Lith Printing Buzz

Ladies and Germs (as Grouch Marx used to say) I need some help here. I am massively puzzled by the buzz over the lith printing fad here. I am not much impressed by what I see. I would be better impressed by good sepia toned prints. If it is the brownish tone that is being looked for, let me say that one will not find that in Kodak Toner. Good toner must be made for one's self. The Ansco formulas are very available and if one properly bleaches the prints and washes them, a really beautiful sepia tone may be achieved.

My main complaint about the lith prints is that they seem to have had their edge knocked off. They don't appear sharp and I have a good monitor that displays sharp prints as sharp in all other print types. What am I missing here? Perhaps the process is just fun and I can accept that. Sepia is often not so much fun but the results are worth the suffering.

Sorry, and I may be a lone voice here, but I don't like 'em much...

Logan

An example of what sets lith apart from toning would be an image like (there was a url link here which no longer exists) by Thomas Bottcher.

This is just one of many great examples of lith on APUG.

Regards,

Ash

Here is another

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

That was Milton Berle!

PE

I think a lot of what you see is the harsher side of lith. There are many who can use it to add subtle color or tone to an image and past that you would be hard pressed to see a reduction of sharpness.

When the lith process is used to create mood or voice to an image it is a beautiful thing, but as with infrared and the typical tree shot (I am as guilty as anyone here) it can be over used or over done.

I find the larger the negative I use in doing lith the sharper it becomes, however much of the end look is based on paper, developer and other process details.

It may not suit you, this becomes an detail of taste and sensibilities. I am sure if you were to see examples of lith masterfully done, you might see more than you now know.

Lith itself has been around for some time and was made popular in the mid 90's by a book by Tim Rudman. Tim is a good friend and I have been very lucky to see many of his images. (I actually had to twist his arm! Since when would you have to do that for a photographer to show his work? Tim's images are delicate and beautiful. The lith process has accentuated or lifted the images. The process has not been done simply to be done.

I am sure if you investigate the process a bit more you will see it isn't all single mid tones and harsh contrast.

Best of luck in your discovery,

My main complaint about the lith prints is that they seem to have had their edge knocked off. They don't appear sharp and I have a good monitor that displays sharp prints as sharp in all other print types.

Kind of like this image of yours? (It's not lith, but seems to have the edge knocked off)

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

Or...maybe that's not what you mean. Some examples might be useful.

A lot of lith printers use lith for images made with old cameras/soft lenses/infrared/etc...it can all affect the final print -- as does the whole nature of lith printing itself. I love lith, but I don't think all images work in lith. That being said, I have plenty of prints that have a real 3D quality as a result of the lith process, compared to the regular silver gelatin print. But...that effect doesn't show up well in scans of the prints at all (at least, not with my scanning abilities). A lot is lost in the scanning, such as the original colours or even sharpness, depending on the type of paper used.

Have you tried it yourself, or seen lith prints in person? That makes a difference. But...it's fine if you don't like lith, a lot of people don't. I just wouldn't judge this whole process entirely by what appears on your monitor.

Logan, each to their own is my motto. However, to defend the lith process in simple terms, its really just another process or tool in the shed that can be exploited to deliver results that not every continuous tone image can convey well. The contrast, the grittiness, and tonal colors can all be used in a more graphic way than a standard processed image. While I don't think it works for every image, it does have a valid place and the images are very unique. One other aspect is the many folks like the uniqueness of a lith print. The variables in this process are staggering, and each successive print through the developer can look different to the previous version. These variables can be controlled and minimized to fair degree by following certain steps that I won't go into here, but to compare lith alongside a sepia toned image is not apples to apples. Also, the process of 'infectious development' enhances a grainy/gritty response on continuous tone paper. That's the whole point! Then add to that the plethora of image colors that can be made by adjusting and tweaking the process and then subsequent toning after that, opens up a whole other set of variables that toning of regular prints CANNOT match. Can lith be overdone... Sure it can, but if you look at the 'lith' work of folks like Tim Rudman, Anton Corbin, Eddie Ephraums, Wolfgang Moersch, Marianne Priest, Thomas Bertilsson among others. You will see the scope that this process brings.

A fad? Ouch! The only reason I print anything straight is to decide what to spend time lithing!

It's hardly a fad either, bearing in mind that it's been around since the 80's. Anton Corbijn' work especially. I first read about the process when Silverprint (UK) magazine called Ag had some articales written about it in the very early 90's. Eddie Ephraums, wrote the article and explained the processes and chemistry involved.

Shhhhh.. don't talk too loud about Lith. It is my secret weapon when I start trying to book shows here in Memphis. Not too many people have heard of or seen lith before.

Since you are voicing your opinion so loudly, I'd like to retort with a similar question. Why do photographs have to be sharp?

And, it is possible to make lith prints sharp. However, it's usually a conscious choice of those that practice it to not make them sharp. Not much different from bromoil, really.

You of course have every right to like sharp photographs. But think about the above question for a while. And, what do you think of pinhole photography? Not very sharp either, but it's yet another tool with unique possibilities, same as lith printing.

To me, tonality is infinitely more important than sharpness. Sometimes sharpness is cool, sometimes perhaps required. I usually decide that at the time of exposing the film.

Andrew Moxom mentioned my name with some pretty fancy ones, and although I'm flattered, I don't count myself among the lith masters. I just enjoy what I do with it, and for the record, Andrew is a very accomplished lith printer also.

What it all comes down to is a choice of how we want our prints to look. Lith printing offers some contrast control and unique tonality opportunities that just are not possible with silver gelatin printing or any other method.

Good on you for trying to understand why people practice it. I hope it will widen your horizon and understanding of those that burn with passion for the craft.

- Thomas

whlogan said:

Ladies and Germs (as Grouch Marx used to say) I need some help here. I am massively puzzled by the buzz over the lith printing fad here. I am not much impressed by what I see. I would be better impressed by good sepia toned prints. If it is the brownish tone that is being looked for, let me say that one will not find that in Kodak Toner. Good toner must be made for one's self. The Ansco formulas are very available and if one properly bleaches the prints and washes them, a really beautiful sepia tone may be achieved.

My main complaint about the lith prints is that they seem to have had their edge knocked off. They don't appear sharp and I have a good monitor that displays sharp prints as sharp in all other print types. What am I missing here? Perhaps the process is just fun and I can accept that. Sepia is often not so much fun but the results are worth the suffering.

Sorry, and I may be a lone voice here, but I don't like 'em much...

Logan

Click to expand...

Logan If you have made up your mind about Lith( i.e it is not worthwhile) then ignore this suggestion but if not then buy Tim Rudman's book on Lith. The secondhand Amazon sales section seem to have copies for quite low prices. There have been quite a few prints on the gallery worth examining as well.

MikeT I think has several from his visit to the South of France. One in particular of what I think is his wife and daughter in rural sunny France near a field of crops captures a feeling for the area that a normal B&W print cannot.

By definition maybe 90% or more of prints are better in B&W, otherwise almost all of us would tone, lith etc all the time and normal B&W prints would be the exception, but those that are right for such treatment cannot be matched by normal B&W printing.

pentaxuser

Lith colors are endless and not limited to brown.
Texture of the print can be harsh or smooth.
Lith prints love toning.
Possibilities are infinite.
It's a question of choice and taste.

No reason to be sorry if you don't like it.
No reason to post this kind of thread either.

You may try first and then give your feeling about it.
Then a thread would be appropriate.

For now I just learned that you like Groucho Marx and that you use Sepia toner.
Looking at lith print on a monitor screen means nothing.

G.

Why?

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Why do photographs have to be sharp? - Thomas

Click to expand...

Why? So that photographs may be distinguished
from sponge paintings and other methods of
representation which lack detail. I'm with
the OP. Blurry, lacking in detail prints
do photography no credit.

Besides, I've spent thousands on top quality
optics and think it should show. Highly detailed
representations are capable; an attribute to be
flaunted. A Lith print that does is OK. Dan

"Blurry, lacking in detail prints
do photography no credit."

Says who?

I couldn't disagree more. I sometimes think certain photographs are better when they are not sharp.

To each their own. But saying that photographs have to be sharp, just because that's how they have to be to do photography credit and because you spent bazillions of dollars on lenses that are perfectly sharp are in my opinion not arguments that are true, because you limit yourself by what is 'proper' and how much money you spent on your equipment.

The first attached picture is not sharp anywhere, but in my mind needs to be this way to work. Took it with the sharpest lens I've ever owned, the Mamiya Sekor 150mm C lens for a Mamiya 645.
The second picture is as sharp as a tack where it needs to be and is a lith print with the same lens and camera.

I'm just one guy questioning the obvious of making photographs sharp, but you are far from convincing me with your arguments. Where would art be today if 'rules' were not constantly broken by the curious? Would such a thing as abstract art exist?

dancqu said:

Why? So that photographs may be distinguished
from sponge paintings and other methods of
representation which lack detail. I'm with
the OP. Blurry, lacking in detail prints
do photography no credit.

Besides, I've spent thousands on top quality
optics and think it should show. Highly detailed
representations are capable; an attribute to be
flaunted. A Lith print that does is OK. Dan

Click to expand...

I, the Devil's Advocate

thebanana said:

"Blurry, lacking in detail prints do photography
no credit." Says who?

Click to expand...

I, the Devil's Advocate. I do though like to keep in
mind the equipments capability. The image if ever
needed is on the film in all it's detail. Dan

I'm not a lith printer, though some of my coffee prints seem to have a lot of lith's qualities. For me, if we are to discuss images which do photography "merit", it is not so much what form or medium a photograph is, but what it does. More to the point, what it expresses. No, I take that back... what it evokes. Many of the most powerful images I have seen are lith prints. (Many are not.) It is the image that matters, not the process.

For what it's worth, I've seen Thomas' prints. They can be as sharp as you'd ever want them to be.

Someday I'll try some lith of my own.

Cheers,

I don't consider my lith prints to be not sharp. I have always considered them to be as sharp as my other prints... But that's just the way I print mine. Its all in what you're after as the end result
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Are these not sharp?

Andrew Moxom said:

Logan, each to their own is my motto. However, to defend the lith process in simple terms, its really just another process or tool in the shed that can be exploited to deliver results that not every continuous tone image can convey well. The contrast, the grittiness, and tonal colors can all be used in a more graphic way than a standard processed image. While I don't think it works for every image, it does have a valid place and the images are very unique. One other aspect is the many folks like the uniqueness of a lith print. The variables in this process are staggering, and each successive print through the developer can look different to the previous version. These variables can be controlled and minimized to fair degree by following certain steps that I won't go into here, but to compare lith alongside a sepia toned image is not apples to apples. Also, the process of 'infectious development' enhances a grainy/gritty response on continuous tone paper. That's the whole point! Then add to that the plethora of image colors that can be made by adjusting and tweaking the process and then subsequent toning after that, opens up a whole other set of variables that toning of regular prints CANNOT match. Can lith be overdone... Sure it can, but if you look at the 'lith' work of folks like Tim Rudman, Anton Corbin, Eddie Ephraums, Wolfgang Moersch, Marianne Priest, Thomas Bertilsson among others. You will see the scope that this process brings.

Click to expand...

I think this is an excellent explanation. If you look at other fine art media, such as oil, watercolor, even charcoal and pencil, they are often not sharp or highly detailed. I think this is what makes them special. It is the impression they produce in your mind that is important. Don't stand to close to a Monet or it will look like just a bunch of brush strokes. But, stand back, and it is a thing of beauty.
Just IMHO.

Toffle said it all.

dancqu said:

Why? So that photographs may be distinguished
from sponge paintings and other methods of
representation which lack detail. I'm with
the OP. Blurry, lacking in detail prints
do photography no credit.

Besides, I've spent thousands on top quality
optics and think it should show. Highly detailed
representations are capable; an attribute to be
flaunted. A Lith print that does is OK. Dan

Click to expand...

To each his own. One of my most popular images is a pinhole lith print that only suggests the subject. This surprised me at the time, but it also taught me something. I think to limit photography to one vision of what a good photograph is can be pretty limiting. If you vision requires high quality optics and ultra large format film, that is great. If my vision involves a cheap box camera with a pinhole, that is fine too. I think if I really wanted the ultimately sharp image, I'd shoot 8x10 and contact print.

Anyway, back to the original question. I have a couple of pictures below of the same image. One is lith with no additional toning and one is a straight selenium toned print on the same paper. Which one is sharper? I'm not sure. the lith is grainer and has a different tonal distribution. Most people prefer the lith, but many prefer the straight print. These prints show how you can use lith printing to get a different effect than is possible with just toning. I used a 35mm camera with an 85mm f1.8 lens wide open so I suppose none of it is ultimately sharp. That said, I've enlarged it up to about 12x20 and it holds up nicely.

The OP's question has certainly yielded a significant number of responses. If you don't like lith then that's fine by me, but I wouldn't judge any analogue print based on what you see on the screen. My biggest challenge when I post to the APUG gallery is giving some idea of the tones in my lith prints - I still haven't really managed it.

I think it's worth understanding the lith process before consigning it to your mental bin. Many people make use of the ability to create strong, grainy shadows when printing liths and these are the most obvious thing you see when viewing a scan on your screen. What is much more difficult to see is the incredibly delicate highlights and the almost skinlike gradations of tone from the upper mids onwards. These tones can be toned to give tri-splits or beautiful transitions from orange to aubergine. I split sepia tone the majority of my B&W work and you simply can't get close to this delicacy and colouration with normal B&W.

Once you better understand the process you'll also understand that you can create very sharp prints with very similar contrast to a normal B&W print that has been split-toned in sepia - it's all possible if you know how to control the process. I actually carried out this experiment recently. I sold a B&W print that had been split-toned in sepia. It was one of my favourite prints and it was really difficult to judge the exposure to get the delicate highlights but solid shadows that I needed. Rather than re-print it using standard techniques I decided to try and re-create it as accurately as possible using lith. The result? Not an exact copy but when I showed it to a friend he didn't believe that it was a lith. I'd achieved the same delicate, lightly sepia looking highlights and solid shadows without recourse to toning. The original print is here, I don't have a scan of the lith version: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As regards sharpness? I find that some prints can work in lith AND in normal B&W chemicals. I've still got the neg and I can treat it in so many different ways. Is there really anything wrong with exploring multiple interpretations of an image? Would it surprise you to know that the majority of viewers generally prefer the multi-coloured (not sepia or brown) lith version with its delicate highlights, gritty shadows and, dare I say it, slight lack of detail? Surely that's the only measure that really matters?

Carry on enjoying your analogue photography and don't worry whether you like everything out there, but I'd urge you to experiment, it's great fun!

Barry

dancqu said:

I, the Devil's Advocate. I do though like to keep in
mind the equipments capability. The image if ever
needed is on the film in all it's detail. Dan

Click to expand...

Ah yes...the image will be there in detail...but the feeling?

These two different schools have existed since the inception of photography, we won't settle it here or even at a duel at dawn. The point is more about what consitutes an aesthetic...

You have your own and I and others have ours. Just don't buy or make a Lith print and you will be happy, and we will be delighted with what it does for us.

What exactly was the point of the OP? "I don't like lith", and I think "toning" is just as good, is like someone saying they don't like apple crumble, and they prefer the smoother pastry of apple pie. Fine...but I think your taste would improve if you tried the apple cumble before you commented...:rolleyes:

I think you must explore all printing possibilities with a negative/subject you really love. It's hard to have vision of something you have never seen...EC