What happens if the post-its fall off? Don’t they still make grease pencils?
My take is the darker line at the top is the crop, well above the buildings. The second straight line with a squiggly arrow looks like a gradated burn of the sky.I agree that the squiggles seem like a dodging/burning plan. The odd one to me is that it looks like they may try a crop that places top of frame just at the top of the buildings at left/right corner?
As to the numbers? anyone's guess. seconds, f-stops, filter grades, who knows.
I also don't do this particular style of "print map," but I write a decent number of notes on the back. If I'm going to run an edition I try and get it done in the same session as the "master" for the set.
It's the amount to dodge and burn the image in seconds (decrease exposure or increase exposure in the printing stage) to balance the picture, a basic darkroom technique but also applicable to digital techniques as well. So if the sky is too light you burn the area (add exposure), if a face is too dark you dodge the area (lighten the exposure).
Like here of Don McCullin's darkroom notations
View attachment 376008
Am I reading that correctly?
If you apply common sense, what do you think the answer is to your question?
I didn't ask if it made sense, I asked if I was reading it correctlyWho am I to argue with Sir Don?
Perhaps the photographer didn't print hemzelf, just like Henry Cartier-Bresson...
From here: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/back-to-the-lab/Guide print marked with Pablo Inirio's notes for darkroom printing. © Leonard Freed / Magnum Photos
Perhaps, these indications are divisions of the initial exposure time of the print
That's obvious, especially in this case. See the image credit:
From here: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/back-to-the-lab/
Yes, they could have been fractional times...if not for the divide by zero error that would result from trying to burn an edge for 5/0 parts of the total exposure....!
5/0: perhaps a writing error (who doesn't), the operator and the photographer built up a certain bond (must be), they understand each other and see thru...
5/0: perhaps a writing error (who doesn't)
The figures are all X/0 or X/5
I don't have a darkroom. So this is all magic to me and looks like a lot of detailed work. How do you keep burning and dodging from covering more than the area that you want to be affected? For example, in the area in between the people in this example? Wouldn't the dodging or burning also change the edges of the people?
Are the processes similar for those who use dodging and burning tools in Lightroom or other digital editing programs to what you do in the darkroom?
I won't even speculate on what the numbers do mean, it would be futile.
However, burning with grade 5 here is not only illogical, it won't do anything. You would need to burn with the lowest grade filter to build any density.
View attachment 376076
When was that photo and/or print made before or after the widely use of multicontrast by professionals?
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?