No I don't make darkroom prints.I expect that haze is a consequence of how the image arrived on Photrio - most likely a cel phone or digital camera snap of a negative on a backlight, resized and uploaded here.
A question for you Alan - have you made black and white darkroom prints yourself in the past? I ask because I interpreted your question about "Grade 3" as coming from someone who had not done such printing.
This question about grade #3 paper:No I don't make darkroom prints.
What question about grade 3?
What does #3 paper mean to someone who doesn't print? What do you look for in the negatives?
The difficulty of cutting out a stage by omitting a contact sheet from the process is that you only print the good ones and don't learn anything from the bad ones. Failure rate is a real thing, and there are a couple of types of failure, those where nothing is right and it's out of focus etc., or it's perfect in every way except composition, and then on top of those two you add the exposure and processing into the mix. I put it to you that simply looking at the negative teaches you nothing important and creates a lazy eye when it comes to assessing your own work. So make a contact sheet of some sort, you learn a lot from it if you want to learn.
Correct, it was an quick iPhone shotI expect that haze is a consequence of how the image arrived on Photrio - most likely a cel phone or digital camera snap of a negative on a backlight, resized and uploaded here.
A question for you Alan - have you made black and white darkroom prints yourself in the past? I ask because I interpreted your question about "Grade 3" as coming from someone who had not done such printing.
I don't think 250 meant to make prints of every negative, but to at least make a proof sheet.250, I think you're making some broad assumptions. I don't print every image i have on film. Whatever the format, I might be using, i select the image i want to print.... depending on the composition, or the light, or any other number of factors. What makes you think that creates a 'lazy eye'? Since you've made the statement, "you learn a lot from it if you want to learn." Do you care to elaborate?
IMO you learn a lot more from printing.
I don't think 250 meant to make prints of every negative, but to at least make a proof sheet.
Many of us photograph sizes other than 35mm & 120 & don't make contact sheets. I'm challenging his idea that "that simply looking at the negative teaches you nothing important." As in music, a good musician can learn a lot by looking at the score.
I still proof 4x5. Don't shoot any larger. But the OP is shooting 120. Obviously, there is a lot you can tell by looking closely at the negative, especially LF. Unless there are obvious faults with the negative, having a proof is easier.
250, I think you're making some broad assumptions. I don't print every image i have on film. Whatever the format, I might be using, i select the image i want to print.... depending on the composition, or the light, or any other number of factors. What makes you think that creates a 'lazy eye'? Since you've made the statement, "you learn a lot from it if you want to learn." Do you care to elaborate?
IMO you learn a lot more from printing.
This question about grade #3 paper:
I didn't " decide to misunderstand" ..I have a different point of view than yours & to quote ic-racer:I wasn't suggesting you print every image as an 8x10, just a contact sheet, that was actually explicit in what I wrote so I find it hard to understand why you decided to misunderstand? And it doesn't even need to be on paper, it could be a digital contact sheet
For any good photographer a hit rate of two or three shots from a roll of 36 is good going (if they can edit their own pictures and not imagine they are a genius). If you don't believe me look at Bresson's contact sheets, or indeed anybody else who's famous. Because generally speaking MF tends to be slower in operation and more considered maybe two shots from 12 is a good hit rate. So what do those famous photographers do with a roll of developed film, wave it in front of a bulb and pick out the best? Well maybe they do, it isn't unheard of if the job is urgent. But there are 33 other exposures on the roll that are contact printed to learn from, to see where they could have done better by seeing where they failed. In other walks of life it's why sportsmen practice technique, to analyse failure and so get better.
If it helps there is a mammoth book called 'Magnum Contact Sheets' which is exactly as it appears, reproduced contact sheets from photographers in the Magnum photo agency. You'll see the journey to the final image is based on looking at facts, contrasting and comparing images, choosing a couple of tentative winners, then marking up the one to get printed. The final choice is not based on looking at a negative and hoping it's the right one. Analysing your own contact sheet is the photographers equivalent of the sportsman practicing his sport, and while many sportsmen may have said something similar when the golfer Arnold Palmer was asked why he was so lucky his reply was 'the more I practice the luckier I get'. Same in photography.
https://thamesandhudson.com/magnum-contact-sheets-9780500292914
Sorry to make it confusing. I;m not interested in the paper per se since I don't darkroom print. I;m wondering what was specific about those negatives that made it easy for him to scan? ( He said: I found that the easiest of my old negatives to scan and print were those that I had to print on #3 paper back in my darkroom days.)
#3 paper tends to be used with negatives that are slightly lower contrast than average.
I used to own that Magnum book, but passed it on a few years back. IIRC, there was disappointingly little in it from HCB, in part because - at least early in his career - he cut out the 'keepers' and destroyed the rest of the film. I tried hard to learn from the contact sheets of the other photographers featured, but I don't think anything rubbed off.For any good photographer a hit rate of two or three shots from a roll of 36 is good going (if they can edit their own pictures and not imagine they are a genius). If you don't believe me look at Bresson's contact sheets, or indeed anybody else who's famous. Because generally speaking MF tends to be slower in operation and more considered maybe two shots from 12 is a good hit rate. So what do those famous photographers do with a roll of developed film, wave it in front of a bulb and pick out the best? Well maybe they do, it isn't unheard of if the job is urgent. But there are 33 other exposures on the roll that are contact printed to learn from, to see where they could have done better by seeing where they failed. In other walks of life it's why sportsmen practice technique, to analyse failure and so get better.
If it helps there is a mammoth book called 'Magnum Contact Sheets' which is exactly as it appears, reproduced contact sheets from photographers in the Magnum photo agency. You'll see the journey to the final image is based on looking at facts, contrasting and comparing images, choosing a couple of tentative winners, then marking up the one to get printed. The final choice is not based on looking at a negative and hoping it's the right one. Analysing your own contact sheet is the photographers equivalent of the sportsman practicing his sport, and while many sportsmen may have said something similar when the golfer Arnold Palmer was asked why he was so lucky his reply was 'the more I practice the luckier I get'. Same in photography.
Not that is means much, but I believe Ilford MG prints at #3 without a filter.
Anyone has tips on how to evaluate black and white 120 negatives after development with naked eye
Sorry to make it confusing. I;m not interested in the paper per se since I don't darkroom print. I;m wondering what was specific about those negatives that made it easy for him to scan? ( He said: I found that the easiest of my old negatives to scan and print were those that I had to print on #3 paper back in my darkroom days.)
What exactly would I learn from a contact sheet that the negative itself couldn't tell me?So make a contact sheet of some sort, you learn a lot from it if you want to learn.
What exactly would I learn from a contact sheet that the negative itself couldn't tell me?
If anything, a contact introduces lots of variables that are not present on the negative, such as contrast and exposure. I might reject a image from a contact on the basis of being too dense, when in reality it's the contact sheet that is poorly exposed.
For any film that is more than one image on a contact, the exposure and contrast always has to be a compromise between all the images and correct for none. Same with contrast.
With experience knowing how a negative will print, I have found no need for contact sheets, especially as the format size increases. The one exception is where a contact print is the final print, such as with 8x10 or larger formats.
A contact sheet that is properly exposed will have the film rebate printing black. If your negative exposures are too varied to be able to judge from that, maybe you should be more diligent with your metering and exposure.
Contact print frames are not expensive. Then you need a room that you can make dark, three or four trays and the chemicals to develop the prints.
Don't forget a white light, a timer and a safelight. And a way to wash the prints.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?