Printing B&W -- Preserving Details of the Negative

[brusby]

I'm curious about who scrutinizes their prints to ensure details contained in the negative have been well preserved. Specifically who regularly examines their prints with a strong back light to see if there are details contained in the shadow areas of the negative that have been lost in the final print? And who checks highlight details to make sure they are maximized?

I hesitated writing the following but decided to do so for anyone who might be interested in knowing a bit about my background and possible biases.

My first job out of college was at a local architectural/commercial studio back in the pre-digital days of film only and all analog processing. Of the three full time photographers who worked there, it eventually became my responsibility to print almost all the b&w stuff. We would often do work for national magazines like Better Homes and Gardens and catalog work photographing things like antiques, jewelry and artwork for places like Manheim Galleries who at the time were reputed to have the largest collection of jade sculpture outside of China.

On my first day of work at the studio, the owner sent me into the darkroom with instructions to print a few negatives. Up until that time I had been entirely self taught, often trying to emulate photos I liked, typically ones I would see in photo magazines and other publications of the day. I thought -- and often still do -- that dark, full and rich were good targets for print values. For these test prints I tried to make the tones full and rich as so many of the art prints I'd seen.

Upon exiting the darkroom the owner took the prints and immediately held them up in front a very strong backlight. He pointed out and it became instantly apparent to me that there was much detail contained in the shadows of these prints that was lost on viewing by reflected light only. The negative contained a lot of shadow detail that I obscured because of my then poor printing technique. So, from then on, for commercial work, it was my job to have all tones that were in the negatives preserved as much as possible in the final prints. I also learned that there was still room for individual interpretation -- that things can still have the feeling of being full, dark and rich while also preserving shadow and highlight detail.

I realize that in art photography the rules of commercial photography don't necessarily apply. Art work and commercial work are entirely different and typically live by completely different sets of rules. For art photography it's usually more about making a personal, often emotional statement, rather than simply trying to display something or someone in the most accurate light or fullest range of tone.

So, 'sorry for being so long winded, but I'm really curious about the perspectives on this subject of anyone who would like to share his or hers.

 

[DennisM]

I haven't wet printed for some time and recently gave away my enlarger, timer, safe lights, trays, etc. I've never held print up to a strong back light. However, I still shoot B&W film (as well as digital), process, scan the negatives, import to Light room and print using a Canon printer. I have noticed that I can often uncover more detail in a scanned B&W negative using Light room controls than I would have thought possible. So, I'm with you as far as uncovering more detail in a negative than one would have thought possible.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Not that I’m necessarily telling you anything new, but a lot of it has to do with how the negatives were exposed and processed. You can’t print what isn’t there, so ‘exposing for the shadows, developing for the highlights’ goes a long way to helping you reveal all those details.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (summilux 50mm f1.4 v1 black paint 1959) leica mp

Erik.

 

[brusby]

I've never held print up to a strong back light.

I think it's common that most people don't do this. So I just wanted to pass along this tip that I found extremely useful. If there is detail in the shadow or darker areas of the negative but the person making the print makes it so dark that those areas look devoid of the detail, simply holding the print up to a strong backlight will readily show the lost detail and let the printer know to try again.

Not that I’m necessarily telling you anything new, but a lot of it has to do with how the negatives were exposed and processed. You can’t print what isn’t there, so ‘exposing for the shadows, developing for the highlights’ goes a long way to helping you reveal all those details.

Right. But I'm only referring to losing detail in a properly exposed negative by printing too dark. I've seen it happen soooo often. For anyone who has a bunch of old prints laying around, try it yourself. Just hold a few of those prints up to a strong backlight and see if detail magically appears in your shadows - if so, it usually can be recovered with improved print technique.

 

[brusby]

gelatin silver print (summilux 50mm f1.4 v1 black paint 1959) leica mp

Erik.

View attachment 4815697

I'm not clear on the purpose of this post. Have you tried the technique of examining shadows in backlight on this print? Or with any of your other prints? Results?

 

[Vince Lupo]

It’s an interesting idea, admittedly I’ve never tried that. Now you’ve got me wondering!

 

[Hans Berkhout]

A multifactorial question.
Looking at a print in transparency set up if I understand you correctly. Wet or dry? Condenser or diffused light enlarger?
What did your boss tell you about the highlight separation (or blow out) during this exercise?
Howard Bond measured the high and low density areas of his negatives with a densitometer. This would tell him if his printing paper density range could handle the negative density range without loosing detail at higher and lower end. It could also give him suggestions as to where he might want to dodge or burn, with or without filters.
Ron Rosenstock accepts high light blow out if he wants to retain detail at the lower end. Minus development would leave him with muddy mid tones.
Brett Weston accepts or looks for detail loss at the lower end, while retaining detail higher up. His blacks play an important role.

Take your pick and have fun.

 

[brusby]

It’s an interesting idea, admittedly I’ve never tried that. Now you’ve got me wondering!

It was eye opening when I first tried it. You're an experienced printer and I don't recall seeing large shadow areas devoid of detail in any of your prints. So, you may not see much difference. But still worth a try I think. I used to do this on a regular basis when I was printing professionally. Even then, with all the experience of printing all day every day, I'd still sometimes be surprised.

 

[brusby]

A multifactorial question.
Looking at a print in transparency set up if I understand you correctly. Wet or dry? condenser or diffused light enlarger?

Doesn't matter. If the print is too dark you'll see the lost shadow detail almost magically reappear when the print is viewed in strong backlight -- whether the print is wet or dry and regardless of the nature of the light source, so long as it is powerful enough to penetrate the print.

What did your boss tell you about the highlight separation or blow out during this excercice?
Howard Bond measured the high and low density areas of his negatives with a densitometer. This would tell him if his printing paper density range could handle the negative density range without loosing detail at higher and lower end.
Ron Rosenstock accepts high light blow out if he wants to retain detail at the lower end. Minus development would leave him with muddy mid tones.
Brett Weston accepts or looks for detail loss at the lower end, while retaining detail higher up. His blacks play an important role.

Take your pick and have fun.

I was told -- and eventually leaned -- to preserve all or at least most detail in both highlights and shadows that is present in the negative. It's not necessary to sacrifice one for the other. The process is as follows: select an overall printing time that makes most areas of the print look right. Then dodge those areas that are too dark and burn those that would be blown out.

I'm sure you'll hear a bunch of so called purists chime in to say that to dodge and burn is heresy. But that is or at least was the reality of professional b&w printing at many if not most commercial places I was aware of. I know we couldn't have survived as a studio without it because clients expected those results. We printed everything from our State Governor's official portrait to construction photos of the Louisiana Suprdome along with many architectural shots for national publications like Better Homes and Gardens magazine.

Dodging and burning was good enough to be employed regularly by such esteemed master printers as Ansel Adams. In fact I recall seeing a video of him discussing dodging and burning for effect on several of his most popular prints and how he'd even changed to produce more dramatic effects over the years.

 

[Vince Lupo]

One thing that made me a better printer was an assignment I had in grad school with my Advanced Black and White Craft professor and master printer Craig Stevens back in 1994. He had us choose one neg from our personal archives that “we liked but didn’t love” (I guess because we’d grow to hate it due to all the times we’d have to print it!). It had to be a neg that could lay down on grade 2 paper without any burning or dodging - so a ‘straight’ print, if you will. Craig had us choose a number of different papers, developers and toners, and essentially we made a sort of cookbook for achieving different results using different combinations. I think my personal fave at the time was Oriental Seagull glossy FB with DuPont 54D developer and selenium 1:40 toner. Portriga was another (can’t recall my developer preference, would have to check) but of course it yielded very different results than the Oriental combo. I can‘t remember offhand how many prints we ended up with but I think it was in excess of 200 4”x6” prints. The one thing I did realize was that different paper/developer/toner combinations did affect the shadow and highlight detail. All in all, it resulted in a nice reference manual for creating specific desired effects as well as helping me become a much better printer. Something to consider experimenting with if you have a neg that you like but don’t love!

 

[brusby]

One thing that made me a better printer was an assignment I had in grad school with my Advanced Black and White Craft professor and master printer Craig Stevens back in 1994. He had us choose one neg from our personal archives that “we liked but didn’t love”. It had to be a neg that could lay down on grade 2 paper without any burning or dodging - so a ‘straight’ print, if you will. Craig had us choose a number of different papers, developers and toners, and essentially we made a sort of cookbook for achieving different results using different combinations. I think my personal fave at the time was Oriental Seagull glossy FB with DuPont 54D developer and selenium 1:40 toner. Portriga was another (can’t recall my developer preference, would have to check) but of course it yielded very different results than the Oriental combo. I can‘t remember offhand how may prints we ended up with but I think it was in excess of 200 4”x6” prints. The one thing I did realize was that different paper/developer/toner combinations did affect the shadow and highlight detail. All in all, it resulted in a nice reference manual for creating specific desired effects as well as helping me become a much better printer.

Sounds like a great exercise and well suited to an artist, but for a professional architectural/commercial studio we didn't have the luxury of the time or varied and costly materials. Plus most clients expected some level of consistency. I couldn't imagine handing the client a bunch of prints made on different kinds of paper stock with different textures and tones. We used almost exclusively a single variable contrast paper, whose grade was determined by filters. The selectable contrast was also factored into the mix of dodging and burning. Sometimes a shadow area was kinda underexposed and apparently lower in contrast than what the eye would expect to see. So I'd use a higher contraster filter for those areas. I got a different kind of education -- by learning to use what was at hand to make (hopefully) good prints.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Sounds like a great exercise and well suited to an artist, but for a professional architectural/commercial studio we didn't have the luxury of the time or varied and costly materials. Plus most clients expected some level of consistency. I couldn't imagine handing the client a bunch of prints made on different kinds of paper stock with different textures and tones. We used almost exclusively a single variable contrast paper, whose grade was determined by filters. The selectable contrast was also factored into the mix of dodging and burning. Sometimes a shadow area was kinda underexposed and apparently lower in contrast than what the eye would expect to see. So I'd use a higher contraster filter for those areas. I got a different kind of education -- by learning to use what was at hand to make (hopefully) good prints.

Did you ever try variable contrast paper for split grade printing? So two different exposures for one print, one with filter 00 to get the higlights drawn and the other with filter 5 to get the deep shadows drawn? So no dodge or burning at all? See the above print, what is outside, is drawn through and what is inside, is drawn through. No burning and dodging at all. The picture is made at full aperture, f/1.4.

Erik.

 

[Erik van Straten]

gelatin silver print (zeiss planar 45mm f2) contax g1

Erik.

 

[JeffS7444]

Oh yes, in the peak of my darkroom days, my bookshelf contained the books by Fred Picker and (especially) Phil Davis, I owned a film processor, a densitometer, a spot meter, and very much liked the notion that I too might to able to expand or compress tonal values at will. Once or twice, I experimented with adding density by selenium-toning portions of the negatives, and reducing same with by applying bleach, all in the name of capturing tonality from the deepest shadow to the glowing filaments in light bulbs.

But simply printing the negative's full range tonality is easy: Doing so in an aesthetically-pleasing manner in which the print seems to sparkle rather than looking flat and blah, I found much trickier.

I achieved some results I was very pleased with, but darkroom work can become it's own bottomless rabbit-hole if one is not careful!

 

[BernardL]

Do all shadow values deserve to be preserved in the print? The answer rests on an aesthetic judgment, not on densitometer measurements (I own and use a densitometer, thank you).
When you observe a scene with a wide dynamic range (sunlit + shadows), do you see the deepest shadows? I can make a gizmo, after the physicists' "black body", that will measure 3 stops (or more...) below the deepest shadows; if it is included in the scene, do you need to separate it from other shadows according to its (spotmeter) measured value?
Enough talk! One picture worth a thousand words.

 

[brusby]

Did you ever try variable contrast paper for split grade printing? So two different exposures for one print, one with filter 00 to get the higlights drawn and the other with filter 5 to get the deep shadows drawn? So no dodge or burning at all? See the above print, what is outside, is drawn through and what is inside, is drawn through. No burning and dodging at all. The picture is made at full aperture, f/1.4.

Did you try my suggestion of viewing the dark areas of your prints backlit? Or are you just intent in convincing me and everyone else that your method of printing is superior?

We've had this discussion before Erik. You've got a way of printing that you're happy with. So be it. But frankly I wouldn't be happy with the tones you get in many cases. In order to squeeze as many tonal values into your prints without dodging and burning you artificially compress your tonal range. This often results in whites that are not white but gray and large areas of black without detail. If that's how you see the world, good for you. But it's not for me. I'm not suggesting you change your printing style to match mine. But I am suggesting you try the backlit technique to see if you're losing detail in your shadows. You haven't mentioned trying it, but instead you insist on showing your prints. Why?

It's very easy to tell your tonal range is compromised. Simply look at the white borders surrounding your prints and then look at the prints. Take for instance either of the prints you posted here. There are no whites. It might seem like there are if you look at the prints in isolation because your mind adapts and fools you. But if you look at white values in the borders, which are entirely possible to have in the print, there are none or at best very few in the prints.

You recently posted a portrait of a man in a very dark alley. Overall the print was very dark. I suggest that might be a good one to try viewing backlit if you are open minded enough to try it.

I didn't want to criticize anyone else's work, but I don't know how to be honest and yet defend my decision not to print as you suggest. Sorry.

 

[brusby]

Do all shadow values deserve to be preserved in the print? The answer rests on an aesthetic judgment, not on densitometer measurements (I own and use a densitometer, thank you).
When you observe a scene with a wide dynamic range (sunlit + shadows), do you see the deepest shadows? I can make a gizmo, after the physicists' "black body", that will measure 3 stops (or more...) below the deepest shadows; if it is included in the scene, do you need to separate it from other shadows according to its (spotmeter) measured value?
Enough talk! One picture worth a thousand words.
View attachment 4815709

Our eyes adapt to incredible dynamics, unlike the camera lens. We see detail in almost all shadows and almost all highlights. That's the reality of human sight -- the mind-eye connection adapts remarkable well. Try it yourself. Look into almost any shadows and you will see detail. That's simply the reality of our mind eye connection. Whether you choose to represent those values in your prints is purely an artistic decision and I won't argue about that. But I will say that if anyone stood at the position where you took this photo and looked at the scene, they would see plenty of detail in the shadow areas you've chosen to represent as pure black. It's very easy to print darks so black that all detail is lost. There's no talent or artistry there, simply an aesthetic choice. It's much more difficult to retain detail that looks natural and somewhat represents what the human eye would see.

 

[brusby]

But simply printing the negative's full range tonality is easy: Doing so in an aesthetically-pleasing manner in which the print seems to sparkle rather than looking flat and blah, I found much trickier.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Did you try my suggestion of viewing the dark areas of your prints backlit? Or are you just intent in convincing me and everyone else that your method of printing is superior?

We've had this discussion before Erik. You've got a way of printing that you're happy with. So be it. But frankly I wouldn't be happy with the tones you get in many cases. In order to squeeze as many tonal values into your prints without dodging and burning you artificially compress your tonal range. This often results in whites that are not white but gray and large areas of black without detail. If that's how you see the world, good for you. But it's not for me. I'm not suggesting you change your printing style to match mine. But I am suggesting you try the backlit technique to see if you're losing detail in your shadows. You haven't mentioned trying it, but instead you insist on showing your prints. Why? You seem to have the most expensive thing a man can possess -- a closed mind.

It's very easy to tell your tonal range is compromised. Simply look at the white borders surrounding your prints and then look at the prints. Take for instance either of the prints you posted here. There are no whites. It might seem like there are if you look at the prints in isolation because your mind adapts and fools you. But if you look at white values in the borders, which are entirely possible to have in the print, there are none or at best very few in the prints. I would have been fired if I had turned in prints like that.

I didn't want to criticize anyone else's work, but I don't know how to be honest and yet defend my decision not to print as you suggest. Sorry.

I understand you've never tried it.

All the best,

Erik.