Judging a 'good' print

[logan2z]

I've only been making B&W darkroom prints for about four years so, in APUG/Photrio terms, I'm relatively new to it. I think the prints I'm making at this point are pretty decent, but it's difficult for me to judge how good they are in absolute terms. I often wonder what a master printer would think of them and what faults they would find with them.

I am an avid photobook collector and do attend in-person photo exhibits at local galleries/museums as often as possible (pre-Covid), so I think I have a reasonable sense for what a well printed silver gelatin photograph looks like, but there is always this nagging doubt about the quality of my prints.

Maybe there is no such thing as a general definition of a 'good' print and it is highly dependent on the subject matter (street vs. landscape, for example), and the individual style of the photographer. But I am curious what forum members typically look for in a good print and how they determine if their own prints would be considered 'museum quality' (whatever that means).

 

[R.Gould]

The technical definition of a ''good print'', as was taught to me by a master printer in my youth is a print with a good range of tones, everything from a pure black though shades of grey to pure white, but of course that is perfection, for me is a print that represents what I saw in my minds eye when I took the picture, I pretty much know how I want the final print ton look, and what it looks like in the viewfinder and what I see in my mind can be miles apart, and what I see often changes as I print the negative, so if I get the print I want that, to me, is a good print, other folk might see the print in a different way, for instance give the same negative to different printers and you get different finished prints as their interpretation of the negative will be completely different to mine, so there really is no Good print, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder

 

[Pieter12]

A good print is one that looks as good as you want it to.

 

[MattKing]

There are of course technical criteria for prints that are used for special purposes. When I was photographing for a newspaper, it was important to print in a certain way in order to end up with good reproduction in the offset press produced paper.
And it is important to print with the presentation environment in mind. Prints intended for display in areas with bright light (such as competitions) should be at least slightly darker than prints that are intended to be displayed in moderate lighting.
But outside those specialized concerns, a good print reflects both technical and subjective concerns.
The technical concerns - appropriately wide range of tones, detailed and reasonably contrasty shadows and highlights, well focused with good resolution, appropriate image tone, no obvious signs of dust or print damage - are all relatively straightforward.
What isn't so straightforward are the more artistic choices. As an example, the strength of many images is in the mid-tones, yet people tend to pay too little attention to those mid-tones. Making an artistic choice to finely tune the density and contrast of those mid-tones can make or break a print. In addition, and this can seem counter-intuitive, it sometimes is better to have blocked up shadows and burnt out highlights, while the mid-tones "sing". That is an artistic choice, that can elevate the entire result.

 

[bernard_L]

this can seem counter-intuitive, it sometimes is better to have blocked up shadows and burnt out highlights, while the mid-tones "sing". That is an artistic choice, that can elevate the entire result.

+1
Took me a long time to realize that.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I've been printing for 35+ years and still have nagging doubts as to whether a particular print is excellent enough for display or not. Most of my print-related time is spent evaluating and editing prints so that I only keep and display ones that give me joy.

Technical definitions of what a good print is are a starting point, but, to co-opt Matt's terminology, a print has to sing to me, and sing well, before I call it a fine print. Content and the expressiveness of tonality and texture play a large role in this "singing" and can even trump technical defects at times.

Listen carefully to your prints and see if you like the song. You already have enough tools to evaluate.

Best,

Doremus

 

[MattKing]

Listen carefully to your prints and see if you like the song. You already have enough tools to evaluate.

I'll agree.
But it really helps if you have had a chance to have had a bunch of other prints - not restricted to yours - sing to you in the past.
At various times over the years I have had breaks when I couldn't do darkroom work. As a result of one of those breaks, I took a night school "beginners" darkroom course, because it was the only class offered that I could access - I just wanted to get into a darkroom.
It was offered at an older Vancouver high school, and the darkrooms were very well equipped.
What struck me was that the attached classroom had a huge amount of student work taped or tacked to the walls, but there were very few good prints up on those walls.
If I was teaching out of that room, I would have put lots of student work up, but I would have made sure there were a lot more good prints in amongst them - preferably student work included.
It really, really, really helps to see lots of good work.

 

[logan2z]

It really, really, really helps to see lots of good work.

It certainly does, that's why I try and look at as much of it as I can. It gives me a solid frame of reference.

Funny enough, I was recently reading some of the original reviews of the New Documents show in the MoMa book on the exhibition. One review was highly critical of the quality of the prints of Lee Friedlander and Garry Winogrand. I guess the content of the photos was more important to John Szarkowski than the quality of the prints themselves. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on myself

 

[Pieter12]

Ah yes. The question shouldn't be is it a good print, but rather is it a good photograph? Robert Frank and HCB were not particularly concerned with the technical perfection of their work.

 

[MattKing]

Ah yes. The question shouldn't be is it a good print, but rather is it a good photograph? Robert Frank and HCB were not particularly concerned with the technical perfection of their work.

I'll disagree.
I think it appropriate to separate out the issues.
Is the photograph a good one? That is a content related question.
Is the print a good one? That is a presentation related question.
Each factor can influence judgment about the other.
A poorly printed version of a good photograph can distract from its strength.
And an uninteresting photograph wastes the potential of a good print.

 

[Pieter12]

This means nothing except that not all great photographers are interested in printing and/or print quality.

Except those two were less concerned about aspects of technical perfection--from exposure through printing.

 

[Pieter12]

And an uninteresting photograph wastes the potential of a good print.

So what is the value of a perfect print of an uninteresting photograph, except as an exercise of technique?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I teach my senior high school photo students to make sure the whites if they exist in the image are indeed white, and if they have detail, they they can still be seen in the print. I made a bunch of negatives of white eggs in a white bowl against a white textured background. Then they have to work with the same subject against a black textured background. Teaching these subtleties to teens is not easy, let me tell you! They've had years of conditioning looking images on the internet, where crap low quality is good enough.

 

[MattKing]

So what is the value of a perfect print of an uninteresting photograph, except as an exercise of technique?

It looks good over the sofa, and can anchor the room.
Prints are things. They can look nice.
There is value in that.

 

[Bill Burk]

A good idea is to join a print exchange. The worst that can happen if you aren’t very good, you will make everyone else in the exchange feel better about themselves. And you’ll get examples of what you will know is better.

You probably will find it’s all pretty close except for a couple of really good printers who get in your group.

 

[Peter Schrager]

go look at prints in a museum; better yet buy a print from a photographer you admire and put it on the wall
you will learn very quickly what a good print looks like
that investment will be the best you ever made in photography besides the fact you will be helping out another artist.
I have prints from Alvarez Manuel Bravo; Marsha Burns; Paula Chamlee; and Dan Weiner plus others from lesser known photographers
they have all served me well and it is something that I can always aspire to.
Museums are an invaluable source of great photos. Get to see one of the major shows that travel around even if you have to travel. there is no excuse for NOT knowing what a great print should look like.
Buy well printed books which can be a great deal and even an investment.

 

[MattKing]

Buy well printed books which can be a great deal and even an investment.

I agree with this, but it is important to differentiate between how prints in books look, and how stand alone prints look.
Several years ago I attended a show that featured a significant number of original Cartier Bresson prints (more accurately original prints by Voja Mitrovic for Cartier Bresson). They were excellent, surprisingly small prints, but they looked different from how the images appeared in published books and on posters and calendars.

 

[logan2z]

go look at prints in a museum; better yet buy a print from a photographer you admire and put it on the wall
you will learn very quickly what a good print looks like
that investment will be the best you ever made in photography besides the fact you will be helping out another artist.
I have prints from Alvarez Manuel Bravo; Marsha Burns; Paula Chamlee; and Dan Weiner plus others from lesser known photographers
they have all served me well and it is something that I can always aspire to.
Museums are an invaluable source of great photos. Get to see one of the major shows that travel around even if you have to travel. there is no excuse for NOT knowing what a great print should look like.
Buy well printed books which can be a great deal and even an investment.

You may have missed it in my OP but I am an avid collector of photo books and often attend gallery and museum exhibits. So I've seen many prints from many great photographers, but it can be difficult to compare them to my own prints due to things like different lighting conditions, matting/framing (have you ever noticed that a print looks a lot better when matted instead of just laying bare on the table?), my faded memory etc. Who knows, maybe my prints are just as good as those in museums and I just don't have enough confidence in my technique to realize it. Yeah, that must be it

 

[awty]

Ah yes. The question shouldn't be is it a good print, but rather is it a good photograph? Robert Frank and HCB were not particularly concerned with the technical perfection of their work.

I'ves seen galleries perfect prints by master printers, after I admire the brilliant technique then step back to look at a picture I see nothing but a photograph.
I personally prefer a bad print that had something to say.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

You may have missed it in my OP but I am an avid collector of photo books and often attend gallery and museum exhibits. So I've seen many prints from many great photographers, but it can be difficult to compare them to my own prints due to things like different lighting conditions, matting/framing (have you ever noticed that a print looks a lot better when matted instead of just laying bare on the table?), my faded memory etc. Who knows, maybe my prints are just as good as those in museums and I just don't have enough confidence in my technique to realize it. Yeah, that must be it

This is why I said that you have enough tools already. All the variables you list are always going to be there. Different galleries rarely have the same exact lighting, but it's similar. If you want your work to hang in galleries, simulate what you think is gallery lighting for your print evaluation. Evaluating a dry print is a start. They look different after they get on boards.

Still, I like my prints best under a 40W bulb, wet, in the fixer tray

Forget confidence, it's overrated. Accept that whatever print you make is just one interpretation and one try at a performance of the ideal. Just like a musician evaluates their performances, ask yourself, "is it a take, or do I need another session?"

Doremus

 

[Pieter12]

I'll worry about gallery lighting when I get into a gallery. I am unsure there are any standards followed by galleries, maybe major galleries and museums. Because I already had one, I use a desktop graphic arts viewing booth to judge my prints. I figure if the viewing standards used in the printing industry are good enough for books, posters and brochures, they're fine with me.

 

[logan2z]

Still, I like my prints best under a 40W bulb, wet, in the fixer tray

Yeah, I wish I could hang them on the wall wet They do look best that way.

Forget confidence, it's overrated. Accept that whatever print you make is just one interpretation and one try at a performance of the ideal. Just like a musician evaluates their performances, ask yourself, "is it a take, or do I need another session?"

Good advice, thanks.