Minimizing wasted paper when printing large

RedSun,

I am NOT new. Well, compared to some of the folks, I'm new but I've been in my own darkroom for 3+ years. I can make identical prints in any size if the definition of "identical" is by looking at the shadow and see one shade and looking at the highlight and see another shade. That means same density and same contrast.

What I cannot seem to figure out is, when I change the size, the over-all impression of the print changes for these technically identical prints. If I put those identical prints side by side and look, they look different. Based on my eyes, they are not identical. I really don't care that much that prints are identical technically. I do care and want prints that are the same. (visually)

In the past, I sort of figured out, as I go larger, I have to increase contrast a bit and reduce exposure a bit. This is a fairly dark print. I am asking, if anyone has any experience in making the print LOOK the same and which direction changes will generally have to take place.

By the way, I don't mind spending time in my darkroom. It's never a such thing as "too much work" provided I get what I want. I once spent 3 months on just one print. I finally got what I wanted. Yay.

tkamiya said:

What I cannot seem to figure out is, when I change the size, the over-all impression of the print changes for these technically identical prints. If I put those identical prints side by side and look, they look different. Based on my eyes, they are not identical. I really don't care that much that prints are identical technically. I do care and want prints that are the same. (visually)

Click to expand...

I think you have expressed the nature of the problem very well. In my own experience of printing, and as someone who looks at others' "identical" prints in different sizes, I believe those never feel identical if the size difference is significant, unless the viewing distance is also adjusted a lot. I can make an 11 x 14" that looks pretty much like a 12 x 16", but an 8 x 10" will usually feel compressed, subjectively sharper, and more contrasty than an identical (in terms of matched exposure and contrast) 12 x 16". I suspect this is due to the perception of larger single-tone areas, viewing distances, and the angular viewing experience that a print's size influences, ie. how much one feels surrounded by it, as opposed to looking straight at it. Further, contrast and the feeling of sharpness are intertwined, and I suspect that our mind is more sensitive to minute differences in resolution than our eye would lead us to believe. I think we have all seen how difficult it can be to judge low sharpness vs low contrast, where the difference between them is a close one.

Unfortunately, I belong to the group that seems to burn paper in getting the print fine-tuned. Indeed, most of the waste comes from improvements to dodging and burning, but there are small changes in contrast involved in the process. I usually end up with a print that satisfies me after an average of 7 sheets, during the initial session, all in the target size. Often, a follow-up session, or two, are needed to improve it further. On a rare occasion I needed 15 sheets, and I have a few prints where the 3rd one was right.

I have not succeeded translating the feel of a smaller print to a larger one without having to rework it. I have used RH meters, and other types of darkroom automation, which can be very helpful, but the best results come from the most basic, technology-free approach, like that described by Doremus and Michael, in this thread.

To make things easier, I now try to print everything in one size, as 12 x 12 or 11 x 14, occasionally as 12 x 16.

Well, this is very subjective and it is more of a taste. Just in general, when you enlarge more, you present more details, even from the dark areas where little details can be seen before. To human eyes, this may seems less contrasting and less density. To compensate for this, you may have to slightly increase both contrast and density. But again, you just fool your own eyes since you know that two identical prints can look different when presented with two different sizes.

I'm heading into my darkroom. See you guys later in few hours.....

I basically abandoned my previous printing chart and started anew with 11x14 (my current project)

Took 8x10s and cut them up. (same brand, same type, same paper) Got 3 test strips each and tested key areas. Once satisfied with parts, printed 11x14. Printed 3 of them with minor adjustments each. They are drying now.

I still cannot avoid needing to print full size prints and re-evaluate and re-adjust.

I'll have to wait until these are completely dry and redo them if necessary.

It's dry and I don't like 'em! That's it! I'm quitting photography!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It's so frustrating when I actually get to print what I wanted and get it almost exactly how I wanted it - only to find out it really doesn't work.

Are you factoring in dry down?

He wanted it 100% perfect!

On small prints you are dealing with macro tonal relationships. As the print size increases you start to deal with micro tonal relationships. (This is in relation to the negative, not the print.) Remember, you are enlarging the space between the grain. In a small print the space is imperceptible. As the print gets larger the space between the grain starts to overwhelm the grain. This is why you need to print "lighter and with more contrast".

To understand this, make a small print then elevate your enlarger all the way up and print a detail of the image. Compare the structure of the two and you should see what I am talking about.

I think one problem you are having is that you want the larger print to match perfectly to the smaller print, but it will never happen. If you want to make big prints, then just make the big prints. No one except you will ever hold the small print next to the big print!

The other thing I would suggest is that you evaluate prints at viewing distances. Holding a 20" print in your hand will disappoint you from the start if you are not used to it..

Hope that helps. I hope it makes sense too. It is late as I write this.

This is a very informative thread and nice to see so much discussion with the intent to share knowledge and help out.
I like some of the suggestions, but what I have been doing is simply making test strips and notes. Even though I do make some notes, it seems to resonate that I'm going to start from scratch regardless. But at least they give me some data that I would not otherwise have to begin the process again.
I also feel that one can become somewhat accustom to a particular paper, I for instance find the new Art 300 somewhat slower than Ilford's regular fibre paper. I also like their warm-tone and really like Ilfobrom Galerie. And then there is the toning to consider, but that's another thread I suppose.

PhotoBob said:

I like some of the suggestions, but what I have been doing is simply making test strips and notes. Even though I do make some notes, it seems to resonate that I'm going to start from scratch regardless. But at least they give me some data that I would not otherwise have to begin the process again.

Click to expand...

Like PhotoBob, I have also found that notes are helpful, especially a drawing of a burning and dodging plan, which I prefer to annotate in terms of f/stop (or percentage) exposure and grade adjustments. It works very well session-to-session for me, when working in the same format. It can help in changing formats, too, but it is not sufficient in that case. It is not quite like starting from scratch for me, but perhaps 30% of the work, when making a significant print size change.

The complaint was pretty non-specific. Sometimes big prints just don't look as good as small ones, even when perfect. Sometimes they look better. Sometimes you just need more practice.

nworth said:

The complaint was pretty non-specific. Sometimes big prints just don't look as good as small ones, even when perfect. Sometimes they look better. Sometimes you just need more practice.

Click to expand...

Funny, I started dividing my negative storage by intended print size because of this exact issue. Sometimes I'll proof some images and say "not a good picture" only to find out it needed to be printed large, and then some the opposite, where I start large and move smaller.

It sounds like your technique is improving, tk, but perhaps a re-visioning of the images themselves is in order.

I spoke to a very accomplished darkroom and PT/PD printer here in town and one gem of advice: when you're in the taking stage of making a photograph, imagine the size you wish it to be printed and your framing, filters, etc will be easier to sort out. There isn't one composition fits all sizes approach. So now when I look at a scene and am selecting my gear I think "what size will this be printed?" and hopefully adjust accordingly.

I think that's just it. For this particular image, larger size may just not work. I'm going to try smaller and see how it will work. THAT of course means starting all over again.

I actually wanted this print even larger. I guess that's not going to happen now. (16x20 paper is arriving today)

eddie said:

Are you factoring in dry down?

Click to expand...

Yes. I used Ansel Adam method. (microwave drying) Each piece was evaluated completely dry. I know it's pretty bad for the microwave oven itself but its an old one.

Now printed to 10 3/4 by 7 1/4. Strangely looks better.... waiting for it to dry.

tkamiya said:

Are there any tricks and tips on minimizing waste on large (and expensive) paper?

Click to expand...

From the end of my article, Making A Fine Art Print:


Additionally, the required contrast my go up with enlargement depending upon light source and/or paper.

I have found test strips and more than once if necessary, keeping notes, and a little experience have helped me. It is important to get to know the characteristics of the paper you use, e.g., Ilfobrom Galerie reacts somewhat differently from Art 300.
But even with notes, I still think working with a paper over time can be very helpful.

that's what i do!