Master Printers
- Thread starter filmtwit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 261
- Views 24K
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, I've said there is no need, but anybody can do what she or he wants. I'm not a dictator who says what people have to do or not. You keep interpreting my words in your way, but they are my words and therefore you have to interprete them in my way.
In the darkroom you can do anything you like. But it is always good to hear opinions of other people about the things you do. That is the reason for the existence of forums such as these. Everybody can write what she or he thinks. You can read it or not.
Erik.
PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
Lumen prints are contact prints in the sun with silver gelatin paper. Way overexposed. In a way they are like printing out paper. I haven't tried developing/toning them in any way yet, like a POP print would be. I just fix them so they are more than likely permanent. I have lots of ideas for the technique but I just started doing them. If you google lumen prints you will see all kinds of crazy colors but those people are just scanning and manipulating the result. I want something I can put on the wall. The downside of the process- the tonal range is incredibly limited.
x-ray
Veteran
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Roland Barthes would disagree.
And this is the problem with forums such as these - or more precisely, the modern internet, Web 3.0. Anyone can say whatever they want and it is all presented as having equal value... even when that is demonstrably not the case.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
gelatin silver print (color skopar 50mm f2.5) leica mp
no burning and dodging
Amstelstation Amsterdam, 2023
Erik.
no burning and dodging
Amstelstation Amsterdam, 2023
Erik.
Last edited:
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Burning and dodging changes the mood in a photograph, but I take photographs of moods I like, so no burning and dodging for me. When I want to create a mood myself, I make an oilpainting without using a photograph.
However, I like it when people burn and dodge. Now I understand your problem, you all burn and dodge, and you think that I dont like burning and dodging! But I like it, however, not for myself. I paint.
Erik.
However, I like it when people burn and dodge. Now I understand your problem, you all burn and dodge, and you think that I dont like burning and dodging! But I like it, however, not for myself. I paint.
Erik.
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
Film and even digital camera sensors respond very differently to light than the human eye/brain system. So, typically a "straight" photograph with no manipulation will look very different than the scene appeared live to the photographer. That's the norm and I'm certain we've all experienced this. And that's why it often takes photographers years to teach themselves how to anticipate what their photos will look like in advance of pressing the shutter. But even then, with many years of experience, there are often surprises and the images usually look different than what was anticipated. Sometimes the differences are small and sometimes they are dramatic.
It is for those reasons that many photographers manipulate their prints -- it's often an effort to bring the finished print more into conformity with how the original scene appeared. Burning and dodging is just one tool which can be used. Multiple grade printing is another.
Regarding your claim that "burning and dodging changes the mood in a photograph", anything done to the print or negative can change the mood of the photograph, including split grade printing. So, what's your real point? I think this is just another of your not-so-thinly-veiled attacks on dodging and burning.
It's really getting tiresome.
Unless someone has almost superhuman perception, it's almost impossible to predict in advance precisely how a straight print of a scene will appear . Maybe you are one of those super humans who possess that ability, but the odds are against it. The reality is that you're using your split grade printing to"change the mood" of what you're getting straight out of the camera. If not, you'd be making straight prints with a single grade of paper.
So, please, give your attacks on dodging and burning a rest. All your claims against it and in favor of split grade printing are seeming very hollow.
brusby
Well-known
Is this really how you saw this scene live? Where's the guy's face? Or any detail in his coat? They are both just black blobs with absolutely NO detail. I guarantee that anyone standing in the position where you took the photo would have been able to see plenty of detail there including his expression and what he was holding in his hands.
These may seem like small points for this particular photo, but they are just demonstrative of how you print all your photos. It takes skill to be able to retain detail in shadow areas and it can be done without destroying the natural feel of the scene.
You often mention paintings but I don't recall any of the masters representing their subjects as detail-less black blobs.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Invest in a good computerscreen. On my screen his face is clear, but unsharp because he is out of the dept of field. It is a dark man from Surinam, btw.
Brusby, why do you put so much time and effort into criticizing my photos? Don't you have better things to do?
Erik.
Last edited:
brusby
Well-known
I have a large, calibrated monitor and I stand by my statements about the lack of shadow detail. Luckily anyone reading this doesn't have to take my word or yours. They can judge for themselves.
If you'll look closely you'll see in every case I'm only responding to your posts when you make some bullshit statement denigrating dodging and burning. For months I didn't respond to your repeated posts but I've finally just gotten tired of seeing your biased and unsubstantiated crap go unchallenged. When you make claims that are obviously not true, I'm going to respond.
I don't know why you seem to want to wage a personal vendetta against dodging and burning. It's a widely accepted method used by many if not most pro printers. No one is forcing you to use it or even suggesting you do. But you seem to take some sort of perverse pleasure in deriding it at every opportunity. Why? The only thing that seems obvious to me is that you derive some feeling of superiority by employing what you think -- erroneously -- is a much better system than others are using.
I frankly don't care if you use dodging and burning or not. And I couldn't care less about whether your prints lack shadow detail or have gray highlights. But I do care about false claims and I'll continue to respond to them.
Last edited:
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
To be fair, my little MacBook used to have its own problems with screen calibration: it consistently made dark elements of photos look lighter than they were on any other device. I was scanning in entire rolls and adjusting the levels to look good on here, and then wondering why the shadows looked more blocked up on every other screen, whether phone, iPad, TV screen, calibrated monitor, whatever.
I've since adjusted it, but even before that adjustment - on an extra-light screen - your prints consistently looked dark and flat. It's not just @brusby - it's just RFF isn't generally rude enough to point this out.
But now we're in a long thread about printing technique, now seems to be a good time to bring it up - especially considering you keep basically saying the way you print is the single best way to make an image. Evidence suggests otherwise.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
@Erik van Straten, I can't bring back detail that's not there in your scan, but here's your last post run through photoshop with a very rough-and-ready levels adjustment.
Is it perfect? God no. I spent less than 60 seconds on this, and you'd definitely want to dodge the poor featureless blob sat on the windowsill in the back if that detail was there on the neg (which it probably is), but is this version a lot more vibrant, visible, and interesting than your print? I'd say so.
But hey, I guess you like what you like, and I doubt I'm going to change that opinion any time soon.
Is it perfect? God no. I spent less than 60 seconds on this, and you'd definitely want to dodge the poor featureless blob sat on the windowsill in the back if that detail was there on the neg (which it probably is), but is this version a lot more vibrant, visible, and interesting than your print? I'd say so.
But hey, I guess you like what you like, and I doubt I'm going to change that opinion any time soon.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Thank you, Coldkennels, for trying to get my scan better. In this case I prefer mine, not only because it is less grainy, but also because it is smoother. I like a velvet smoothness in my scans and no grain. Also important is to recreate the atmosphere on the place the picture was taken.
I have a print experience of about 50 years.
The big problem is of course that the monitors are all different, so it is useless to try to improve the image of someone else. I have a HP2210i with a glossy screen.
Erik.
I have a print experience of about 50 years.
The big problem is of course that the monitors are all different, so it is useless to try to improve the image of someone else. I have a HP2210i with a glossy screen.
Erik.
Last edited:
Erik van Straten
Veteran
gelatin silver print (summar 50mm f2) leica lll
Amsterdam, 2020
Erik.
Amsterdam, 2020
Erik.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Erik, I guess your monitor is not brightness and gamma calibrated? Sorry, but if you calibrate properly, everyone with a calibrated screen has essentially the same view.
Marty
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
The only reason that quick adjustment looks grainy as hell is I'm starting from bad source material. If you were printing from the original negative to the same sort of tonality, there should be much lower grain.
Of course, if the initial exposure onto the negative is wrong, it'll be grainy when printed correctly anyway - and purposely printing something badly just to avoid grain is a bit of a fool's errand.
With all due respect, you can be doing something your entire life and do it wrong that entire time if no one points out the error of your ways.
Case in point: during the recession in 2011 I was a roadie for a "club singer" here in the UK. (It's a weird cultural oddity that I'm not sure will translate to Dutch, but bear with me.) Now, I'm not exactly an audio technician; I play music, but always played acoustic stuff. However, I have close friends who are audio technicians, so I tapped them up for advice at points. Maybe a year into doing this, the singer's dad comes along... and kicks off about how I was wiring up the speakers. He pulled the "I've been doing this all my life and I know what I'm doing" line.
He was chaining the speakers together, basically taking just one channel out of the stereo sound system to the left speaker and then out of that speaker into the right one, losing one entire channel of the backing track in the process. It sounded awful.
We had a full-on shouting match where he refused to listen to reason or make any attempt to understand how or why what he was doing was wrong, and I walked out and never went back. I felt bad for his son who was expected to sing with the bad setup his dad was insistent on, but this guy been setting up sound equipment for fifty years at that point, so who was I to tell him he was making a mistake?
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
PRJ, how do you fix lumen prints without the image being lost?
x-ray
Veteran
This print shows you’re way over printing your images. I’m assuming the person is on ice or snow, correct? Look at the tonal difference between the white border and the snow or ice. I’m not suggesting it should be pure white but it shouldn’t be middle gray.
Thank you, Marty. How do I do that? I have Windows 11 since a few weeks.
Erik
An uncalibrated monitor won’t account for the tonal difference between your border and the snow.
If you’re scanning or doing any kind of digital work you must have a calibrated monitor. Monitors as they come from the factory are generally setup to look pretty on the internet or for video games, not photography. There are several companies that make devices to electronically calibrate your hardware. When calibrated what you see is what all other monitors will display. Calibration is done to a specific standard as is the light prescribed for viewing prints and transparencies. Every prepress house, litho printer and quality photo lab have calibrated viewing systems including monitors.
Also a high gloss screen easily fools your eye as making the image look brighter than it actually is. I hate working on a gloss screen and have used a mat screen monitor specifically designed for photo editing. For over 20 years my digital images were for reproduction in brochures and catalogs and never was there a problem.
A little example, I did work for an automotive component company that made chrome and black parts for street rods. I did their work for about 15 years. The designer I worked with worked in a calibrated monitor but the owner of the company had a cheap uncalibrated office monitor. The designer left the company and the owner decided to look at some of my images on her computer. I got a call with her balling me out for my bad work. In actuality it turned out as always my images were spot on and the issue was her uncalibrated cheap monitor.
I’m also wondering if your negs aren’t seriously under exposed and or way under developed. I’m not sure there’s much shadow detail in many of your negs.
Similar threads
- Article
