Your Top 3 Tips for Successful Fine Prints

[Bill Burk]

As Michael pointed out, there is an interesting thread that gives practical advice towards this goal.

Dark print vs bright print.... what's going on?

I found myself significantly moved by one post by Doremus Scudder

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

Like Bob Carnie, I make 3 final prints each time I print a negative. I agree with Bob, you can mentally accommodate for dry-down. I look at the toned and dry prints side-by-side in various lighting conditions (inside terrible light for first impression, outside daylight for toning color, viewing station for standard view). I look for differences between prints that are supposedly the same. I am most confident of my own work when I can see differences and still call all the prints acceptable. When I prefer one print over the other, then I know what direction to go next time I find myself in a similar situation. Since I am a hobbyist, instead of printing three more times, I take mental note to do better next time and move on.

Bob, I can't for the life of me find your list of printing tips I hoped you would repost here. (Searching for duck's tail doesn't seem to pull it up).

 

[Bob Carnie]

I am not sure where they are Bill, I do not know if they are on a specific thread or not, but I do know it was made a sticky thread , whatever the hell that means.

 

[Bill Burk]

That's it!

Tips from the Darkroom

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

 

[brian steinberger]

To me this sounds like a recipe for driving yourself crazy, and I speak from some experience in that I was driving myself crazy. AA said he continued to refine how he printed some of his negatives. You will probably NEVER make the absolute best print you could ever make from a given negative. You will learn more, practice more and see differently in time. Not realizing when it really is good enough can have you just printing the same negative in variations on a theme over and over and over...

I'm certainly not arguing for mediocrity. Try to set your standards high, but achievable. But trying to make every print absolutely perfect in every way can drive you absolutely nuts. You will NEVER get there There will almost always be some tiny detail that could be improved. Fine, improve it next time but recognize when you really do have something good and don't waste another month of darkroom sessions and materials trying to make a 0.05% improvement no one else is going to notice anyway.

I have other thoughts that can wait fir when I'm not typing on the iPhone.

I most definitely struggle with this one! It's funny how once you get to a point where the work print is not longer so and you're very close to a final print you can keep finding things that need changed from one print to the next. Sometimes I think I could go on forever changing stuff each time a print is printed. Next thing I know the print washer is full with prints from front to back that translate to work print in the front, and hopefully final print in the back, with variations in between.

I have however created just a handful of prints of my work that I am absolutely thrilled with, and Bob they are matted and framed and hanging on my wall! And when a print is perfect you just know it. Sometimes it's easier than others, and sometimes it just never seems right, even after 3 or 4 sessions trying to re-work a negative. I am hoping over time that my skills will get better and that feeling of getting to a point of being happy with a print will come more often.

 

[Moopheus]

I most definitely struggle with this one! It's funny how once you get to a point where the work print is not longer so and you're very close to a final print you can keep finding things that need changed from one print to the next. Sometimes I think I could go on forever changing stuff each time a print is printed.

I've had to deal with writers who are like that. At some point you've got say, dude, it's time to go to typesetting. Let it go. In one case, I know there's a copy of a book on the author's shelf with marginal notations.

 

[piu58]

1) Shoot much, but print only the best negatives.
2) Decide what to print from a contact sheet made on you destination paper using standard print time.
3) Make the best print you can and then hang it up in your living room. If you look at your print avery day you'll eventually see all the little flaws.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Bill,

Thanks for the high praise. I'm happy my ramblings found resonance and even enough to be linked to! I'm glad to have helped further the discussions here.

Best,

Doremus

 

[markbarendt]

Been pondering on this more and just saw a quote from Anthony Burrill, "Make work you believe in."

Very appropriate I think.

The other decision that I'm coming to is not to be overly critical of a negative or a print with great composition and exposure. What I mean by that is that an errant dust speck or wash mark or finger print shouldn't always be a death knell for a negative.

I was surfing around on Flickr yesterday an found a bunch of stuff from the Library of Congress . There are a fair number of examples there where the content is strong but with obvious imperfections. The imperfections in many of these IMO actually adds value. They show the frailties of the medium, say glass plates, or the fallibility and choices of the photographer, or the effects of age. It gives them personality.

This concept of including imperfections isn't new, but I do tend to forget it. For example Navajo weavers, from what I have been told, always include a mistake in their weavings; even if they have to add it.

“The traditional teaching of the Navajo weaving is that you have to put a mistake in there,” Garnanez said. “It must be done because only the creator is perfect. We’re not perfect, so we don’t make a perfect rug.”

-From Native American Times -

I have a few negatives from my early work in 4x5 that are really strong other than beginner processing/handling problems. Although I'm frustrated that the errors exist I have now decided to give them another try because those compositions probably aren't replaceable.

This is also an acknowledgement that the definition of fine is a variable.

 

[Bill Burk]

...The imperfections ... show the frailties of the medium, say glass plates, or the fallibility and choices of the photographer, or the effects of age. It gives them personality...

This resonates with me.

 

[Jim Noel]

Knowledge,practice and patience.

 

[Bill Burk]

I've always been at odds with that notion. Just my opinion though. I can see accepting some flaws if the image is great and there's simply no way around the flaws, but accepting imperfections is different than embracing them (or worse, intentionally adding them).

Fred Picker wrote an article where the lead-in paragraph emphasized the importance of being able to recognize and name defects in your prints.

There seems to be a quality line I am reluctant to cross, printing a negative with skies that have too many defects to retouch. I have one negative I wish I could print because the buttermilk clouds formed a parallelogram. And maybe I still will. I do embrace the minor flaws.

I collected a few prints from a thrift shop by an amateur photographer. They only asked $5 for 11x14 and 16x20's so I picked them up happily. The 16x20 is a desert/dune shot with so many specks that I feel embarrassed for the photographer (is that even a valid emotion?). It downgraded my opinion of the rest of his work that didn't have such flaws. The shot was great but the flaws were awful.

So it is important to uphold a standard of quality in every print you circulate. I guess to protect your reputation in the afterlife you better tear up and throw out inferior prints.

 

[Moopheus]

The thing is, the more skill you have, and the more work you're willing to do, the more flaws you can deal with. I guess that's always my point when I talk about being willing to work your ass off on a print if the image is worth it.

...

What I'm getting at is, the quality line you mention when it comes to negatives is not absolute. It moves, depending on how much skill you have, and how much work you're willing to do.

It seems like there's really two different threads going on here. One is more technical--the care one takes in details like dust, focus, exposure, dodging & burning, archival presentation, etc. etc-- and one is much more subjective, getting the print to make the impression you want it to make, which could involve some, all, or none of these techniques in varying degrees. Arguably the more experience you have with the technical stuff, the more flexibility you have in making choices in what you do. But ultimately, when you're alone in the darkroom, it's your choice.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

1. What are we trying to say with this negative? What's important about the picture?
2. Now bring what's important about the picture forward by accentuating that importance with the printing.
3. Think of the print as if it is the last time you'll ever get to print it.

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Michael R, who says, if the picture warrants it - don't settle for something half-assed. Bring out all the tricks you know, and even learn some new ones if you must, to bring the picture forward as you want to show it. That struggle will make you a better printer, less dependent on negatives that are easy to print, and even better with the ones that are. We all screw up sometimes and mess up in processing, metering, or something else, and mis-treat the negative of a great picture. A good printer takes the so-so negative and makes something with it and works his/her way past the problem. I've even found that some of my favorite pictures are from less than ideal negatives, and I think it's because I tried so damned hard with them.

 

[teepoe]

1. Make the last print a little lighter than you think it should be (after drying it'll probably be the best one)
2. don't be afraid of cropping, it can change your relationship to the neg and help give you fresh eyes on it
3. just because you love the idea of the image, doesn't mean it'll make a good print.

 

[M. Lointain]

There are a lot of philosophical ideas in this thread which I guess is good. I think you should print your bad negs to become a good printer. When I first started out my negs were horrible since I was winging it. I didn't have anyone to tell me what to do so I just read the manufacturers packages and got to work. These days it should be a piece of cake to become a good printer since there is so much information out there with a couple of keystrokes. You still need to get to work though. There is no substitute for experience.

But I guess you want some tips. Most people tend to print too heavy going for that deep black. If this describes you (it does me) when you have a doubt, hold the wet print up to your viewing light. If you can see more detail in the shadows then you are probably printing too dark. It is easy to print highlights too dark as well. They should look white in the fix with a slight tone leading into them. You will have to get some experience to see it and each paper is a little different. This only helps you thought if it is what you want.

The other tip I would like to give you echos Thomas' statement above. You need to know what you want before you start. You can make a technically perfect print that is dead. If you doubt this take a look at some of the Zonies work. My point is the print needs to match the feel and mood of the image that you want to communicate to the person viewing the print. That could mean a print with no whites or no blacks. There are no laws of aesthetics in printing. It is only about what you want it to be about. Everything else is just noise.

 

[Jerevan]

Trust your instincts about what is good (to you), take notes and keep at it. In the event that you don't know what's good, then just keep going and the roads will lead you to where you need to be.

(To me, that started out as wanting to be Ansel Adams with an 8x10 and ended up with dodge-the-bullets lith printing - but the Zone system is still in my head and I crop in-camera)

 

[c6h6o3]

This is on my list for this year! I still have yet to see a showing of silver gelatin prints. Pathetic I know, but I live a sheltered life in rural america... And finding when showings are going on seems very hard and frustrating to find information on.

How far away are you from Washington, DC? This would be a really good show for you to see, because I suspect that the prints won't be limited to just silver gelatin.

 

[brian steinberger]

How far away are you from Washington, DC? This would be a really good show for you to see, because I suspect that the prints won't be limited to just silver gelatin.

I'm about 2 hours away from DC. That looks like an interesting exhibit. I would only be truly interested in viewing silver gelatin prints though.