• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Magnum Darkroom notes, any could explain?

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.
 
When I make up something similar, I find it easier to make such notations on an accompanying photocopy of a work print rather than the workprint itself.
Mostly because it is easier to write on the photocopy paper - even colour code some of the notes sometimes.
Admittedly, that is only practical due to the printer/scanner/copier I have at hand.
 
What happens if the post-its fall off? Don’t they still make grease pencils?
 
BrianShaw said:
What happens if the post-its fall off? Don’t they still make grease pencils?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who Brian is responding to, but if it is me, my notes are written directly on the photocopied image - front and sometimes back.
@250swb posted an image of post-it notes on a Don McCullin print. About that approach, I'd wonder the same things.
 
i take a picture of the test print and final print. Have a word doc template i use to jot down all the things I did. Including dev, times etc.
Ill have 1 pic for each dodge/burn or whatever i do etc in the same order I did them depending on how crazy I got. I have a folder on my laptop with all the prints ive done so far. A bit easier to find, make notes, mark up. For me..
 
Post #2 mostly.

Apparently my telepathy isn’t working very good today, nor am I letting anyone read my mind. I’ll improve…
 
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.

When I intend to print an edition, I usually wait at least a day to check for dry-down effects, plus be able to give the print a good going over for any fine-tuning for the edition--pretty much limited to 5 plus 2 APs. I do try to keep scrupulous notes on exposures (split-grade), dodging and burning. Rather than write on the print, I might make a thumbnail sketch if the dodging/burning is complex. And occasionally, there is a custom mask or burning tool I will have made that I will file away with the negative.
 

I don't know how large this print is, but a 16 minute base exposure time and a 12 minute burn-in time on the rim of the helmet? Am I reading that correctly?
 
The notation belongs to Pablo Iniro, who was the darkroom printer for Magnum for I-don't-know-how-long. When making prints, it would be important to make them all the same. You can see numerous examples of some very well-known photos here. There's an interview with him here.

@cliveh It's important to remember the guy was producing prints that had to look as expected, from many, many different negatives. So keeping a record of what he did to get the print to look how it did was necessary.
 
It's fascinating to watch people making silly mountains out of obvious molehills.

This is a graphical representation of why a metronome/ timer that beeps every second is an indispensable darkroom tool, that's all.
 
logan2z said:
I didn't ask if it made sense, I asked if I was reading it correctly Who am I to argue with Sir Don?
Click to expand...

I imagine a post-it note was useful if a better idea came along later. As for the times indicated lets assume shells and bullets were flying about, and for whatever reason the exposure isn't perfect. I don't think Sir Don McCullin has been a member of Photrio so would never experienced the group argument about the benefits of Sunny 16 while under fire, although he may quite rightly have considered the Viet Cong a more amiable bunch.
 
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?
 
Perhaps the photographer didn't do the printing himself, just like Henry Cartier-Bresson...
Perhaps these notes on the (test-) print are instructions for the darkroom operator.
Perhaps, these indications are divisions of the initial exposure time of the print: let's say that the time was 10 sec., then +1/5 would result in a burning in of 2 sec. (=total of 12sec. for that particular area).
This is just some guessing...

BTW, Post-it is an efficient darkroom tool and use them a lot, but very differently, just for memory...
 
Last edited:
Philippe-Georges said:
Perhaps the photographer didn't print hemzelf, just like Henry Cartier-Bresson...
Click to expand...

That's obvious, especially in this case. See the image credit:
Guide print marked with Pablo Inirio's notes for darkroom printing. © Leonard Freed / Magnum Photos
Click to expand...
From here: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/back-to-the-lab/

Philippe-Georges said:
Perhaps, these indications are divisions of the initial exposure time of the print
Click to expand...

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...
 
Philippe-Georges said:
5/0: perhaps a writing error (who doesn't)
Click to expand...

Twice in a row, while other writing errors are scratched out? Doesn't sound like it. Also coincidental that it's either "/0" or "/5". The logical explanation is burning on high vs. low contrast - grade 0 & grade 5.

Pieter12 said:
The figures are all X/0 or X/5
Click to expand...

Yup. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Guess what it probably is!
 
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.

 

Alan,
It would make sense to start a separate thread devoted to these questions. Basically a beginner's guide to darkroom manipulations like burning and dodging.
The digital burning and tools got their names from, and were designed to emulate the darkroom tools that were there before.
 
ic-racer said:
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
Click to expand...

When was that photo and/or print made before or after the widely use of multicontrast by professionals?
 
Add to that that Pablo Inirio (the Magnum printer whose notations have been widely publicized--they are even for sale) seems to be printing from 4x5 dupe negatives. (Look, Ma--no gloves!)

 
On the Magnumphotos site, the photo is mentioned as taken in 1958 in Florence (by Leonard Freed 1929-2006), no date for the darkroom print.

This photo was published in the book: 'Leonard Freed: Photographs 1954-1990' in 1991, only, we can wonder when the original darkroom printing was done, as Pieter12 pointed out the 4"x5" dupe negative...

But still, many questions are staying open, but must they absolutely be answered, as this fine photo is already so interesting to look at?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register