The perfect print

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Good enough is the answer to perfect.

I try to get my print the good as I could get it with my current skills with the goal of trying to improve next time. I know that Ansel Adams printed his negatives differently over time, so I would guess his idea of "perfection" changes.

 

[removed account4]

no such thing as perfection..

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

no such thing as perfection..

Absolutely. By striving for it moves us forward or if we set standards too high, this will cause us to fail.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Good enough is the answer to perfect.

Funny, one of my darkroom mantras is: "Good enough isn't."

Doremus

 

[Alex Benjamin]

OP, since I'm in no mood to discuss the meaning of perfection or whether or not it can be attained, I believe I can answer your question .

Couldn't say the exact number, but enough that I have a few prints hanging on my walls that I'm quite happy with. I know I could print them differently (different paper, different contrast, different toning, etc.), but I don't think I could print them better. It's not that many, but since I haven't been at it as long as you have and haven't had access to a darkroom for 8 to 10 years, I know there probably be more than the few hanging on the walls.

A huge lesson learned from this: the perfect ones aren't necessarily the ones that I spent most time working on; they're the ones that were easiest to print, i.e., for which the negative was "perfect" (yeah, I know...). The "imperfect" prints, those that I would love to come back to once I get my darkroom space functional, those are the ones that are a challenge because the negative makes it a challenge. Some I can't change. Others, like some landscape photos, I try when possible to go back and reshoot better.

Of note: the great French poet Paul Valery wrote "A poem is never finished, it is only abandoned." This did not prevent him form considering his poems "perfect" enough to have them published.

 

[MattKing]

Perfection is the enemy of "Good Enough."

I always thought the quotation was "Perfection is the enemy of the Good" ??? - Voltaire

 

[Vaughn]

Absolutely. By striving for it moves us forward or if we set standards too high, this will cause us to fail.

Good enough reason to strive for perfection (what other standards could be higher?) If one does not fail, one does not progress.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Good enough reason to strive for perfection (what other standards could be higher?) If one does not fail, one does not progress.

I could only speak for myself. But not trying to do better, will cause stagnation. My hope in trying is expanding my skills. There's a quote "The comfort is a beautiful thing, but nothing grows there". I also try to be aware that trying for perfection can also be stifling creativity. Accepting imperfections could also open up new possibilities. One has to do the work.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

To my very personal opinion: "One print isn't the other".
If two supposedly 'different' subjects requiring two different approaches in recording (e.i. negative) AND printing, evaluated next to each other, then all the sudden one of them looks bad.
If you look at the two examples I show, you might understand what I try to say...
The first one looks OK, the light and tonality is where it should be. But the second seems to dark, gritty, bad tonality and unsharp, although it reflects the light and the atmosphere of that space as I felt it on that moment. Both have the same value to me and are telling the story the way I feel it should be told.
These pictures are of the very same place: Alyscamps, an ancient Gallo-Roman necropolis at Arles (France), outside and inside the building at the end...

Photo #1: Hasselblad SWC/M, 'normal' aperture and shutter speed, + Yellow-Green filter, handheld on Tri-X @ 400ASA (in Pyrocat-HD).
Photo #2: Hasselblad SWC/M, full open aperture at a rather slow shutter speed, handheld (no tripod...) on Tri-X @ 1600 ASA (in E-76 1+1).
Both printed on FOMABROM FB 111 and then the prints scanned on Epson 750.

 

[Don_ih]

I try to get the print how I think it should look. I know that "how I think it should look" is different from day to day. Some days, I want greater contrast, some days I want more subtlety. It's not even a matter of improving - it's more a matter of right or wrong. This print is right, because it's how I want it to be. Many prints are wrong because they didn't get exposed enough, needed something dodged or burned, should have been cropped - always something specific, though. And, as you do more and learn more, you realize new ways in which a print can be wrong. I don't know that it's so easy to learn new ways in which a print can be right, though.

 

[Jim Jones]

Perfection is ephemeral. A print that looked perfect yesterday might be less satisfactory tomorrow upon close examination, or in a different environment.

 

[cliveh]

Printing quality is always relative. Many years ago I had a student who was an exceptionally superb printer. I remember being outside the darkroom with another photographic lecturer as we admired one of her prints in natural daylight at what we considered to be perfection in printing. A few minutes later she came out the darkroom with an improved print.