Who still manually retouches their negatives?

[Dusty Negative]

I've been mucking about with film and wet printing now for perhaps four or five years. I'm getting moderately handy, and generally enjoy the tactile, hands-on factor in analog photography.

But I am simply in awe of the fact that people used to manually retouch negatives. I would not even know where to begin, and am not at all convinced I would have the patience (or eyesight) to do it.

Come to think of it, I never stumble across articles on manual retouching, and do not recall stumbling across conversations here on Photrio. This makes me wonder: is *that* part of analog photography essentially dead? I have no doubt someone, somewhere, still does manual retouching, but I am betting that it is a very tiny fraction of an already small number of darkroom printers.

So...let's see!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been mucking about with film and wet printing now for perhaps four or five years. I'm getting moderately handy, and generally enjoy the tactile, hands-on factor in analog photography.

But I am simply in awe of the fact that people used to manually retouch negatives. I would not even know where to begin, and am not at all convinced I would have the patience (or eyesight) to do it.

Come to think of it, I never stumble across articles on manual retouching, and do not recall stumbling across conversations here on Photrio. This makes me wonder: is *that* part of manual photography essentially dead? I have no doubt someone, somewhere, still does manual retouching, but I am betting that it is a very tiny fraction of an already small number of darkroom printers.

So...let's see!

Ido so regulary but only with obvious faults such as pinholes in the emulsion not for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Don_ih]

I have fixed pinholes. I have never tried anything more complex.

 

[removed account4]

I was trained on an Adams retouching desk with leads and an abrasion tool &c .. used to regularly smooth and retouch portraits
and sometimes unwanted things from other types of scenes. I also used to spot and retouch prints with spot tone and the pens
but once spot tone became hard to find I sold the retouching desk and leads and just do it with a computer now .. I wasn't as good as
this girl who worked with us. Kimberly cold retouch a split 5x7 negative and I would enlarge it to 20x24 and you wouldn't even see her handiwork ...

What size negatives are you hoping to retouch?
a big magnifying glass of some sort helps...

 

[JensH]

Hi,

no, never did on negatives, just on wet printed positives.
Maybe if I would make 5x7" or larger negs, but not on my 6x6cm to 4x5"...

Best
Jens

 

[laser]

Kodak Book Photographic Retouching E-97 Retial price was $24.95. As part of my cleaning process I am offeringthis book.

$10 including US shipping.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Ido so regulary but only with obvious faults such as pinholes in the emulsion not for aesthetic reasons.

Great point, Ralph. I didn’t think to add that nuance to the poll. I’ll see if I can add that question. I can see how the non-aesthetic touch up of pinholes could be reasonably doable by a larger portion of the community.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I was trained on an Adams retouching desk with leads and an abrasion tool &c .. used to regularly smooth and retouch portraits
and sometimes unwanted things from other types of scenes. I also used to spot and retouch prints with spot tone and the pens
but once spot tone became hard to find I sold the retouching desk and leads and just do it with a computer now .. I wasn't as good as
this girl who worked with us. Kimberly cold retouch a split 5x7 negative and I would enlarge it to 20x24 and you wouldn't even see her handiwork ...

What size negatives are you hoping to retouch?
a big magnifying glass of some sort helps...

Jnantz - I still find it challenging to spot-tone prints much less grind down negatives. The former is just irritating (I use pens on glossies, but not on matte as the ink is much more specular, and I haven’t yet gotten good at watering down ink to the proper tone). And the latter (to wit actually decreasing or increasing density on a negative) strikes fear into me.

So, not yet sure I would even want to. Plus, largest I shoot is 6x7 cm. I presume that is not considered large in the retouching world?

 

[Dusty Negative]

Kodak Book Photographic Retouching E-97 Retial price was $24.95. As part of my cleaning process I am offeringthis book.

$10 including US shipping.

Are the actual tools/materials still available to even do this?

 

[Don_ih]

On prints, I use spotting ink and a very fine nib pen. I can make extremely tiny dots with it, so it works for shading. I have markers, too - they seem to be horrible all the time. I have a Berg set of black/grey/white that claims it's for rc paper. If it is, I guess you're not supposed to look at the picture ever again - I have not been able to get any good result spotting rc paper except with Sakura Micron markers.

 

[removed account4]

So, not yet sure I would even want to. Plus, largest I shoot is 6x7 cm. I presume that is not considered large in the retouching world?

might be a bit small but who knows you may find your groove and a giant magnifier and go to town

Are the actual tools/materials still available to even do this?

if you are planning on using graphite, you just need lead holders and to go to someplace like Blick or Jerry's or someplace similar, or you might
get lucky and find a whole set of them for sale on Eboink from someone who is selling something found in the attic of Aunt Millie, or their neighbor's cousin who recently passed away &c .. the leads + holders sometimes are sold with the stuff on Eboink .. there are a few there right now

my boss used to use plain old watercolor to spot her prints,

 

[mshchem]

I've spotted fb prints. No way do I have the dexterity for working on even large format negatives. In the day portrait photographers often employed a full time person, usually a woman, to alter negatives, hand color prints etc. Pimples removed eyelashes added etc

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... largest I shoot is 6x7 cm. I presume that is not considered large in the retouching world?

8x10 was the norm; some did miniature formats like 5x7...

I tried it with 4x5 in my youth but was never very (any) good. The goal was to remove wrinkles from a lady's skin - easier to do on the negative. You needed to carefully fill in the clear wrinkles (black or grey on the print) so they were the same density as the skin tone, when you got it just right the wrinkle disappeared. I remember coating the back side of the negative with Kodak retouching lacquer (I think I still have the bottle...) and this gave a tooth to the negative so you could fill in the wrinkles with a pencil. After I got done with a negative the resulting enlargement didn't have any wrinkles - they had all been exchanged for rather advanced skin cancer.

If you look carefully at a lot of old fashion photos you can see the retouching artifacts.

 

[Dusty Negative]

If you look carefully at a lot of old fashion photos you can see the retouching artifacts.

Absolutely. Hence my awe. We take so much for granted now, it seems to me. Loose hair? Wrinkle? Couple of swipes in photoshop.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I've spotted fb prints. No way do I have the dexterity for working on even large format negatives. In the day portrait photographers often employed a full time person, usually a woman, to alter negatives, hand color prints etc. Pimples removed eyelashes added etc

I wonder if it was ever the norm for photographers to do all three (capture, retouch, enlarge).

 

[nosmok]

I 'retouch' those parts of the negative that got scratched somehow, very simply with a Sharpie of approximately correct value on the base side, just so I can scan the negative including the scratched part well enough to use digital retouching later. It certainly ain't high quality, but it gets me through that first stage, and it's removeable if I get a better idea.

 

[mshchem]

I wonder if it was ever the norm for photographers to do all three (capture, retouch, enlarge).

I'm sure. The guy that did my sister's 1969 hs graduation portrait, shot it on large format black and white, the final portrait was an 8x10 hand colored print. The negative had been retouched to eliminate blemishes/pimples etc.

 

[removed account4]

I wonder if it was ever the norm for photographers to do all three (capture, retouch, enlarge).

I worked for a lady who was trained through correspondence school in the 20s/30s. she was from a farm in rural Maine and it was required to go to the school ( ny school of photography ) to do the retouching module. when she first started out she did all three, but eventually had someone else doing the lab work and someone else doing retouching. no time to do all 3 if you are trying to survive... unless you have to, or charge so much that you can afford to only shoot part time... this lady had appointments from 830-430 every day...

 

[Paul Howell]

The Air Force tech school covered negative and print retouching, other than spotting a print or a etching a pin hole never did much. At Mather AF in the 70s our superintendent a civilian used an air brush on occasion.

 

[jvo]

not enough expertise/courage to work on the negative... just the print for me.

 

[Molli]

I enjoy spotting prints and am set up to retouch negatives if need be. Aside from pinholes in the emulsion, I've not touched a negative. The closest I've come is making a paper negative of a glass plate positive which is cracked and has gouges in the emulsion as well - it's somewhere between a hundred and a hundred and forty years old, so a bit of damage is understandable. At any rate, I did all of the retouching on the paper negative given that I consider myself merely the caretaker of the glass plate.
After the retouching of the paper negative and making a print from that, I still had to spot the print.
I've spent hundreds of hours digitally restoring old photographs. This was infinitely more satisfying - but, as mentioned, I find spotting prints relaxing.
I have a lot of old books on retouching negatives for æsthetic reasons. Aside from the fact that beauty 'ideals' have shifted a great deal in the past seventy years, I'm hoping to master this aspect of portrait photography. I do have lines I won't cross, however.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I don't know if this qualifies and retouching the negative, but I retouch my LF negs in areas that had dust when I did the shot. I use opaque to fill the dust spots in then I retouch the print. It's easier than trying to scrape black dust marks on the print.

 

[Bill Burk]

I have correspondence course materials and an Adams retouching machine. But I haven’t done the course work. Like Mainecoonmaniac I retouch pinholes and spot prints.

I’d recommend 4x5 and larger if you’re going to do it. It’s ridiculous to me to think of retouching 35mm, but the experts used to routinely do 120

 

[Dusty Negative]

not enough expertise/courage to work on the negative... just the print for me.

Ditto. Maybe when I retire. But by then I won't have any eyesight left.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I have correspondence course materials and an Adams retouching machine. But I haven’t done the course work. Like Mainecoonmaniac I retouch pinholes and spot prints.

I’d recommend 4x5 and larger if you’re going to do it. It’s ridiculous to me to think of retouching 35mm, but the experts used to routinely do 120

I wonder if such a course still exists!