- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
I find this a very constraining statement. Sure, we all have different methods of working ... it could just as easily be said you don't take enough photos.
(Nothing personal, just playing devils advocate)
Its said that Garry Winogrand died with over 10,000 undeveloped exposures ... sure you could argue he shot too much, but he was obsessed and edited down some fine books.
The second problem is that choosing from the negatives pushes you towards selecting the obvious pictures - the ones you know will work. More subtle compositions, especially those which don't work back to front and with inverted tones, can easily be missed.
The third problem is more of a question: how can I learn unless I see the print? Suppose a model blinked as the shutter fired. Should I discard the negative because her eyes are closed or print it to look at the rest of the composition? How about if the lighting is a bit off? Again, looking at the print will tell me where I went wrong. Or what if the composition just sucks? Obviously I saw something that appealed to me because I made the picture, but to understand what appeals and what I need to avoid in the future requires a print.
Lastly, I'm still trying to find a way to engage with models in the post-polaroid world. In the past I used a lot of Polaroids in the studio. Seeing the printed picture enabled the model to understand where I was trying to go - and this enabled her to work with me to achieve that goal. I'm hoping that by developing and proofing immediately after the sitting then this collaborative engagement will be possible again. OK, the discussion will have to be spread over several sittings, but I prefer to work that way anyway.
Thanks again for all your comments and suggestions. There's plenty of food for thought here.
Some interesting posts overnight - thanks for your comments.
Two thoughts: (1) on whether I'm, shooting too much; and (2) on reading negatives. The first is easy. No I'm not. The opposite in fact - I'm not making enough negatives. The second point is more complex.
I used to select negatives for printing by looking at them on a lightbox, just as a couple of you have suggested. But I've realised there are several problems with that approach. Firstly, it's not possible to read the subtleties of body language on a negative (I can't anyway). Yes you can see if the eyes are open or shut, but does a slight tilt of the head work or not? I believe a proper print is required for this.
The second problem is that choosing from the negatives pushes you towards selecting the obvious pictures - the ones you know will work. More subtle compositions, especially those which don't work back to front and with inverted tones, can easily be missed.
The third problem is more of a question: how can I learn unless I see the print? Suppose a model blinked as the shutter fired. Should I discard the negative because her eyes are closed or print it to look at the rest of the composition? How about if the lighting is a bit off? Again, looking at the print will tell me where I went wrong. Or what if the composition just sucks? Obviously I saw something that appealed to me because I made the picture, but to understand what appeals and what I need to avoid in the future requires a print.
Lastly, I'm still trying to find a way to engage with models in the post-polaroid world. In the past I used a lot of Polaroids in the studio. Seeing the printed picture enabled the model to understand where I was trying to go - and this enabled her to work with me to achieve that goal. I'm hoping that by developing and proofing immediately after the sitting then this collaborative engagement will be possible again. OK, the discussion will have to be spread over several sittings, but I prefer to work that way anyway.
Regarding why I proof on Lodima, that's easy to answer. Compared to platinum it's cheap and easy. I can make lots of proofs quickly without much effort. And it's got a long enough range to match my platinum negatives (as I noted on an earlier post, I tried this once with RC paper but it didn't show enough detail).
Thanks again for all your comments and suggestions. There's plenty of food for thought here.
Composition should be readable by the negative most of the time. Some abstraction that the negative provides lets you see the composition separated from the details. For example an s-curve in the composition works flipped just as well as when you saw it.
As far as lighting, either get it right when you take the photo, or use quick contact prints to verify; detail isn't important. When using artificial lighting, I use my DSLR to verify lighting. You could use this with your model too. It's not a preference, just another tool. I do have a Fuji instant back on the way, so the polaroid method isn't dead presently.
This would reduce the need for multiple sittings. While some might consider it trolling, and it's not directed to you, nothing says crackpot like telling someone to come back for another sitting another time because I'm too proud of analog photography to use a DSLR to check the lighting and practice a pose.
So the answer for you, Ian, is to continue doing exactly what you're doing because that's the way you work and it works for you.
With Lodima grade 2 and a vacuum frame, I can expose 4 prints at a time under a light bulb. This really boosts throughput.
Personally, I find that only when I have a number of worthwhile pictures do I find inspiration to print. And the best thing for me about having them all set out en masse, is that I'll often find a series or decide on a style of printing for a particular set... so rather than printing the odd photograph here and there, I'm going into the darkroom in a mindset to produce several prints that compliment each other. I find this is a more productive way to work, and less wasteful because I'm not reprinting images that don't sit well with others from the same collection.
Thanks for the tip. I use a 16x20 vacuum easel and Lodima/Azo; the thought of making 4 proof prints at once never occurred to me. THAT can be a real time saver when you get back from a trip and have 150+ 8x10 negatives to proof.
So make at least a proof print of every negative you make.
Michael A. Smith
When I proof, I only fix them for 30 seconds. The proofs then get a first wash and are hung on a line--NOT put on the drying screens.
The whole proofing process is quick--two to three hours for a couple of hundred new 8x10s. The point at this stage is to see what you saw on the ground glass--not to agonize over getting a great print. All proofs get made on the softest grade of paper to show all information in the negative. When you go to make finished prints you can usually easily tell what grade of paper to use by the relative degree of contrast on the softest grade of paper.
Hope that is helpful.
Michael A. Smith
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?