How to keep objectivity when printing?

[rpavich]

Hi,
I have a question that pertains to my darkroom printing but also my sc*nn*ng (since I don't print color)

I realized (after posting a photo here and someone made a comment about how flat my sc*n was) that I have a hard time with being objective about how a particular print or sc*n looks. It can look fine and I think it looks like any other print or sc*n but when viewed alongside others it could be a lot different.

At work I have lots of B&W wet prints that I've done hanging on a large corkboard and at first I didn't even realize it but after a few months and with all of them together it's obvious that some just don't look good, you can spot the ones that stand out as being "drab" or "flat" and the ones that are murky and the ones that really sing (for lack of a better word)



I've decided to give a day or two before posting and putting up my prints as a minimum but I wanted to ask what do YOU do to gain objectivity in your printing and sca**ing of images?

 

[Hekoru]

I am not experienced by any means, but I usually walk away from the print for some time after a few hours in the darkroom and then I look at it again with fresh eyes. Sometimes I discover that I'm not going the right way, or that I had missed some important part of the image. It's not strange for me to work on the same print on and off for several weeks until I'm happy with it.

WRT sharing online, or selecting what to print next, I like letting the photos sit for week or two before going through them. I'm usually too excited about a newly developed roll to be objective about its contents.

 

[rpavich]

I am not experienced by any means, but I usually walk away from the print for some time after a few hours in the darkroom and then I look at it again with fresh eyes. Sometimes I discover that I'm not going the right way, or that I had missed some important part of the image. It's not strange for me to work on the same print on and off for several weeks until I'm happy with it.

WRT sharing online, or selecting what to print next, I like letting the photos sit for week or two before going through them. I'm usually too excited about a newly developed roll to be objective about its contents.

Yes, both approaches are probably a good thing. I certainly do get excited about what I've just developed.

 

[David Allen]

You will find that you get far more consistent and pleasing results if you:

• Keep a print in the darkroom that you really like in terms of contrast, density and tonality for comparison.
• Always dry your test strips before assessing them (a cheap microwave is ideal but you can also use a hairdryer).
• Never 'snatch' prints from the developer - stick to a standard time (min 2 minutes for RC paper and min 3 minutes for fibre paper)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[David Lyga]

Perhaps, one can train oneself to be objective when doing the viewing. You can get used to asking yourself, routinely, if the print would be better if it were: more/less contrasty, darker/lighter, better cropped? A very light bathing in dilute Farmer's Reducer can oftentimes work wonders in getting that drab print to 'open up'. Using a movable mask to guide your objective perception about cropping is usually very informative. - David Lyga

 

[rpavich]

You will find that you get far more consistent and pleasing results if you:

• Keep a print in the darkroom that you really like in terms of contrast, density and tonality for comparison.
• Always dry your test strips before assessing them (a cheap microwave is ideal but you can also use a hairdryer).
• Never 'snatch' prints from the developer - stick to a standard time (min 2 minutes for RC paper and min 3 minutes for fibre paper)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

That's a great tip about keeping a reference print, I hadn't thought of that!

 

[rpavich]

Perhaps, one can train oneself to be objective when doing the viewing. You can get used to asking yourself, routinely, if the print would be better if it were: more/less contrasty, darker/lighter, better cropped? A very light bathing in dilute Farmer's Reducer can oftentimes work wonders in getting that drab print to 'open up'. Using a movable mask to guide your objective perception about cropping is usually very informative. - David Lyga

Thanks David,
I've never heard of Farmer's reducer...I'll look it up.

 

[Bob Carnie]

You will find that you get far more consistent and pleasing results if you:

• Keep a print in the darkroom that you really like in terms of contrast, density and tonality for comparison.
• Always dry your test strips before assessing them (a cheap microwave is ideal but you can also use a hairdryer).
• Never 'snatch' prints from the developer - stick to a standard time (min 2 minutes for RC paper and min 3 minutes for fibre paper)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I agree about keeping a good print in the darkroom that you can throw in the water to compare your current print with.

I do not dry my test prints, but it would be a good idea for people new to printing or rarely in the darkroom.

I always snatch prints from the developer- big note- I print a lot of solarization where this is actually a good thing.
for traditional silver prints I stick to standard times with lots of chemistry.

 

[winger]

You've partly answered your own question ie - it sometimes takes time to evaluate. Particularly when I'm caught up working on a difficult print, I sometimes find it healthy at a certain point to back off, make a few versions and then stop. Put them up on the wall and "live with them" (John Sexton's words) for a while. When viewed outside the darkroom context, things that are "wrong" or need improvement will tend to become more obvious over time. I also find it helpful to take things slower in the darkroom when evaluating successive test prints. Looking at and studying successive test prints takes up most of my darkroom time. Try different lighting, etc. I also like to dry most of my test prints in the microwave so I can get an idea of what it looks like when dry. This can be especially helpful for judging higher values.

There is no rule that says you need to finish a darkroom session with finished prints. Sometimes it can take several sessions.

+1

My process is usually spread out because I don't get big chunks of time for just darkroom work. For example, today I'm hoping to develop a roll of 120 and 6 sheets of 4x5. Sometime next week, I'll do contact sheets of all of them and then maybe a quickie print on RC of ones I think I'm going to like. In a couple of weeks I might have time to do some fiber prints and start seeing how I want to print things. I'll let a fiber print sit for a few days before I decide if that's how I like it or if I want to make changes. So from developing the film today, it might be 3 or 4 more sessions in the darkroom and October before I have what I consider to be a finished print. There are images I printed last winter and spring that I need to go back and "finish" because they aren't exactly what I want, yet. Though it's also worth keeping in mind that when you start seeing truly little differences that most viewers won't be able to see them - there IS a stopping point.

And definitely be sure you leave each print in the chemicals the same amount of time (David Allen's post). If you're consistent there and keep track of the exposure time and settings under the enlarger, it will be much easier to go back to a print later.

 

[ozphoto]

That's a great tip about keeping a reference print, I hadn't thought of that!

I actually have an advertising postcard from Agfa, when they released their new Multicontrast Paper - 2 Scotties on a box; one black, one white, on a black background. Used it for judging my prints for a few years, now it just sits there as a reminder of Agfa and the great products they had in their range.

Everyone's suggestions upthread are great - once you get the hang of it, you'll be bale to judge your negs and choose the paper without a second thought. Do note though, for example, Paper A @ Grade 3 may not match Paper B @ Grade 3, but it's a good starting point and you can then tweak from there.

When I started out I was using Ilfospeed Grade 3 - 4 paper regularly, and as I progressed in my techniques, I now print almost everything at Grade 2 for a "normal" neg on my favourite paper. Grade 3 sometimes but 1, 4 & 5 almost never, unless it's from some of my processed earlier negs.

Practice will help your technique, and try not to switch out film and paper brands too much when starting out. Once you nail Brand C film on Brand B paper, you'll know what to look for when you process Brand Q film and decide to print on Brand B or Brand C paper.

Most of all - enjoy yourself. Learning from mistakes is all part of the fun, and I find the mistakes I've made in the past, actually stick with me and (usually) ensure I don't make them again.

 

[M Carter]

There's the usual artist things:

Step away for an hour or a day;

LOOK AT THE PRINT UPSIDE DOWN - this removes familiar context and lets you view shapes and composition and contrast in a more abstract way. Can really be helpful.

Look at the print with your eyes blurred, or take off your glasses, etc.

View a dried print in different rooms of your house - my living room is bright and sunny, my darkroom isn't!

Think about installing something like tungsten track lights in your darkroom, over a purpose-made viewing space.

This is really interesting though - in rock and pop music recording, a good engineer doing the final mix will often switch on a "reference" CD - a song that has the feel and vibe and tonality he wants. You lose objectivity very quickly, and your ears get tired - the reference will remind you if your mix is getting too bright or losing impact. Lately - with music being done on computers - there are plugins that import your reference track, match it volume-wise, and let you switch back & forth, even match the tempo of the reference to your mix. So you can focus on big picture or even specific things like how the snare drum sounds.

In the graphic arts days, when work was pasted up on cardboard, you'd get a proof. You could lay the proof over the original pasteup, and flip it up and down quickly like a page turn - your eyes could suddenly spot if an element was missing, without proofreading the whole page. Might be interesting to try that with a reference print and your print laid over it - even with different subjects, you'd likely get an overall impression of contrast and overall dark vs. light? Something to try sometime.

 

[Paul Howell]

I start with a proof sheet, then move on to work prints. I often print the same negative at 2 or 3 contrasts, different crops, warm tone or cold tone, keep notes. I will pin the prints to a bulletin board, take the prints outside to look in room light or even day light to get a feel for how the print will on display. Most of the time I can print a final print the same session, on occasion I will return to the work prints in another session before deciding on my final approach. There are times that a print looked worth while on a proof sheet, then after printing a couple of work prints decide that it was not that good and move on. I also cheat and scan a work print into Corel and fool with contrast and burning and dodging before making a final wet print. I do keep my work prints and perhaps much later, a year or more I will glance through my files and find a print I passed on that I will start the process all over and wind up a with a keeper.

 

[rpavich]

Thanks for the good suggestions everyone, there is a lot I've never thought about for sure.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've had a lot of critiscm for flat prints over the years but my prints aren't flat when compared to contemporary photographers and I get a completely different reaction. There's two schools of thouhght the amateur/camera club world where you print much higher contrast with a loth of dodging and burning and the more artistic subtle interpretation..

Ian

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I don't know who commented and said your scan was flat. I haven't seen the scan or print but nowadays the digital trend seems to be super saturated colors and mucho contrast. To my way of thinking vastly to much of both. So please don't judge your work on what you see online or what people may say about it especially comparing it to all the new rage in digital editing.

 

[rpavich]

I don't know who commented and said your scan was flat. I haven't seen the scan or print but nowadays the digital trend seems to be super saturated colors and mucho contrast. To my way of thinking vastly to much of both. So please don't judge your work on what you see online or what people may say about it especially comparing it to all the new rage in digital editing.

Here is the thread, you can see for yourself.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Paul Howell]

Diafine is flat, the nature of the beast, when I was working PJ I used Diafine in the field when I had to develop under adverse conditions, and later when I moved to Phoenix in the summer when my tap water was 90 degrees, the flat hard to print negatrives led me to make a water chiller. To print I had to print at least one if not two grades higher, use bleach to whiten the highlights. Although some really like Diafine, many think that the negatives are just muddy. For pushing film I preferred Diafine stable mate Acufine. I think you would be better off using D 76 or HC 110.

 

[rpavich]

Diafine is flat, the nature of the beast, when I was working PJ I used Diafine in the field when I had to develop under adverse conditions, and later when I moved to Phoenix in the summer when my tap water was 90 degrees, the flat hard to print negatrives led me to make a water chiller. To print I had to print at least one if not two grades higher, use bleach to whiten the highlights. Although some really like Diafine, many think that the negatives are just muddy. For pushing film I preferred Diafine stable mate Acufine. I think you would be better off using D 76 or HC 110.

I get what you are saying but really the flatness was a function of my adjustments in Lightroom, not Diafine. After it was pointed out to me how flat it was (and it was) I goosed the blacks and whites and the overall contrast and it improved it. It was really my own fault.

 

[Paul Howell]

You are adjusting the contrast no difference than printing higher contrast for a wet print. Currently I use MCM 100, I print on grade 2 paper without much fuss. If I increase contrast to grade 3 it is because I want a final print with more contrast. If I were still using Diafine I would print grade 3 sometime grade 4. When you are scanning and printing with an inkjet and you like the final look you want all is good. But remember that when using LR, PS or Coral you have a much wide range of contrast then wet printing. I use Salvich or Foma 2, 3, and 4, with VC paper maybe another grade, so much more limited range then a scanned negative.

 

[MattKing]

Ralph Lambrecht recommends in "Way Beyond Monochrome" that you install a viewing light and use a dimming switch and an incident meter to ensure that it provides consistent illumination to a particular spot. Then use that spot to evaluate all your prints.

He even suggests the level of illumination.

In general, it is an excellent idea to have a consistent light for viewing. Combine that with a reference print, and you are "golden".

In those cases where I am printing multiples (like the Postcard Exchange) I like to take a test print that dries out to the way I like it and put it into the wash tray adjacent to the fixer. That way I can quickly monitor any unexpected changes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You will find that you get far more consistent and pleasing results if you:

• Keep a print in the darkroom that you really like in terms of contrast, density and tonality for comparison.
• Always dry your test strips before assessing them (a cheap microwave is ideal but you can also use a hairdryer).
• Never 'snatch' prints from the developer - stick to a standard time (min 2 minutes for RC paper and min 3 minutes for fibre paper)

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I agree with the first two ideas. I pull the print from the developer when I think the print is the way I want it.

Try printing different grades.

Use bleach on the high lights to give the print more snap.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Two things I am reading / hearing that I somewhat have issues with or disagree

One thing is walking away from a print for a day or two to evaluate... I think this is nonsense , either its the best print you can make today or not but to come back to it days later boy thats some serious art thinking,all you are doing is allowing yourself to get out of the groove that got you to that great print.
I finish prints each session. Now if a year later I want to make a new version with a different look , well I buy into that. I just sold two solarized pigment prints that
are IMO much better than the silver version I made 5 years ago. In fact it wasn't even close. but it took five years of exploring new techniques to do this.
I do not think your judgement, eyes , thought process is going to change over a few days.

Second thing- lighting for prints, I use standard daylight bulbs in my darkroom and over the fix tray have a light box that emits a fair amount of light. But in my darkroom I always make
a darker /lighter version of each image , because if this image is for display there is no telling where it will be viewed and with what type of light.
What I do is over time, I spend a period of time with a days work in different light in my internal gallery - all tungsten, and the outer gallery tungsten and daylight from a huge front window. By walking
the prints around and remembering which print I like- Usually the mid to lighter print then I start keeping this information in the great database between my ears.

I cannot overstate the importance of making versions of your work while you are there in the darkroom ( Timothy Leary says BE HERE NOW ) I agree with him.
These different versions, density, contrast, gels for softness, different dodge and burn routines will train you way more than - letting your print dry, grabbing a glass of wine, putting on some soft music
and looking at your one print.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I agree wholeheartedly with Bob. No reason to wait days and forget the nuances of the manipulations you are making.

If you are not sure you've made your best print, make another, different one. Make prints more and less contrasty, with more or less dodging, burning, etc., etc. till you have a spectrum, i.e., prints you don't like at the extremes, and then narrow in on the one you like best. In the beginning, you'll make a lot of prints. After some time, you'll have developed your sensitivities more and make fewer.

A few random comments:

I use lighting to view my prints that is my "ideal" of gallery lighting; a rather bright mix of halogen and daylight, and print to that. If I know a print will be viewed in a darker setting, I'll print a bit differently. Don't evaluate your prints in direct sunlight or you'll print too dark. When in doubt, I'll make a few "performances" of a print that are slightly different. They are all valid.

If your print has a lot of very important high values, dry it down before evaluating. I dry all my prints before evaluation, but I have the luxury of time. In a commercial setting, I would likely do something else. That said, drydown is real and affects each print and paper a bit differently; drying them completely is the only real way to know.

"Not enough contrast" is a common criticism from people who don't appreciate the nuances and subtleties in a fine print. Take such criticism with a grain of salt, especially if the print sings for you.

While I'm speaking of "singing"; don't accept a print that doesn't. Work until it's right or until you give up and relegate it to the dustbin.

"Good enough isn't."

The paper you waste today making tens of prints to zero in on the right one is paper you'll save tomorrow from the experience gained. You're saving money; tomorrows paper will be more expensive.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I agree with Bob above. I almost never go back to "improve" a print. A few years back I went through all my old prints and filled a huge garbage can half full of prints that I was going to "get back to." Must've been well north of a thousand easy. Do yourself a favor and get it right when you have the neg in the enlarger.

If you have noticed that your prints are too flat, you just learned something very useful, so use it!

 

[Michael Wesik]

I don't believe that true objectivity exists in photography/art. The success or failure of anything is subjective and relative. What matters is what you think about your work which means accepting the fact your own opinions will change over time as they're informed by your experience as your process evolves. The only thing you can really do is commit to learning and focus on what feels right in the moment and then evaluate as you go. There's nothing wrong with revisiting a neg hundreds of time if that's what want to do. Everyone has there own process and none of them are objective.

The conversation regarding printing for lighting conditions is a complicated one. Ultimately, the best thing to do is to try to pick a "neutral" lighting condition. Printing for varying conditions is like chasing a dragon. Even with the knowledge of a gallery or space's lighting specs (which can vary greatly), there's no telling what conditions into which a sold photograph would be installed. Art made for the purpose of an actual installation is a different story.

That's not to say that it's not valuable to make different versions of a given print. But I see that as more of the process of arriving at the "final" image, which again is subjective, relative and subject to change.

Also, I evaluate prints together with their different versions as well as alone, individually. Evaluating several variations of the same print together can be a blessing and a curse because each print will inform the other, particularly if different toning applications are involved. Living with prints for a while is never a bad thing but just be aware that everything around an image will inform the reception of it.

Finishing, in terms of mounting and framing, can also have a major impact on the feel of an image.

Personally, I wouldn't put a lot of weight into anyone's opinion of an online image.

All the best,

Michael