Question to master printers on darkroom workflow

[anyhuus]

In all the literature I have that describes darkroom and printing, the various techniques and processes are very well described (to which extent it is actually understood is another question). However, what I am missing is good input on the actual workflow in the darkroom. I am not talking about the obvious sequence of things (test-strip, expose, develop, stop fix etc. etc), but how to work efficiently and economically in order to reach a satisfactory result.

I seem to be using an awful amount of paper to even get to a stage where I can start considering creative manipulation (dodging/burning or other means). At least what I think is an awful lot of paper. But then again, I have no reference to what is a normal, efficient workflow and material consumption.

For instance, do you master printers do everything in terms of proof printing on low cost RC paper, and then switch to high-quality FB at the very last stage using some calibrated conversion of exposure and contrast between the two paper types? Or do you start from the test-strips with the target material?

Which printing stages do you go through when you have selected your negative from the contacts?
Do you teststrip to get basic exposure and contrast, and then get to full size a soon as possible to start assessing the picture, or do you teststrip or make patches around the picture to get an idea of local deviations from base exposure/contrast. Do you test and proof-print at a smaller size and only turn to target size at final print?

 

[anyhuus]

Clarification: ....(to which extent it is actually understood...) refers to myself, not the authors of the litterature.

 

[Mark_S]

I will toss in a reply here, although I do not consider myself a master printer - there are plenty of far better printers on this list than I.

I also want to throw out a few disclaimers:

1) I am an amateur and the process is as important as the final product to me. As a result, although efficiency is a virtue, it is not something that I spend a huge amount of time pursuing.

2) I work in LF (4x5) and some of what I do may not be applicable to roll film.



Given that - here is my workflow:

I carry a bunch of 3x5 cards with me, which are preprinted with a form to allow me to record my exposures - the location, the lighting, time of day film etc. I almost always shoot both sides of the film holder with the exact same image/exposure.

When I get back to the darkroom, I develop the images on the 'A' side of the holders, using my standard developing or the developing that had been envisioned at the time of exposure. I will then inspect the negative, and if it looks good, I will develop the other negative the same way - if I want to add/take away contrast, then I will make those adjustments and develop the second sheet. The film developing info is put on the back of the card.

Next comes my contact print. I have a bunch of 4x5 paper (8x10 paper that has been cut) I will make a contact print, and fiddle with the exposure until I get it to look decent - usually you can eyeball a negative and get pretty close with your first guess at the exposure for the contact. I always print contacts with a #2 contrast filter. I record the contact exposure on the back of the contact print, and if the two negs are different, which of the two negatives was used.

When it comes time to print, I always start working with 8x10 paper. My initial print is at the same time as the contact, with the aperture 2 stops larger - this generally gives me a print that looks similar to the contact and serves as my starting point to fine tune exposure - then contrast. In my case always working with 8x10s. Once exposure and contrast are set, I work on developing and applying the dodging/burning scheme - and once I have something that looks like it is going to work, I write all that down on the back of the 3x5 card.

If I want to make a larger print, then I pick a part of the print that is mid-range, and take a meter reading of that off of the easel, I then raise the enlarger head to get the size print that I want, refocus the enlarger, and then open the aperture to get the same meter reading in the same spot - now I can use the same timing, dodging and burning scheme on the large print as I did on the 8x10, and get pretty close to what I want on the first sheet.

4x5 negative pages have four slots, on one sheet I put my 3x5 card in the upper left corner, my contact print in the upper right, and the two negs on the bottom. If I ever want to go back and reprint an image, the data written on the 3x5 card allows me to do so with minimal wasted material.

One thing that I believe helps is that I almost always use the same film/film developer/paper/paper developer. Knowing the materials and how they will respond makes for much less waste.

 

[Chan Tran]

I read Ansel Adams books a lot and never did he mention "Workflow". I think he is a master printer.

 

[climbabout]

efficiently printing

The best advice I ever read is contained in the following article from the michaelandpaula website - particularly the section on "outflanking" the print - I have found it to be the most efficient and quickest way to arrive at the final exposure. Hope this is useful
http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html

 

[User Removed]

I was just going to reply to this thread with a posting of Michael Smiths article on printing, however I see that someone already beat me to it!

I find MAS printing technique the fastest and best way to arrive at the final print.

However, you need to understand that there are alot of variables he removed from the printing process that consumes time and paper. First thing is, contact printing vs. enlarging. With contact printing, I use one exposure light always the exact same distace away, only 2 grades of paper (no filters) but usually I'm only printing on one, and my negatives are always consistant so my exposures are always about the same.

Read the article, as you will find it useful. You just need to apply it abit to your enlarging process.

 

[Rolleijoe]

I too am no "master" printer, but after more than 3 decades in a darkroom, I have a system which works for me:

If I print 16x20, I enlarge to 16x20.

I always have a "junk" sheet of any sized paper I'm enlarging to (usually use the cheapest RC paper around....they last for years), and use that to frame/focus my image with.

Using paper from a smaller sized box of the same paper I'm printing on, I'll place strips over the light/dark areas most important to me.

Process normally, make any necessary changes (dial in more magenta, add/subtract more time etc). Test again, and repeat until I get what I am looking for.

When I have it, bring out a 16x20 sheet of the same paper I used as test strips, expose, process...and the results should match.

That's about it. Simple/easy.

 

[Nick Zentena]

A good negative saves the most paper.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with Nick Zentana.

How consistent are your negs, and how printable are they? If you make proof sheets, exposing the minimum time for maximum black in the clear film base area, are the images uniform and are the exposures good, or do you need to make proof sheets at two or three different exposures to see all the images on the roll (if you shoot rollfilm)? If you're not getting mostly good negs that print reasonably at grade 2 or 3 (at which point you can start thinking about expressive controls), then the place to start improving is with exposure in the camera and film development.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I print for a living, but the term bater has always been thrown at the last part of master as a reference to myself.

I also agree with the Micheal Smith outflanking method. Nothing is worse than creeping up on an image. Bold changes will help you get to the final print.

During any printing session, I always use two enlargers with negatives set up in glass carriers , I will work with a series of images rather than random images and sizes.

I always pick the easiest images to print. Nothing worse than starting a printing session with a difficult negative . Once a good balance and good print is established on each enlarger , we put *like * images in order for printing.

I always slate at least 6 hours of printing *uninteruppted* and put on good music to energize myself and start printing.
I use large trays and make sure there is lots of chemicals in each step.

I do not use test strips after the first image is done on each enlarger. I compare the next negative and make a full test at the contrast/density I think.

Always look at the print as it emerges as you will see dodging/burning requirement in the developer , just as easily as you see them in room light.
*lith printing is very good practice for estimating print quality in safelight*

I always make three prints of any image, one that I think will dry down perfectly, one lighter one darker.
Its funny how your feelings will change over the night.

I never fret over a print and always move forward , I never compare the test prints and I am always looking at full prints, not tests.

When you have a print that you like it sometimes is a good idea to do something very radical to the image as a fourth print just to see if there is some hidden *print balance* that is eluding you.
*to this point when making contact sheets of negatives, we will make normal, light 1/2stop , dark 1 stop . just to see if there are printing densitys that may be eluding us.
Your Darkroom should be very comfortable and spacious. I spend more time in this room than any room other than my bedroom at home. Therefore for me , it can handle chairs, clients, friends.
I always clean up immediately after a printing session and make sure everything is ready for the next days printing.
Temp and humidity is important for comfort.
As well I wear big overalls with lots of pockets *for beer opener* . I no longer destroy my clothes which saves a few bucks.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of comfort in the darkroom. If you spend large periods of time it should be fun to do so.

Time on each negative.. I hear people talking about working all day on one image. I think this is a mistake and must be very frustrating and boring.
I give the first two negs the most time on any series as these are the images that set the tone/contrast/density/look/feel of the work I am printing that day.
Subsequent images should not take more than one hour, Ie two per hour after the first pair are done.. If you are setting up random images for a day of printing I think this is a bad approach but if unavoidable your printing session will be longer because each image needs all the initial testing and considerations.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Forgot to mention
5-10 sheets per image >Always use the paper that the image is intended for.

 

[photographs42]

I wouldn’t be so bold as to call myself a “Master Printer” but I have considerable experience and consider myself competent at least. You don’t give us much information about the format you’re working with or what you consider an “awful lot of paper” but I’ll try to give you a little help.

I use the 5x7 format, black & white, usually HP5+ film developed in Xtol, Ilford MGFB IV double weight paper developed in Dektol 1:2.

I begin with contact prints that are printed on Ilford MG RC Glossy paper at a grade 2 setting and “standard” exposure. Standard exposure is simply an exposure that renders the unexposed film edge as pure black. If the negative is too dense or too thin due to an error in judgment, I might make an adjusted contact if I think the image has merit but I keep the standard contact because it is has important information. From these contact prints I select those that I think are candidates for further exploration. Some are obvious “winners” and some are merely promising. The selected contacts are tacked up in my workspace and studied for a minimum of a few days, sometimes months, so that when I decide to make a print, I have already formed some opinions about what is needed to make the finished print.

The importance of making your contact prints to a “standard” is that it puts one foot on a rock. I can judge if it is too light or too dark, too contrasty or too flat, because I am starting with a known entity. There is no magic here. The technical aspect of photography is 100% cause and effect.

Now, when I am ready to print, and I usually make a 16x20 first, I know what I expect to get and have a pretty good idea of what I will have to do to get it. At this stage it does me no good to start with anything other than the paper I am going to make the final print with. Ilford paper is very consistent but if I have scrapes from a different batch that I want to use up, I will make a comparison print to make sure the two batches print the same. I start with a 4x5 scrap and place it in an area of the print that is important to me and if possible has both low and high values. Experience puts me in the ballpark with exposure and my “standard” contact print gives me good start on contrast. Studying the contact tells me what area contains the important values. So I make a 3 second step exposure in the range, usually around 30 to 50 seconds, that experience dictates. This step strip usually has 4 or 5 exposures and from that I can determine a good starting point. From studying that test I can make a preliminary assessment of exposure and contrast and then I make a 4x5 of the same area using those settings. If that looks good, I make a full size 16x20 print, squeegee it to a glass plate and begin to study the image. Whether it requires one test or many to get to this point depends on your experience. After 25 years I have become pretty good at knowing what to expect.

Next is the most critical part of making the print. At this point I should have a pretty good overall print. If not, I make a change to exposure and/or contrast and make another. Again, how well you can make these adjustments is largely a factor of experience. Now that I have a decent full size print to look at, I start the sometimes lengthy act of perfecting it. This is where the nuances of the image are perfected. I use small test pieces of paper and squeegee them on to the full size print and study the result. Sometimes I have many of these and sometimes only a few. Usually I spend several hours at this stage, most of it thinking about how the image looks compared to how I think it should look. Does it look like snow? Does it feel like fog? Does it convey the emotion I want? Can I make it better by changing something? What if I ……..? When I think I have nailed it I make another full sized print and usually that is just right but not always. If not, a minor adjustment usually takes care of the problem. Then I make 4 prints, wash in Hypo clear for 10 minutes, 2 minute rinse, 4 minute Selenium tone and into the print washer.

I feel pretty good if I use less than 6 sheets to make the final 4 prints. I usually spend 6 to 8 hours doing this. Sometimes I use way more paper. Sometimes I go through all of this and decide the negative just isn’t going to give me what I want and I give up. Sometimes I look at the “perfect” finished dry prints the next day and say to myself “What was I thinking?” and tear them all up (if I don’t like a print, no one else sees it). More typically I am pleased and proceed to try to impress others by matting and framing one and put it on the market. If I sell just one, the cost of paper, chemicals, time etc. is minimal.

If you don’t market your work, you have to decide how much you are willing to spend on your hobby. Paper is really pretty cheap but if you use more than three times the amount of the final print I think you need to work on your process. Stick to one paper, one developer etc. and learn what it does. Again remember it is cause and effect. Like two and two are always four, the results of photographic processing are predictable and if you learn how to control the process you will eliminate a lot of waste.

Jerome

 

[Paul Howell]

As I dont print on a daily bases I have developed a work flow that meets my current needs. I shoot 35 to 4X5. I shoot and develop the negatives the same day, occassionaly the next day. I contact print MF and 4X5 on grade 3 paper, but gang print 35mm on 5X7 VC paper at normal contrast using a enlarging meter for what I consider to be a working print. I may not have time for a print session until the following week, sometimes longer, and I am suprised how my mood and mind set changes from the day I shot the negative to day I print it.

I start with a 8X10 working print printed on paper I think will match the final image, some times I will print on several papers at diffent contrast and times until get the basic print I like and then start thinking about burning and dodgeing. I use test strips, but many time I use a full sheet as a test strip. I keep notes in pencile on the back of each sheet, such as enlager time and F stop, developer information ect. I work on several negatives at the same time. I wash, tone and dry the work prints. Due to time demands I dont print all day usally for 4 or 5 hours. The next session I will sort though my work prints and pick out the final prints which I transfer to 11X14 or 16X20. 35 is usally printed at 8X10. It may take me a trial print or two to replicate the 8X10. I only go directly to 11X14 or 16X20 when I dont have 8X10 paper to match the larger size.

 

[photographs42]

......... I may not have time for a print session until the following week, sometimes longer, and I am suprised how my mood and mind set changes from the day I shot the negative to day I print it. .....

This is an interesting point. Years ago I would come back from a particularly inspirational photography outing, develop the negatives and go right into the darkroom to print. Most of the time, while I was really excited about the images, the results didn’t stand the test of time.

I thought about this a lot and decided that when I print an image while the experience of making it is fresh in my mind, the print that I see with my eyes is tainted by what I see in my mind and I realize later that the print lacks much of the splendor that I thought it had. As a result, I seldom print images that I have not studied in the cold hard light of day, so to speak. After the exhilaration has passed, I am much better able to make rational judgments about the actual merit of an image.

Jerome

 

[anyhuus]

Thank you all for all the valuable info. This is really the type of knowledge I was looking for, namely how the technical aspects of photography is actually applied.
When I used the term "master printer" in the start, I probably used the term a bit carelessly.
I did not want to exclude anybody that had valuable information to share but do not consider themselves as masters, nor offend the reputation of those printers who are actually known as masters - being dead or alive.
From the overwhelming and utterly helpful responses it seems that the potential excluding effect of the term "master" too much of a problem.

There were some questions of a bit more information on format etc. and what I consider an awful lot of paper. A bit of background info: I shoot HP5+ and FP4 on both 35 and 6x6 (120). HP5+ is consistently developed in Barry Thornton's 2-bath Stoeckler variant, while FP4 is developed in Beutler's. I print normally on 10x12, occasionally on 12x16 on Ilford MG FB Warmtone Semi-matt dbl. weight.developed in ID-78 diluted 1+3.
As I most definitely (and perhaps also obviusly) is a learning hobby photographer, and my negs are all but consistent. At least the 35's, since they are most often street photos shot with a rangefinder without meter (trying to learn to assess exposure without a meter). The 6x6's are a bit more consistent, as they are normally landscape photos with tripod and spotmeter. But occasionally they are also a challenge, esp. when subject luminosity range is high (I see the shadow details, the negs see the shadow details, but the paper refuse to see them

I print using a LPL7452 enlarger with colour head (I do also have the VC module, but the colour module have a ND filter that reduces light to manageable printing times. This enlarger has the light output of a Boeing 747 during landing, and must be harnessed by more than just lens apertures). The timer is RH Design's StopClock Pro, which I am very happy with. However, having read the Michael A. Smith article mentioned above, I think a metronome is next on the list of purchases.

When making a print that I am happy with (if I ever have had the experience yet), 5-10 sheets of paper has easily been consumed. 5 sheets is normally consumed to get to base print, i.e. when I can start to experiment with dodging/burning. I do try to remind myself that after all I am trying to learn this, and the process is more important than the end result. So a high material consumption is probably due to the learning curve more than inefficiency and bad practice. I realize this now just as I am writing this.

Being a hobby photo I don't quite yet work on projects with large number of exposures of the same subject or location. I shoot when time, location and light allows me, and develop and print whenever I have time. I understand this is less than ideal from a darkroom workflow perspective.

To summarize the input you have given me (or at least what I get from perusing your responses):

• Make notes of negative exposures while making them
• Try to assess enlargement exposure and contrast by looking at the negative (This is a virtue I don't posses today, but I can probably learn it)
• Contact exposure can be used as a guide for enlarged base printing time
• Stick to one or a very limited numbers of film/film dev./paper/paper dev. combo's (I think I already do, but I do not have a "feel" for the material yet)
• "Outflanking the negative" sounds like sth. worth trying, and I will. (Really sound like a military tactical maneuver). Thanks for pointing me to this article.
• Darkroom sessions should be planned to last 4-6 hours of uninterrupted work.
• 5-10 sheets per image is normal (it seems I'm not too far off after all)
• On the full sized base print, squeegee test-patches of paper to study the effect of print manipulation.

... and many more.

I cannot recall having read the type of info you people have provided me with tonight in any of the books I have that covers printing. All the techniques are there and described in full detail, but not the way you collectively have conveyed it. Once again: thank you

 

[Bob F.]

Another good online article is by John Sexton describing his work-flow: http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-5js.shtml

For myself, it's a case of "all of the above"... I used to use a metronome and piece of card but my current enlarger has a built-in timer and shutter system so lamp heat-up and cool-down times are not an issue when converting multiple test strip times to a single exposure (or rather two exposures, as I usually split-grade).

I generally do most test-strips and other tests etc using half-sheets of paper as it can generally be arranged to fit the important parts of the image. Saves paper.

For fine tuning important parts of an image, I cut pieces of paper to suit the section of interest and try out a few options, often going too far: a sort of half-a**ed combination of Sexton and Smith's descriptions...

I still very much consider this all part of a continuous learning curve so am not afraid to push things too contrasty/flat/dark/light/diffused/whatever... - it can be fun, if highly contrived (which can also be fun!). If I get away with 5 or 6 sheets of paper I consider I have not been trying hard enough!

Have fun, Bob

 

[waileong]

There's lots of good advice, perhaps too much. What you're concerned with is paper wastage. But if you're starting out, you have to burn through a certain amount of paper before you know how to make things work for you. So don't fret.

Simple advice:

a. Keep everything consistent-- film, film developer, exposure and development, paper, paper developer, fixer, etc. It helps reduce the no of variables to worry about.

b. Learn to print contact sheets correctly so that you can have a standard to see whether your negs are easy to print. If they are off, you may need to adjust your film exposure/development routine.

c. Once your negs are dialed in, then printing is not difficult. A standard neg would print well with a standard time (eg 15s).

d. After you have a standard routine based on your standard negs, you'll waste paper only when dodging or burning to taste.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I shoot and develop my negatives relatively consistently. i usually make one test print on same paper as final, then i make a final, which includes dodging and burning if needed. if my final is what i want, then i make a couple more. My last printing session, for example, i had 30 final prints, of eight different negatives, and i had 4 wasted sheets for testing. I have been shooting, developing and printing my work for 40 years now. i have a commercial studio, but i am referring here to my OWN work, not printing other peoples negatives.

 

[haris]

And you can allways invest in things like Analyser Pro, ZoneMaster II from Rhdesigns or Jobo ComTime or simillar...

 

[noseoil]

One bit of advice when printing 4x5 contact prints and then going right up to the next size for a finished print. If the enlarger is set at the correct height for a final print first, the contact print can be made with this exposure and then you can go right to the finished size. This is one trick which can save some time. If you think you will print an 11 x 14, start with the enlarger at this setting and composition, then do a contact print. You should be very close to the correct exposure, once the contact print is exposed properly. Make sure to use the same paper, developer, etc. tim

 

[Petzi]

You may want to try a darkroom meter to determine exposure and contrast. There are a number of solutions available, external meters, timer integrated meters, and fully integrated solutions like the Durst Multigraph (discontinued) or the Splitgrade system. This could help you reduce paper wastage and get a decent print faster.

 

[Peter Schrager]

printing

Get a copy of Bruce Barnbaums book The Art of Photography-an approach to personal expression. If you really want to further your knowledge; have some good old fun and learn; find yourself a good master to take a weekend or couple of days course. I'm not really sure what is available in your neighborhood but on this side of the pond there are many venues for this. You could just as easily spend untold hours and money wasting materials just to try and become a great printer. Why not study with someone and learn it firsthand?? Secondly go to museums or galleries and actually learn to SEE what it is that makes a great print. I've spent countless days and hours pouring over prints in the galleries in NYC during the past 30 years. If you have nothing to judge by what good is it? And if you can't make it to a good venue purchase some prints from some of the peolple here on APUG. There are some great artists here and prints aren't that expensive. Living with some great art will show you the way!!!
Just my little 2 cents
Best, Peter

 

[Monophoto]

They make boxers and briefs so that guys have a choice of their style of underwear. The concept of choice extends to the darkroom, and what is right for me may not be at all comfortable for anyone else.

I make proof sheets on RC paper. Generally, I make proof sheets in one session, and then come back later (weeks, perhaps years) to attempt fine prints. And the key word is 'attempt' - not all are successful.

Fine prints (prints for potential display) are made on FB paper. I keep several different papers in my darkroom and choose the paper that I think is most appropriate for the image - neutral Ilford MG, warm Ilford, cool Kentmere Fineprint, and on special occasion, Agfa Portriga or Orwo matte. Most of my printing is done on VC paper because of the convenience of using filters to adjust contrast. I generally choose which paper to use based on the contact print, and it's fairly rare for that opinion to change as time goes by. I also make a preliminary decision about which negatives to print based on the contact. I probably attempt fine prints of half the negatives that pass that initial screen, and about half of those attempts conclude with the decision that a fine print is not possible for some reason.

I usually make a test strip to confirm the ballpark exposure and contrast, but after one or two tests, I switch to full size prints so that I can judge what I am really doing. Yes, I throw away a lot of paper. Incidentally, the vast majority of the failures are destroyed without complete processing - I make a decision in the fix about the adjustments that I need to make, and once I make the next print in a series, the earlier failures are torn up and thrown in the trasy. There is no need to completely process prints that have no future.

Once I settle on a final 'fine print', I may make two or three additional copies. I tend to mount one print for potential framed display, but I also may make an 8x10 to be used for a print discussion group, or to be mailed away to a competition/salon. I keep a record sheet with my negatives on which I note how the final print was made so that if I ever decide to come back to make another print, I have a starting point fairly close to where I left of the last time I printed that negative.

All of my fine prints are selenium toned - that's an automatic step in my process. The best print from each negative is spotted and mounted, and stored in a polyethelene sleeve. If I made additional prints I will spot them also, and mount those that are intended for salons.

I use 35mm and 4x5, with an occasional excursion off into MF-land for portraitures. Most of my prints are on either 8x10 or 11x14 paper, but the actual crop is determined by the image rather than the standard dimensions of the paper. I've also been making 4x5 contact prints using the Pt/Pd process - these are all trimmed, mounted and matted.

 

[jmal]

I am far from a master and more of an advanced beginner. However, I find that I can make a good straight print in 1-3 attempts with my own negatives. One thing that jumps out at me when you mention street photography is that you don't use a meter. I hear about this all the time amongst guys who shoot street. I have no doubt that with plenty of experience one can learn to judge many common lighting situations, especially if you shoot the same area often. But, you never know how many negatives were needed to get that one good shot or how much manipulation was needed to make it printable. Having said that, it has been thoroughly demonstrated to me just how bad the human eye/brain is at judging light. I can't remember the whole process, but I sat in a class in which this was demonstrated and it is clear that for best results a meter is needed. So, I'm in agreement with those who have recommended improving exposure in camera. On a side note, I had the chance to print a friend's negatives the other day and it was a learning experience. They didn't look bad, but they were much different than my own. For me, they were a lot harder to print. This suggests a couple points. There is great value in finding a process that works for you and a good negative makes the entire process much easier. I find that I am able to judge my negatives pretty well on the focusing sheet. I can "feel" the proper brightness for the paper I use and the result that I want (note: this is much different than judging the light on the street, which is more complex).

Jmal

 

[Paul Howell]

, I had the chance to print a friend's negatives the other day and it was a learning experience. They didn't look bad, but they were much different than my own. For me, they were a lot harder to print. This suggests a couple points. There is great value in finding a process that works for you and a good negative makes the entire process much easier. I find that I am able to judge my negatives pretty well on the focusing sheet. I can "feel" the proper brightness for the paper I use and the result that I want (note: this is much different than judging the light on the street, which is more complex).

Jmal

I am printing my old negatives from the 60s and 70s, and like printing someones elses, boy are they more diffuclt to print. Not just differnt values, but my tasts has changed.