Masters

doughowk said:

Vision without technical abilities is an un-realized image.

Click to expand...

I, too, really like this quote. It says a lot in very few words, doesn't it.
I wonder if there is not a corrolary...

"Technical abilities without vision should be an un-realized image"? Perhaps someone could offer something better to add after the word 'vision'...

-Mike

mikewhi said:

I, too, really like this quote. It says a lot in very few words, doesn't it.
I wonder if there is not a corrolary...

"Technical abilities without vision should be an un-realized image"? Perhaps someone could offer something better to add after the word 'vision'...

-Mike

Click to expand...

How 'bout -- "Technical abilities without vision falls well within the defined parameters of photography."

pho·tog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-tgr-f)
n.
The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.
The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
A body of photographs.

>>So who determines whom is a "master" of any craft or fine art, or whatever we choose to call it?...(it's just a matter of semantics.)

It's a matter of concensus arrived at over time, I'd say. Critics\curators, etc can try to declare someone a 'master' but the title won't hold if the work doesn't hold up over a lifetime of one's work. And the title of master in photography definitely refers to the level of imagery AND technical skills - the craft part.

>>but what difference does it make if the negative was easy or hard to print? No one looks at the negative! They look at the print! So I guess I'd have to say it's a moot point as to whether the 'master' photographer spent 10 minutes or 5 hours making the print.

It makes all the difference in the world. If your exposure was too short and you have lost shadow detail, then no darkroom technique will print what isn't in the negative. If there is some detail there, then you end up doing some or a lot of dodging. Wouldn't it be much better to have exposed the negative correctly in the first place so that the shadow areas print perfectly in a straight print? In my opinon, that is an easy answer - yes! That's why I learned the Zone System in the first place.

If you overdeveloped the negative and the highlights (e.g. a cloud) are too dense and fall too high on the shoulder of the film, you have to burn thru that density. But when you do, you'll lose tonal qualities and contrast that would have been there had you developed the negative correctly. Again, it would be much better to have the densities of the highlights be in correct correlation to the values you want them to have in the final print. Burning in is no substitute for a correct negative. Burning in a cloud that has the correct densities but requires some tweaking is a different matter altogether - that's not what I'm talking about here.

There is no doubt that there are many great images out there that are printed from difficult negatives, but I'm quite sure if you asked the 'master' if they prefer to a more technically perfect negative to print from to produce the same image, I'm quite sure they would prefer to! For instance, Paul Caponigro's Running White Deer is a great image, but the negative is very difficult to print from. He is a great printer, but even he does not like to print from it. Given that they fetch $5000 for a print, you'd think he'd love to print from it<g>. As for the famous Moonrise by AA, even AA laments that it wasn't a technically better negative, but he certainly was able to make great prints from it. Even so, I hope noone would argue that AA wouldn't have prefered more time to expose the negative and make a better negative from the scene.

If technique isn't important, then why are there web-sites, books, videos, magazines, etc. devoted to nothing but technique? In fact, APUG is mostly about technique. Even though there are galleries, have you read the comments? Most are "I really like\dislike this". Not very insightful comments about the imagery. There are a lot of comments about technical issues, but not too deep. If imagery is so important, why isn't the gallery feedback more focused on helping members improve their level of imagery? If some readers on APUG are image-focused and 'technique be damned' oriented, then get into the gallery areas and try to make useful comments about images and don't be afraid of insulting someone - so long as the comments are instructive.

Start with me if you want to, I can take it. One APUG member told me I had too much negative space in one of my images - that was pointed and useful. I've had 'masters' tell me they hated my work. I learned from that. I didn't get better by my mentors telling me black grass and blank white clouds were ok because they fell within the acceptible bounds of the definition of photography. I was told grass isn't black, clouds aren't formless and shapeless - get it fixed!

One final point, and here I will try to correctly quote a 'master', Duane Michals. Early on in my photographic experience I read something from him to the effect "If on the path you meet Buddha, kill him!". I gave up master worship a long time ago, but I did suffer thru it early on. I would attend workshops by them and find out that what they had that made them a 'master' could not be taught. The best I could do was refine technique and then go out and use that to make my own images. And technique I could learn on my own or thru technical workshops led by non-masters.

-Mike

JD Morgan said:

How 'bout -- "Technical abilities without vision falls well within the defined parameters of photography."

pho·tog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-tgr-f)
n.
The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces.
The art, practice, or occupation of taking and printing photographs.
A body of photographs.

Click to expand...

The dictionary definition of photography is useless. Go look up the definition of wine. Does it say anything about quality? Is all wine, because it conforms to the definition of wine, good wine? Does it say how wine SHOULD be made?

Technically good images without vision is like bland wine. I don't know about you, but I prefer to drink good wine. And I certainly won't dring bad wine and say 'well it must be ok because it falls within the defined parameters of wine as stated in the dictionary.

-Mike

JD Morgan said:

Imagine for a moment the snickers this thread evokes from those with books filled with perfectly composed and exposed chromes. :rolleyes:

The perfect negative might be a positive

Click to expand...

Great point<VBG>. Talk about sneaking one in! But I do note that you refer to 'perfectly exposed' chromes. When I talk about 'technically perfect' b&w negatives, people pull out sticks and start beating me. Why do you get off so easy? Why isn't a weak, overexposed chrome ok?

Thanks.

-Mike

In a column David Vestal said something very true "there is no virtue in hard photography." Whether this is a print that is hell to print or a negative that takes you 8 hours "waiting for the light" or required that you walk 25 miles uphill both ways. People looking at the print, could not care less how much one suffered to make it.

I am surprised at the animosity Mike has experienced by saying that it is preferable to have the best possible negative and that it is something to strive for. I would rather see a print from a photographer with vision who is also technically competent, than one with vision but cannot make a print to save his/her life. In many cases I have seen prints where the photographer has a very interesting subject and vision but the print is so bad that it actually destroys or diminishes the content of the image.

IMO it is preferable to have a "perfect" negative with great content and be free to explore the possibilities this negative offers than one with great content but that is so bad that one has to fight it just to get an adequate print. At least this has been my personal experience and the reason why I anted to learn to control my materials.....

mikewhi said:

Great point<VBG>. Talk about sneaking one in! But I do note that you refer to 'perfectly exposed' chromes. When I talk about 'technically perfect' b&w negatives, people pull out sticks and start beating me. Why do you get off so easy? Why isn't a weak, overexposed chrome ok?

Thanks.

-Mike

Click to expand...

Because it IS the image and doesn't possess the latitude for error that all the 'artists' have Manipulate exposure for effect with glamour, fashion, etc. fine. Too much manipulation of exposure except for going a bit under for more color saturation in nature -- flowers, birds, etc. is not generally a very good thing if you are hoping to get it published.

WYSIWYG... One shot-one chrome... Have trash can, will travel...

Chromes have an intriguing sort of curve architecture...

In my opinion this is all just an exercise in verbal masturbation. Obviously there is no definitive answer, just as we can't agree on what is art.

To you someone may be a master but to others he is a hack.

There are "master printers" who never do their own photography but print the work of others. Are they not a "master" because they manipulate a negative to get their "vision" or the "vision" of the photographer on the paper irregardles of how well it was exposed.

As for the concept of chromes. A chrome is a often the finished product (not always) therefore it should be placed in the same regard as a print, in terms of a finished work. As others have stated that the quality of the negative has no real bearing on the definition of whether a print is called a "master work".

In the end we just sort of come to a nonverbal consensus that certain people are "masters" of their medium and even though we can disagree occasionally. It is a term that often means little to the recipient, because usually they are dead.

We have argued the whole concept of "art" vs "craft" to death and now we can place "master" proudly with these other two as loaded words that can't convey the same thing to everyone.


Michael McBlane

I am surprised at the animosity Mike has experienced by saying that it is preferable to have the best possible negative and that it is something to strive for.

Click to expand...

Um, that ain't exactly what was said. LOL. What he said was:

In my experience the more darkroom 'tricks' one knows implies that the photographer routinely produces negatives of, shall we say, widely varying technical quality. They often expose in a haphazard way and work in the darkroom later to pull a good print from the negative. Others have no idea what they wan t in the final print when they expose, make exposures that will provide some information in the negative and then 'post-visualize' in the darkroom. To pull good images from these negatives can require all sorts of manipulaations (including nose oil). I know very few darkroom tricks and techniques.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite the same thing, do you? I'll let this thread go after this, I promise, but I find it odd that anyone would wonder why Mike's post would stir up some animosity.

CJ out.

I dont know Cheryl, perhaps it was not put in the best way, but I am not sure the assumptions he made are incorrect. In my case I know that when I have to resort to bleaching or intesifying a negative, it was in most cases a result of an error I made in the field. Of course, there are the few instances where no matter how careful you where you would still have a negative that requires some salvaging.

In essence, although perhaps he was not right to assume that most people doing extensive darkroom work do so because they were careless exposing their negatives, I have to think that if someone got offended by his remark he probably touched a sore spot....I can only speak for myself and I know what he wrote did not apply to me, so it did not matter.

It's a little like a writer boasting that he never edits or revises his manuscripts. Who can argue with that kind of precision? See Dick run.....

Click to expand...

I would say is more like a writer boasting about editing to improve the content, instead of correcting spelling and grammatical errors.....

The idea of "one shot, one negative" may have originated from Dead Link Removed and he got some beauties, but he never boasted about his work as far as I know. His archive is here.

mikewhi said:

If technique isn't important, then why are there web-sites, books, videos, magazines, etc. devoted to nothing but technique? In fact, APUG is mostly about technique. Even though there are galleries, have you read the comments? Most are "I really like\dislike this". Not very insightful comments about the imagery. There are a lot of comments about technical issues, but not too deep. If imagery is so important, why isn't the gallery feedback more focused on helping members improve their level of imagery? If some readers on APUG are image-focused and 'technique be damned' oriented, then get into the gallery areas and try to make useful comments about images and don't be afraid of insulting someone - so long as the comments are instructive.

Click to expand...

This is something that I wonder about quite a lot. I've only made a few comments on the critique gallery and some were more about the imagery rather than the technique. I rarely see others doing the same. Part of the reason is something that happens to all sites and that is people become friends. It's difficult to be critical to someone who just gave you a thumbs up themselves. Complimenting technique is one of the easiest ways to be nice without having to face the obvious fact that the imagery was lacking. It doesn't really do anybody any favours but it makes others feel good about themselves. Improving technically is something that most can do because it requires following a 'recipe' - to a certain degree. Having a skill for imagery is something that may not be accessible to everyone and in fact I think it's quite rare. However I also believe that, with time you can at least learn what sucks in the way of imagery or by pushing yourself you may unlock something inside of you that at least resembles a style. Besides, how can you really tell what the end result looks like when it's presented in low resolution by people who, by their nature, abhor the process that will put their images online! I'm sure most, if not all the scans on here do not do their subject justice, so commenting on the quality of the print is a bit ridiculous.

mikewhi said:

It makes all the difference in the world. If your exposure was too short and you have lost shadow detail, then no darkroom technique will print what isn't in the negative. If there is some detail there, then you end up doing some or a lot of dodging. Wouldn't it be much better to have exposed the negative correctly in the first place so that the shadow areas print perfectly in a straight print? In my opinon, that is an easy answer - yes! That's why I learned the Zone System in the first place.

Click to expand...

This may be true in the fine art world, or to those who are interested in fine art but I'm not sure it's such a big deal in general. For some by not having a preset degree of shadow detail you have failed but if you look at what images have stood the test of time I'm not sure this really even registers. How many people have even seen the original prints of the most popular images? Most see reproductions in books and magazines. The great photographs of time weren't selected because of their tonal range but because their content has deep meaning for people. That's why they tend to be PJ or art shots rather than fine art - they are about us, not tonal range.

mikewhi said:

Start with me if you want to, I can take it. One APUG member told me I had too much negative space in one of my images - that was pointed and useful. I've had 'masters' tell me they hated my work. I learned from that. I didn't get better by my mentors telling me black grass and blank white clouds were ok because they fell within the acceptible bounds of the definition of photography. I was told grass isn't black, clouds aren't formless and shapeless - get it fixed!

Click to expand...

I've looked through your gallery and I think you have a good eye for subtle composition and shapes. Your scans aren't that great so I can't tell if you are hitting all of your zones correctly, but I don't really care. I realize there is a limit to what I will see on my monitor and good printing will add to what I see. But it's not the most important aspect to your images if you ask me. What's the point of having perfect technique if the image is static, boring and unimaginative. Good photography goes way past the retinal surface and into the brain itself.

Art Vandalay said:

This may be true in the fine art world, or to those who are interested in fine art but I'm not sure it's such a big deal in general. For some by not having a preset degree of shadow detail you have failed but if you look at what images have stood the test of time I'm not sure this really even registers. How many people have even seen the original prints of the most popular images? Most see reproductions in books and magazines. The great photographs of time weren't selected because of their tonal range but because their content has deep meaning for people. That's why they tend to be PJ or art shots rather than fine art - they are about us, not tonal range.

Click to expand...

Interesting, because I think it points out how differently we see things. I would say just about the opposite of every sentente, I think. I don't believe in a 'pre-set' degree of shadow detail. An image should has as much shadow detail as the photographer wants. My technique is that if I want a certain amount in the shadows, then I get that amount in the negative. I don't want to burn\dodge until it's right. I love Brett Weston's work and I have a number of original prints at home to view. Brett placed many shadow areas on Zone II - he printed a real black quite often. I would expect that for PJ'ers shadow detail would be very important - I know it was for Eugene Smith and I think the was the great PJ of all time, a man whose work became art, not just reportage.

"The great photographs of time weren't selected because of their tonal range but because their content has deep meaning for people." OK, AA fans are probably not going to like this, but I think the great appeal of his work was his tonal range and technique. I mean, he was not a great artist in my opinion and I don't see how many of his images could have deep meaning for anyone. I see beauitful landscapes when I look at his work (original prints, too), but I don't get deep meaning. Moonrise is a beauitful image and I love looking at, but it has no meaning for me. So I'm not sure I'd agree that deep meaning is the yardstick by which great images are measured. I can see that for someone that values PJ work, this would definitely be true. WES images have great meaning to me (e.g. Minimata bath image). Also, I have always considered the great images of time to be fine art images, not PJ or 'art'. Interesting difference....

Take care.

-Mike

We are shifting between absolutes and degrees of "preference." Is technical "Mastery" (I'll assume "mastery" as an extraordinarily high level of accomplishment) absolutely necessary for a work to be logically described as a photograph? - No. Is the same absolute mastery necessary for a work to be logically labelled as "Fine Art", - or simply "art" ... No.

Is it preferable to have a negative the is "easy to print"?. Yes, I would think so.

Is a perfect (note the application of the absolute) negative necessary, or does such a negative even exist? No, it is NOT necessary, and No, I don't think one exists. At least, I have never seen one - and to tell the truth, I have no idea of what parameters would constitute perfection.

No one is entirely dismissing the value of technical excellence. It, and possibly the quest for it, is a noble endeavor ... but like the definition of "art" or the meaning of life, or defining the characteristics of God - I doubt that we will ever reach the point where we can say that we have finally, and irrefutably meet success.

Is APUG -- I've forgotten the degree -- I was about to write "pre..." - make that dominantly technical? NO, that is not the way I see it - at all. We have a LOT of "technical discussions" ..... but there are those who are primarily interested in Aesthetics. Read my "critical comments. If you see that I am "bashing" others "for their own good" as far as technical flaws, I can assure you that it is unintentional.
More than that ... I don't "bash" at all. I firmly believe that the emerging photographer/ artist faces one really difficult problem ... being able to recognize and articulate his/her internal vision, and allowing their "style" to surface. That style can only develop through the acceptance of it by the "stylist".
The alternative is to smack these neophytes around, until they realize what is "right" ... but who decides what is "right"? Isn't this type of critique really directed to supporting the ego of the critic? As the old saying goes: "If someone says `This is for your own good' - it isn't."

What about a survey ... I wonder how many here ... and we have some *very* talented and accomplished Photographers ... can honestly say that they owe their success solely, or overwhelmingly, to the effects of the intense criticism of their technical expertise?

Once upon a time, I listened to every critique ... I still try to ... and spent a lot of effort trying to follow the corrections in ALL. I don't do that any more ... and when I stopped following all the "constructive" advice, lemming-like. my style, which was there all the time - began to emerge.

By the way ... I have been supremely fortunate in meeting with, and schmoozing with, a number of the "Great Lights" of photography.
I can honestly say that not *one* would ever claim the title of "Master".
I can remember a cocktail party, when a gushing ... uh ...matron (??) approached one of them: "Oh Mr. X -- I think you are the worlds greatest photographer!!" His answer (after a moment or two of thought, and some embarassed foot shuffling), "Well, I do photography. I guess I get a good one, once in a while."

mikewhi said:

An image should has as much shadow detail as the photographer wants.

Click to expand...

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I don't see it as the overriding issue in photography in general - you can't always spend an hour on each photo and if you are using roll film you have to settle for some work in the darkroom, or not take photos that depend on shadow detail carrying it. I guess we probably come from opposite ends of the spectrum because I started out thinking that AA was the ultimate but once I got more into the street photographers and documentary colour work I realized that it was the content for me. Naturally I like it when the image itself is pretty but most of what I see comes from books, so it's often the quality of the book printing that decides the physical aspects.

What I meant by deep meaning, is how the image affects us on a basic level. This applies to everyone, no matter if they photograph or not. I recently looked through a fantastic book on people who live by the Mississipi in the northern states and there was one woman who was holding up a framed snapshot of a cloud that had the general shape of an angel. I assume she, or someone close to her took the photo. It was a snapshot and everything about it was cheap, including the frame. But it obviously had deep significance for her. This is the aspect of photography that I love the most.

jdef said:

Yes Jorge, that's what I meant. Every writer edits and revises to improve the work as a whole, many, many times before handing it over to an editor who does the same before handing it over to a proofreader who checks for spelling and grammatical errors, before handing it over for publishing. The writer's notes, drafts and revisions are rarely published with the final manuscript, just as the negative is rarely displayed alongside the print.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what kind of editing is done is what I meant? if you dont know how to spell, or write coherent sentences, writing a good novel is going to be far harder than if you do. Same with a negative, and as Vestal said, there is no virtue, nor it is a photograph better just because it was hard to print. But hey, if spending endless hours in your dark room working on a print rocks your boat, have at it. The same way you scoff at those of us who beleive all you should need is one good negative to make an expressive print, I am amused by those who beleive one should spend countless hours in a DR fighting with a lousy negative. I have done both, and preffer the one good negative.

Jorge said:

I am amused by those who beleive one should spend countless hours in a DR fighting with a lousy negative

Click to expand...

I must've missed that one. Who are those people who believe that?

Art Vandalay said:

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I don't see it as the overriding issue in photography in general - you can't always spend an hour on each photo and if you are using roll film you have to settle for some work in the darkroom, or not take photos that depend on shadow detail carrying it.

Click to expand...

I would just add that setting an exposure and determining negative development time at the time when the image is made is not a tedious nor time consuming process in LF work. I know you didn't mean an hour literally, but I have a lot of experience with roll film and LF work to know the difference. I actually spend less time on these calculations and considerations than when I used to shoot 35mm a lot. With 35mm, I always hated getting into a roll and then changing locations (like going indoors) and having a toally different lighting situation calling for different development times than the shots I may have just taken outdoors. For which do I develop the entire roll? I used to use 12 exposure rolls and just sacrifice film by changing early, but it was always a hassle. LF liberates me from that. I use a MF camera now and I have seperate backs for plus, normal and minus development. With LF, I take a reading of the areas that are the important dark areas and place them on Zones II, III or maybe IV, then I meter the highlights to determine what BTZS people call the SBR to determine my development time. I may make some adjustments to take local contrast into consideration (such as moving the toe, of the film higher up on the film's curve) but that's pretty rare. The calculations can be done in a few moments only, just as fast as I used to with 35mm, but then I took care then, too.

Art Vandalay said:

What I meant by deep meaning, is how the image affects us on a basic level. This applies to everyone, no matter if they photograph or not. I recently looked through a fantastic book on people who live by the Mississipi in the northern states and there was one woman who was holding up a framed snapshot of a cloud that had the general shape of an angel. I assume she, or someone close to her took the photo. It was a snapshot and everything about it was cheap, including the frame. But it obviously had deep significance for her. This is the aspect of photography that I love the most.

Click to expand...

I think I understood what you meant by deep meaning. In her case, the photo simply served as a symbol of what actually had deep meaning for her - it could as well have been grain in wood that had the shape of an angel and she would have treasured that, I'd think.

Images do affect me on a very deep level, one that I can't even articulate. And here I'm speaking as a viewer, not as a photographer. In the most recent years, it has been mostly abstract work that does this. I am less interested in literal representations than I used to be, but I still like beauitful work even if it isn't abstract. I suppose abstracts must represent something to me in the same manner as the cloud\angel.

-Mike

Well, IMO an easier print to make allows you more freedom to explore what the negative has to offer, and in fact it is certainly not a constraint but a liberating of your expression. So, the reverse of Vestal's quote IMO does not hold true, but as I said, you beleive suffering is good for your soul and art, knock yourself out.

Ed Sukach said:

Is a perfect (note the application of the absolute) negative necessary, or does such a negative even exist? No, it is NOT necessary, and No, I don't think one exists. At least, I have never seen one - and to tell the truth, I have no idea of what parameters would constitute perfection.

Click to expand...

It may not be necessary, but it is better than the alternative as you acknowledged. They do exist, I have many in my darkroom. If you have no idea what would constitute one, how can you say they don't exist? How would you recognize one if you saw it if you can't define it? You might put some thought into what a perfect negative is before dismissing the concept so easily.

Ed Sukach said:

No one is entirely dismissing the value of technical excellence. It, and possibly the quest for it, is a noble endeavor ... but like the definition of "art" or the meaning of life, or defining the characteristics of God - I doubt that we will ever reach the point where we can say that we have finally, and irrefutably meet success.

Click to expand...

By speaking of technical excellence as some Holy Grail, inherently unachievable and thus not worth pursuing, you are dismissing it. Actually, it's not such a hard thing but it does take effort and work (maybe that's what deters some). Many have done it. You demean them by accusing them of trying to achieve a technical perfection that you can't even define, as though they are a bunch of irrational idealists.

Ed Sukach said:

Is APUG -- I've forgotten the degree -- I was about to write "pre..." - make that dominantly technical? NO, that is not the way I see it - at all. We have a LOT of "technical discussions" ..... but there are those who are primarily interested in Aesthetics.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of posts on APUG are technical in nature, not 'aesthetic'. While I don't doubt that almost everyone is interested in 'aesthetics', why are there so few threads on the subject? It's simply because the technical topics are safer territory. I've seen it in discussion groups long before the internet even was widely used, back in CompuServe and Prodigy days for instance and ever since. Tech stuff is easier to discuss because it mostly deals with facts that can be proven and analyzed. But when you venture into 'aesthetics', then suddenly you're into the arena of opinion and if anyone dares to make definitive statements and not pepper their post with 'IMHO', they will not likely be dealt with kindly on this board. I'm surprised any threads on the topic last very long at all, and I wish there were more of them. Also, while I'm sure there are many interested in aesthetics, not many people actually have that much to say on the topic. While a thread may attract a lot of readers, I'd imagine that only a small percent would actually post a reply.

jdef said:

Jorge, my point was that the best writers, the masters, edit and revise until they are satisfied that they have what they want, and feel no pressure to get it right with the first draft. They understand that the creative process is evolutionary. Your presumption that photographers who don't subscribe to the "one shot, one negative" nonsense make lousy negatives is simply arrogant and demeaning. If placing those kinds of meaningless and arbitrary restrictions on your work rocks your boat, have at it. The Vestal quote is true in reverse as well; neither is a print better because it was easy to make. By the way, I enjoy spending hours in my darkroom working on prints. I think most of us have worked with both good and bad negatives at some point, because the reality is that both are easy to make.

Click to expand...

The concept of 'one shot, one negative' simply means that the photographer is in sufficient command of the technical aspects that he\she can calculate the correct exposure and get it right the first time. Because of this, there is no need to expose a second negative for the purpose of getting the correct exposure. How is getting the exposure correct the first time, 'meaningless and arbitrary'?! How would you describe someone who brackets all over the place due to lack of expertise? An artistic genius?
>>'By the way, I enjoy spending hours in my darkroom working on prints.'
On the same print?
>>'I think most of us have worked with both good and bad negatives at some point, because the reality is that both are easy to make.'
Once you're in control of technique, good negatives are easy to make and bad ones are hard to make. I mean, how hard is it to take a few meter readings, set aperture and shutter speed and and release the shutter? When you're in control, it goes smoothly and it's over quickly. When you're unsure and are fumbling around then things get difficult. Expertise makes things easy.
>>"The Vestal quote is true in reverse as well; neither is a print better because it was easy to make."
This is one of those sayings that sounds clever, but doesn't work in reality.
In my experience, if a print is easy to make, that means I had to employ fewer tricks, techniques, etc. to make the print, thus reducing the number of steps to completion and reducing the number of potential errors that could be made. It it's easy to make then I must have a negative that's well made, too.
A simpler to make print has a much better chance of being better if for no other reason than there are fewer potential errors.

-Mike

Sounds like this thread needs a survey: on average how much sheets of paper do you use before achieving an acceptable print? a. 1 to 3, b. 4 to 6, c. 7 to 12 or d. greater than 12. I do not believe anyone is saying that a one shot one neg ethic (at least for LF photography) yields a fine print each time. What it yields is an EASY to print neg each time. If one enjoys labouring over a print for over an hour because the negative demands it then I think that is great. I love printing but I hate being in the darkroom for too long. My objective is to liberate myself from this drudgery so that I can spend more time exposing film outdoors. I also want to liberate myself from ever having to be daunted by exposure and development issues so that I can completely devote my time to vision and composition issues.

On another note, I find it amusing that a lot of people think that saying one shot-one negative is obnoxious or snobbish or geeky or tecky (i.e. not artistic). One shot-one neg is only about one thing - spending time taking pics instead of spending time in the dark.

Again on another note, I believe that nature photos can be just as engaging on an emotional level as PJ shots or people photos. They can also be just as contrived as most people photos and PJs I have seen so far. But this issue is not what this thread is about. One shot-one neg issue is about the ability to create negatives that print with ease every time. I think this is a nice goal to strive for.