eto
Member
No dying! I've just started to arrange my first darkroom!
Magnum and the Dying Art of Darkroom Printing
- Thread starter kbg32
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 84
- Views 12K
JohnTF
Veteran
- Local time
- 4:23 AM
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,083
I used to be a pretty good printer in B&W and RA4. I had 5000 sheets of paper I liked custom coated on heavy stock and I imported it to the US from Brno--
When I first went to the Czech Republic, I left the last day the Socialist Money was still usable-- and I felt photography I saw there was in kind of a time capsule from the 50's-- I met with the director of Neobrom in Brno on following trips-- they made a dozen or more interesting papers, Silver Iodide Contact paper, Chamois-- deep blacks with interesting warm tones, etc.-- and I was a small part of Misha's Foma USA-- which Foma execs. orphaned a few years later.
People I spoke with here just were not interested in anything not Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, or Kodak--.
They were a bit early or perhaps lacked the vision to see that the niche market (BW was a niche market even then -- supported by the profits from C41 P&S clients)-- had potential far more than they had ever seen in their mostly local following. i.e. 1% of the big boys' sales would have made them all well off in their locale.
Neobrom flat out said they wanted to make color film like Kodak to compete, - that was their future, though competing with Kodak in that field and time was an interesting thought. The director got a Mercedes and closed down the plant.
Foma chose to stay in business--
So while the big boys mainly have decided to do something else, chucking the niche of BW products along with the rest, Hopefully remaining niches in places like the Czech Republic, will not do the same. (Foma was tied to Neobrom before and quickly separated)
It is an economic and cultural dance, I do not think I have the energy to coat my own film and papers. Mixing the chemistry, not that difficult, master printers, still rare and expensive, shelf lives approaching, new products declining.
I suppose I could have cut this long post down to just that? ;-)
Regards, John
When I first went to the Czech Republic, I left the last day the Socialist Money was still usable-- and I felt photography I saw there was in kind of a time capsule from the 50's-- I met with the director of Neobrom in Brno on following trips-- they made a dozen or more interesting papers, Silver Iodide Contact paper, Chamois-- deep blacks with interesting warm tones, etc.-- and I was a small part of Misha's Foma USA-- which Foma execs. orphaned a few years later.
People I spoke with here just were not interested in anything not Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, or Kodak--.
They were a bit early or perhaps lacked the vision to see that the niche market (BW was a niche market even then -- supported by the profits from C41 P&S clients)-- had potential far more than they had ever seen in their mostly local following. i.e. 1% of the big boys' sales would have made them all well off in their locale.
Neobrom flat out said they wanted to make color film like Kodak to compete, - that was their future, though competing with Kodak in that field and time was an interesting thought. The director got a Mercedes and closed down the plant.
Foma chose to stay in business--
So while the big boys mainly have decided to do something else, chucking the niche of BW products along with the rest, Hopefully remaining niches in places like the Czech Republic, will not do the same. (Foma was tied to Neobrom before and quickly separated)
It is an economic and cultural dance, I do not think I have the energy to coat my own film and papers. Mixing the chemistry, not that difficult, master printers, still rare and expensive, shelf lives approaching, new products declining.
I suppose I could have cut this long post down to just that? ;-)
Regards, John
zauhar
Veteran
Nah, I was just being ironic, would not dream of trying to trip up someone with your erudition and charm ;-)
I am not above using photoshop, but not good with layers at this point. I use selections, apply Gaussian blur to try and avoid artifacts. But I think doing things in the darkroom is more interesting .
Randy
MIkhail
Well-known
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, Chris, I'd regard that as an example of intellectual shallowness in its own right. Yes, they DO care what process you use. Not directly, but in the sense of what "works" and what doesn't. If the process is an essential part of how the image looks (and ages), then the process is at the heart of creating the image. "Faking" an Argyrotype digitally may not matter to some, but it will matter to others. And not just "process purists".
Cheers,
R.
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
so far away are the digital prints for example of the monochrome of an analog print?
skibeerr
Well-known
The article itself is a bit light, the work prints tell a better story.
On the whole I agree with Chris on this one, it is the end result that counts and the artists vision, even the visions of photographer and printer combined. Art should not always be a solitary pursuit.
@Sonofdanang, I really enjoyed looking at your work.
On the whole I agree with Chris on this one, it is the end result that counts and the artists vision, even the visions of photographer and printer combined. Art should not always be a solitary pursuit.
@Sonofdanang, I really enjoyed looking at your work.
ChrisN
Striving
For anyone interested in the process/craft of darkroom printing, and the meaning of the notations, I can recommend "Creative Elements" by Eddie Ephraums, and "Photographic Printing" by Gene Noton (who popularized the f-stop printing technique).
zauhar
Veteran
bonatto
looking out
I've spoken to a couple of art dealers regarding the matter of process.
According to them, when presented with the same image originally shot on film, a wet print is always more favorable commercially against a high quality scan inkjet print.
Big name artists can sign any piece of plastic and it will turn to gold.
I think that, for those that are gifting and selling a low volume of prints, there's always an added value in it having been hand-printed.
If not, then the process itself can at least be more enjoyable or rewarding. I'd rather spend 5 hours in a darkroom than 2 operating a scanner and dealing with 40mb files...
According to them, when presented with the same image originally shot on film, a wet print is always more favorable commercially against a high quality scan inkjet print.
Big name artists can sign any piece of plastic and it will turn to gold.
I think that, for those that are gifting and selling a low volume of prints, there's always an added value in it having been hand-printed.
If not, then the process itself can at least be more enjoyable or rewarding. I'd rather spend 5 hours in a darkroom than 2 operating a scanner and dealing with 40mb files...
MIkhail
Well-known
So would I but what does this have to do with artistic vision, creativity, etc., things that actually art made of? Its just technique, like usage the proper lens or right camera... Plenty of visual artists dont print themselves anyway.
bonatto
looking out
Not sure these are as distinct as they are being portrayed.
Wet printing is not an absolute and exact science, creativity, vision, and all other elements of technique, and equipment usage can and do exist in unison under red lights.
ChrisN
Striving
Both digital and traditional darkroom printing can produce prints that are very pleasing to the eye. I enjoy making a traditional darkroom B&W print occasionally from a good negative that I am especially pleased with. I have also made some very good prints from digital images I have converted to monochrome. It really comes down to taste and preference, and what your eye has learned to distinguish and expect. I'm lucky in that I can appreciate and enjoy both the traditional and digital approaches to making a B&W print. Working in each medium has taught me something that has improved my work in the other medium.
And getting back to the original topic: for interest, here's an example of a record of the required tonal adjustments for a print. This a a photo by Richard Avedon, and it is often referred to as his instructions to his printer. However there is another interpretation:
"Some notes from Laura Wilson’s book Avedon at Work. Wilson assisted Avedon for six years:
“The difficult and time-consuming process of making these prints began in the basement darkroom of the Avedon studio in New York. Ruedi and David [Liittscwager] started with a set of 16-by-20 inch prints. Dick rejected them all. He felt that the tone was heavy; they were too black and had too much contrast. In reprinting, Dick’s directions were rarely technical. He would say simply, “Make the person more gentle,” or “Give the face more tension” This unconventional advice forced Ruedi and David to try to Understand the emotional content that Dick sought in each portrait. […] On test prints, Ruedi recorded the necessary manipulations with a red grease pencil. The exposure times, plus or minus, were in seconds to indicate where to darken or lighten an eyelid, or a nose, ot the wrinkle on a forehead.”
(This image can be found on a couple of hundred websites and blogs, so I don't think I'm breaking any new ground here. I'm pretty sure it's been shown and discussed on this forum at least once before.)
Attachments
thegman
Veteran
I think it's probably fairer to say, what works for some, may not work for others, I don't think there is very much more to it than that. For some the process matters, and for some it does not.
Personally, I use lots of different cameras, but I have a real interest in 4x5 film at the moment, so the fact that someone uses 4x5 rather than something else interests me. I don't attempt to be an artist, so I guess I cannot fail as one, but surely it's OK to take an interest in some forms of photography but not others?
I've also taken a bit more of an interest in maritime paintings, right now I like old oil paintings, ships of the line, that sort of thing. The fact I'm not interested in watercolours is surely just a matter of preference and not 'obsessing with the process'.
zuiko85
Veteran
I started printing in a darkroom 40+ years ago. There was a long hiatus of about 25 years and then I picked it up again after retirement. Truth be told it takes hundreds of hours, at least, to be reasonabely good and I have not spent that time. So, I remain a "hack" printer. Still I do enjoy the process and magic of an image appearing on a blank piece of paper.
It is also a neat thing to show the grandkids that not all pictures are something you see on an i-phone or tablet or computer screen.
Even after retirement I find time at a premium, I do volunteer work and of course am now the often called babysitter for those grandkids.
It is also a neat thing to show the grandkids that not all pictures are something you see on an i-phone or tablet or computer screen.
Even after retirement I find time at a premium, I do volunteer work and of course am now the often called babysitter for those grandkids.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The difference is a lot of guys here are claiming that digital photos or digital prints of film photos are not "Real Photographs", which is bull****. If you claimed that only oil paintings are "Real Paintings" and that Watercolors are illegitimate, then I'd tell you the same thing I tell these bigoted photographers. You are smarter than them; you accept all kinds of paintings but choose to use oils. That's perfectly fine.
thegman
Veteran
I should clarify that I like paintings, but I don't paint myself.
However, I do think it's fair to have opinions like 'Only film is real photography', you may disagree and thinks it's BS, but that's what opinions are for. I'll admit that I have a greater respect for film photography than digital, and I freely admit it's groundless bias, but we're not logical beings, and I know my opinions are not logical.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The problem is, it IS wrong. Why amateurs keep pushing this idiocy is beyond me. In the real world, among those who actually matter (curators, art historians, and buyers of photographs, not to mention real professionals who actually earn their living at it) this issue is settled. Digital photography is photography. Digital prints ARE photographs. There's nothing to debate; you are simply banging your head against a wall that is far bigger and stronger than you.
I shouldn't be surprised, though. RFF is still full of people who insist that photography is not even art, and THAT issue was settled a CENTURY AGO.
thegman
Veteran
Well, I think we'll need to differ on that, you feel it is wrong, and I feel that it's a matter of personal choice, I respect your opinion of course, and am not saying it's wrong.
And from a personal point of view, I'm not contesting for a second that digital photography is not photography, merely that I have a greater interest in film photography, much as I prefer oils to watercolour.
I'm not for a moment saying that I am right about anything and anyone else wrong about something, merely that there are some things such as art, which are not governed by facts in the way that say, physics or engineering is.
Similar threads
