Printing!!!!!!!!

[icebear]

It all needs to come together. Just hitting the shutter isn't enough.
You need to be there at the right time, have the open mind to see "it" in the first place, anticipate the perfect moment, call it the decisive moment if you are in a HCB mood😉. You need to have the best lens for the subject, fill the negative/sensor with the best possible composition at the time of exposure. Choose aperture and time wisely, expose to the max without blowing your highlights. Get as much right technically and artisticly as you possibly can.

Process carefully, choose a printing lab that knows what they are doing and choose your paper. If you print BW, use a MM camera and a dedicated BW ink set. If you want to get the max out of it, book a studio day of printing and optimize the printer settings after evaluating a couple of test prints (dried with a hair drier).

So there are a LOT of steps and at each step you can easily loose a couple of % of quality of the final print. The most you will obviously loose if you crop.

Put in a real affort all along the way and don't f$?&ing crop🙄 😀

 

[Erik van Straten]

I love printing almost as much as I like shooting!

gelatine silver print (summilux 35mm) leica m5

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I love printing almost as much as I like shooting!
Erik.

Yes. Me too!

 

[airfrogusmc]

I miss the darkroom a lot. I don't have the room and was forced downsized some years back. If I had a darkroom I would still be shooting film in sone fashion. But I would also still be shooting digital and printing both.

I also think there is a difference between silver gelatin and platinum prints and ink jet. Having said that I do not like the us against them mentality that seems to be in some folks minds. They are both legit.

The way I like to think is that both film and digital are equally valid was to express vision. They both take al lot of skill to do well. The darkroom has it's discipline as does digital processing. I spend as much time on digital files as I did processing and printing.

They are just different ways of expressing ones vision. Arguing about which is best is like arguing whether acrylic is better than oil. The only real answer is what is best for each individual creator. The important thing is that we find what helps us best express ourselves and create. The final print is in my opinion what matters. How we get there is as individual as we each are. And that's the way it should be. In all my years I have seen amazing silver gelatin and platinum prints. I have seen uninspiring film work to. I have also seen amazing ink jet prints and seen digital things that are also not so inspiring.

So I say find what works for you and create. And who cares in the scheme of things whether you take the blow up doll approach or not. What matters is the work. And hopeful we can all create something that inspires.

 

[Dogman]

I may be wrong here so tell me if I am--as if no one would do that anyway.

I've seen comments several time before about the image sitting on top of the paper with ink jet prints and being inside the paper with gelatin silver prints. I think that's kinda backwards. The image in darkroom made prints sits in the gelatin layer which sits on top of the paper. Ink jet papers, at least those I use, have coatings to allow the inks to be consistently absorbed into the paper.

In any case, the point is moot. Both can be beautifully done, both can be archival and both are valid ways of working.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I don't know if split grade printing is possible in digital printing, but gelatine/silver printing offers that possibillity. Split grade printing is a way of printing that improves the quality of the image immensely, just like duotone printing does in offset-printing. Even the softest negatives can be printed with a full tonal scale when the split grade principle is used.

Split grade printing is an essential factor in my photography. I scan the prints to digitalize the images. I don't know if there is a possibillity to make split grade prints from digital files directly.

Erik.

gelatine silver print (color skopar 50mm f2.5) leica III.

 

[DennisM]

Digital

Digital

I consider myself a meticulous film processor; my B&W negatives are properly developed, fixed, washed, and hung to dry in dust free environments. They are clean and free of scratches, water marks, dust, etc EXCEPT for the more than one occasional frame, which invariably is the one I would choose to print, which has some defect - minor scratch, or some defect on the negative - which cannot be removed prior to wet printing. One is then faced with the unenviable chore of spotting or living with a "defective" print. Enter scanning. These "defective" negatives can be scanned effortlessly and defects easily cleaned up in Light Room. I find that my scanned B&W negatives printed on a Canon printer look just as good, to me, as any wet print I ever made. I vote for scanning and digital printing.

 

[sjones]

I may be wrong here so tell me if I am--as if no one would do that anyway.

I've seen comments several time before about the image sitting on top of the paper with ink jet prints and being inside the paper with gelatin silver prints. I think that's kinda backwards. The image in darkroom made prints sits in the gelatin layer which sits on top of the paper. Ink jet papers, at least those I use, have coatings to allow the inks to be consistently absorbed into the paper.

In any case, the point is moot. Both can be beautifully done, both can be archival and both are valid ways of working.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I guess it's more of a subjective interpretation, backwards or not. And for me, it really is a particular psychological quirk that I have with my own prints.

 

[Harry Lime]

I put off printing for about 20 years, but have been haunted by something you said many years ago. "Nobody has ever hung a negative in a gallery. In the end the only thing that counts are prints!"

Not that I expect my stuff to end up in a museum but I get the point. It's the prints that count, because they are the final expression of how the photographer intend the shot to look.

So, when COVID hit I buckled down and went through a few hundred, if not thousand negative sleeves, picked the winners and started to scan. It's funny how the winners add up to maybe a second of total exposure time, out of all of those rolls of film.

Anyhow, I just got my Piezo Pro system running on an Epson P800 and am making prints. As nice as the Piezo prints are, there are a few negs I would love to print wet, but I simply don't have the space at the moment to set up a darkroom.

it's nice to see a bunch of prints hanging on the wall for evaluation. A real sense of accomplishment compared to the negs just living in a box, hidden from everyone and only existing in my memory.

PS: I had to step away from photography for a few years for various reason, but it's nice to be back. I'm really looking forward to getting back to shooting, once the lockdowns end.

PPS: I had forgotten how much I hate scanning... lol

 

[Bill Pierce]

"I just got my Piezo Pro system running on an Epson P800 and am making prints. As nice as the Piezo prints are, there are a few negs I would love to print wet, but I simply don't have the space at the moment to set up a darkroom.

it's nice to see a bunch of prints hanging on the wall for evaluation. A real sense of accomplishment compared to the negs just living in a box, hidden from everyone and only existing in my memory.

PS: I had to step away from photography for a few years for various reason, but it's nice to be back. I'm really looking forward to getting back to shooting, once the lockdowns end.

PPS: I had forgotten how much I hate scanning... lol"

Harry - Welcome back.

I wonder if the difference between prints made in a wet darkroom and a dry, computer darkroom aren’t as much dependent on us as the difference between silver and ink? The wet darkroom silver print from the film negative has fewer ways to control the tonality than the digital image “processed” and printed via computer. As just one difference, it’s tempting to pull out that shadow detail in a digital image to a degree that just can’t be done in a wet darkroom. And, remember, not only film, but silver enlarging paper has a curve that’s going to drop shadow separation. Can you mimic the look of silver on the computer? Of course. Do you want to? And, at least in my case, do I actually remember exactly what a silver print looks like? While I love the silver print and want my digital black-and-white prints to match them when they are shown together, I have to confess that I'm not quite as hawkish on that as I used to be. And I'm actually enjoying the "digital darkroom."

 

[robert blu]

... I have to confess that I'm not quite as hawkish on that as I used to be.

Love this, 🙂

 

[Hans Berkhout]

What you see is what you get. This applies to printing in the conventional wet darkroom-assuming one deals properly with dry-down. With post processing from camera card or scanned negative you don’t necessarily get what you see on your monitor screen. That has been my experience, that’s why I continue to print in my darkroom.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I don't think that digitally made prints have a long life, but it can be that I am wrong. However I know that gelatine silver prints can have a very long life if they're well made. If a photographer wants that his or her pictures outlive their makers there is no alternative than gelatine silver prints, that is: WET PRINTS.

gelatine silver print (color skopar 50mm f2.5) leica II

Erik.

 

[Doug A]

According to Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. (WIR) "...preliminary data from ongoing tests indicate that, depending on the specific paper, WIR Display Permanence Ratings for black and white prints made with UltraChrome HD inks using Epson’s “Advanced Black and White Print Mode” will likely exceed 400 years."

 

[Erik van Straten]

According to Wilhelm Imaging Research, Inc. (WIR) "...preliminary data from ongoing tests indicate that, depending on the specific paper, WIR Display Permanence Ratings for black and white prints made with UltraChrome HD inks using Epson’s “Advanced Black and White Print Mode” will likely exceed 400 years."

That's good! I hope to live long enough to check it.


Erik.

 

[Pál_K]

The most important benefit I got from darkroom printing is that it improved my photographic skills, particularly in composing my subject. The reason? I was forced to improve my skills because I quickly became tired of spending six or more hours in the darkroom and having maybe two or three prints worth looking at.

As with the music analogy (“the negative is the score and the print is the performance”), the print is essential. Without the print (in however manner it is formed), it is like having sheet music that is never played.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I quickly became tired of spending six or more hours in the darkroom and having maybe two or three prints worth looking at.

To avoid this dilemma I only make one print in a dark room session, that is, I choose a negative to make prints from and I continue printing until I am satisfied with one of the prints of that negative. The other prints made during that session I throw away.


Erik.

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry - Welcome back.

Thanks, Bill. Good to be back.
🙂

I wonder if the difference between prints made in a wet darkroom and a dry, computer darkroom aren’t as much dependent on us as the difference between silver and ink? The wet darkroom silver print from the film negative has fewer ways to control the tonality than the digital image “processed” and printed via computer. As just one difference, it’s tempting to pull out that shadow detail in a digital image to a degree that just can’t be done in a wet darkroom. And, remember, not only film, but silver enlarging paper has a curve that’s going to drop shadow separation. Can you mimic the look of silver on the computer? Of course. Do you want to? And, at least in my case, do I actually remember exactly what a silver print looks like? While I love the silver print and want my digital black-and-white prints to match them when they are shown together, I have to confess that I'm not quite as hawkish on that as I used to be. And I'm actually enjoying the "digital darkroom."

Oh, I am totally enjoying the digital darkroom.

It's one thing to make a straight print in the darkroom, but serious manipulation is a craft of its own and I'm not Ansel Adams or Eugene Smith.

The few negatives that I would like to wet print are pretty straightforward and do not require a lot of darkroom acrobatics. So, I am pretty certain that I can get the print from them that I have in my head. I have a nostalgic soft spot for seeing that image appear in the developer, so I would actually enjoy firing up the enlarger on occasion.

And to be perfectly honest at this point I don't think I want to put the hours in to become a 'darkroom master' and then spend countless hours printing, instead of shooting and because of the limited control offered by the wet process, probably never really get the results I wanted

Personally I am in a unique position, when it comes to the digital darkroom. Essentially I have spent the last 25 years digitally color grading and manipulating images for movies and commercials. Except this time around the image is ending up on paper, instead of a screen. So, since, I've already mastered the craft of digital image manipulation, why reinvent the wheel at this point?

I spent about a month working my way through the byzantine and often contradictory Piezography documentation, calibrating monitors and setting up a viewing environment that mimics the standard illumination for galleries etc (500 lux @ 5500k).

Now, I have the system calibrated to the point that the monitor and print match as close as they can given the difference in display material (screen vs paper). So, actually it's a joy to use now. What you see on the monitor is pretty much what you will get as a print. My biggest frustration are the primitive color correction tools in Photoshop. I guess I've just been spoiled by what I use at work (Nuke by the Foundry, FLAME etc), but it's not the end of the world.

The Piezo Pro prints are of astonishing quality. On Hahnemühle Photo Gloss Baryta they really do look a heck of a lot like traditional silver prints. And once they are framed and behind glass its anyones guess what you really are looking at. Archival stability should be hundreds of years. There is some dye in them to make the ink neutral, but the luminance aspect is due to the carbon component of the ink. As an added bonus you could make a digital negative with the Piezo system and then make a traditional Platinum or silver contact print. So, there always is that option...

I'm in your camp as far as trying to make inkjet prints look like silver prints. Sometimes I crush the blacks, because that is what the print should look like. Sometimes I lift the shadows and show tons shadow detail. It really just depends on how I want the print to look like. But frankly we were already doing that back in the darkroom, except it was a lot more difficult and in some cases impossible. So, nothing has really changed. Were still making an artistic decision on how we want the final image to look, except this time around we have almost infinite control. Of course it’s entirely in the eye of the beholder if the results are any good…. Either way you can produce crap, if you print wet or digitally. 🙂

So, far I am just printing film scans. Thankfully I have a good scanner, so I really do think I am getting as much information off that neg as possible. And because it's film, well- It ends up looking a lot like I would print it in the dark room. But you better believe that I am pulling out as much shadow detail as I feel is necessary and dodging and burning to my hearts content.

I did set a few ethical rules for myself, since I consider my work photography and not photo illustration.

- I will dodge and burn to my hearts content. Will I go full on Eugene Smith on some of these? Sure, why not.

- I will retrieve as much shadow or highlight detail as I feel is necessary to obtain the final image I desire. That's really no different than when we used to split print on multi contrast paper with different variable contrast filters.

- I hate to crop and avoid it like the plague, but I feel it's ethical since we also did it in the darkroom. But I really do try to avoid it…

- Dust busting? Scratch removal? Absolutely. We spent hours touching up prints with a brush.

Where I absolutely do draw the line is in adding or subtracting elements from the image, rearranging it or combining multiple images into a single new image. That is a line that I will absolutely not cross under any circumstances. I would rather abandon a near winner, than Photoshop it into something it never was. I'm a photographer, not a photo illustrator.

Basically I try to limit myself to what we could do in the darkroom, but with much greater control. And frankly if the shot is any good and works in the first place, then you don't have to do more then that.

As far as the look goes I'm still on the fence about what I am going to do with digital. I have no doubt that I will run my M10 shots through some black and white converter with the full on Tri-X emulation. It's not so much because I am trying to emulate film, instead of letting digital just look like digital. The ugly truth is that I see the world in Tri-X….Except with the M10 I can push 'Tri-X' to 6400 and beyond with good results…. And I would like to maintain continuity with my existing work.


www.felidigiorgio.com

 

[hap]

I think Bill covered it for me. Printing and having a print are the reasons to shoot photos.

When I first became interested in photography it was because of B&W prints I saw at a friend's apartment. Simple drugstore prints but, wow, they looked grand to me. B&W has been my main love affair in photography for all these years. I was not a particularly good darkroom printer but I've become pretty fair at making digital B&W prints. I've done a few in-camera scans of some of my old negatives and the prints look so much better than when I did them in the darkroom. Usually I fiddle with the files over and over again. I may return to them years later and redo a photo for a new print. It's an ongoing process. It's understandable why Adams constantly fiddled with his photos--we all change our approaches and preferences over time so why not change our art as well.

SAme thing with many life endeavors. Tiger Woods has experimented with and changed his swing (livelihood) whille others have carped.