Whats the longest time that you took on a single print to get perfect?

[ToddB]

hey guys,

Whats the longest time that you took on a single print to get perfect? Last weekend I was in the darkroom for two hours and still didn't get a perfect print, however I wrote down all the data I needed to tackle it next weekend for perfect print.

Todd

 

[pgomena]

Like you, the prints that took the most time are the ones that required more than one session. The first session makes you familiar with the image and its problems, the second hopefully produces the print you envision. I found that by time the first sessions prints dried, they revealed the errors of my ways and pointed toward the solutions.

 

[ToddB]

Thats exactly what happened to me. The only thing was I smoked a piece of Ilford MGWT 16x20 paper, Ouch!

ToddB

 

[ROL]

I've never made a perfect print. But I don't think spending a couple of hours on a fine art print, is too much, as long as you know your tools and what you're doing, and still sane. For better decision making, come back to the print the next day, if necessary. All that legendary myth you may have heard about working through the night on perfecting a print is IMO, so much hyperbolic hooey, evidence of poor exposure or lab technique, or OCD.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Maybe a couple of days.

Jeff

 

[ToddB]

Yhea.. 2 hours to start with. I think I'm in for a few more hours to get the desired look I want. I'm looking forward to it.

ToddB

 

[Black Dog]

Maybe a few hours. But it takes as long as it takes.

 

[WetMogwai]

I recently spent two whole Saturdays, most of that time on just one negative, trying to get any good print. It turns out I was mixing up the solutions in the Palladium chemistry so that I was using no restrainer in my ferric oxalate while trying to print negatives that require a lot of it. I corrected the problem, but I still wouldn't say I have made a perfect print of any of it, but I've made some decent prints since I got back to only using the solution with restrainer in it. I"m terrible at keeping records, but I'm not sure good record keeping would have kept me from mixing up bottles #1 and #2.

 

[jeffreyg]

My suggestion is to make "work" prints for those special images. For example an overall general print to confirm the composition and starting point of exposure. Then a print to establish the highlights and then one for shadows and contrast. The next session you can put it all together.
Of course there are those negatives that almost print themselves...too bad they all can't be that way.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[cliveh]

An interesting question to which I’m sure there will be a great variation of response. However, I believe that if we are talking about a print as a work of art, the quality of a print (which of course can be defined in many different ways) has nothing to do with the time you spend making it.

 

[tkamiya]

THIS one

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Took me 2 months to get to a point where I was satisfied with the result. That includes in darkroom, applying frisket, and toning. Before that, I spent few months contemplating how this image can best be presented.

This is, by far, the longest time I spent on one image. But, it isn't unusual for me to spend weeks on one image.

 

[Vaughn]

When I silver gelatin printing. I would not even enter the darkroom unless I had a minimum of 6 hours to spend. My average time for a 16x20 silver gelatin print (from 4x5), from set-up to putting the prints on the drying screens was about 10 to 12 hours. In that time I would generally expose 10 sheets of paper and would end up with 3 final prints...or sometimes nothing at all, and would repeat the session on another night (if I did not give up on the image).

Now that I am making carbon prints, I don't want to think about the time spent per print -- I just make them.

 

[Bob Carnie]

It can take an hour or it can take a lifetime.

When printing long term projects for others, I like to make the contacts, then make a sample final work print at about 11 x14 on the right paper stock. This has allowed me two looks at the image, before the print goes to portfolio print.

Then I will make a high quality portfolio print, like others this takes about 10 sheets of paper and I have three that I can accept. Sometimes this is a smaller version or sometimes it is final size.

After this process is done and the artist gets to hang in a gallery or museum, I will then reprint and talk with the artist about what is good or bad with the first versions, Is there anything to be improved or not..

When printing for myself, I like the same process as above, and sometimes I am surprised to find that there is not a damm thing to improve the portfolio print to please me.
Other prints seem to play on my mind and sometimes its basically a change in paper surface(usually) toning(sometimes) .
I think the key is to print frequently, show the work as much as you can , and then evaluate your look over time.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Prints that looked very satisfactory to me decades ago no longer look that great. Some I have reprinted. More often I just move on to printing
newer images in an improved manner. When I was eight years old attempting to paint "perfect" watercolors, I learned that there is no such
thing as perfection. Tore them all up. Much later I learned to accept my limitations, as well as the limitations of my chosen media. Printmaking
is a lifetime experience - you gotta enjoy the ride, not just the result.

 

[Ian Grant]

Not very long, I only really print exhibition sets and because I've controlled exposure and development printing is very easy. 20-30 mins max on an image. but if I can't decide I stop early and go back in a different session

Back in the late 1980's I did some workshops with Peter Goldfield, Peter Cattrell (Fay Godwin's printer at the time) & John Blakemore, I'd changed direction and approach to image making and they re-inforced my way of working.

I'll inroduce a new factor, I'll print an image to fit a sequence, put another way the whole is more important that the individual.

Ian

 

[Maris]

How long? An hour or two max.

Any longer than that and I fall into the trap of trying to force the final gelatin-silver photograph into a place where it does not want to go. I think some respect for the original subject, for the inherent qualities of the negative, for the physical characteristics of the paper signals when to stop. To seek to dominate and contrive every quality of the image is the ambition of the painter or digi-grapher.

I'd rather reshoot a subject with a clearer idea of what I really want than try to spin straw into gold in the darkroom.

 

[cliveh]

How long? An hour or two max.

Any longer than that and I fall into the trap of trying to force the final gelatin-silver photograph into a place where it does not want to go. I think some respect for the original subject, for the inherent qualities of the negative, for the physical characteristics of the paper signals when to stop. To seek to dominate and contrive every quality of the image is the ambition of the painter or digi-grapher.

I'd rather reshoot a subject with a clearer idea of what I really want than try to spin straw into gold in the darkroom.

Maris, you are starting to understand Zen photography.

 

[removed account4]

50+ sheets of 11x14 blue box seagul grade 3
and 3 days .. wasn't perfect but only i know whats wrong with it i guess

 

[walbergb]

As you can tell by the replies, there are as many answers to your question as there are photographers; so let me add one more to the mix. Let me preface my reply by stating that (1) I am very much an amateur photographer/printer, and what follows is what works for me, (2) I'm using fiber paper, and (3) I agree with all of the talking points made by the previous respondents.

My usual pattern is to produce a working print in the first printing session that has the initial exposure (based on highlights) and contrast I want. I will also make a print with a 1/3 stop more exposure (because Tim Rudman told us in a workshop that you won't know you've got the right exposure/contrast until you've gone too far). Before the next session, I confirm the composition (I start with a full-frame and crop as I see fit), exposure, & contrast. I also map out the areas that need burning and dodging and in some cases bleaching. In the second printing session, I work on burning and dodging using test strips. Ralph Lambrecht's (Way Beyond Monochrome) test strip printer makes it easy to do a test strip on a single area of the print using only one 5x7 piece of paper. If necessary, localized bleaching is also done in this session. Assuming that everything has worked out (Murphy's Law: it seldom does), the third (or fourth, which is more likely) printing session is for toning. My printing sessions are usually 2-4 hours long. Because I use a community darkroom, these sessions can span a couple of weeks or more. Between sessions, I spend a lot of time studying and analyzing my work. I can usually work on two prints at a time within this time frame. Add to all of this time spent spotting those prints that require it.

I hope one day to become proficient enough at judging the results of my work that I can shorten the process considerably and use fewer supplies. Until then, it takes however long it takes! The only thing that matters is that I'm happy with the end result, at least for today

 

[piu58]

> on the walls. Over time I continue to see where improvements can be made

That is exactely what I experience. It is very valuable to see your prints every day. Some get poorer over the time, but some develop and show ther virtues which I could not see at the first glance.

 

[ToddB]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85205838@N06/10284365676/

Above link is the picture I'm working on. You can guess where the trouble areas are. But I think it's worth it.

ToddB

 

[Simon R Galley]

As a hand printer ( and hand processed as well ) after about a years training and learning I on average built up to produce about 1,500 prints per week probably from about 300 to 400 negs with duplicate prints etc but 90% + on RC paper.

Now in a new life, doing an FB print for myself 3 steps : test, first full print then final print about 10 to 15 minutes minutes, I probably have to re-print 1 in 4. I am ( was ) a commercial printer not a master printer like Robin Bell or anything like it but I do think you can 'overprint' . Its what is 'acceptable' to you....as always, the better the neg, the easier the print...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I do make proof contact sheets to look at first. That gives me an idea of how consistent I was with exposure and film development, and what I can expect when I make the actual prints.

Then, some prints come incredibly easy. Like Ian I have paid a lot of attention to getting my film development just right, which in some cases give me negatives that almost print themselves. Just light touches of burning, maybe a hair of split grade to punch in some tone.

Other negatives are incredibly difficult to print. Those I end up usually making a work print of, then I wash and dry it, and come back to it in a different printing session.

So I spend a range of 30 minutes to three days. It all depends on the negative. But I'm very picky about where I place tones, in order to get a print that looks balanced to my eyes.

The best thing to keep in mind is to just keep going until you're happy. If you're not happy with the results, you will regret not trying harder later on, as it seems that going back to printing old stuff is something most printers don't want to do.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

3daysare not unusual;2 sessions is about averageand 3 hours is about my record time. that's good;the more darkroomtime ;the betterBTW. NOW,THAT I DO MOST OF IT IN The 'light room it doesn't go any fasterand regular stuff takes actually longer.