my name is Alex, I'm looking advice from professional photographer, who used to work with analogue photos.
As I many know in the past photographer make photos without seeing result in realtime, so they make many many shots, and only later can process films and see in negatives all pictures. If some of them looks fine they will be produced (printed) in b/w or in color, is it correct?

I wonder how much important was looking at the negatives? Does it help you to understand about composition of the picture? Does it help you to see good contrasted photos or weak? And today, in digital era with all this realtime viewfinders do you miss the negatives part?

Thanks.

Hi Alex

One needs to look at the negative for technical things:

- was the exposure good enough for an easy print or will a mask, split grade, burn and dodge be necessary
- were there any light leaks on to the film?
- was the film scratched or damaged
- was the film fixed for long enough
- was there any drying marks on the film

But not for artistic merit or facial expression too difficult too see for sure.

You inspect carefully before you file in negative strip holder.

People used to contact print a 36x35mm or 120 film on 8x10 paper and file that with negative strip you can use a loupe on the contact print.

Noel

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, having the negatives did help,because it was the first time getting visual feed back from a shoot and I could prettu much tell if a shot worked or not.Also many improvements could still be made in the darkroom;said in a different way;I don't see the instantanious feedback of digital not as such a great benefit as some do.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, having the negatives did help,because it was the first time getting visual feed back from a shoot and I could prettu much tell if a shot worked or not.Also many improvements could still be made in the darkroom;said in a different way;I don't see the instantanious feedback of digital not as such a great benefit as some do.I create more junk in digital than I did with analog.A so-so shot was easier to save in the darkroom.

 

[goros]

The usual is, once you have developed the roll, to make a contact print (or the digital equivalent). Then, together with the negative, you can evaluate the same things that Noel has mentioned.

I personally do not make contact prints, and use only the negative. On a goon light table and with a good magnifier lens, it is not difficult to see the possibilities that the negative has. It will give you an estimation of the exposure settings at the enlarger, where dodging and burning could be required, etc.

Another interesting thing you mentioned is "in the past photographer make photos without seeing result in realtime, so they make many many shots". That is partially true. It is true that not only in the past, but also nowadays, we take many, many pictures without seeing the results until we develop the film. But it is not true that, as we do not see the final results, we take many pictures just to be safe.

Photographers learn to know what they are getting (more or less) when they take the picture. Actually, all the hard work is done before even clicking the shooter. Some of them have a very clear idea of the final result, including printing and toning works.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the 1950s and 1960s much of my photography was on Kodachrome, which demanded precise composition and exposure. This was great training in getting it right the first time. On a once-in-a-lifetime trip I would often bracket 35mm Kodachrome and B&W exposures of carefully set up shots, and select the best for use. Film was a small fraction of the total expense of those trips. I rarely make near identical multiple exposures on large format film. Some subjects, like sports, demanded taking many shots on film because of the unpredictable action. Most digital cameras have the advantage of letting us analyze the histogram and fine focusing of an image before moving onto the next subject. This sometimes encourages us to get sloppy in that first shot. With experience one can predict how a B&W negative will print without making a contact print or test print. However, contact prints are useful for non-photographers to evaluate a shot.

 

[Truzi]

Welcome,

I don't think you will find too many here who miss the "negatives part" as this site is for analog photography - we still (with few exceptions) all use film and thus constantly have negatives to look at.

Also, I'm not a professional photographer.
I'm not good enough to judge a photo by looking at the negative, which is okay, as I'm not very good at taking pictures in general My compositional skills are lacking. I mainly just take snapshots, so I print everything regardless of how bad it is. Any failing in my composition would not be corrected by instant feedback. Rather, I need to learn to make my compositions more interesting. Having poor compositional vision means I could look at the digital screen and not know if the composition is any good - only that I had a decent exposure and framed what I intended (which I can do just fine without the feedback).

Usually I only bracket (take many pictures) when I'm experimenting with something. Otherwise I only take one shot (maybe two). I know the photo will be what I want, and I don't feel the need for "real-time" results. Multiple shots are typically when I see someone close their eyes or something change while I'm pressing the shutter. Once I have the prints/scans, if I notice I did something wrong it will stick in my mind better than with real-time results, as it gives me more time for contemplation. Real-time results are so easy that I tend to forget what I needed to improve once I move on to the next shot. On the occasions I've used digital, I've actually found the instant feedback an hindrance, as I could always find something "wrong;" constantly second-guessing myself and taking far too many photos of the same thing; with little improvement betwixt them.

In other words, I know what I'm getting when I press the button. Getting something good rests solely on my abilities, not on the medium (film or digital).

One can use digital similar to analog by not constantly looking at the screen - just because you can take countless photos of the same thing on digital does not mean you have to, and the good digital photographers generally work like the good film photographers. That is to say, a good photographer is good regardless of which they are using.

Now, if I were taking photos professionally I would take many exposures of each subject, regardless of film or digital; but that is a different situation, and with digital would have nothing to do with real-time feedback on a tiny camera screen (as goros and Jim Jones point out). I had taken some (film) photos for newspapers, but as a journalist, NOT a photojournalist. Sometimes you take many photos because, as Jim Jones mentioned, there is fast action - and in digital you would not have time to check the screen. If the action was slow or non-existent, I would only take one or two shots. Also, for journalism, it is often more important to get a good picture of something important than it is to get a technically perfect one (not to say it should not be as perfect as circumstances allow).

Getting back to reading negatives - I am starting to learn, but so far am only to the point of identifying obvious exposure errors and whether the print will be good - but not how good or what approach I will need to do when printing. Once I start optically printing again, I imagine reading negatives will be easier for me. However, I will still print them all just for posterity. In the past, I found proof sheets more useful in evaluating a photo for enlargement, but that is probably because of my lack of experience and skill.

 

[analoguey]

One can use digital similar to analog by not constantly looking at the screen - just because you can take countless photos of the same thing on digital does not mean you have to, and the good digital photographers generally work like the good film photographers. That is to say, a good photographer is good regardless of which they are using.

Good that you mention that! Also a new Digital Leica does away with the digital display screen, so in a way, it's back to an ' analogue view!

 

[michr]

I'm not a professional either, but develop and print from negatives. Looking at the negative gives you an idea whether you were able to get the basic details right: Did the film develop properly, was the exposure good enough to get a print from, i.e. can I see the image on the negative, is the development of the negative even, or are there spots of the negative that are too light or dark (indicating problems in the development process or mechanical problems with the camera). Usually I can't tell whether focus was correct, or even how grainy the image is until I've enlarged the image onto printing paper. Composition on the other hand, is a relatively low-information sort of determination. Looking at the negative at enough distance the details don't dominate, you can clearly see the compositional elements.

With film SLRs, the differences between what is seen in the viewfinder and what is recorded on the film is relatively small, so there usually aren't many surprises when it comes to composition. I usually frame subjects a little more loosely, leaving more of a border of unarranged image around my main composition when using film SLRs, than when using digital, which since it allows a preview will show me that I've accidentally cropped the picture too tightly in camera, but otherwise, they're mostly similar. I almost always use black and white negative film, without metering the available light, so often I'm guessing the amount of exposure needed, and this would be a detriment to a digital photograph or slide film, but I'm usually outdoors in full sun, so I don't need a preview in that situation either.

When you use a camera with a ground-glass screen, there's more resolution available than any digital screen ever made, right under the magnifier, so it's definitely a what-you-see-is-what-you-get situation. Between the ground-glass screen and the use of a tripod (often a necessity for this type of camera), rarely are there surprises when it comes to composition.

Looking at the negatives does give a good idea of what might be worth making into a print (most people don't print everything, given the cost and time investment). However, what was commonly done is cut up the film into strips of images and lay them across a sheet of photo paper and create a contact sheet. This is a good way to get a positive of the images, see what images are properly exposed, and to reveal any images that were obviously defective. From that point the photographer could choose the candidates for enlargement, and decide which images to reshoot.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I find contact sheets a waste of time particularly for a small format like 35nn. I do look at negatives though and if one seems interesting I make a 4x5 or 5x7 for further evaluation.

I would say that professional photographers usually know how a shot will look as they press the shutter. They don't need to take a lot of shots. This is where experience comes inn. The only exception would be where there is uncertainty as in action photography. Even here professionals are able to anticipate to a certain degree. Shooting lots of film in hope of getting a good shot is a waste of film, time and money.

 

[Vaughn]

I have been looking at my negatives so long that I 'read' them as prints. It has been a long time since I made proof sheets.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I have been looking at my negatives so long that I 'read' them as prints. It has been a long time since I made proof sheets.

Just like the guy in The Matrix who can see what's going on just by looking at the text. That's the point that I was thinking, it's a skill that you can learn and get better at, getting info from the negatives directly. With a good loupe you can check facial expressions, without one you can tell major under-/over-developing errors, lightleaks etc, with more practise you can read more and more.

Coincidentally, I was watching the classic Blacula the other night. There's a bit where someone takes a photo (with a crown or speed graphic) of him and a girl, only when the photographer has printed it on to paper does she realise that something's wrong because he's not in the picture. A while later, a detective comes to her house, looks at the negative image on the easel and automatically realises what's wrong. Bit of a plot hole there (done for dramatic intent, of course, so Blacula can steal the print), the detective can read from a negative but the photographer can't?

 

[Vaughn]

I have spent 35 years looking at my negatives, then printing them. Bound to learn something that way! LOL! I do not do many portraits, so facial expressions are still a little tough for me to judge on the neg. Like-wise with color negatives...I have made a couple hundred prints from color negs, but not for awhile and I am weaker with them than B&W negs.

For carbon printing (single transfer, which reverses the image right/left), I just flip the neg over and look at the emulsion side. The larger negs help -- years of 4x5, then moving slowly up to 11x14. I have not done much pryo developing and judging the contrast is a bit tougher than negs developed in HC-110, etc.

 

[Nige]

I would say that professional photographers usually know how a shot will look as they press the shutter. They don't need to take a lot of shots. This is where experience comes inn. The only exception would be where there is uncertainty as in action photography. Even here professionals are able to anticipate to a certain degree. Shooting lots of film in hope of getting a good shot is a waste of film, time and money.

I'm wondering if this is what Alex is really getting at. We will need Alex to come back and fill in a bit more background around his question. To me is sounds like he is wondering how people of 'yesteryear' (and those still on APUG I guess!) could take photos without chimping every one.

make photos without seeing result in realtime, so they make many many shots, and only later can process films and see in negatives all pictures. If some of them looks fine they will be produced (printed) in b/w or in color, is it correct?

This part of his post implies the above. What I'd say to this is some people are competent at tasks (in this case photography, but the concept can be applied to just about anything) that they don't need instant confirmation that they actually did something right... they know!

 

[Xmas]

I'm wondering if this is what Alex is really getting at. We will need Alex to come back and fill in a bit more background around his question. To me is sounds like he is wondering how people of 'yesteryear' (and those still on APUG I guess!) could take photos without chimping every one.

All the studio people had pola backs?

 

[ic-racer]

Learning on how to interpret negatives can save thousands of hours making proof-prints. The last proof prints I made were for a graduate school class in the early 1980s.

 

[David Brown]

I wonder how much important was looking at the negatives?

I think it should also be remembered that we had no choice ...

 

[AlexGrey]

Thank you all for the answers, you tell me very interesting points, that I never thinking about. I ask for your advice for one reason, I'm part of the iOS app developers team and we have an idea to make iPhone/iPad app that will allow you to see negative image until even you tap shoot button. Now I'm collecting information about it. You all know that iPhones became for many people camera #1, remember Flickr Camera Finder stats? But mostly quality of this photos not very good from artistic point of view. And we thought — maybe we can improve it if recreate the negative part that was for you all (professional analogue photographers) so natural? So we quickly create prototype of such app and try to use it, I should to say, in BW and through negative viewfinder I personally see so clear problems with composition and contrasts, it's new experience for me.

You all also gives me feeling that nobody from you will be interested in it, is it right? I see now that iPhone photos is too much non professional for you… But maybe we can make some app that will connect with your cameras, it will be helpful then? I don't know yet about it, maybe some digital cameras have such API.

So, there is just an idea, please tell me your opinion. We have various ways to do that, we can make an app with BW negative viewfinder, after photo session you can choose the good and "as old good days" processing to color version or to positive one. Or we can create an app that will allow you to see normal viewfinder, but photos will be saved as negatives, you can zoom it (like you use magnifier with analogue shots), select good ones, and again export to positive only the best.

What do you think?

 

[cowanw]

What do you think?

I think you are in the wrong forum
On the front page this is written

APUG.ORG is an international community of like minded individuals devoted to traditional (non-digital) photographic processes

As such digital solutions are not discussed (at all)

 

[AlexGrey]

You're really friendly, thank you. But my question was about negative stage, that is part of analogue photo, not digital.

 

[ME Super]

I think that part of the differences between photographic film and digital are:

1. Digital sensors don't capture full color for each pixel (Sigma's Foveon sensor is a notable exception). All color films do. This is what causes the "purple fringing" that is prevalent in digital images under certain conditions.
2. Film's grain is more or less a random, yet consistent distribution of silver halide crystals (grain), whereas digital sensors' pixels are generally arranged in a grid. To some, this hands film an advantage, as grain in a photo can be quite pleasing.
3. Digital sensors have a hard toe and shoulder, while film has a more rounded gradual shoulder. Think of it this way: Draw an S-curve. This is film's response to light. Now draw the S curve using only three line segments instead of curves. This is perceived by many to be a digital sensor's response to light.
4. Negative film captures a higher range of values than is representable on paper. This is what makes film have a higher latitude than a digital sensor, so you can get a usable picture even if over or under exposed by a stop or two. Digital sensors (and reversal film), not so much. With negative film you can get a larger range of tonal values in a single exposure without having to resort to multiple exposure HDR techniques.

All of these things are differences between sensors and film. These are sensor issues that I don't think can be solved with software. Go talk to your engineers and get them to design sensors that act like film, not massage the results after you get the data from the sensor. There are some things that just can't be had at the software level. You can't store detail in the file that isn't there in the raw data from the sensor.

 

[Truzi]

The reason we have negatives is simply because of how the process works. Being able to "read" a negative means being able to tell how the positive may look without creating that positive image first. Making prints takes time, and the materials cost money. Reading a negative is merely the skill to evaluate whether a negative is something one wants to make a positive print of.

Positive film (slide film) is not converted to a negative for evaluation.

I don't think your suggestion will really help when taking a digital photo, which can be seen as a positive process. However, being able to invert images may have other uses (although I've already seen iPhone and Android apps that can do that).