Print Manipulation - Am I being lazy?

[Don_ih]

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?

Slides can be used to make separation negatives directly for offset printing. The colour can be adjusted through filtration. Masking can be done as well.

Slides can also be copied to negative and enlarged, employing dodging and burning and masking or whatever.

Slides can be copied to negative b&w and treated the same as any b&w negative.

Lots of ways to deal with slides.

 

[Paul Howell]

I would not call it editing, making was part of the process to control contest, although additional dodging and burring may be done as well. And your right most commercial photographers did not do their own color work, many did not do their own black and white. In the late 70s I was told by a commercial industrial photographer that he made money by taking photos not printing them. Every hour he was in the dark room was an unbillable hour.

 

[koraks]

I was asking a legitimate question.

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&&".

How much editing did they do when they used to print color chrome film compared to BW negative film?

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[cliveh]

Although I would say I was more of a photographer than a printer, I do think I’m pretty competent at printing black & white prints (not in Bob Carnie's league), but not bad. The ability to print your own images is very beneficial when in the role of photographer, as you can visualise the print when looking through the viewfinder, with no printing notes required. Some may say that the last print I put on the gallery (Prague noticeboard) would look better with more contrast, but that is what it looked like when I photographed it.

 

[Paul Howell]

In today's world digital has become the primary tool of professional photographers, with few expectations for wedding and fashion. Most analog photographers who manage to sell their work are for lack of a better term fine art photographers. In this case printing, either with enlarger or digital by the photographer artist makes sense. The more time in the darkroom of guled to the monitor fussing in post learning his/her craft over time saves time and money, and results in better products. I have not sold any work in over 10 years, so now I am a hobbyist, yet I don't crave more time in the darkroom.

 

[brian steinberger]

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?

This is exactly what I was thinking and I think that’s true for many of us. The vast majority of my work, I simply view on my computer/phone/ipad and that is good enough for me right now. I have a business and two smallish children. If I had the time to make prints of some of my favorite photos I certainly would. What I’ve realized is that I barely have time to enjoy taking pictures and developing the film/scanning so that takes priority and my plan is down the road when my kids are older and I’m semi-retired (yea right…) I can get in the darkroom and make prints from the work that I’ve accumulated in my lifetime. Sometimes I do find time to make some quick RC prints and contact sheets. It helps when I tell my wife that I’m printing some shots of the kids.

Darkroom work (fine printing) takes a lot of time. I have produced a lot of prints (before kids) and many I am very proud of. So I know I have the ability and I do keep a notebook with notes similar to what we’re discussing here. I just don’t have the time to dedicate to making fine prints right now and I would think that’s true for others here as well.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

What is a Film recorder process and how does it work?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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?

I also shot chromes for years and just projected slide shows. Of course, the presentations were from shots taken out of the camera. Not even cropping was done, as the slides came back mounted when developed by labs. When I got an Epson flat bed scanner 12 years ago, I scanned the slides and made digital slide shows for presenting on Youtube and on my smart TV. So only then did I crop, and edit color and lighting with my digital editing program. Again, no thinking about dodging and burning areas of a photo.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

He did for his book on printing 40 negatives, problem of couse is that over the decades he was active papers came and left the market. In the 70s he was using a lot of Seagull which now off the market, in the 50s and 60s, he used Ansco papers. The maps he make can used as a general guide, time will likely need to be adjusted. He often printed a negative to his liking then had darkroom assistant make a given number for sale.

 

[koraks]

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?

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.

 

[MattKing]

What is a Film recorder process and how does it work?

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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?

A fair amount. But it was done at the process negative stage to the separation negatives. Masking and etching, that sort of thing. For advertising photos, most of the work was retouching on CIBAchromes, dye-transfer prints.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

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.

 

[MattKing]

How is color positive dead?

koraks is referring to making darkroom prints from transparencies.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.).

I agree. Maybe tedious, nevertheless essential and an important art of the learning curve.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

As far as commercial and photojournalism is concerned, color positive is totally dead. Maybe an exception here and there for novelty purposes.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[koraks]

koraks is referring to making darkroom prints from transparencies.

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

Also, I scan to create digital files

...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.

 

[Chuck_P]

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.

Words to live by when paper supply must be conserved..........I'm guilty of chasing, too far sometimes, subtle changes my mind's eye wants to see.

 

[Carnie Bob]

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.

One of the reasons transparencies were used back in the day was because the scanner operators would be able to see in front of them what the image looked like rather than scan from negative.

 

[Carnie Bob]

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.

Salgado has had all his digital camera files outputted onto film using a Film Recorder, he started this with Genisis. Also Griffith Editions in New York still make LVT negs when required.