Print Manipulation - Am I being lazy?

The Magnum darkroom print guides have been discussed before, but every time I look at one I feel guilty - aside from a bit of dodging and burning here and there, I don't do anywhere near this level of manipulation when making prints. And sometimes I'm even happy with a straight print!

I don't think I'm being lazy. I spend a lot of time attempting to make a print that reflects what I saw/felt when making the photograph - getting the exposure and contrast just right (to my eye). I'll wait for dry-down and make any necessary adjustments once I see the dried/flattened print, etc. So it can take me more than a single print session to come up with a print that I'm happy with. But if my exposure was good and my negative developed properly, it's rare for me to feel the need for significant manipulation.

I keep wondering if I would have gone to this much trouble given the eventual differences between the straight (left) and final (right) Eve Arnold prints made by Magnum's master printer. Maybe I would have made a few of these tweaks, but only a few:



This whole subject came back to mind yesterday when reading an Instagram post from a photographer named Kit Young who said it took him "many weeks" to complete one of his prints. I personally think I would have preferred something closer to the straight print, rather than the highly manipulated and, to my mind, very artificial looking final print:



It's obviously all subjective and it's up to the individual artist to make his own choices, but I can't help but feel I'm not doing 'enough' while making prints when I see the lengths to which others go.

Curious to hear what others think...

I am more photographer than printer, I generally do not spend as much time as others fine turing a print. I do burn dodge, spilt grade print, and tone, never spent more than a printing session which is usually an afternoon of 3 to 5 hours on a single print. I know that AA spent a lot of time with some of his prints, selecting not only the paper grade but the brand of paper, Seagull vs Kodak. I would have printed the example by Kit Young by split grade printing, maybe burn in the sky at the very top a bit, but to my eye it looks over manipulated. but that's just me, I'm sure others see it much differently than I do.

Its always a temptation to respond to a thread title like the one used here by sticking one's tongue in one's cheek and posting simply: "Yes!" than leaving the thread.
But I'll resist the temptation.
It is really important to be willing to take inspiration from others, but not feel bound to emulate others.
The Eve Arnold/Magnum example is a good one. The final result is subtly different than the original, in a very good way. As is sometimes the case, it takes much more work to make a subtle improvement than it takes to make a large change.

logan2z said:

Curious to hear what others think...

Click to expand...

I think that's the most constructive attitude, in the end. When it comes to the kind of examples you shared, consider them as points of reflection, or just a peek into other possible workflows.

I'd try to avoid being intimidated by what others do. After all, who's to day who's "right" anyway? It's a matter of time before someone chimes in who prefers to do all manipulations in the capture and development stages so that the unmanipulated straight print is always the end product. Would that be better? It can become equally dogmatic as contending that considerable dodging and burning is necessary to make the most of an image.

Are you happy with your prints? Great, enjoy. Not happy? Also great, as it gives you something to work on.

I would say do as much or as little work as is required to make a print you are satisfied with. I guess that’s obvious but anyway.

For my own stuff, sometimes they are a lot of work over several sessions/days/weeks (also because when they are difficult like that I find it best to stop periodically and “live” with the work print(s) for a few days). Others are not as technically challenging so there is a lot less fine tuning or difficult manipulation.

It depends a lot on your general aesthetic preferences/leanings of course, subject matter etc., not to mention philosophical views when it comes to printing.

Milpool said:

I would say do as much or as little work as is required to make a print you are satisfied with. I guess that’s obvious but anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes...
Unless you are printing for publication/client/etc, print to your satisfaction--then you are the client. Does the image come close to what you saw?


I know, when we printed for newspaper, which were then laid up and reshot as halftones etc, it was rare to do anything but a straight print, maybe a single burn or dodge (Friday night lights were so dim! College and pro stadiums had such better lighting...). Portraits and headshots were under controlled lighting and needed nothing special for printing, usually.

And here is the pay copy for the llama. The client was happy, I'm sure. Later the artist could be happy too!

To my eye, the top two prints are identical. I think the publisher or author either made an oopsie or had decided to pull the collective leg.

I don't do a whole lot of burning and dodging. I often go with a straight print. My most common manipulation is to burn a distracting bit of background back into the background, where it belongs.

Nicholas Lindan said:

To my eye, the top two prints are identical.

Click to expand...

I suspect it's the final print with the manipulations drawn in.
The main difference between left & right is the dramatically shifted black point that lops off some of the shadows in the right-hand version.

Dr. no said:

Does the image come close to what you saw?

Click to expand...

Is this the criterion? Or...
close to what you experienced
close to what you felt
close to what you'd have liked to have seen
close to what you imagine it might have looked like
close to....

I prefer: "close to what you visualized".

Nicholas Lindan said:

To my eye, the top two prints are identical.

Click to expand...

The differences are subtle, but the tones are just a bit more separated in the final version, resulting in extra emphasis for the llama and the "Theatre Tickets" sign. The cars in the background are slightly suppressed as well.
All of which makes sense if the goal was to highlight the absurdity of the scene - which may very well be the story that the photographer sought to/was commissioned to tell.
Print manipulation decisions are often made with the intended "story" in mind.

koraks said:

I'd try to avoid being intimidated by what others do.

Click to expand...

It may be due to a lack of confidence in my printing skills. I've started to exhibit my work this year and it's difficult to know how my prints have held up to scrutiny. That said, I am pleased with them or I wouldn't show them at all, so maybe that's all that really matters.

MattKing said:

As is sometimes the case, it takes much more work to make a subtle improvement than it takes to make a large change.

Click to expand...

This is so true. It's the subtle improvements that can keep me chasing after my final print. Eventually though, it becomes time to yield to my inadequacies as a printer, at the cost of several sheets per session that I could have saved for the next negative.

logan2z said:

It may be due to a lack of confidence in my printing skills. I've started to exhibit my work this year and it's difficult to know how my prints have held up to scrutiny. That said, I am pleased with them or I wouldn't show them at all, so maybe that's all that really matters.

Click to expand...

The only reason to take scrutiny seriously is that sometimes you learn things from it that you value.
Of course, if your goal is to sell stuff, it doesn't hurt to hear why people made their decision to either buy or not buy.

Well I feel I have to contribute to this thread. For a start, I think the original example of before and after with those manipulations is bullshit and the print is just printed with more exposure. I almost never burn and dodge, change original contrast or split grade print. If you get the camera exposure about right and develop the film for the type of enlarger you are using, none of that is necessary. Igan2z should not feel guilty. You are doing it right. But then that's just my opinion.

cliveh said:

Well I feel I have to contribute to this thread. For a start, I think the original example of before and after with those manipulations is bullshit and the print is just printed with more exposure. I almost never burn and dodge, change original contrast or split grade print. If you get the camera exposure about right and develop the film for the type of enlarger you are using, none of that is necessary. Igan2z should not feel guilty. You are doing it right. But then that's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Tell that to Ansel Adams ghost.

cliveh said:

the print is just printed with more exposure.

Click to expand...

Interesting - on my screen, parts of the final image are lighter and parts of the final image are darker, while the contrast of the llama mid-tones appears similar - just what I would expect to see after a number of print manipulations.

cliveh said:

the original example of before and after with those manipulations is bullshit and the print is just printed with more exposure.

Click to expand...

As pointed out above, I'm pretty sure it's the same print. The one on the left shows the manipulations done; the one on the right is the website presentation print. Here's both images with both desaturated to greyscale and the black- and white points adjusted on the left (so no other non-linear curve adjustment):

I don't think it's supposed to be a 'before / after' comparison.

MattKing said:

just what I would expect to see after a number of print manipulations.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the contact print or a straight print would look pretty darn different from what we get to see here.

Dr. no said:

View attachment 382904

And here is the pay copy for the llama. The client was happy, I'm sure. Later the artist could be happy too!

Click to expand...

This is the printed copy, the printing process can be very hard on a print, can look very different from the silver print.

Paul Howell said:

Tell that to Ansel Adams ghost.

Click to expand...

I am not saying that manipulation isn't justified. In the case of AA, he is giving his interpretation to the scene in question. I am just referring to the print on the OP.

koraks said:

As pointed out above, I'm pretty sure it's the same print. The one on the left shows the manipulations done; the one on the right is the website presentation print. Here's both images with both desaturated to greyscale and the black- and white points adjusted on the left (so no other non-linear curve adjustment):
View attachment 382905
I don't think it's supposed to be a 'before / after' comparison.

Click to expand...

It's not clear from Magnum's web site, but I believe it is supposed to be a before/after comparison. Here's another example from Magnum's web site:





This one definitely looks like a "before" and "after" to me (compare the sky in both prints, for example).

When I print, I try for the result that pleases me. Not necessarily what I saw, but if I like the print. I usually don't previsualize, I find that doesn't work for me. I prefer to visualize from a contact sheet. That could end up being a straight print, or one with multiple areas of burning and dodging. Sometimes the hardest part can be reproducing the look of an earlier, smaller print at a larger size on a different batch of paper. I often make initial work prints on RC paper, then finals on larger fiber paper and adjustments need to be made for that.

As far as Kit Young's work goes, that's his look. He often posts a straight print vs his final. He likes deep blacks and open highlights, obvious grain. A bit like Jeanloup Sieff or Bill Brandt.

Dr. no said:

View attachment 382904

And here is the pay copy for the llama. The client was happy, I'm sure. Later the artist could be happy too!

Click to expand...

The sad part is how the editor/art director cropped out the majority of the work that was done on the image, plus the poor reproduction.

Pieter12 said:

The sad part is how the editor/art director cropped out the majority of the work that was done on the image, plus the poor reproduction.

Click to expand...

I remember once frustrating an editor on the "Art" desk - she commented that whenever I gave her a print, there was a good chance I had already composed and cropped it so that it would fit into the usual "window" for illustrating the article in just one way - whether she wanted to make changes or not!
Photographing regularly for the same publication usually leads to figuring out what works there, and producing that.
The same applies to wedding photography .

My capabilities always get in the way of my probabilities.

koraks said:

As pointed out above, I'm pretty sure it's the same print. The one on the left shows the manipulations done; the one on the right is the website presentation print. Here's both images with both desaturated to greyscale and the black- and white points adjusted on the left (so no other non-linear curve adjustment):
View attachment 382905
I don't think it's supposed to be a 'before / after' comparison.

Click to expand...

It's not the same print, and it is a before and after comparison.

Printer didn't do that much, actually. Just the basics, but essential.

Answering logan2z' question (or should it be logan2z's question?), someone said the print should reflect what one saw. It's a good starting point, with a caveat : the camera never records what one saw; it records what it sees. The photographer saw a llama sticking its head out the car window. The camera saw the llama, and cars, and buildings, and signs, and street, and windows with stuff lurking behind them, etc. It put it all together a three dimensional scene onto a two-dimensional surface, regardless of how tonal values would interact with, distract from, and at times interfere with what the photographer saw and wants us to see, which is a llama sticking its head out of a car window.

Printer simply went for the basics here : create depth in order to suggest distance — i.e., dodging of the furthest buildings —, and create tonal seperation in order to isolate the lama and the cars — i.e., dodging of the building and sign right behind the lama's head. He also burned the corners, but that's a given, as is burning the street (always comes out a bit too pale, I haven't been able to figure out why).

A few burns are there to eliminate distractions. The lighter upper band of the building behind the lama is slightly darkened in order to unify the tones of the whole building so that it's less contrasty and therefore does not compete with the animal's head just below. Most of the car is also burned to make it's tone more even, less distracting.

If I'm reading this right, main exposure was done at grade 3, 30 seconds at f/5.6, with all burning done at grade 0. (take my interpretation of his notation with a grain of salt)

BTW, if you compare on the two photos, focusing on these burns (upper right corner and the lighter wall of the building), you clearly see that it's not the same print and is a before and after.

That said, it doesn't seem to be with the same paper, the one with the notation clearly being of a warmer tone. Other thing we don't know is if the final print has been toned in selenium. My feeling is yes, judging from the tones of the dark windows (darker that they are in the notated print, even though they are marked as dodged).

Of course, this is probably not the only way to make a good print out of this negative. There would be other options, maybe including doing much less dodging and burning. Most of it comes down to personal preferences, as well as technique.

I'm reminded of this quote by Neil Selkirk, talking about when he started printing Diane Arbus' negatives after her death :

"Allan [Arbus] introduced her to the process of mixing the proprietary Kodak print developers Dektol and Selectol-Sof in differing proportions in order to control contrast. At some point, she may have switched to the similar, more thoroughly controllable but time-consuming Beers developer. As the process of my trying to match precisely her prints proceeded, the most unexpected fact emerged, namely that she apparently never dodged or burned a print. The sole quality that she chose to exercise control over was contrast. Using contrast-controlling developer, all of Diane's prints sat happily on either Portriga 3 or 4... Again and again Diane's technique would enable me to effortlessly generate a print that would have won accolades from the academic printing establishment, only to have her comparison print command me to dilute the richness of the result. On the other hand, she would often print far harder than would optimise the rendering of the information in the negative."

Different strokes...

@logan2z you can find the full Selkirk article in the book Diane Arbus Revelations. It's a great read.