Interesting article on making proof sheets

[DonW]

https://www.35mmc.com/18/01/2021/3-...-tell-us-darkroom-technique-part-6-by-sroyon/

Haven't tried it but for the newbies maybe something to ponder.

Don

 

[albada]

After having a darkroom for only a few months, I'm still a newbie who found that article interesting and helpful. Thanks for posting the link.
Mark Overton

 

[foc]

Thanks for posting. Anything that helps or gets people into a darkroom is always welcome.

 

[ic-racer]

I think one learns more by directly viewing the negatives with a loupe. I have not made a proof sheet since the mid 1980s.

 

[Peter Schrager]

reading negatives don't tell you sh...t....it's part of a workflow with exposure; development; and printing.
one look at a good proof sheet will tell you if something is off like your light meter; exposure; shutter failure etc.
if you really want the whole enchilada get Fred Picker's zone VI manual and follow the directions. you will know more than anyone else out there and have a permanent record to tell you where a goof up happens. It's called sensitometry and you can't change that.

 

[eddie]

I think the highlight/shadow proof idea is a complete waste. As Peter says, a proper proof does more than let you see your images. It points out potential problems in other areas. All proofs should be done the same way, from the same height, with the same aperture, once you've determined the "minimum time to maximum black". I have my enlarger marked with how high to keep the head for proof exposure. Doing it this way, I was able to determine I had an inconsistent large format shutter, years ago.

 

[eddie]

I prefer the “low contrast proof” that shows you what’s in the negative. I have no use for minimum time to maximum black.

If done correctly, a proper proof will show you what's in the negative.

 

[ic-racer]

I think one learns more by directly viewing the negatives with a loupe. I have not made a proof sheet since the mid 1980s.

Just to clarify, I do make 'proofs', but they are not of the whole set of tiny contact prints on a single page--the so called "proof sheet." Either rollfilm or sheet film, I do it the same; my proofs are enlargements of select negatives.

I broke free of being tied to the "proof sheet" after reading the Lustrum Press book CONTACT:THEORY, 1980. Recommended reading on this topic.

 

[ic-racer]

Last month I went though every 8x10 I had from the 1970s to 1990s. Finally cataloging the prints. I did find the old "proof sheets" from the 1970s which I had never thrown out!

 

[MattKing]

And the reference to "Dogs", is it a subject reference, or a quality reference?

 

[ic-racer]

And the reference to "Dogs", is it a subject reference, or a quality reference?

Actually it is subject matter. Once I had an idea that I would be a dog photographer. Big fan of Elliott Erwitt and William Wegman. Plus, most people don't have an issue if you photograph their dog.

Having written that, DOG could be applied to all in the photo. I always had the impression I might have been some childhood photography genius like Lartigue, but in reality most everything from my early years is really junk (including my MFA work). I have scoured my negative files from the 1970s and 1980s for that hint of genius, but it is not there. My best work has really come all in the last 15 years.

 

[wyofilm]

My best work has really come all in the last 15 years.

That's a really good thing!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's pretty much what I do with my students. I try to stress how important the contact sheet is, as it can tell you a lot.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I make "proper proofs" of everything. Not only do they help me keep my process in check and help identify problems easily (exposure mistakes, light leaks, compromised batch of developer, shutter problems, meter problems, etc.) but, when filed together with the negatives, they make finding any particular image much quicker.

I find the "proper proof" to be the most helpful since I can use it to make small changes in my processing as needed, e.g., a change in negative development time if contrast at one time is consistently off, or a change in E.I. if I find that shadow detail is not consistently rendered optimally. Highlight and shadow proofs don't give me the information I need to make such changes.

I don't need a proof to tell me what the final image will look like; my proofs never look like my finished prints...

And, I can sit down with my proof sheets (four 4x5 images per sheet) and a set of cropping Ls in normal room light at table and decide which images I may want to enlarge. No light table needed.

Still, I agree with ic-racer that evaluating the negative under magnification is really helpful. I do that as well. One doesn't exclude the other.

Best,

Doremus

 

[ic-racer]

I found the quote in "Contact:Theory" book which changed the way I edit my photographs:

I do not use contact sheets in my work. I prefer to work directly from negatives. It seems to me that I can visualize the print better by looking through a loupe at each negative.
The process then is simply to recognize the negative and make a fast print. The real editing of these pictures is to look at these prints over a long period of time, throwing away the ones that don't work...
Page 150 Philip Perkins

 

[ic-racer]

My editing table: