How many paper sheets do you "destroy" before you make one decent print?

shadowfox said:
I can pick up any of my negatives I printed before and refer to how I print it last, not because I have an extensive system, it's a notebook and a pen :D
Click to expand...

That´s ok until you have to change the paper because your favourite paper no longer exists, which happened again and again in the last decade. Then you can start all over again with notebook and pen :D.
I ordered a paper completely new to me (Bergger fb warmtone). I´ll show you my first print with that paper in a couple of days, no test strips, no cheating.

It seems many darkroom people prefer horse and cart where they could have a decent motorbike ride. A partly lame comparison, I know....
 
straightmp said:
This is an attitude of the last millennium. Obviously you don´t know the heiland splitgrade controller and just cannot imagine it´s practical worth.

I admit I´m no fine printer. I never got it what was so desirable about working out all the subtleties a negative can deliver. Instead I´m always searching for the mood of a caption, and in most cases, according to my taste, this leads me to a higher gradation and more light on the paper as would be considered "perfect" in the zone system world. I know my stuff, and from looking at the negative I can in most cases successfully decide what to do with the fine tuning to give me a print I can live with.

And, yes, waste are things you throw away, no matter if you consider them part of the process or not, and so you waste lots of paper on your way to the print. Given the exorbitantly risen prices for paper, this is the more unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Um... Probably I know at least as much about it (and split grade printing in general) as you do. Yes, it's an excellent tool. No, it's not infallible.

Then again, you think that working towards a better print involves "waste". What on earth is "mood of a caption"? And what has the Zone System to do with it?

Well, OK, you do it your way. You admit you're "no fine printer". How long have you been printing? If it's not long, fair enough, you probably won't be yet. If it's a long time: well, why aren't you a fine printer yet?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Further comments from Frances:

2 (Quoting the late Bob Carlos Clarke, a brilliant printer): "You just go on re-making the same print until the print you've just made isn't as good as the one before."
Click to expand...

My own thought is that I'll keep working on a print until "there's nothing left to fix". The point that Bob Carlos Clarke brings up teaches me that I might not be fixing the right things!

Thanks for that!
 
Work from a contact sheet. If the enlarger head is not moved, add 7% to the contact time to make up for the glass. 3.5x5 5x7 8x10 11x14 16x20 all require one stop more exposure.

Now if you contact looks good, make the 8x10 at 93%. you can also make a test expose strip running thru high and low densities.

With exposures correct ( good contact sheet) you waste little paper. I have worked this way for decades
 
I am still considered a complete newbie (having only started about 6 months ago). On the average, I use 3-4 sheets before I find one that is acceptable. To save some $, I now spend more time/effort using test strips on various parts of the image. In addition to that, I draw out the different zones on a notebook, marking off the dodge/burn areas.

Now I actually find myself struggling to find a shot that makes the grade to hit the enlarger. I agree that being critical of my own work is essential, and this has to begin from the very start of releasing the shutter.
 
"timidly raises hand"

Is 10 sheets or (way) more too many?

Compared with everyone here I am obviously OCD and a beginner.

I am still having fun trying to figure out what happens when I change A to B, and D to V. :)
 
Roger Hicks said:
Um... Probably I know at least as much about it (and split grade printing in general) as you do. Yes, it's an excellent tool. No, it's not infallible.

Then again, you think that working towards a better print involves "waste". What on earth is "mood of a caption"? And what has the Zone System to do with it?

Well, OK, you do it your way. You admit you're "no fine printer". How long have you been printing? If it's not long, fair enough, you probably won't be yet. If it's a long time: well, why aren't you a fine printer yet?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger!

You´re welcome!
I already expected you to play the inevitable age/experience/merits card. No problem!
I´m in the darkroom let´s say long enough to know what I want and don´t want.

I just don´t want to be a fine printer.
For some years I tried to be, for example tested my films according to the zone system to get the most out of the tonality, read clever books on darkroom work, used bigger formats than 35mm (I still do sometimes, to keep the Rolleiflex alive, etc.), everything to become the nth AA.

I don´t remember how come, but somehow I noticed that the fine print way is not the thing for me. I discovered that I probably prefer more zone I in an image than is optimum according to the zone system, so I let zones II and III drown as well. Sometimes a print is more alive when the highlights are blown out, when the light from the window is spilling over the place. Sometimes a picture with all zones completely worked out is just boring.
"Mood of a caption". Is it so hard to understand?
("caption" = "picture", sorry, I´m no native speaker.)

I know that these things are deeply connected with "personal taste", which cannot be discussed.

Take a look at
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138530
These images are so far away from the fine printing approach as possible. BUT: THEY ARE ALIVE! That´s what counts for me, I´m a romantic.

Others may prefer zonesystemperfect work, that´s what counts for them, and that´s ok for me. Let people have their way.

To complete the loop: You can easily produce perfect fine prints as well as nitty & grainy train pictures with the Heiland machine, which is much more than just using two different filters on one print, by the way.

cheers,
smp
 
straightmp said:
Roger!

You´re welcome!
I already expected you to play the inevitable age/experience/merits card. No problem!
I´m in the darkroom let´s say long enough to know what I want and don´t want.

I just don´t want to be a fine printer.
For some years I tried to be, for example tested my films according to the zone system to get the most out of the tonality, read clever books on darkroom work, used bigger formats than 35mm (I still do sometimes, to keep the Rolleiflex alive, etc.), everything to become the nth AA.

I don´t remember how come, but somehow I noticed that the fine print way is not the thing for me. I discovered that I probably prefer more zone I in an image than is optimum according to the zone system, so I let zones II and III drown as well. Sometimes a print is more alive when the highlights are blown out, when the light from the window is spilling over the place. Sometimes a picture with all zones completely worked out is just boring.
"Mood of a caption". Is it so hard to understand?
("caption" = "picture", sorry, I´m no native speaker.)

I know that these things are deeply connected with "personal taste", which cannot be discussed.

Take a look at
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138530
These images are so far away from the fine printing approach as possible. BUT: THEY ARE ALIVE! That´s what counts for me, I´m a romantic.

Others may prefer zonesystemperfect work, that´s what counts for them, and that´s ok for me. Let people have their way.

To complete the loop: You can easily produce perfect fine prints as well as nitty & grainy train pictures with the Heiland machine, which is much more than just using two different filters on one print, by the way.

cheers,
smp
Click to expand...
Do you know what "fine printer" means?

It's nothing to do with the Zone System, which personally I don't like, or with the number of zones in a print. As you say, it's all to do with mood. A lot of Zone stuff is sterile and dead (but far from all).

Just about every printer I know can look at a picture they've printed and say, "Yes, that would be improved if..."

And yes, I do know that the Heiland Split Grade system is about a lot more than using split grade printing. Another excellent tool for predicting paper grade and exposure was made by Durst. Again, it would give you acceptable prints first time, in many cases.

If you never dodge or burn, and never think "Maybe it would look better if..." then you probably find more prints "acceptable" than someone else might. And by the way, yes, equating "caption" and "picture" is impossible to understand.

Something I learned many years ago is that there are always people who know more than I do, and are better at whatever I'm trying to do. I also learned that there is very rarely just one way of doing something: not even one "best" way. It may be that you are a better printer than anyone else I've met. It's just that I'd be surprised if this were the case.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger,

we agree completely, perfectly, 100%. It would never come into my mind to think of myself as a perfect printer, or even a better printer than somebody else, no matter beginner or master. There is no perfect printer, it´s just one print done after the other.
I´m satisfied with my prints most of the time. Which happens when they "become alive", when I live with them for a couple of days after printing. I never seek perfection, I´m only stubborn enough to do things my way. Heiland helps me with that.

Cheers,
smp
 
I'm new to wet printing as well. I waste a lot. But it doesn't bugs me.
Self-printing digitally is annoying.
 
Another vote for the Heiland Splitgrade. I may not like the first print, but that's me, not the system. I've been using it for a decade, and can't say enough good about it. It saves time, paper, and, best of all, frustration. Expensive, but worth it if you are going to print regularly.
 
Sorry, Roger. What I meant to say is the first print will be in the ballpark and give me the information I need for burning, dodging, change of grade and time if needed. Sorry I was unclear.
 
presspass said:
Sorry, Roger. What I meant to say is the first print will be in the ballpark and give me the information I need for burning, dodging, change of grade and time if needed. Sorry I was unclear.
Click to expand...
My apologies for misunderstanding. Yes, the Heiland system is excellent for a first print (the science). After that, as you say, it's down to you (the art).

Cheers,

R.
 
Well, I'm no fine printer, never invested the time required but....I'm usually happy enough after 2 to 5 prints. Of course I have no first hand experience with a really good printer taking the same negative and doing a better print. For the most part, since I shoot 35mm both full and half frame I do bracket many times (even though I've taken a meter reading) to increase the chance of getting the best negative to print with.
 
Roger Hicks said:
My apologies for misunderstanding. Yes, the Heiland system is excellent for a first print (the science). After that, as you say, it's down to you (the art).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

you´re so oldfashioned! Don´t you know we don´t need the dichotomy of "science" and "art" any longer? Facebook met Zen a couple of years ago, so it all boils down to "like"!

half kidding and half not,
smp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom