I was asking a legitimate question. How much editing did they do when they used to print color chrome film compared to BW negative film?
OK, I'm sorry; I thought this was a case of "look at how they never edited anything when shooting chromes so all the editing others do is bulls&&".I was asking a legitimate question.
How much editing did they do when they used to print color chrome film compared to BW negative film?
The fact is, @RalphLambrecht , photography has in many ways moved on from printing. The vast majority of photos never make it onto a piece of paper - including the majority of film photos. An increasing number of commercial photography never gets printed. And it's always been the case that some people love using the camera and taking photos and do that very well but hate darkroom work. Cartier-Bresson is a prime example. But aside from that, people do still spend time making the photos look how they want, using a computer. And if your photo is pretty much only ever going to be seen on a screen, isn't that the appropriate way to edit it?
Back when the transition from film to digital was new, a certain segment of photographers would shoot on transparency film, scan the results, edit the scans digitally and then use a Film recorder to write the results back on to film for projection or printing from negative to print.
OK, I'm sorry; I thought this was a case of "look at how they never edited anything when shooting chromes so all the editing others do is bulls&&".
A lot, by definition, since commercial publications etc wasn't a direct photochemical reproduction, but a photomechanical print. So that means color separations, halftone screening etc. Essentially the image would be recreated from the ground up. How close they aimed to end up to what the original chrome looked was a another matter; much of the time, pretty close. Which is even more astonishing if you keep in mind the fundamental re-creation process the image had to go through.
Didn’t St Ansel produce similar printing maps? Perhaps it was in “Examples” where I saw them. Clearly, those printing instructions documented a single printing scheme as we know that there were many variations in his printing over the years.
Did amateurs print color negatives at home? How did they edit the colors, contrast and brightness? All printing were done when I used negative film by the labs that developed it by whatever process they used. I never gave instructions. My observation is that it seems amateurs accepted whatever they shot if color more than BW. Those samples above of dodging and burning for BW would never be done with color at home. Would it?
What is a Film recorder process and how does it work?
I was asking a legitimate question. How much editing did they do when they used to print color chrome film compared to BW negative film?
When it comes to chrome, some amateurs printed them when the materials were available; i.e. cibachrome/ilfochrome. I think what muddies the water a bit is that we look at/perceive color photos quite differently from B&W. We're totally fine with a rather bland color photograph in terms of contrast, as long as the colors are pleasing (very simply put).
Besides, the question is also to what extent people are willing and able to spend time trying to 'fix' a color print that doesn't come out to their likely as a straight print. Speaking of color negative printing (since color positive is essentially dead), many people aren't very aware of the possibilities w.r.t. burning and dodging or flashing to alter contrast and adjust color balance.
I giggle when I see these prints with so called dodge and burn notes, as a professional printer for now 50 years I can say without hesitation any printer with any self worth would throw back
this type of map and just make the print.
How is color positive dead?
Maybe tedious, nevertheless essential. These prints are not for personal enjoyment. They are either for sale or, even more probable, for museum exhibitions. Expectation is high that they all look like the original, first print (whether by the photographer him/herself or by the first printer). For that, you need a road map as precise and well-defined as possible — even if the general printing style of the era in which it was made has changed (as well as the paper, print developer, etc.).
How is color positive dead? Kodak is producing loads of Ektachrome. People shoot Velvia. Also, I scan to create digital files and adjust in my editing program. Scanning chromes is a lot easier. First you know what you got just holding them up to the light to see if you even need to scan or you blew the shot. Handy when bracketing to see which of them is the right exposure. Second you don't have to deal with difficult color conversion that's required with color negative film.
I can’t recall exactly what he told me, but a commercial printer I know would throw in an extra step (bleaching, possibly) just to make it difficult for someone else to replicate his printing.The other thing, Bob, wouldn’t a professional printer look at these maps and say “yup, looks about right” and then just go about their work (which might be about the same dodge and burns)?
What’s what I feel.
I still do just three prints per negative. If I can’t make it with just a few prints doing “third stop” corrections here and there, I cut my losses and move to the next.
koraks is referring to making darkroom prints from transparencies.
...etc. - sure, and that's fine & gorgeous and I've done the same many times, but it's for another part of the forum. We were discussing manipulations in optical printing.Also, I scan to create digital files
If I can’t make it with just a few prints doing “third stop” corrections here and there, I cut my losses and move to the next.
If I can’t make it with just a few prints doing “third stop” corrections here and there, I cut my losses and move to the next.
In the the 70s while freelancing I did a few shoots for catalogs, even the lower end catalogs wanted the colors, especially fashion to match, the product to the print in the catalog. I had to take a frame of the product with a color chart, this would be used by the printers to match the print then the catalog image. Commercial photographers who shot for the high end catalogs used color meters to color correct the lighting to the film.
A Film Recorder is/was used to print digital files on to film. Sort of like film scanners in reverse.
They are currently still used for the small percentage of motion pictures that are projected - the digital intermediate result of editing is printed on to projection stock for use in the theatres that still offer that.
They are also used for the creation of "on film" archives of digital
I actually have friends who had one they bought used from a pro lab that went out of business in our area. They supplied usable film based imaging materials to a number of users before the equipment developed a fault that could not economically be repaired.
This Wikipedia article is informative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_recorder
My friend's machine was interesting in a number of ways. One of them was that it used the Mamiya RB67 powered 6x8 film back to write to 120 film.
The resulting negatives were interesting to print with using a darkroom enlarger.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?