brusby
Well-known
You might want to try a couple of different light sources to see which you like best. If your paper stock isn't too thick you could use an ordinary 100w bulb. Just to give this a try, maybe take the shade off a regular lamp. Hold up the print in front of the bare bulb and look through it at the darkest areas while moving it slowly around so it doesn't burn. If a lot of detail becomes apparent that wasn't there when viewed under normal reflected light conditions, you can decide whether you want to print again to try to bring out all or even just parts of the formerly hidden details, or just accept things as they are.
At least this way you are making an informed decision.
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
All interesting stuff for a monograph Brusby, assuming that you are retired and have time and motivation.....
Some random thoughts:
've been printing since the 60's, had my results good and bad. Starting with Panatomic-X, Promicrol, Metronome, Graded papers, Beers, Timer.
A great friend photographer 10 years older than I am (81 in Febr) ), living about 2000 miles from here, offered some time ago to mentor me. We're still working at it, via telephone and postal service- I guess I'm a slow learner.
Before a printing session I sometimes judge negatives brought to me by people asking for prints ( old family stuff). The underexposed over developed ones go straight to the scanner to save what can be saved. That's for the ink jet approach. Actually amazing what is salvageable especially at the lower end.
My own 35mm negs go in the Focomat 1C and a Heiland Splitgrade Controller gives me superfast a ballpark exposure/gradation info. I use 2 exposures with resp. 00 and 5 under the lens filters. No need for time consuming test strips. However the unit needs to be calibrated carefully to film- and paper brand/type, with off-set gradation and off-set time for the materials chosen. The first print settings need to be fine tuned with the Time and Gradation settings. Overall very good for speedy and average print results. But along the way one has to deal with some default settings- which I dislike to no end .
For top-end "no better possible" results for 35mm and 4"x5"I use my DeVere 504 dichro head which I have calibrated according to Paul Butzi's guidelines published years ago. Using teststrips I can vary things exactly the way I want. No problem to make very fine adjustments in contrast, with Y and M combined settings. Different parts of the print can be exposed with different contrast settings as needed. No default frustrations.
But now my enlarging timer shows inconsistencies- the plague of electronics, not reliable when you need them. So for now back to the metronome which is totally reliable but a pain when you get into long exposures.........
I think a Heiland Split Controller unit - the manual thing, not the light source-is indispensable in the darkroom if you like to print more than 2-3 prints per session. Jus accept the learning curve. Excellent machine. Get a box with the Ilford filters 6x6 and cut them to 3x3", they fit on the swing-out filter support of the Focomat 1C
Occasionally I connect the unit the Devere Dichro head with good results.
Some random thoughts:
've been printing since the 60's, had my results good and bad. Starting with Panatomic-X, Promicrol, Metronome, Graded papers, Beers, Timer.
A great friend photographer 10 years older than I am (81 in Febr) ), living about 2000 miles from here, offered some time ago to mentor me. We're still working at it, via telephone and postal service- I guess I'm a slow learner.
Before a printing session I sometimes judge negatives brought to me by people asking for prints ( old family stuff). The underexposed over developed ones go straight to the scanner to save what can be saved. That's for the ink jet approach. Actually amazing what is salvageable especially at the lower end.
My own 35mm negs go in the Focomat 1C and a Heiland Splitgrade Controller gives me superfast a ballpark exposure/gradation info. I use 2 exposures with resp. 00 and 5 under the lens filters. No need for time consuming test strips. However the unit needs to be calibrated carefully to film- and paper brand/type, with off-set gradation and off-set time for the materials chosen. The first print settings need to be fine tuned with the Time and Gradation settings. Overall very good for speedy and average print results. But along the way one has to deal with some default settings- which I dislike to no end .
For top-end "no better possible" results for 35mm and 4"x5"I use my DeVere 504 dichro head which I have calibrated according to Paul Butzi's guidelines published years ago. Using teststrips I can vary things exactly the way I want. No problem to make very fine adjustments in contrast, with Y and M combined settings. Different parts of the print can be exposed with different contrast settings as needed. No default frustrations.
But now my enlarging timer shows inconsistencies- the plague of electronics, not reliable when you need them. So for now back to the metronome which is totally reliable but a pain when you get into long exposures.........
I think a Heiland Split Controller unit - the manual thing, not the light source-is indispensable in the darkroom if you like to print more than 2-3 prints per session. Jus accept the learning curve. Excellent machine. Get a box with the Ilford filters 6x6 and cut them to 3x3", they fit on the swing-out filter support of the Focomat 1C
Occasionally I connect the unit the Devere Dichro head with good results.
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
Very interesting Hans. I love hearing details of how other people have gotten their best results printing. I retired from photography many years ago. For the past many years and now still I master records professionally. In a way it's all tied in together. We get paid for our sensibilities and judgment.
While I find it very interesting to hear about your use of the machine, I don't think that would have worked in the commercial context I was in. I printed all day every day for over a year. That allowed me the luxury of not having to use test strips because I was usually within a stop of proper exposure just from familiarity with the density of negatives and the printing process we used. Even if I was off a bit off in exposure timing, I could usually adjust for it by changing development time and/or by putting the print in a water bath if needed to slow the process.
Another reason the machine wouldn't have been the optimal choice is exhaustion of chemistry. For example, I once was asked to print a couple hundred 8x10 of our State governor's official portrait. After a while the developer starts to be exhausted and I'd have to adjust exposure and developing times on the fly. I think I had to replenish developer once or twice too, so the fresh developer times had to be recalculated on the fly. Bear in mind that when finshed, the first print had to match the last. No time for machines.
Thanks for your input!
While I find it very interesting to hear about your use of the machine, I don't think that would have worked in the commercial context I was in. I printed all day every day for over a year. That allowed me the luxury of not having to use test strips because I was usually within a stop of proper exposure just from familiarity with the density of negatives and the printing process we used. Even if I was off a bit off in exposure timing, I could usually adjust for it by changing development time and/or by putting the print in a water bath if needed to slow the process.
Another reason the machine wouldn't have been the optimal choice is exhaustion of chemistry. For example, I once was asked to print a couple hundred 8x10 of our State governor's official portrait. After a while the developer starts to be exhausted and I'd have to adjust exposure and developing times on the fly. I think I had to replenish developer once or twice too, so the fresh developer times had to be recalculated on the fly. Bear in mind that when finshed, the first print had to match the last. No time for machines.
Thanks for your input!
Last edited:
JeffS7444
Well-known
Back in the day, I favored glossy FB paper with air-dried finish, initially because St. Ansel advocated the combination, but also because I found it amenable to selenium toning, bleaching, and spotting.
This is a direct scan from a negative which I've also printed numerous times. Lots of things I could have done better in the photographing and processing, as the nucleus of the comet must be somewhere around the film's dMax, while the foreground is almost completely clear. But what did I know about photographing comets? After Hyakutake (not photographed, as it was barely over the horizon, and it was all I could do to glimpse it through trees), Hale-Bopp was only the second such thing I had witnessed.
IIRC, shot on Ilford Delta 400 push-processed to 1600 with a Hasselblad + 50/4, likely set at f/5.6. Exposure time was probably ~10 seconds. Today, I wonder whether Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 or even 800 might have made for an easier to print negative with reduced contrast. On the other hand, I do like the crunchy texture on the mountainside.
This is a direct scan from a negative which I've also printed numerous times. Lots of things I could have done better in the photographing and processing, as the nucleus of the comet must be somewhere around the film's dMax, while the foreground is almost completely clear. But what did I know about photographing comets? After Hyakutake (not photographed, as it was barely over the horizon, and it was all I could do to glimpse it through trees), Hale-Bopp was only the second such thing I had witnessed.
IIRC, shot on Ilford Delta 400 push-processed to 1600 with a Hasselblad + 50/4, likely set at f/5.6. Exposure time was probably ~10 seconds. Today, I wonder whether Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 or even 800 might have made for an easier to print negative with reduced contrast. On the other hand, I do like the crunchy texture on the mountainside.
Last edited:
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
Brusby interesting, my mentor in his youth also started with high volume (and fast) printing.
Developer temperature plays a role for the black intensity as well; Hydrochinone gets more active at higher temperature. So consistency in temp is important and then as you explain the possible dev. exhaustion should be watched for. Adding an exposed on printing paper step wedge every 2-3 prints or so will alert one about this aspect.
I'm for fun adding a print with on purpose no detail in the blacks R upper area.
img839 by hans p berkhout, on Flickr
Developer temperature plays a role for the black intensity as well; Hydrochinone gets more active at higher temperature. So consistency in temp is important and then as you explain the possible dev. exhaustion should be watched for. Adding an exposed on printing paper step wedge every 2-3 prints or so will alert one about this aspect.
I'm for fun adding a print with on purpose no detail in the blacks R upper area.
img839 by hans p berkhout, on Flickr
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Brusby interesting, my mentor in his youth also started with high volume (and fast) printing.
Developer temperature plays a role for the black intensity as well; Hydrochinone gets more active at higher temperature. So consistency in temp is important and then as you explain the possible dev. exhaustion should be watched for. Adding an exposed on printing paper step wedge every 2-3 prints or so will alert one about this aspect.
I'm for fun adding a print with on purpose no detail in the blacks R upper area.
Lovely shot, Hans!
Erik.
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
Thank you very much Erik. Shot in the fall in the Rockies, not far from here.
Vince Lupo
Nobody's Mentor
I just tried this out with a few inkjet prints and guess what - it works! One thing though - it seems to work better with a glossy smooth finish rather than something like a matte textured finish, as the texture seems to break up the shadow details when the light is projected from behind the print thereby hindering your ability to get a really good look at them.
The prints that worked pretty well were on Epson Legacy Platine paper, which is even thicker than double weight FB paper and has a smooth, F-type finish. Of course the question is whether it’s necessary to see all those minute shadow details more obviously than you’d be seeing them without the backlight and, as you’ve alluded to, at that point it may just come down to personal aesthetic preference. Nonetheless, an eye-opening experience so to speak!
The prints that worked pretty well were on Epson Legacy Platine paper, which is even thicker than double weight FB paper and has a smooth, F-type finish. Of course the question is whether it’s necessary to see all those minute shadow details more obviously than you’d be seeing them without the backlight and, as you’ve alluded to, at that point it may just come down to personal aesthetic preference. Nonetheless, an eye-opening experience so to speak!
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
Vince thanks for doing this. Never to old to learn. How does it compare with your usual negative assessment ,with special attention to the thin (lower zone) areas?
Then the next question is- why go through the exercise, is it going to a change printing your negative involved? Compare with for instance medicine- why send for a test if you know that patient management is not going to change no matter what the result?
Or is it just curiosity- which is fine of course, learn as much about your materials as possible. In the medical example one could say that deferring 6-12 months would be more helpful, for comparing with previous results.
Then the next question is- why go through the exercise, is it going to a change printing your negative involved? Compare with for instance medicine- why send for a test if you know that patient management is not going to change no matter what the result?
Or is it just curiosity- which is fine of course, learn as much about your materials as possible. In the medical example one could say that deferring 6-12 months would be more helpful, for comparing with previous results.
brusby
Well-known
Hey Vince, that's amazing. I would have bet against it working with inkjet because the dark areas of the print have to be laid down in a progressive manner with the darkest deposited first in order for the different print densities to be viewable in backlight. But very good to know. And thanks for taking the time both to try it and to report on your results.
Last edited:
x-ray
Mentor
I’m glad this works for you and glad Eric is happy with his prints but there’s a little detail that overlooked here. I spent the past 55 years as a commercial photographer and apprenticed for a year and a half back in the early 70’s after college under a master photographer. I was a fairly good photographer and good printer but he took me to much higher levels.
In 1985 I was presented the title of Master Photographer by the Professional Photographers of America at their national convention in Chicago.
I can’t even guess the number of prints I’ve made in my career for both clients and myself.
I was active in the professional world and attended a seminar to become a professional judge. Something I learned in those seminars and a little detail reinforced in my work was the quantity and quality of light used to view images was key as to how they looked. Low light makes a print, especially shadows, look darker and brighter light blows out highlights and brings up shadows.
I worked with some big time clients and worked closely with prepress houses and printers. The one thing many of my ad agency clients and prepress houses had in common was Macbeth viewing booth. I’m sure you know what that is. It’s a standardized light setup not only in color temperature but in intensity of illumination. Having a standard allowed my client to see the images exactly the same as I saw them and the same as the printer and prepress house a thousand miles away.
If you don’t have a standard setup you can’t accurately evaluate your results. It’s exactly the same as uncalibrated monitors in the digital age. No standard, no consistency.
My personal work is in a half dozen high end art galleries and several museums. The reality of exhibiting is that there is no standardization in the real world. Some galleries have their spotlights cranked up bright and museums run theirs low, very low. The lighting most museums and galleries have have hot areas and dark areas and you never know how you’re work will be shown. You don’t know if your prints will be in a dark spot or a very hot spot. Color temperature varies depending on bulbs and how bright the dimmer is set. Is just a guessing game.
While your method works for you, there’s no connection to reality when it comes to how your print will be viewed when it leaves your hands. I understand because it’s the world I’ve dealt with for over fifty years. There are no standards in the outside world and what looked right in your world may not look right in mine or Eric’s.
I still have a full darkroom and print for shows and my own enjoyment. Outside my darkroom I’ve put up track lights and have white walls to approximate gallery lighting. It helps but it’s not absolute.
A little story, I received a large commission to produce an original image to be printed 6’x10’ on canvas to get hung in a lobby at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. I had to deal with a young art buyer who was dealing with the architect who was dealing with the hospital administration.
I worked closely with my prepress house who found a company that could print it. When I received approval of the image I had a smaller print made to get approved by the client. It was B&W and they wanted it neutral so I had it printed with completely neutral B&W dies with no color at all.
Ok the proof print came in and I viewed it in the Macbeth booth and it looked perfect. It went to the client and expected an approval but got a call that it was green. Green!!!!! What!!!! I said that’s impossible. I asked how the art buyer was viewing it and got the response that she had taken it outside and put it in the grass under a tree. #%!#&!!!
This is what I’m talking about. No standard viewing setup, no telling how it will look. You do the best on your end and hope for the best which doesn’t always workout.
In 1985 I was presented the title of Master Photographer by the Professional Photographers of America at their national convention in Chicago.
I can’t even guess the number of prints I’ve made in my career for both clients and myself.
I was active in the professional world and attended a seminar to become a professional judge. Something I learned in those seminars and a little detail reinforced in my work was the quantity and quality of light used to view images was key as to how they looked. Low light makes a print, especially shadows, look darker and brighter light blows out highlights and brings up shadows.
I worked with some big time clients and worked closely with prepress houses and printers. The one thing many of my ad agency clients and prepress houses had in common was Macbeth viewing booth. I’m sure you know what that is. It’s a standardized light setup not only in color temperature but in intensity of illumination. Having a standard allowed my client to see the images exactly the same as I saw them and the same as the printer and prepress house a thousand miles away.
If you don’t have a standard setup you can’t accurately evaluate your results. It’s exactly the same as uncalibrated monitors in the digital age. No standard, no consistency.
My personal work is in a half dozen high end art galleries and several museums. The reality of exhibiting is that there is no standardization in the real world. Some galleries have their spotlights cranked up bright and museums run theirs low, very low. The lighting most museums and galleries have have hot areas and dark areas and you never know how you’re work will be shown. You don’t know if your prints will be in a dark spot or a very hot spot. Color temperature varies depending on bulbs and how bright the dimmer is set. Is just a guessing game.
While your method works for you, there’s no connection to reality when it comes to how your print will be viewed when it leaves your hands. I understand because it’s the world I’ve dealt with for over fifty years. There are no standards in the outside world and what looked right in your world may not look right in mine or Eric’s.
I still have a full darkroom and print for shows and my own enjoyment. Outside my darkroom I’ve put up track lights and have white walls to approximate gallery lighting. It helps but it’s not absolute.
A little story, I received a large commission to produce an original image to be printed 6’x10’ on canvas to get hung in a lobby at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta. I had to deal with a young art buyer who was dealing with the architect who was dealing with the hospital administration.
I worked closely with my prepress house who found a company that could print it. When I received approval of the image I had a smaller print made to get approved by the client. It was B&W and they wanted it neutral so I had it printed with completely neutral B&W dies with no color at all.
Ok the proof print came in and I viewed it in the Macbeth booth and it looked perfect. It went to the client and expected an approval but got a call that it was green. Green!!!!! What!!!! I said that’s impossible. I asked how the art buyer was viewing it and got the response that she had taken it outside and put it in the grass under a tree. #%!#&!!!
This is what I’m talking about. No standard viewing setup, no telling how it will look. You do the best on your end and hope for the best which doesn’t always workout.
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
Thanks x-ray. Sounds like you and I had somewhat similar backgrounds in photography. The guy I worked for many years ago was the head of our State Professional Photographers of America association. Pretty bright guy. In the days before digital he developed a group of chemicals that he would use to do local color balance on large format transparencies. Used 'em mostly for things like architectural interior shots to leach out orange from around incandescent lamps if we were using daylight film.
Anyway you bring up all very good points that are particularly applicable to color. But I have a slightly different take regarding b&w. While I completely agree a standardized viewing environment can be incredibly useful and probably optimum, most people won't have one for a variety of reasons, from not being aware of the need or maybe they just can't afford the expense or space. Nevertheless its still possible to produce consistently good prints.
The trick is to have a standard reference -- a print or set of prints that are known to translate well -- and to check them carefully during critical printing sessions. It is not the perfect solution, but would allow the printer to be consistently very close to optimum.
We do this all the time in the music business where engineers often have to work in new studios with unknown sound monitor systems. Typically the mix will end up being the compliment of the playback system. For example, if a playback or monitor system is too bass heavy, the tendency is for the mix to end up too thin. If the monitors to too bright, the mix will often be too dull as a result of the engineer's natural tendency to compensate. The way to counter that problem is to playback commercial reference tracks to understand and get used to the new system and then mix to match that sound.
With b&w printing something similar can be done to compensate for bright or dark viewing environments. But frankly it's normally pretty easy to adjust viewing brightness simply by changing bulbs or adding or moving lights.
But there is another common problem. No matter how standardized the monitoring or viewing system, our brains often fool us. We can look at the identical print on different days or even in different moods and our perception of the correctness of the print may vary. The same thing happens in audio. It seems that our brains, which obviously can be our greatest assets, can also be the worst enemy of consistency. And that's because they are so adaptable.
For example in another context, our color perception can vary drastically depending on surroundings. Great example is the Rubik's cube experiment where a center cube appears to change color simply by moving it to a different position.
Anyway, the best antidote I've found is to use well known standard references which can correct our perception and put us back on track. The only difficult part for new printers is coming up with the first references. But after making a series of prints and viewing them in a wide variety of environments, you can get an idea of what translates well. It may not be the perfect solution, but I think it's one of the best for someone who can't or doesn't have a standardized viewing environment.
Anyway you bring up all very good points that are particularly applicable to color. But I have a slightly different take regarding b&w. While I completely agree a standardized viewing environment can be incredibly useful and probably optimum, most people won't have one for a variety of reasons, from not being aware of the need or maybe they just can't afford the expense or space. Nevertheless its still possible to produce consistently good prints.
The trick is to have a standard reference -- a print or set of prints that are known to translate well -- and to check them carefully during critical printing sessions. It is not the perfect solution, but would allow the printer to be consistently very close to optimum.
We do this all the time in the music business where engineers often have to work in new studios with unknown sound monitor systems. Typically the mix will end up being the compliment of the playback system. For example, if a playback or monitor system is too bass heavy, the tendency is for the mix to end up too thin. If the monitors to too bright, the mix will often be too dull as a result of the engineer's natural tendency to compensate. The way to counter that problem is to playback commercial reference tracks to understand and get used to the new system and then mix to match that sound.
With b&w printing something similar can be done to compensate for bright or dark viewing environments. But frankly it's normally pretty easy to adjust viewing brightness simply by changing bulbs or adding or moving lights.
But there is another common problem. No matter how standardized the monitoring or viewing system, our brains often fool us. We can look at the identical print on different days or even in different moods and our perception of the correctness of the print may vary. The same thing happens in audio. It seems that our brains, which obviously can be our greatest assets, can also be the worst enemy of consistency. And that's because they are so adaptable.
For example in another context, our color perception can vary drastically depending on surroundings. Great example is the Rubik's cube experiment where a center cube appears to change color simply by moving it to a different position.
Anyway, the best antidote I've found is to use well known standard references which can correct our perception and put us back on track. The only difficult part for new printers is coming up with the first references. But after making a series of prints and viewing them in a wide variety of environments, you can get an idea of what translates well. It may not be the perfect solution, but I think it's one of the best for someone who can't or doesn't have a standardized viewing environment.
x-ray
Mentor
I may not have conveyed my thought but in the real world lighting is a crapshoot and is generally out of our control. At least when it comes to galleries and clients (now). Clients in the old days, they understood but not so much today.
In 1975 I applied and was accepted to spend one week with Ansel. He took a limited number of students and I was lucky.
I spent a day in the darkroom learning how he mixed different combinations of dektol with selectol soft and how he handled near impossible negs. You learn from printing the bad ones not the good ones. I remember him talking about the negs he couldn’t get a good print out of. He said out of the thousands of negs he’d shot he had maybe 700-800 (out of a lifetime of shooting) that you’ll yield prints he would be proud of. Of course that was for various reasons not just difficult ones to print.
He talked about Moon over Hernandez. He said he’d drastically changed how he printed it over the decades and showed me three prints. In the beginning he let the clouds show distinctly and in later prints he printed the sky almost totally black. Point being, there’s no one way to print a negative correctly, it depends on the moment and how the artist feels.
I know in my printing I have ones I’ve printed and sold over fifty years and I often print them different depending on how I feel at that moment.
Our eye and brain change over time and my vision of my work is different than someone else’s. I’d guess if I handed you one of my negs without you seeing a print you’d print it totally different than I do. The same if you give 10 identical negs to ten printers, you’d get 10 different interpretations. I guess that why it’s art.
In 1975 I applied and was accepted to spend one week with Ansel. He took a limited number of students and I was lucky.
I spent a day in the darkroom learning how he mixed different combinations of dektol with selectol soft and how he handled near impossible negs. You learn from printing the bad ones not the good ones. I remember him talking about the negs he couldn’t get a good print out of. He said out of the thousands of negs he’d shot he had maybe 700-800 (out of a lifetime of shooting) that you’ll yield prints he would be proud of. Of course that was for various reasons not just difficult ones to print.
He talked about Moon over Hernandez. He said he’d drastically changed how he printed it over the decades and showed me three prints. In the beginning he let the clouds show distinctly and in later prints he printed the sky almost totally black. Point being, there’s no one way to print a negative correctly, it depends on the moment and how the artist feels.
I know in my printing I have ones I’ve printed and sold over fifty years and I often print them different depending on how I feel at that moment.
Our eye and brain change over time and my vision of my work is different than someone else’s. I’d guess if I handed you one of my negs without you seeing a print you’d print it totally different than I do. The same if you give 10 identical negs to ten printers, you’d get 10 different interpretations. I guess that why it’s art.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
I totally agree with x-ray here, but the question of whether something is art or not is completely unimportant to me. However, I have a lot of admiration for people who are good at printing photos.
Erik.
Erik.
brusby
Well-known
You are very fortunate. I wanted desperately to attend one of his seminars in '74 but couldn't afford it. Just out of college and making about $500/month. I think the tuition at that time was roughly that amount wasn't it? I recall Moon over Hernandez selling for about $600. Those days are long gone.
Anyway, I agree about real world lighting being out of our control, but hasn't it always been that way? Same way with the music business. Ya never know what playback systems your clients are using. iPhones are the worst for audio and that's what many musicians use -- even some record company execs.
And yes, negatives are to photography as scores are to music. Each conductor is gonna have his own interpretation just as each photographer will print differently. But the SOOC fanatics I don't really comprehend. It's like saying the score must never be interpreted. I guess maybe they'd only be happy with a computer aided playback with all notes played precisely on the beat.
All we can do for commercial work is produce a good, solid, product that is well within acceptable professional standards. For art, your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway, I agree about real world lighting being out of our control, but hasn't it always been that way? Same way with the music business. Ya never know what playback systems your clients are using. iPhones are the worst for audio and that's what many musicians use -- even some record company execs.
And yes, negatives are to photography as scores are to music. Each conductor is gonna have his own interpretation just as each photographer will print differently. But the SOOC fanatics I don't really comprehend. It's like saying the score must never be interpreted. I guess maybe they'd only be happy with a computer aided playback with all notes played precisely on the beat.
All we can do for commercial work is produce a good, solid, product that is well within acceptable professional standards. For art, your guess is as good as mine.
Last edited:
x-ray
Mentor
I bought several of Ansel signed prints. I’m not a landscape photographer but appreciate the beauty. Back in the day I think the most I paid was $400 or $500. Been a long time.
It must have been around 1968 when a friend and I were bored and decided to call the Carmel operator and get Bret Weston’s number. We wound up calling him and chatted for probably 30 minutes about his work and Edwards. I can’t remember what he was selling his work for but it was a little more than I could afford at the moment. But, the one thing that caught my attention was Edwards signed prints were $50. There weren’t many left but how I wish I’d loaded up. Later I did find one of Edwards nudes of Charis and got it for $400. It’s a platinum too.
I Was really fortunate. Ansel suggested I drive over to San Francisco and call in Imogen Cunningham. He arranged it and I got to spend a day with Imogene looking at he prints and negatives and discussing her art. What a fantastic day. I always wanted one of her images and finally was able to purchase “Triangles”.
It must have been around 1968 when a friend and I were bored and decided to call the Carmel operator and get Bret Weston’s number. We wound up calling him and chatted for probably 30 minutes about his work and Edwards. I can’t remember what he was selling his work for but it was a little more than I could afford at the moment. But, the one thing that caught my attention was Edwards signed prints were $50. There weren’t many left but how I wish I’d loaded up. Later I did find one of Edwards nudes of Charis and got it for $400. It’s a platinum too.
I Was really fortunate. Ansel suggested I drive over to San Francisco and call in Imogen Cunningham. He arranged it and I got to spend a day with Imogene looking at he prints and negatives and discussing her art. What a fantastic day. I always wanted one of her images and finally was able to purchase “Triangles”.
brusby
Well-known
You're very luck and I'm envious. Love Ansel's printing style. There is a book at the LSU rare book room of original prints by him.
www.artsy.net
When I was first taking up photography I spent hours checking it out instead of studying and kind of tried to mold my printing style to emulate his.
Ansel Adams | Portfolio Four: What Majestic Word. In Memory of Russell Varian (1963) | Artsy
From Phillips, Ansel Adams, Portfolio Four: What Majestic Word. In Memory of Russell Varian (1963), Fifteen gelatin silver prints
www.artsy.net
When I was first taking up photography I spent hours checking it out instead of studying and kind of tried to mold my printing style to emulate his.
Hans Berkhout
Well-known
A bit more food for thought.
It's the effect of your work on the viewer that counts. Not what it does to you the maker. So if the new owner is happy with your art exposed to fluorescent light framed under greenish window glass so be it. Parallel to this you can still absorb and enjoy work that resonates with you, following your feelings, your mood, under your chosen conditions.
It's the effect of your work on the viewer that counts. Not what it does to you the maker. So if the new owner is happy with your art exposed to fluorescent light framed under greenish window glass so be it. Parallel to this you can still absorb and enjoy work that resonates with you, following your feelings, your mood, under your chosen conditions.
rulnacco
Well-known
Some fascinating stuff here. I hesitate to comment, because what I'm about to say is only tangentially related to the discussion.
Like Brusby said in his first post, if the print is the final product, then I prefer a richer print, with deeper blacks--even if it means that just a little of the shadow detail is sacrificed. Of course, really skilled printers--using various methods, it certainly isn't as if there's one "magic recipe" that fits every negative/every printer's skill set and desires for the final image--can extract as much of that detail as possible, and they know when to let it go on occasion.
But in his job, the print itself *wasn't* the final product--eventually, it was going to be reproduced in a magazine or catalog by the half-tone process.
And that process, because of the way it works, just totally destroys shadow detail--you're using larger, lower-resolution, more closely spaced black dots of ink to render those shadows. At some point, what shows detail on even a not-terribly-well-made print will just become a black splodge with no discernible textural/tonal information.
I've actually run into the same thing digitally when shooting for publication--it's more pronounced if the final, published image is black and white, particularly if it's going on newsprint rather than in a glossy magazine, but it also works with color to an extent. If I'm shooting for a newspaper--which has a pretty coarse line screen on top of things--I always boost the shadows and increase the contrast a bit there, using a tone curve. On screen, it will often look too grey and lacking in that "punch" that creates drama and a tonally strong print. (You also have to remember that to reproduce "white", the halftone process can only use a limited number of small dots to let the paper show through; you're not going to get much detail at all in the highlights either, you can forget Zone 8, practically, most of the time.) I really try to make sure that when the paper comes off the press, I don't have any areas of solid black because I've let the shadows get away from me--while trying also to keep the noise there under control.
Eventually, if you work for the same folks enough and study the final, published result, you can figure out what their particular printing setup will be able to render as visible detail and what's going to go away. While I'm sure Brusby's original prints were, from an aesthetic standpoint, probably perfectly acceptable (even if not quite up to master printer level), his boss knew that he was not only going to lose the shadow detail you could see under backlight, he was going to lose a lot more than that, too, when the photo went to press.
(That's one reason that photo books printed today look better, in general, than those printed 40 years ago: with computers, we can manipulate images so finely to suit our press setup that we're going to see a lot more of the detail, particularly shadow detail, that exists in the print--and even the negative, if a scan of it rather than a print is used to prepare the plates--but wasn't able to be satisfactorily translated from darkroom print to printed page before Photoshop.)
Like Brusby said in his first post, if the print is the final product, then I prefer a richer print, with deeper blacks--even if it means that just a little of the shadow detail is sacrificed. Of course, really skilled printers--using various methods, it certainly isn't as if there's one "magic recipe" that fits every negative/every printer's skill set and desires for the final image--can extract as much of that detail as possible, and they know when to let it go on occasion.
But in his job, the print itself *wasn't* the final product--eventually, it was going to be reproduced in a magazine or catalog by the half-tone process.
And that process, because of the way it works, just totally destroys shadow detail--you're using larger, lower-resolution, more closely spaced black dots of ink to render those shadows. At some point, what shows detail on even a not-terribly-well-made print will just become a black splodge with no discernible textural/tonal information.
I've actually run into the same thing digitally when shooting for publication--it's more pronounced if the final, published image is black and white, particularly if it's going on newsprint rather than in a glossy magazine, but it also works with color to an extent. If I'm shooting for a newspaper--which has a pretty coarse line screen on top of things--I always boost the shadows and increase the contrast a bit there, using a tone curve. On screen, it will often look too grey and lacking in that "punch" that creates drama and a tonally strong print. (You also have to remember that to reproduce "white", the halftone process can only use a limited number of small dots to let the paper show through; you're not going to get much detail at all in the highlights either, you can forget Zone 8, practically, most of the time.) I really try to make sure that when the paper comes off the press, I don't have any areas of solid black because I've let the shadows get away from me--while trying also to keep the noise there under control.
Eventually, if you work for the same folks enough and study the final, published result, you can figure out what their particular printing setup will be able to render as visible detail and what's going to go away. While I'm sure Brusby's original prints were, from an aesthetic standpoint, probably perfectly acceptable (even if not quite up to master printer level), his boss knew that he was not only going to lose the shadow detail you could see under backlight, he was going to lose a lot more than that, too, when the photo went to press.
(That's one reason that photo books printed today look better, in general, than those printed 40 years ago: with computers, we can manipulate images so finely to suit our press setup that we're going to see a lot more of the detail, particularly shadow detail, that exists in the print--and even the negative, if a scan of it rather than a print is used to prepare the plates--but wasn't able to be satisfactorily translated from darkroom print to printed page before Photoshop.)