Avedon's Instructions

[morback]

Very informative, thanks for sharing!

You're welcome. I thought it was a great find, a lot of people forget how much work comes after the instant of picture recording. (That's actually what goes on through my mind at the instant of picture taking: how will I process this image?)

I believe the number are percentages. That's how I used to do it personally. "+" being burning and "-" being dodging.

Seeing this picture, and knowing that HCB and probably others (Salgado?) did not print themselves also, I think that printers should be credited as well for their work: one brings the vision, one brings the craft and together it transcends into art.

As for Photoshop, it's more accessible than a darkroom, but if you don't have the vision & eye, it's still not going to save you. I'm very glad I had darkroom experience before going into Photoshop, but now I wouldn't go back. The only "cheating" is the time and money it saves you. Not to mention your health.

I love to see dodge & burn "glow" on old photographs...

 

[Tuolumne]

A photography teacher of mine, himself a master printer, showed us this same picture in class.

If Avedon did have these skills, why would he spend time making the prints himself? It's an extremely time-consuming process and I'm sure he was busy and enjoyed shooting much more. Printing is fun in its own way, but I think a lot of the big photogs rely on good printers rather than doing it themselves.

Now that's cheating! 😀

/T

 

[skibeerr]

In the film about James Nachtwey you can see him at work with his printer, altough in a more organic way. I think patience, strong nerves and the knowledge you will get payed for this help.

Another question, if I ever get a "realy great negative" where in Europe could I have a master printer do his thing with it? I live in Belgium and the art is no longer alive among pro labs as far as I know.

Cheers,

Wim

 

[ChrisN]

IMHO, the reason people often despise Photoshop is because the work above, which represents the sum ability of a master printer, can be done by a Photoshop user who is somewhat more than average. That makes it attainable by the masses, and that ticks off effete snobs.

Fair call, perhaps. I can understand that a person who had spent many years developing this level of printing skill in a traditional darkroom would feel, perhaps unsettled and threatened, by people stating that the same output can be achieved more quickly and reliably by a slightly advanced photoshop user with relatively short time in the trade. This technology has replaced darkroom jobs, yet there is still a (limited) demand for high-end darkroom printing.

Yet I think what really ticks off the darkroom printers is the disrespect and disregard for their skills that is shown by those who spruik for photoshop as an better alternative. As a novice in the darkroom I have a new respect for those with this skill, which won't stop me using the all-digital approach when I need it, nor going "wet" when I can.

Now if only I could buy a perfectly good top-end B&W inkjet printer for the price I paid recently for a perfectly good Durst Laborator 1200 with CLS450 head!

 

[Nikon Bob]

Chris

That is a fair comment about disrespect and disregard for darkroom printers skills. I certainly have a healthy respect for them but I also have respect for somebody who is skillful with photoshop. It cuts both ways.

Bob

 

[ChrisN]

Indeed it does! I really admire anyone who can get their head around profiling and colour calibration, and consistently turn out prints that mirror the image appearance on the monitor! That requires study and skills that I certainly don't have (yet).

 

[johannielscom]

In the film about James Nachtwey you can see him at work with his printer, altough in a more organic way. I think patience, strong nerves and the knowledge you will get payed for this help.

Another question, if I ever get a "really great negative" where in Europe could I have a master printer do his thing with it? I live in Belgium and the art is no longer alive among pro labs as far as I know.

Cheers,

Wim

I had to think of the War Photographer film by Christian Frei myself, Wim. I found the process in that film very interesting, although it was only shown very briefly.

When it comes to master printers, I think you would need a master Photoshopper these days. The digital file can be printed on B&W silver gelatin fiber paper by specialists like dalmatianlab.com.

I think it is in a way the same process Sebastiao Salgado uses today, to have a digital file printed onto Ilford paper in the darkroom. Very expensive to do, because very specialist...

 

[trix]

Another question, if I ever get a "realy great negative" where in Europe could I have a master printer do his thing with it? I live in Belgium and the art is no longer alive among pro labs as far as I know.

Cheers,

Wim

http://www.stefan-loeliger.com/page/darkroom.aspx

but it isn´t cheap 🙂

I´ve heard the printer who does Michael von Graffenrieds panoramic pictures charges EUR 2500,- per print 🙂

 

[Trius]

I think most of the "cheating" criticisms (those worthy of serious consideration, at least) are of changing of content which significantly alters meaning, rather than expression. Usually it has to do with news or documentary work.

 

[Freakscene]

if I ever get a "realy great negative" where in Europe could I have a master printer do his thing with it? I live in Belgium and the art is no longer alive among pro labs as far as I know.

Dominique Granier, Nathalie Loparelli and many others still offer this type of work at the very highest level.

Anyone who thinks a 'perfect' negative is possible or that a great neg cannot be improved doesn't have a lot of experience of watching someone really good at work.

 

[MCTuomey]

IMHO, the reason people often despise Photoshop is because the work above, which represents the sum ability of a master printer, can be done by a Photoshop user who is somewhat more than average. That makes it attainable by the masses, and that ticks off effete snobs.

people [who] often despise Photoshop = effete snobs

another interesting equation by our master of all-things-photographically-masculine. Bill, it's like you just sashayed into the party with a beercan and lit cigar, asking where to find the "eats."

i wonder whether Bill's assertion that what a master printer can produce can be accomplished by a "somewhat more than average" Photoshop user is true. i suspect it's not. average skills don't usually translate into excellent workproduct, at least not applying fine art criteria, simply due to a change in medium or tool.

i don't think the masses can produce a print within photoshop equivalent to what avedon's printer accomplished. 'course maybe i'm an elitist snob, myself. prolly not effete though. i'm pretty unsightly, doofy, and largish besides.

 

[morgan]

As a person who makes his living through photoshop and other electronic design means, I've always had a strong appreciation for people who can do things manually/traditionally, it seems somehow more artful to me. I know that's total crap intellectually, but emotionally that's how I feel.

Trust in the sanctity and truthfulness of an image though has been questioned since the dawn of photography. A great read is this Errol Morris piece in the NYTimes. Very very long, but worth it: http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/

 

[climbing_vine]

i wonder whether Bill's assertion that what a master printer can produce can be accomplished by a "somewhat more than average" Photoshop user is true. i suspect it's not. average skills don't usually translate into excellent workproduct, at least not applying fine art criteria, simply due to a change in medium or tool.

i don't think the masses can produce a print within photoshop equivalent to what avedon's printer accomplished. 'course maybe i'm an elitist snob, myself. prolly not effete though. i'm pretty unsightly, doofy, and largish besides.

I think you're conflating different parts of the process and thus missing Bill's point. An above average Photoshop user could, indeed, take that diagram and do what he's asking for. That person could do it with far less experience and in less time than that master printer doing it analogue.

This is just a fact. That's why Photoshop exists. If it weren't true, nobody would buy it; it's sort of self-evident to any rational person, respectfully.

I think what you're really aiming at (I'm guessing this from some of your phrases, like "applying fine art criteria") is that most of those Photoshop folks wouldn't have the experience and judgment to do the Avedon side of this equation, that is, evaluating the object and deciding on a course of action. That, I think, would be true.

 

[morgan]

people [who] often despise Photoshop = effete snobs

another interesting equation by our master of all-things-photographically-masculine. Bill, it's like you just sashayed into the party with a beercan and lit cigar, asking where to find the "eats."

i wonder whether Bill's assertion that what a master printer can produce can be accomplished by a "somewhat more than average" Photoshop user is true. i suspect it's not. average skills don't usually translate into excellent workproduct, at least not applying fine art criteria, simply due to a change in medium or tool.

i don't think the masses can produce a print within photoshop equivalent to what avedon's printer accomplished. 'course maybe i'm an elitist snob, myself. prolly not effete though. i'm pretty unsightly, doofy, and largish besides.

I'd agree in that it would take someone with much better than average photoshop skills to get a print the same quality as Avedon's, but it takes almost no skill to take say an underexposed raw file and make it perfectly presentable. In lightroom it's the single push of a button. The bar has been significantly lowered in terms of skill required to make acceptable output for average people. But I'd argue that it's not the skillset in a particular medium, but the knowledge and experience of how to edit a particular shot combined with technical knowledge that perhaps separates the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Maybe Avedon didn't print his own stuff, but he knew the right edits to make. It's about knowing how to use the tools in the right manner.

 

[dfoo]

Perhaps I haven't seen enough of them, and personally don't have enough inkjet mojo, but I don't think inkjet prints look as good as wet prints. They look good, just not as good.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Almost everything you always wanted to know about Richard Avedon:

http://lifeslittleadventures.typepad.com/lifes_little_adventures/avedon_years/

 

[Todd.Hanz]

heres the print, not sure if it's the final though...

Todd

 

[totifoto]

Photoshop aint nothing but a digital darkroom.

I love Avedons work, he is one of my favorites.

 

[venchka]

Thanks!

Thanks!

Almost everything you always wanted to know about Richard Avedon:

http://lifeslittleadventures.typepad.com/lifes_little_adventures/avedon_years/

I was going to post this link. Thanks! Fascinating stuff.

From the link above:

Now for the real secret — no expense was spared! Most prints were made at least ten times over until the "perfect" one emerged. Sometimes more than twenty times. I have at times spent an entire day on just one print. This is expensive, both in materials and in labor. The Agfa paper was not cheap, and had to be ordered in large quantities from Germany as their American distributors did not keep enough of the various sizes and contrast grades on hand. Sadly, it is no longer made, but other worthy papers continue to be available.

The paper is Agfa Brovira. It's interesting that when searching for Brovira or Harvey's 777, this story comes up. This is the type of information that makes the Internet worthwhile.

 

[MCTuomey]

I think you're conflating different parts of the process and thus missing Bill's point. An above average Photoshop user could, indeed, take that diagram and do what he's asking for. That person could do it with far less experience and in less time than that master printer doing it analogue.

This is just a fact. That's why Photoshop exists. If it weren't true, nobody would buy it; it's sort of self-evident to any rational person, respectfully.

I think what you're really aiming at (I'm guessing this from some of your phrases, like "applying fine art criteria") is that most of those Photoshop folks wouldn't have the experience and judgment to do the Avedon side of this equation, that is, evaluating the object and deciding on a course of action. That, I think, would be true.

Brian, not to be too precise about it, but Bill said that the work above represents the sum ability of a master printer and that it can be equalled by a somewhat above average photoshop user. Now, if Bill meant the sum ability of a master printer is represented by just the act of following dodge and burn notations, then Bill is shorting the skills of a master printer no small amount. If by "sum ability" Bill meant the full range of a master printer's skills, then we're talking about the ability to produce prints of fine quality.

So I don't think I'm "conflating" anything. I'm questioning whether Bill's assertion is true. If it is true, I want to see those photoshop user prints and compare them to Avedon's. That will help me answer the question. Might be a problem though. The above average photoshop user's prints aren't being exhibited at MOMA or even the DIA for me to compare ...

But beyond all that, wouldn't it be interesting to have the somewhat above average photoshop user scan and process (per the notes) the Avedon negative, print it, and compare to a wet print of the same negative?