Print Manipulation - Am I being lazy?

Carnie Bob · Nov 11, 2024

Bill Burk said:
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.

Sometimes a proof is made and simple notes are passed on to me so I can see the Style they are trying to achieve. Telling me where to exactly put tone based on a poor print is not helpful.

The notes I take go something like this.. fur coat walking backlight.- Flash Required- start pack 1.5 filter - two hits of 5 filter- dodge coat 15percent all exposures, 5 grade burn to bring out Blacks in Highlights, 1 burn soft light.This is after the print has been made and not before. I never draw maps because the problems of the neg are pretty much obvious to someone who has been looking at an inverted image on easel for a long time.

I have known many professional printers in my career and I have not met one who would work from the diagrams the OP has presented, it just does not make sense and as some have pointed out it is more of a marketing ploy to convince people that the photographer directed a real printer in that way.

I feel that its a collaboration and on many printing jobs the photographer is allowed in the darkroom to observe but never to direct.

To be a professional printer is not a easy casual task and is one where the printer must always be working to keep ones skills high. Everyone hear has heard it takes 10.000 hours to master any single printing process, I kind of believe this to be true, not sure of the number, but to work up the industry one must work under the enlarger quite a bit to see all the nuances involved with laying down tone on paper.
I have encountered many very skilled Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers , Architects that are retired with many letters behind their names comment on how simple my job is and can verbalize second hand knowledge freely to me on how to make a print. But the buck stops the moment they get in front of an enlarger and have to make sellable world class prints.

That person is very rare, I have not met many that can do both, photograph and print.
I have chosen printing over taking photographs, therefore I always refer to myself as a printmaker even though I use large cameras to record my inventory.

Carnie Bob · Nov 11, 2024

Pieter12 said:
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.

I knew many who would use a final Bleaching to visually lift the blacks by making the highlights brighter, (myself included) but never for making replication harder.
If one was that sneaky then pre flashing everything would be a good way.

Alan Edward Klein · Nov 11, 2024

koraks said:
That's correct; thanks! I should have formulated more carefully. I meant "optical/analog printing directly from color positives is all but dead."

...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.

Printing on film paper from digital scans of chromes is part of one analog process. Even you said: ""optical/analog printing directly from color positives is all but dead."

koraks · Nov 11, 2024

Alan Edward Klein said:
Printing on film paper from digital scans of chromes is part of one analog process

No it's not. Digital Printing is a digital process. It doesn't matter where the source material came from. It's digital; that's why it's called digital printing.

Don_ih · Nov 11, 2024

Carnie Bob said:
it is more of a marketing ploy to convince people that the photographer directed a real printer in that way.

Magnum is obviously using them for marketing. Maybe Inirio didn't make those maps for any real reason. But if he didn't, he sure made an awful lot of them.

BHuij · Nov 11, 2024

I've never done dodging and burning as intensive as the one in the original post. Just haven't found a need for it. The llama photo, to my eye, doesn't look any different. I guess that means the changes were subtle, but why go through a laundry list of 35 dodges for an undetectable change in the final print?

Almost all of my "portfolio" pieces needed some dodging and/or burning to get a print I was happy with. But even the more complicated ones to print have maybe 4 areas that need to be dodged or burned.

jvo · Nov 11, 2024

Each print I make is different than the last - and hopefully better, as I've learned, changed and hopefully improved in terms of my vision and skills.

I'm not in AA' class but he evolved in the way he printed the same negative over the years. "Moonrise over Hernandez" got much darker over the years. Collectors value the photo taken, developed and printed by the photographer rather than the newer version of the negative, which to my mind would be improved as the photographer has grown and evolved.

I prefer the darker, more dramatic, manipulated images. The more manipulated the better. Someone said "the negative is the score..." to be interpreted.

Maris · Nov 11, 2024

In the past when I printed for others sometimes very complex burning and dodging sequences were required for that "perfect" print. But I only did the work once.
The next step was to generate a copy negative from that perfect print. Then the clients edition (however many) was produced from that copy negative and not the original negative.
The advantage to me was a lot less time and labour. The advantage to the client was that all the prints in the edition were identical.

john_s · Nov 13, 2024

Maris said:
In the past when I printed for others sometimes very complex burning and dodging sequences were required for that "perfect" print. But I only did the work once.
The next step was to generate a copy negative from that perfect print. Then the clients edition (however many) was produced from that copy negative and not the original negative.
The advantage to me was a lot less time and labour. The advantage to the client was that all the prints in the edition were identical.

You must have got the contrast and density of the copy negative perfect. Would you be able to let us know what was involved in that process?

koraks · Nov 13, 2024

john_s said:
You must have got the contrast and density of the copy negative perfect. Would you be able to let us know what was involved in that process?

There's some leeway since in the final print, the contrast grade and exposure can still be set (and kept constant for the entire edition). The main thing is to get the tonal relationships right in a relative sense.

Vaughn · Nov 13, 2024

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.

There are many ways to approach photography. Photographers are driven by different forces, and our audience(s) differ and change. It sounds like you are on the right path for you. I found that over time, some images/prints I was once pleased with and was proud to show were actually mediocre at best. But they serve as mile-markers of the long journey I am still on. I was fortunate to be a workshop assistant for the Friends of Photography (Carmel) for many years. Not only could I show my prints to a large number of interested talented and thoughtful people (faculty, staff and students), but I was exposed to their large range of images, printing styles, and the thoughts of the photographers behind them.

Looking at great photographic prints is one of the best ways to improve one's printing. It helps one to see what is possible. The only lack of confidence I would be concerned with would be in ones ability to improve.

Pieter12 · Nov 13, 2024

A map like those sold by Magnum is an easy way to reproduce the final image, either by the same printer later or another who may not be familiar with how the final print should look. I keep notes for all my prints, just not on the print itself. More of a reminder than explicit instructions. It still helps to have a print to match, though.

Bill Burk · Nov 13, 2024

Pieter12 said:
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.

I’d never do it to make it difficult to reproduce (I have secret notches in my negative carriers for that purpose).

But bleach is great way to improve final print appearance of small spots for a difficult negative.

Pieter12 · Nov 13, 2024

Bill Burk said:
I’d never do it to make it difficult to reproduce (I have secret notches in my negative carriers for that purpose).

But bleach is great way to improve final print appearance of small spots for a difficult negative.

The point the printer was trying to make was to have photographers return to him for additional prints, since others might not be able to reproduce them the same. A bit underhanded, but not the worst business strategy.

Maris · Nov 13, 2024

john_s said:
You must have got the contrast and density of the copy negative perfect. Would you be able to let us know what was involved in that process?

The "secret" to making perfect copy negatives is a permanently set up copy station that has been pre-calibrated. It consists of the same copy stand, same copy camera, same lens, same film, and same lights where basically nothing moves between jobs. The copy negative always gets developed the same way. The only variable is the print being copied and given the limited range of reflection densities in a paper print any decently exposed and processed negative will capture them all.
Minor contrast changes are done using variable contrast photographic paper rather than delving into zone system style negative adjustments.

Bill Burk · Nov 15, 2024

Carnie Bob said:
Sometimes a proof is made and simple notes are passed on to me so I can see the Style they are trying to achieve. Telling me where to exactly put tone based on a poor print is not helpful.

The notes I take go something like this.. fur coat walking backlight.- Flash Required- start pack 1.5 filter - two hits of 5 filter- dodge coat 15percent all exposures, 5 grade burn to bring out Blacks in Highlights, 1 burn soft light.This is after the print has been made and not before. I never draw maps because the problems of the neg are pretty much obvious to someone who has been looking at an inverted image on easel for a long time.

I have known many professional printers in my career and I have not met one who would work from the diagrams the OP has presented, it just does not make sense and as some have pointed out it is more of a marketing ploy to convince people that the photographer directed a real printer in that way.

I feel that its a collaboration and on many printing jobs the photographer is allowed in the darkroom to observe but never to direct.

To be a professional printer is not a easy casual task and is one where the printer must always be working to keep ones skills high. Everyone hear has heard it takes 10.000 hours to master any single printing process, I kind of believe this to be true, not sure of the number, but to work up the industry one must work under the enlarger quite a bit to see all the nuances involved with laying down tone on paper.
I have encountered many very skilled Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers , Architects that are retired with many letters behind their names comment on how simple my job is and can verbalize second hand knowledge freely to me on how to make a print. But the buck stops the moment they get in front of an enlarger and have to make sellable world class prints.

That person is very rare, I have not met many that can do both, photograph and print.
I have chosen printing over taking photographs, therefore I always refer to myself as a printmaker even though I use large cameras to record my inventory.

And that’s just it! I know the ability to make an astounding print takes the kind of experience and continual practice.

I know I’ll never be that good, but high quality is attainable with fair effort.

Funny, I do a diagram Pictionary style — rough squiggles that basically show a few dodge and burn locations because I am too lazy to write “tree”.

DREW WILEY · Nov 15, 2024

All the scribbling on that llama picture at the start reminds me of doctors who write so carelessly that the pharmacist can't interpret what the prescription says. I guess if the printer himself can understand his own scribbles ... but all those tangled lines look more like a Jackson Pollock painting to me. Often less is more - how to get from Point A to B the most efficiently. The amount I dodge and burn is very simplified in comparison to that llama platter of spaghetti.

Thank goodness for today's variable contrast papers, along with efficient techniques like unsharp masking. I'm glad I mostly work only with my own negatives. I've done my fair share of copystand work and salvaging good images from wretched antique film, or from damaged original prints. So I can at least sympathize with what commercial printers might need to untangle.

Print Manipulation - Am I being lazy?

Carnie Bob

Carnie Bob

Alan Edward Klein

koraks

Moderator

Don_ih

BHuij

jvo

Maris

john_s

koraks

Moderator

Vaughn

Pieter12

Bill Burk

Pieter12

Maris

Bill Burk

DREW WILEY

Print Manipulation - Am I being lazy?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency