Printing.. Do you keep it simple?

As already said, complexity must be put on negative in order to avoid troubles during printing. It means knowledge about exposure and negative development. Although not always possible it is a good goal to be maintained as standard procedure.

I know what I say doesn’t have much weight as I am reentering the darkroom after about 15 years being away from it but here is what I do for what it is worth.

I first try to nail down the negative during exposure and development to make thing easier in the darkroom. Then I go to print.

First run a test strip and get the time down. Then I after I get the time I will run a full sheet at about grade 3. Once I study the print a bit I will then decide if I want to increase the contrast or flatten it out.

Then I make the minor changes in time and grade if need be and print a full sheet with no modification and let the print dry if the first print above it not what I am looking for. Once dry I look over the print and see what needs modified if any ( dodge/burn ). One more test on a full sheet with the appropriate modifications and then the final print with about 8-10% less time to cover dry down.

So I may go through 2-4 sheets depending…

Again I have been out of the darkroom for a very long time and I am sure I will modify my print making technique but for now this is what I am doing. As far as tools I use either my hands or cardboard cut to shape.

That is about it for whatever it is worth....

Kev

I try and keep it simple when I can, because I'm generally too cack-handed to do anything too clever!

I do split-grade quite a bit, but only because it is actually easier to place the tones precisely that way than by playing hit and miss with the Magenta dial. I dodge and burn when I have to, but try and keep it to a minimum.

As I reflected more I realized that my approach is a little more complicated than I initially said. I make the best print I can and then live with it for a few days. That extra time living with it helps me to see all the things that I missed during the initial printing. Then I go back and make additional prints.

djklmnop said:

Personally, I think people do what they are capable of. Ansel Adams did more simply because he understood his materials and how they interacted like the back of his hands.
Andy

Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. It depends on what look you're seeking. Yes, we should have the tools in our arsenal to make good prints but that doesn't mean that we should, or need to, use them. We use the tools that we need to get the look we desire. I'm certainly capable of extreme dodging and burning, as are most, but that's not what I want my prints to look like. Although I like Ansel Adams' work I'd take a Edward Weston print over his (or Brett Weston's) any day of the week. Just personal preference. There's also a wonderful photographer whose vision I love but his use of bleach ruins his prints for me. Again, personal preference (who am I to tell a master photographer how to work!) but it's better to get it right in the negative than to wrestle with it in the darkroom or post-darkroom. And knowing your materials well yields good negatives that are easier to print.

Cheers,

James

James M. Bleifus said:

I make the best print I can and then live with it for a few days. That extra time living with it helps me to see all the things that I missed during the initial printing. Then I go back and make additional prints

Click to expand...

I think that this "Living with it for a while" step is very important and under emphasized. When we print we are working so close to the print and concentrating on individual details and elements that it becomes difficult to see the print as a whole rather than as a group of separate areas that pose their own printing challenges.
After putting it on the wall and living with it for a while, viewing it as a whole from normal distances, you start to separate the image itself from the printing process and judge how well it fulfills your original vision and whether it has the visual and emotional impact that you saw in the original scene. It is also extremely helpful to get the first impressions of peers who have the photographic vocabulary and experience to offer suggestions for improvement by asking for feedback in the Critique section of the Gallery.

Sean; I try to keep it simple. Over the years I often re-print some of my ' better' negatives, usually without any refering back to the previous prints; The resulting re-prints are always DIFFERENT in my interpretations of the original scene, none the less each reprint is OK when viewed without seeing the others. Yes I like to ' Keep it simple ' too. Cheers Barrie

Keep it simple is the consensus and certainly is the way to go. if you know what you are doing and make reasonably consistent negatives then printing should not be an ordeal, but should be fun.

I know you will be using Azo paper. Right there, that makes printing a whole lot simpler--because of the long scale of the paper only about 20% of the dodging and burning is needed than would be needed were the same negative printed on any of the enlarging papers. No masking or bleaching should ever be needed--nothing complicated like that. Just some dodging and burning and use of the water bath.

To make printing really simple, use a metronome to time the exposure. Start the exposure and end ot by putting a card over the paper. Never use a timer to turn the light on and off. Use of a metronome allows visual contact with the paper 100% of the time. Going from one dodge or burn to another can easily be done without missing a beat in between--saving immense amounts of time--and enabling you to do more subtle dodging and burning than you would otherwise do. This is because the light is on the whole time and you don't have to stop and relocate the areas needed to be burned.

Nothing is more simple than printing on Azo. Those who enlarge should know that the enlarging light head that will enable you to enlarge onto Azo will be available by about the end of January.

Living with the print before deciding on the final print: I find that is not necessary. Perhaps this is because of the following procedure: after the print is fixed for 30 seconds it is removed from the fixer and placed on a piece of glass--a viewing board propped against the wall behind the sink. The light has long ago been adjusted to give the illumination that will match average viewing conditions. Then I step back about 6-8 feet to evaluate the print. At this distance I look at the print as a unity and can readily see where additional dodging and burning (balancing the rhythms) of the print may be needed. This is sometimes difficult to do when viewing the print closely. (Can't see the forest for the trees syndrome.)

Good luck with your printing, Sean.

Michael A. Smith said:

Living with the print before deciding on the final print: I find that is not necessary. Perhaps this is because of the following procedure: after the print is fixed for 30 seconds it is removed from the fixer and placed on a piece of glass--a viewing board propped against the wall behind the sink. The light has long ago been adjusted to give the illumination that will match average viewing conditions. Then I step back about 6-8 feet to evaluate the print. At this distance I look at the print as a unity and can readily see where additional dodging and burning (balancing the rhythms) of the print may be needed. This is sometimes difficult to do when viewing the print closely. (Can't see the forest for the trees syndrome.)

Click to expand...

Michael, we've talked a little bit about this before and I sure wish I had that skill. Instead I find that I need to live with the print for a few weeks to catch the minute and simple details of making the print better. A little extra burn in this corner, dodge this area for 10 more seconds, a little more contrast. Doesn't seem to be an issue of illumination but perception. 'Course, I had the same problem in college. I had to live with a book for a week before I could write about it.

Cheers,

James

As stated here by others, printing should be kept simple with as little gadetry as possible. All variables should be kept as simple as possible and controllable. I personally prefer a digital timer and foot switch with a beeper. It allows me to concentrate on the print and listen while I go through my dodge and burns and flashing. That is about as high tech as I go. The beeper acts like a metronome but I prefer the breaks to position my tools over the paper. I also use a cold light head and graded papers.

My proceedure is basically to select a negative, dust it, place it in the enlarger, select the print size, compose, focus, test print/prints (as many as are needed) and so on. The most effort goes into determining proper contrast which can be effected by more then just paper grade. Development times and developers can give you fractions between grades. Dodging and burning can also get complicated, depending on what you are trying to achieve.

Still in the end, it is what you as the photographer bring out of the darkroom for others to look at is all that really matters. All after thoughts should remain in the darkroom or better yet, in the garbage can. When the print is hung on the wall, questions of how the image was created, all techniques should not come to mind. No questions asked. What should come to the viewers mind is the visual impact, is the image successful. Does it say exactly what you want it to say, does the image have a life of its own.

Yes it can be done. Complete control can be achieved. But it does take lots of effort to gain that experience and control.

Lots of good responses here. I too, keep it simple, but as my experience has grown taking photographs, my prints have come out looking better. So, in the end, it comes down to getting it right on the negative to make getting out the print a simple process without need for dodging/burning. etc. However, there are those days when you have a negative that you really think should make a great print, and after a lot of messing around, you come to the realization that , damn...why didn't I just take a better exposure...

a pragmatic approach

thinking back... in my college darkroom years, I recall the critical amount of time it would take to reach the desired outcome. (the final 8x10 print)
In a community dardroom, each one of us would be doing our own thing.... I remember watching that clock on the wall waiting to see the visual magic of my calculations and technique of the final process. I would usually make use of filter to control contrast if my negative was off a bit. I did try to keep it simple... but time was the critical factor for me back then. Working in the darkroom was not neccessarily about simplicity... it was about quantifing my time and knowing it was well spent there.

The two tools which have improved my printing more in the last two years than in the previous 40 without them are:

Michael Smith's outflanking methodology and the use of a metronome and card to time the exposure. Whether contact printing or enlarging, these tools are absolutely essential. I can make prints on Bergger paper developed in Sprint or Dektol under a Saunders enlarger which are nearly indistinuishable from contact prints made with a bare bulb, Azo and Amidol.

I can do without all kinds of things, but not either of those. I systematically produce the best print possible from each negative using the methodology and consistently churn out dozens of identical prints using the metronome. If you're still making test strips (an absolute waste of time and paper for me) and a timer, give it a try. You won't believe the improvement.

I find this thread really interesting because I have been wondering, myself, what others out there do to their prints.

I have noticed an interesting trend in my own work lately; trying to keep the print as close to the negative as possible. What I mean is that I do test strips in order to find the correct time etc, but I do very little manipulation. If it's on the negative, then it goes onto the print. I don't like to burn and dodge or play too much with the contrast either.

Just my $0.02

Kent

If your preference is to do a minimum of print manipulations then that is your perogative. But maybe you should read AA's book on 40 Photographs or his "The Print" book of the series. Read some of the captions of how he printed some of his negatives.

The printing of Clearing Winter Storm of Yosemite Valley is described in detail in the book, lots of dodges and burns, especially the sky. Moon Rise Hernandez in his early interpretations, was printed as he put it, with a lighter sky and clouds in the upper part of the print. Later on, he printed it as is better known today, very dark sky. He even took some negatives and intensified portions of it, such as Mt. McKinley, Wonder Lake. He intensified the lower portion, the forest.

Some of his exhibits were hung with prints of the same negative, printed at different times of his career to show how he changed.

I generally keep it simple, unless I really want to work on one particular print for some reason. Then I may fiddle with the dodging, burning, etc. for hours. It all depends.

Great thread. BTW, I'm new around here...well, new to participating, I've been reading APUG for several months and I thoroughly enjoy the levels of expertise and courtesy. Hello to all!

My darkroom practices can change from session to session. 75% of my printing is pretty straight, but the other 25% is a different story. Often the determing factor is my level of commitment to the negative. When I'm excited about a particular image I will experiment with several interpretations before deciding on a "final" print. Many images work well with different croppings, contrast, and highlight details. Yeah, this takes time and materials, both of which I'm often short on, but the rewards are often worth it. Many a time I've exhausted a fresh tray of developer working just one print. I suppose this might put me in good company!

Regards,

Sean

If a negative is not worth the time needed to bring it to life, then why bother? You should be able to tell if an image is going to work or not after the first few pilot prints. File it away and select another to work on.

I know in my early years learning to print, it took hours, days to get it right the way I wanted. Now, with plenty of experience under my belt, time and paper costs have been reduced, intuition takes over.

When you think about it, within the short span of exposing the paper, dodges, burns, flashing, developing, archival processing, toning, whatever your proceedure, photographers create their works. There are only so many variables in that process to work with. All the technique in the world will not save an image if there is nothing there to save to begin with.

Good one Sean,

Printing is the hardest thing in photography for me. So many variables, so many avenues for interpretation, so many choices to sift through, so much control. If I have'nt explored the variations that come to mind, how do I know that I've made the best print possible? Did I settle for the easier path? When I look at the print later, will I know deep down that I gave up? Will I see within it more potential? Will it haunt me?

A print is a Fine Print when it has recieved the least amount of heroics needed to attain Fine Print status. For a couple of my images that would be an edge and corner burn, the rest need more attention! My goal is to never let my hand be seen...the viewer must accept that dark threatening cloud as a fact, and not know that it really was light gray on the contact print.

It's a very very rare day when I get a Fine Print in one twelve hour printing session.

That said, I'm haunted by prints sold twenty years ago that I THOUGHT were Fine Prints...maybe I'll cringe at the prints I'm doing now in another twenty years...

Murray