B&w

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:12 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
There is certainly a broad range of photography oriented material and a broad range of quality of that material on the web. Here’s a piece of material that many of you may have seen. I thought it was good to draw attention to it because it deals with a kind of photography that many of the forum members are interested in. It plugs a commercial product, but is interesting on its own.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/bw_master_print.shtml
 
Last edited:
Great article for those who spend 15mins in a week photographing boring and banal stuff and then spend countless hours post-processing them, while reading the dead-sea scrolls of Ansel Adams for inspiration...
 
I liked it, I won't do it, but I liked the control that digital printing gives. A somewhat related 'trick' is HDR which I do not like (too heavy handed), but if I ever get to the point of needing these ideas; I'll know who to call, thanks.
 
Thanks for the link, Bill. George De Wolf is certainly someone whose experience should receive attention when it comes to any discussion on B&W printing. The dissertation on Luminance vs Luminosity was very interesting and the thought crossed my mind as to whether sometimes in the past the "Leica Glow" that was attributed to the lenses made by that company was due to the superior print making skills of the photographers rather than the equipment? Do I hear distant booing and hissing?

I've fallen back to a hybrid system. I'd spent a couple of thousand dollars setting my "darkroom cupboard" up in the laundry, ready for retirement, including air conditioning so I could work there in summer. All went well until my wife also retired and resumed control of that part of the house.
The dust problem that ensued has beaten me and although I still use my M6 and Rolleiflex cameras I now scan the negatives and print using an Epson R2880 with the process that Chris Crawford recommends . The results (to me) are acceptable and satisfactory. I don't spend a lot of time twiddling the knobs. The technology is pretty good anyway.
 
back to the article: i do not have the room for a wet-print darkroom; this leaves me thinking seriously of printing with a hybrid system like Leigh's. it surely would not require much space.
 
Leigh Youdale said:
Thanks for the link, Bill. George De Wolf is certainly someone whose experience should receive attention when it comes to any discussion on B&W printing. The dissertation on Luminance vs Luminosity was very interesting and the thought crossed my mind as to whether sometimes in the past the "Leica Glow" that was attributed to the lenses made by that company was due to the superior print making skills of the photographers rather than the equipment? Do I hear distant booing and hissing?

I've fallen back to a hybrid system. I'd spent a couple of thousand dollars setting my "darkroom cupboard" up in the laundry, ready for retirement, including air conditioning so I could work there in summer. All went well until my wife also retired and resumed control of that part of the house.
The dust problem that ensued has beaten me and although I still use my M6 and Rolleiflex cameras I now scan the negatives and print using an Epson R2880 with the process that Chris Crawford recommends . The results (to me) are acceptable and satisfactory. I don't spend a lot of time twiddling the knobs. The technology is pretty good anyway.
Click to expand...

Dust is everywhere, I see it in my sleep; if I can sleep. I'm not a 'knob' man either (unless it is by a different definition), I try to do as little as possible in PSE and just rely on the negative. Did I say I do half wet and half hybrid too?
 
paulfish4570 said:
back to the article: i do not have the room for a wet-print darkroom; this leaves me thinking seriously of printing with a hybrid system like Leigh's. it surely would not require much space.
Click to expand...

Paul, the greatest problem with the hybrid system is the cost of the scanner. If that is not a problem, you're set. But the more economical scanners really give a scan from 35mm that best shows off the negative in smaller prints - 8x10, 11x14 in some cases. BTW, I use a hybrid system, but it's a $10,000 scanner with 35mm negs. I use a relatively economical Epson scanner for 4x5 and 8x10 negs. Technically speaking, the big film and the cheaper scanner probably give better large print results than the little film and the expensive scanner, but it's a close race.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Paul, the greatest problem with the hybrid system is the cost of the scanner. If that is not a problem, you're set. But the more economical scanners really give a scan from 35mm that best shows off the negative in smaller prints - 8x10, 11x14 in some cases. BTW, I use a hybrid system, but it's a $10,000 scanner with 35mm negs. I use a relatively economical Epson scanner for 4x5 and 8x10 negs. Technically speaking, the big film and the cheaper scanner probably give better large print results than the little film and the expensive scanner, but it's a close race.
Click to expand...


Interesting, I've always been disappointed in scanned 35mm, but then I was never that expert with 35mm wet printing either. So I try to do mostly 120 or 4x5. Right now, I like my 6x9 (cm) for scanning on my relatively cheaper scanner. I guess if I ever wanted to go larger than 5x7 with 35mm I would commission someone to scan with a dedicated 35mm scanner.

This is a good subject thanks for starting. I hope we get some more feedback.
 
I see the validity of the techniques used in the article. But looking at the before-and-after shots, I'm reminded that sometimes "better isn't better". Not every shot needs to have as much "pop" as possible. More and more, I find that lower contrast shots have more atmosphere or depth. High contrast images grab you by the lapels; lower contrast images speak softer, but once involved they can really make you want to stick around.
 
claacct said:
Great article for those who spend 15mins in a week photographing boring and banal stuff and then spend countless hours post-processing them, while reading the dead-sea scrolls of Ansel Adams for inspiration...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, because we all are master photographers straight out of the womb. :rolleyes:
 
Information is just information.
Good or bad, you have to decide for yourself, for one thing, it's good that it's out there for us to read.

Here's where the author and I split in the matter of choices:

quote:
"
1. ImagePrint is the most consistent of all the drivers and processes. I can repeat exactly any image I’ve printed with it before.
"

That is the *opposite* of what I want to do with my prints. If I created a print that I *really* like, to me, it'd be utterly pointless if I can push a button and recreate it over, and over again. It's unique, and that's what gives the print a value that can't be easily quantified. In other words, that's why it's worth hanging on the wall.

No wonder why I like darkroom work even though I can use Photoshop/Lightroom/gimp/darktable just fine.
 
thanks, Bill. i am not a big-print guy. 11x14 - or the 3:2 version of that - is as big as i would ever go for 35mm. i do shoot some 6x6, but 11x11 or 10x10 is about as big as i'd go there, too.
 
shadowfox said:
That is the *opposite* of what I want to do with my prints. If I created a print that I *really* like, to me, it'd be utterly pointless if I can push a button and recreate it over, and over again. It's unique, and that's what gives the print a value that can't be easily quantified. In other words, that's why it's worth hanging on the wall.

No wonder why I like darkroom work even though I can use Photoshop/Lightroom/gimp/darktable just fine.
Click to expand...


I agree with this view - introducing variability into digital prints in a meaningful way is an interesting challenge.

I also notice that there is a strong correlation between those who describe themselves as 'master' photographer/printer/fine art... and the group that have something to sell. Usually embeded in the buyers'dream of making big bucks from their photos.

None the less, interesting information Bill and a genuine thanks for sharing it.

Mike
 
I just gave a quick look but the article seems interesting. As I am devote to the hybrid workflow which can gives satisfactions not less than the wet darkroom IMO, I will read with attention and interest. Thanks for posting the link
robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom