Print Manipulation - Am I being lazy?

[MattKing]

For those who might be looking at those printing maps and thinking: "I'm not printing correctly, because I don't make these......"
Don't worry, because most don't do that.
There are a few situations where doing that is really important - for example those who print for others and normally corroborate with their client on the progress to the final result, those who print editions, and need to be able to replicate earlier prints, and those who use the maps to teach others about printing - but for most people, whether or not you do that depends on whether doing so helps you work.
And that varies from printer to printer.
I mostly do that sort of thing when I'm printing in any quantity - several prints from the same negative - and I want to be able to finish one session and then take up the printing later. That and when the print is something I'm likely to want to discuss with my Darkroom Group.

 

[ic-racer]

I prefer if each print is unique. I don't save the post-it notes on dodging/burning a print anywhere after the prints are dry. As I have gotten better as a printer since the 1970s the old instructions are no longer valid.

 

[Don_ih]

As pointed out above, I'm pretty sure it's the same print.

It's not the same print. The llama in the left print is darker than the right, the sign and window on the right print is darker than the left.

These Magnum "maps" were necessary for the printer to reproduce prints when ordered.

The Kit Young photo - it's just what he wanted to get out of the image. That's what you aim for when printing: get it to look how you want it to look. Use whatever you can. If a straight print is what you want, do that. @cliveh is perfectly satisfied with what he gets from the camera, printed as cleanly as possible. Other people aren't that good with exposure and development so need to mess around more while printing. Still others don't want the print to look at all like the negative.

 

[MattKing]

Even if you are skilled with exposure and development, the sun, the surfaces of your subject, and your subjects themselves often don't comply with your wishes .

 

[Don_ih]

Even if you are skilled with exposure and development, the sun, the surfaces of your subject, and your subjects themselves often don't comply with your wishes .

That's true, but you can be satisfied with what you get. It's up to the printer to decide how to print - it's no one else's decision. (The exception is printing for someone else, either someone else's photo or a paid commission.)

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I have also wondered if I was "lazy", as I usually minimize manipulation. However, I have too much to "say" to spend massive time on each print. I rationalize this as avoiding too much emphasis on formalism, in order to spend more time on storytelling. (Admitting that formalism considerations can affect interpretation).

 

[awty]

Some people will never appreciate how much of an impact controlling the light and contrast will have on a picture.
When ever I see a picture from a person who does little or no manipulation, I think perhaps they should.

 

[koraks]

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:

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

It's not the same print. The llama in the left print is darker than the right, the sign and window on the right print is darker than the left.

Yeah, you guys are right. I'm aware of the other example; it was discussed in depth in a similar thread not too long ago. And I agree there are somewhat subtle differences between both versions, here, too. The annotations make it a little hard to see what's going on, but it's there alright - and I think it's effective, too.

 

[bernard_L]

For a start, I think the original example of before and after with those manipulations is bullshit

I've seen multiple example of this in a book about "Master Printers" or something like that. I think what happens when someone embarks into making such a book (or Magnum a darkroom guide). The master printer won't waste his/her time retrieving (or re-creating) the un-manipulated print, and just scribbles on a copy of the final print. Maybe even making it up.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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...

You as the artist make as many corrections as you feel are necessary. Enough is enough. It can be overdone, too!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

'I am more photographer than printer'Now, that IS lazy. An analog photographer must also be a printer or he is incomplete.

 

[koraks]

'I am more photographer than printer'Now, that IS lazy. An analog photographer must also be a printer or he is incomplete.

With all due respect, but that's nonsense. The history of photography is riddled with excellent photographers who weren't printers - and excellent printers who weren't photographers.

 

[Chuck_P]

An analog photographer must also be a printer or he is incomplete.

Well, I can't necessarily agree that should apply to all film photographers.........however, for me, it is true. The feeling of accomplishment is just not as complete. Now if I could just become a better printer........I'm working on it.

 

[Carnie Bob]

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.

 

[Chuck_P]

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.

Good on you btw for your years of experience, but what makes it giggle worthy? I certainly don't go through such extensive print acrobatics myself, but I do keep a record of my dodge and burn efforts, what's wrong with that?

 

[dpurdy]

I have no idea how you would keep track of all those manipulations. What a tedious job of printing that would be.

 

[koraks]

I can say without hesitation any printer with any self worth would throw back
this type of map and just make the print.

Depends on the context, I suppose. In most cases - sure. However, in the specific case of a firm/institution where there's a (perceived) requirement to be able to re-make a print years later, possibly in the hands of a different printer, I can see the sense in documenting what's being done. If not to serve as an actual guide, then at least to document and convey the intent and structure underlying the manipulations.
If, on the other hand, you're a typical printer (professional or otherwise) who might print an edition in a single run/session and/or is limited to very small editions (down to n=1) anyway, there's very little point in this kind of illustration.

Then there's of course the whole matter of personal style, preference and temperament to account for.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With all due respect, but that's nonsense. The history of photography is riddled with excellent photographers who weren't printers - and excellent printers who weren't photographers.

and many knew damn well that they were incomplete and missing something. Avedon, for example, was a great photographer, but he knew others were better at printing. So, he went out and hired a good printer and worked closely with him to create a great combo and the best work possible. There may be a reverse example. Weston and Adams were good at both. I'm better at printing; still working on becoming a better photographer to improve the package.

 

[koraks]

Avedon, for example, was a great photographer, but he knew others were better at printing. So, he went out and hired a good printer and worked closely with him to create a great combo and the best work possible.

That's what many photographers have done, and continue to do. Which illustrates it's just fine to be a good photographer and a poor printer, as long as the photographer is willing and capable of working with a competent printer. Of course it's different if a photographer wants to produce good prints, and does not have the means (financial, intellectual, social, organizational etc.) to collaborate effectively. In that case they have no choice but to learn to print well.

 

[MTGseattle]

I agree that no one should feel they are lacking or lazy simply due to the lack of a complicated dodging and burning routine/print. As others have said, a well exposed negative shouldn't need a ridiculous amount of work.

I'm skeptical as to the claim of "weeks" to arrive at the final print from the second example set. For me, if I am curious how a perhaps much more ominous sky than what occurred during the film exposure would look, that simply takes an extra test strip of only the sky.

A small curiosity regarding the first example is what seems to be the corrections in the foreground body work of the car yet the front facing facet of the door handles and the windshield in the car behind seem almost blown out to me.

Unless one is printing for a client, or printing for another photographer, one has to print what one wants to see.

 

[BrianShaw]

I prefer: "close to what you visualized".


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.

… whether that visualization is pre or post. Whatever makes a stronger image. Tempered, of course, by a trade between the amount of effort required and value added.

 

[Milpool]

It’s not necessarily a matter of a well exposed/processed negative. For example if the subject matter has a very big luminance range it can still take work and time to get it all into the print. Again though, it really all depends on what kind of print you envision.

I can think of examples by accomplished photographers that don’t look like they took a lot of work, but they are illusions of what was actually in front of the camera. If you were to compare the finished product with a more straight forward version, some people might consider the adjustments to be unimportant, but the photographer wanted something a little different. I’m not talking about adding “drama” or whatever, but more subtle things.

 

[Paul Howell]

'I am more photographer than printer'Now, that IS lazy. An analog photographer must also be a printer or he is incomplete.

My training is in Photojournalism and I was an U.S Air Force combat photographer then worked for the wires. Although darkroom work was taught, for the most part my professional work was printed by experts. Many of the great news and photojournalist did not print their own work. Today I do print, but I think of myself as a photographer frist and a printed by necessity. When with UPI in the 70s we had a darkroom tech who could hold a negative in the light and decide printing grade and exposure, 90% of the time he was right on. By that time he had worked as a darkroom tech for newspapers and UPI for close to 30 years, 5 to 6 days a week, hours a day. When I asked about which camera he used, it was a polaroid.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What do printers do with color chrome film?

 

[Milpool]

What do printers do with color chrome film?

These days mostly scan it and do all the adjusting in the editor, followed by inkjet printing.

In the pre-digital age the gold standards for chrome were basically either dye transfer or Ciba. And if B&W manipulations can seem intricate, the amount of work that needed to go into dye transfer and/or Ciba is comparatively huge.