Master Printers

Erik van Straten said:
I make darkroom prints since 1967. From my work only RC paper has ever oxidized. "Carbon on cotton rag" sounds like East-Indian ink on handmade paper. Doesn't that suffer from handling, such as leafing through a box with prints?
Click to expand...

Ilford makes a silver gelatin paper on 300gram 100% cotton rag called Multigrade Art 300. It is a fine paper but in comes only in a matte finish. I tried a box, but prefer an air dried glossy finish. I didn't see any reason it would suffer from handling, such as leafing through a box of prints. Probably less so than a lighter weight paper.
 
Some Ink jet prints look pretty good to me. As you very well know, they are not 'robot' prints. There's a lot of experience, knowledge, and practice behind them. Neither you or I will know what they'll look like a hundred years from now. Cheers, OtL
 
Out to Lunch said:
Some Ink jet prints look pretty good to me. As you very well know, they are not 'robot' prints. There's a lot of experience, knowledge, and practice behind them. Neither you or I will know what they'll look like a hundred years from now. Cheers, OtL
Click to expand...

If they use Indian ink the shelf life will be no problem. Or they should make a printer that runs on oil paint, better still.

All inkjet prints I've seen are very vulnerable. The paper is thin and the image is like coating. If you keep them in a pile in a box and look at them often, they wear out. That does not happen with silver gelatin prints.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
All inkjet prints I've seen are very vulnerable. The paper is thin and the image is like coating. If you keep them in a pile in a box and look at them often, they wear out. That does not happen with silver gelatin prints.
Click to expand...
What nonsense. The silver gelatin paper I use is 255g. The inkjet paper I use use in 310g. I keep my prints in museum boxes and leaf through them occasionally. Neither my silver gelatin prints nor my inkjet prints show any signs of wear.
 
All adjustments are done in the software. Once you make the image look the way you like, it's ready to print. No test strips, no trash bin full of rejects, it's all pretty much finished as seen on the computer. I'm a muddler when it comes to the processing, I don't use presets or any recipes. Every image is done individually and, sometimes, tediously. If I knew more about what I was doing it would be faster but I fiddle with the images until they look good to me and go with the results. I'm impressed by how my muddling and fiddling comes out and, honestly, I guess I've learned a few things over the years. I use Epson pigment inks and high rag content matte finish papers by Epson, Canson, Hahnemuhle. All are hot press made with a smooth finish. To my eyes they have a depth and a velvety finish that I love. Various types of paper are available but I just like the look of art paper.
 
ptpdprinter said:
You make adjustments to the image in digital image editing software (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.) before printing. You can achieve the same result as split grade printing if that is the look you desire.
Click to expand...

In the old version of Photoshop that I have it is not possible to make a "split grade" effect. In analog printing "split grade" means that the exposure of the print goes in two (or more) steps with different gradation filters, usually the grades 00 and 5. The effect resembles duotone in offset-printing. If you want to make small prints this method is handier than all the dodging and burning in the world. Nobody has hands that are small enough to dodge and burn on small prints. Saves paper too.

Erik.
 
Erik van Straten said:
In the old version of Photoshop that I have it is not possible to make a "split grade" effect. In analog printing "split grade" means that the exposure of the print goes in two (or more) steps with different gradation filters, usually the grades 00 and 5. The effect resembles duotone in offset-printing. If you want to make small prints this method is handier than all the dodging and burning in the world. Nobody has hands that are small enough to dodge and burn on small prints. Saves paper too.
Click to expand...
I am familiar with split grade printing. Dodging and burning and split grade printing achieve different results. They are not substitutes for one another regardless of the size of the print. One way to dodge and burn small prints is to use a dodging tool and a piece of cardboard with a hole in it. Using a dodging tool or a piece of cardboard with a hole in it works well with large prints as well when you have small areas to dodge and burn.

I do not know which version of Photoshop you have or how skilled you are at using it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion that "it is not possible to make a 'split grade' effect" with it. Others' opinions based on their own experience may differ.
 
Erik van Straten said:
In the old version of Photoshop that I have it is not possible to make a "split grade" effect.
Click to expand...

Unless you're using the very first version of Photoshop on a Macintosh Plus from 1988, you can replicate the "split grade" processing techniques quite literally.

As much as I absolutely hate using photoshop, it's a versatile piece of software with multiple ways of skinning the same cat. I made the mistake many years ago of shooting product photos on a wood background with natural light as I was tired of the stark studio light and white background I had to use at my previous employer; balancing both colour and lighting issues, while a pain in the ass, effectively got me doing a sort of "colour split grade" digital process using layers and masks. I'm sure there's cleaner or faster ways of doing it, but I found a method that works for me, and yes, both the methodology and the final result are very similar to those created by the split grade process in the darkroom.

On a related note, the biggest thing I hate about digital photography vs film photography - from both the in-camera process through to the finished print - is how overwhelming a digital workflow can be. It's easy to just slap a camera into auto, produce a JPG, and be done, but god, the amount of menus and options you have all the way through that process if you want to take control of the workflow? It just gives me a headache. I probably only use 5% of what Photoshop can do, and even then, I sometimes struggle to find tool tips and menu options I haven't needed for six months.
 
Coldkennels said:
On a related note, the biggest thing I hate about digital photography vs film photography - from both the in-camera process through to the finished print - is how overwhelming a digital workflow can be. It's easy to just slap a camera into auto, produce a JPG, and be done, but god, the amount of menus and options you have all the way through that process if you want to take control of the workflow? It just gives me a headache. I probably only use 5% of what Photoshop can do, and even then, I sometimes struggle to find tool tips and menu options I haven't needed for six months.
Click to expand...

Yes, and add to that my distaste for computers and for that kind of apparatus ... But I love the Rangefinderforum. It is simply great.

Thanks all for your input!

Erik.
 
Barry Kirsten said:
I was disappointed in this for several reasons, among them the emphasis on mural prints and the implication that only master printers can make huge prints; that photographers lack something that only master printers have that allows finer expression of the photographer's vision (I wonder what Ansel would say about that); and it's all happening in New York! A pretty narrow view of fine printing in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Not a simple, sorry, answer.

Vivian Maier never been able to print. She was living in someone else places, accumulating negatives.
It was only done after she was gone, negs went next to dumpster and were recovered accidentally.
The big prints we see from her now are all done by one master printer based in West end of Toronto.

Adams... Some likes his landscapes. But in reality most of his photos really stood out because he was master printer most and foremost and somewhat photog after it.
The proving fact is what his prints are only allowed to be published in the books supervised by the trust on his behalf. It is incredible good reproduction prints, to match Adams very high quality prints. To my technical and art related eyes, Adams is best master printer of all times and so-so photog.

Yet, HCB prints are standing out on dull reproductions because he was the content creator.
And he had master printer, which allowed him to spend all of the time for content creation.

Wingrand was only printing large if he was paid for it. Yet, I have never seen any mentions of his really large prints, nor I have seen any at his exhibitions.

His darkroom buddy Zimbel, has printed large, even few years ago. For his Momento exhibition in Montreal, around 2015 or so. But as much as I respect him... He is nowhere near Winogrand.

Yousuf Karsh, once established to leave in fancy hotel, diched printing and hired printer.

Impressive huge prints I have seen so far were marked and Diane Arbus. Do you know if she printed?

Which known photogs you could list here with their own large prints?

Did you print really large and aware yourself what is it and how different it is from so called large prints among web forums experts?
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Impressive huge prints I have seen so far were marked and Diane Arbus. Do you know if she printed?
Click to expand...

Neil Selkirk makes the modern Arbus prints - they have amazing macro contrast and are obviously made with a very well aligned enlarger with a highly collimated light source—the grain is often visible despite the low speed 6x6 negatives. In her lifetime, Arbus did her own printing. Arbus prints are often less technical but compellingly odd, with asymetrical, messy borders, very subtle dodging, and highlights with a very bright contrasty look which speaks strongly of bleach to anyone who spent a lot of time in the darkroom. Auction records suggest that the prices are higher for Arbus prints.

Ko.Fe. said:
Which known photogs you could list here with their own large prints?
Click to expand...

I professionally printed, often large, from 1996-2005. I have a folio of my 1990s work printed full frame on 20x24 paper, and a series from the subantarctic where the image area is about 40x56 inches from 5x7 negatives. I bought a Durst L1840 10x10 enlarger with a drop easel to make them.

Printing large in the darkroom has its own problems which are largely misunderstood by those who have not done it. I worked in a darkroom where we had to know and work around the train timetable, and another where we could only work at night because of erratic blasting at a nearby mine site - the vibration made the large prints unacceptably soft.

Marty
 
Erik van Straten said:
I think Saul is still busy with his inertia. Thank you, Kostja.

gelatin silver print (nikkor h 50mm) nikkormat ftn

Erik.
Click to expand...

Beautiful. When was this taken Erik? I know you mentioned that you abandoned Tri-X some time ago.

Do you re-print your old photos sometimes? I admit to having printed some of my favourites where I did not have prints that I found entirely satisfactory several times, as my methods and materials changed. My main bugbear with modern vc papers is that highlight contrast is too low for some old negs or negs on old tech materials. Current Ilford fb vc is better than the previous one but nothing available now is as good as Forte, Sterling or Cachet papers were. So I print them on current papers with inkjet masks that differentially influence the contrast on vc paper, or manage the differences in density on graded paper. Sometimes they still need the highlights bleached.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top