Masters

[c6h6o3]

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.

It takes me on average 4 to 6 sheets of paper to achieve the best print obtainable from a given negative. After the prints are dry I live with them for a while and if they stand the test of a little time I either insert them into my body of work or discard them along with the negative. I've got a bunch I'm ready to chuck now. Hopefully the next printing session will yield more keepers.

 

[Art Vandalay]

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 agree with you on that one. Especially with todays films it doesn't really take that much time and often a simple, but careful, incident light meter reading and good knowledge of the particular film in a particular camera is more than adequate. My hour quotation was a bit of an exaggeration, although I'm pretty slow setting up my 4x5 That's probably why it's been turned into a sculpture in my living room - perhaps it's time to dust it off and give it another chance....oh wait, I don't have a 4x5 enlarger at my disposal any more, what a drag.

I also used to roll my own 35 in smaller rolls to avoid the different conditions. Now when I shoot either 35 or MF I try to shoot the entire roll in the same settings. Film is cheap and I never make it a limiting factor.

 

[Art Vandalay]

(Nature photos) They can also be just as contrived as most people photos and PJs I have seen so far

Can be??? Just teasing

 

[Art Vandalay]

After the prints are dry I live with them for a while and if they stand the test of a little time I either insert them into my body of work or discard them along with the negative. I've got a bunch I'm ready to chuck now.

I'm surprised. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I had chucked away some negs - even crappy negs. Why do that? People change over time and the test criteria change along with them. Oh well, different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[lee]

I used to shoot a back up neg but have decided that "industrial accidents" in my darkroom are really rare and my exposure and development routines generally fit the guidelines I have laid out when first making the exposure. So, I do have a few accidents now and then but now I have more film to look at while proofing. My aim is to make the best possible neg I can and make the simplist print I can that is the most expressive. I have see a lot of Jorge's work in person and I think he works in this manner that I have just described.

lee\c

 

[Art Vandalay]

My aim is to make the best possible neg I can and make the simplist print I can that is the most expressive.

I see this the word 'expressive' when describing prints, used quite often in these pages and with other fine art groups. I must admit that I'm not totally sure what it means in this context. Does it mean how well it expresses your feelings at the time? Or is it something to do with technical standards? I'm honestly curious.

 

[Ed Sukach]

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.

I'm not going to grind this to a pulp ... I have other things to do, like search for a life.

I would suggest, strongly, that you read what I have written more thoroughly ... your interpretation is FAR from the meaning I had intended. When did I say that something - anything - was "not worth pursuing"? Did I not use the words, "noble endeavor"?

Briefly, I am not a great adherent to the "scientific principle - there are many things in this world that DO exist, even though we cannot explain or define them. To say that I have not reached an understanding of something does NOT mean that I have denied its existence. Not even a little bit. I say that that the "perfect negative" does not exist.
You say there IS a "perfect" negative and you have made many of them. I won't argue the point, only comment that MY concept of a "perfect" negative must be far more severe than yours. I have seen *VERY* good negatives in terms of shadow/ highlight detail, absence of grain, tonality, freedom from optical distortion, "sharp focus" and a host of other attributes ... but NONE have been perfect, in every attribute conceivable.

You say *I* don't know what a "perfect negative" is ... well, then, tell me here. I stand ready for the enlightenment that a producer of many perfect negatives can provide.

It is interesting that you emphasize the importance of technical excellence so strongly, and then chide APUG for being lacking in aesthetic discussion. This could easily bring up another question: How DOES one discuss aesthetics? Certainly the discussion cannot be "logical", for aesthetics, by its very definition, is beyond logic ... applying to "perception" instead.
A great deal HAS been written here ... about our perceptions of each others' work... about the emotional responses we experience as the result of exposure to that work. What more would you like to see?

I'm still trying to digest the idea that if I confess to "not knowing" something, I "demean" it.

Try this as the "seed" for a discussion:

"There is NO "good" or "bad" art. Art simply IS.
I've able to identify three categories, as far as I'm concerned:

1. The works that "entrance me" -- that permeate my consciousness and dreams - that obsess me. I can see these even when I close my eyes.

2. The "Fine Work" .. technically well done ... "Pretty" or emotionally moving. Many would be the "stuff" I would hang on my Living Room wall.

3. The work that I do not understand. Another artist has found this to resonate with his/her being, although it doesn't "work" as far as I, in my scheme of things, am concerned. Deserving of further study on my part to find out why we see things differently.

Good enough?

 

[mikewhi]

Answer, a one print (to get an 'acceptable' print).

This is because I determined the minimum exposure needed to create maximum black thru FB+Fog. Since I have calibrated all my materials and use the Zone System, all other densities in the negative are placed in relation to each other so that a Zone III density prints as a Zone III tone in the print. I have tested my paper and I know the maximum density that it will print so I make sure that when I develop my negative no density greater than that is created. So, I have negatives that have a range of densities that fall with the range of the paper and I know the minimum time needed to print maximum black.

Wi that, it's a simple matter to expose the negative and I get an 'acceptible' print on the first try. It often is also the final print because the negatives were created with a certain print in mind when I exposed and then processed the film. I pre-visualize when I photograph so I have a very good idea what the print will look like because I see it in my head when I take the shot.

Some prints will need dodging and burning, bleaching for local contrast, etc. I have no problem doing that when necessary.

In my personal gallery there is only one print that required any dodging\burning and this was made before I started with the ZS. All other images are straight prints, including the night shots.

-Mike

 

[Jorge]

You know Jay, as the arrogant person that you labeled me, I like the way you also include insults and then cry foul. But more amusing to me is seeing someone arguing against obtaining the best posible negative in favor of doing things by the seat of the pants, I think it is bizarre to see people arguing in favor of doing things half way....but hey, it is your photography and as you have said many times, it only has to please you. I know one thing, I dont have to test 50 different formulations of TEA in search of the magic bullet. As I said, you enjoy working endless hours in your darkroom, that is your taste, I dont see the point of it, but to each its own.....

 

[Jorge]

Dont be sorry for me, I also enjoy darkroom work, I just dont enjoy fighting with substandard negatives. As I said, to each it's own.....

 

[Francesco]

the majority are landscape/architecture/scenic photographers, who sometimes discount the validity of alternative approaches, and tend to emphasise the importance of craft to the exclusion of every other consideration.

This is complete nonsense, at least with regards to the people I know who employ scientific testing procedures. EVERYONE I know who does BTZS, absolutely every single one of them employs BTZS because it gets them to where ALL of us want to go - i.e. the fine print. Confidence in their technique liberates their mind and opens their eyes even more to their surroundings. You have your way to get there, I have mine, and others have theirs. Nowhere in this thread is it even remotely implied that the fine print is of secondary importance. The original question relates to how important craft is to "The Masters". I stated that EW in his Daybooks wrote that he makes negatives that print well by the second or third sheet of paper, and he is quite proud of this achievement. He also talks a lot about seeing and vision and art. It is clear he is a craftsman. It is also clear that this is ancialliary to the ultimate goal of making fine art. I am sure if a thread about art was started, as Ed suggested, you will find the same people in this thread who you think value craft above all else participating with even more gusto and convictions.

 

[c6h6o3]

I'm surprised. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing I had chucked away some negs - even crappy negs. Why do that?

Because they're crappy. I can't get really glowing prints out of them (too thin) and after looking at the proofs for a couple of weeks, I don't really like the pictures either. I tried something. It didn't work. Time to move on to something which does.

The more crap I leave in my body of work, guess what? The crappier my body of work becomes.

 

[Art Vandalay]

Because they're crappy. I can't get really glowing prints out of them (too thin) and after looking at the proofs for a couple of weeks, I don't really like the pictures either. I tried something. It didn't work. Time to move on to something which does.

The more crap I leave in my body of work, guess what? The crappier my body of work becomes.

Okay. It's because they're not 'really glowing'. Maybe just plain glowing

 

[mikewhi]

I'm sure everyon'e going to miss me....but I'm off to Death Vallye and the Redwoods to photograph so I'll be away for a while doing the real thing and getting a life<g>.

One past point, and that is Francesco's quote:

"I stated that EW in his Daybooks wrote that he makes negatives that print well by the second or third sheet of paper, and he is quite proud of this achievement. He also talks a lot about seeing and vision and art. It is clear he is a craftsman. It is also clear that this is ancialliary to the ultimate goal of making fine art. "

Cratmanship was ancilliary to EW because he had perfected it. When he went to make an image, craft and technique didn't slow him down. If for to have perfected it, it must, at one one point in his career, been of primary importance, even more important than the image itself. He went to school just to learn technique. Once he mastered it, then the image became of prime importance. I can't quote exact passages now, but I know there are several places in the DB's where he describes the process of making an image and how the craft part was easily handled, exposure calculated, etc. and how he was freed from these concerns to concentrate on the image itself. EW didn't demean or denegrate craft, quite the oppoiste. He was very happy that he had it mastered and he was incontrol of it, not the other way around. I'm sure I'm not the only, but I've held an original EW negative (and print) in my hands and it sure looked nice to me (even though it wasn't done by time and temp<g>).

I'm off to make some more peftect negatives now<g>.

-Mike

 

[Ed Sukach]

I've been waiting for the description of a "Perfect Negative". So far, I haven't seen one.
For a time in my life, I worked out of a Metrology Lab... and our main concern was determining "deviation from perfect". There are theoretical concepts assuming perfection - of necessity, but they are just that - theoretical. Perfection in any physical thing does not exist - to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty. Isaac Asimov, in his book, "One, Two, Three - Infinity", calculated the probability that all the atoms in a glass of water would fuse spontaneously, creating a fusion explosion. Possible - but highly improbable... According to Asimov, the chances of that happening are equivalent to one occurence in the entire universe, during the entire time the universe has existed. I'll claim the same odds for "A Perfect Negative".

This would be my definition of a "perfect negative":

Base fog - NONE! The Base itself would be absolutely transparent... not attenuating or reflecting *any* light, under any condition. That would satisfy the definition of "invisible."

Dmin -- .00000...0 LogD.
Dmax -- Infinite - total opacity.
Grain - NONE... not even a little bit.

And ...
An infinite range of tonal values - each directly linear to the quantity of light falling on the emulsion ... throughout the entire spectrum of color. Really ... to achieve perfection, it would have to be a color negative.
The base itself would have to be infinitely thin, to avoid any scattering of light in the enlarger, or in contact printing.

ANY devation from the above (and probably, if I gave it more thought, there could be a lot of other considerations) would result in a "less than perfect" negative.

I get the impresion that some assume "perfect" to mean "A negative that presents few problems in printing". That to me is a "loose" definition ... and implies "fudging" of some kind, to work around the limitations of the imperfect photographic materials we have today.

Now ... I am not, nor do I claim to be the final authority here. I am stating what "perfection means to me" ... If anyone has a different view, - feel free to express it --- I'd be most interested.

 

[Francesco]

Ed, I do not think you will have many subjects that want to be rendered in your definition of a perfect negative. I define a perfect negative as one that prints with relative ease the subject as PRE-visualised at the time of exposure by the photographer. A high contrast scene, a low contrast scene, a full range of tones scene, etc. are depicted in the negative and will print as the photographer had in mind with a minimum of fuss. NOW if there is some fuss in printing, if there is no time for previsualisation, instead it becomes a question of post-visualisation, or darkroom work is called for, then the negative is no longer that which is perfect. What is perfect is the print, or rather the darkroom skills of the photographer. Both methods are valid, both methods yields the same result in my view. The difference is only in what you prefer doing more of.

 

[Francesco]

Talk about nonsense. How exactly does one PRE-visualize the subject at the time of exposure? Post-visualize? "Perfect" negatives? Orwellian photography 101? Get a grip. A negative is a means to an end, and a good one facilitates that end. Save your artspeak for your artist's statement.

I gave my opinion POINDEXTER! And now you have given yours. Nevertheless I will do as you say and "get a grip" on condition that you "get a life".

 

[Jorge]

Yep, Ansel Adams was the buffoon who decided it was a good thing to previsualize as useful technique...what did he know??.....

 

[Jorge]

Yes, Jorge, Ansel Adams was a literary giant, with a positively presidential command of the language.

Ah, oops, sorry, please tell me where I can find one of your books to compare...

 

[Jorge]

Uh huh, just what I thought.....

 

[Ed Sukach]

I define a perfect negative as one that prints with relative ease the subject as PRE-visualised at the time of exposure by the photographer.

I have *NO* problem with that mode of operation. Whether consciously using the "Zone System", and "previsualiztion" or some form of it; or doing much the same thing UNCONSCIOUSLY, is *fine* in my book. Everyone is free - with especial emphasis on "FREE" - to operate in whatever mode they choose.

I took exception to the absolutes, and the inference that a "perfect negative" (whatever the hell that is) was absolutely necessary ... that if one did not reach "perfection" in producing the negative, all the rest was some sort of "cheating". Add to that the comment that because I would allow a level of manipulation in the darkroom, I was some sort of dolt - that I did not know what a perfect negative was -, and that I was "demeaning" the activity we call photography - and you might have an idea of why I responded as I did.

The knowledge and skills involved in learning the "technicals" are a good thing, in GENERAL. However, one does not have to be a "Master" (whatever the hell that means - I'll assume extreme proficiency) to be able to produce Fine Art - that is, work that enraptures the experiencer... no more than absolute adherence to the "Rules of Composition" is an absolute requirement.

Previsualization is - in GENERAL - a good thing. What do you think of my "Abstraction #27" - where there was very little previsualization, and a LOT of subconscious involvement? I have, and will continue to exhibit this work... and, seriously, I don't think I've cheated - not even a little bit.

 

[lee]

is it a full moon? or is it just the crazies time to play? Jeeze!

lee\c

 

[roteague]

The knowledge and skills involved in learning the "technicals" are a good thing, in GENERAL. However, one does not have to be a "Master" (whatever the hell that means - I'll assume extreme proficiency) to be able to produce Fine Art - that is, work that enraptures the experiencer... no more than absolute adherence to the "Rules of Composition" is an absolute requirement.

I think sometimes we get too caught up in this quest for "excellence". While excellence is not a bad thing - it is why we all do traditional photography, rather than digital - carried to an extreme is is counter productive. In my case, I did very little with my photography for years because of this; I compared my work to Muench, Adams, Dykinga, etc and found it didn't measure. Now, I realize that I look to them for inspiration, but do the best I am capable of doing, and remember that there will always be critics, who are not necessarily the "experts".

 

[Ed Sukach]

is it a full moon? or is it just the crazies time to play? Jeeze!
lee\c

That's an interesting comment. Just what here is "Crazy"?

 

[Jorge]

Yeah, you got me good, Jorge. Yours is a cutting wit.

we are even then, since I am stunned by your literary presence.