williams473
Well-known
Bit of self-reflection this morning…I worked in the darkroom for the first time in four years last night. The hiatus was in part involuntary, as I have in that time endured a divorce and fairly lean financial times. On the other side now, happily remarried and able to scrape enough together to afford paper and chemistry, I spent a few hours last night making a couple prints I intend to submit to a prestigious juried show in my city. My work will be competing with other mediums…painting, sculpture, installation etc., so I wanted to be sure to present the finest in craft that I can muster.
What I never saw coming were the emotions stirred up by the printing process. I found I was agitated most of the night, with little patience for tongs that didn’t always grasp the heavy rag paper, for the time it was taking to dry down test strips, and for the knowledge that each sheet of paper amounted to a significant sum of money. But I know the actual reasons for finding myself upset have little to do with the minor trials of darkroom work.
What I have learned about myself is that the root of anger is fear, so I had to reflect on what made me afraid last night to get to the bottom of it. And reflecting now, I have to believe that it is the fear that all the added work and money involved in making a print makes me afraid that in the end, it’s not worth it. I guess I need to “believe” in the value of hard work for something that the world largely regards as a “hobby.” Do I really believe that “real work” is only that which generates income?
Technical aspects played on me as well - I have become used to scanning my negatives, working them in Photoshop and saving them away in a folder to perhaps make a lab print later. But wanting to exhibit my very best efforts for the upcoming show, that wasn’t an option last night. (In fact, because both photographs are ones I have worked to completion digitally, I left my laptop open in the other room and used the Photoshop file as a guide in the darkroom. I found that to be a huge help that really helped me get the print right.) But the added commitment of the paper and chemistry, and the TIME – there is a lot of emotion riding on that, and where I suppose for me photography crosses from hobby into craft. I guess the old idiom “nothing ventured, nothing gained” applies for me today.
Funny how this medium of ours – traditionally considered so cold and technical – can reflect back to me such a wide spectrum of feeling… as with many other pursuits, the thing is not the thing!
Matt
What I never saw coming were the emotions stirred up by the printing process. I found I was agitated most of the night, with little patience for tongs that didn’t always grasp the heavy rag paper, for the time it was taking to dry down test strips, and for the knowledge that each sheet of paper amounted to a significant sum of money. But I know the actual reasons for finding myself upset have little to do with the minor trials of darkroom work.
What I have learned about myself is that the root of anger is fear, so I had to reflect on what made me afraid last night to get to the bottom of it. And reflecting now, I have to believe that it is the fear that all the added work and money involved in making a print makes me afraid that in the end, it’s not worth it. I guess I need to “believe” in the value of hard work for something that the world largely regards as a “hobby.” Do I really believe that “real work” is only that which generates income?
Technical aspects played on me as well - I have become used to scanning my negatives, working them in Photoshop and saving them away in a folder to perhaps make a lab print later. But wanting to exhibit my very best efforts for the upcoming show, that wasn’t an option last night. (In fact, because both photographs are ones I have worked to completion digitally, I left my laptop open in the other room and used the Photoshop file as a guide in the darkroom. I found that to be a huge help that really helped me get the print right.) But the added commitment of the paper and chemistry, and the TIME – there is a lot of emotion riding on that, and where I suppose for me photography crosses from hobby into craft. I guess the old idiom “nothing ventured, nothing gained” applies for me today.
Funny how this medium of ours – traditionally considered so cold and technical – can reflect back to me such a wide spectrum of feeling… as with many other pursuits, the thing is not the thing!
Matt
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Matt,
Thanks for the thoughtful post, and good luck in the competition.
Cal
Thanks for the thoughtful post, and good luck in the competition.
Cal
oftheherd
Veteran
I always wanted to do good prints, and have done many that pleased me. But I never considered myself a really good printer. Still, all the process of film, development of film, then printing, always gave me pleasure and satisfaction. Sounds like it does for you too, but you are just out of practice.
But I am curious how you see the time photoshopping at the computer versus time printing in a darkroom differ. I realize the computer can show changes quicker that a print that may have to be exposed and dodged or burned, then dried. But how do you find the two processes, including any difference you see between digital prints versus conventional silver prints?
And I wish you good luck in the compitition as well.
But I am curious how you see the time photoshopping at the computer versus time printing in a darkroom differ. I realize the computer can show changes quicker that a print that may have to be exposed and dodged or burned, then dried. But how do you find the two processes, including any difference you see between digital prints versus conventional silver prints?
And I wish you good luck in the compitition as well.
Laviolette
Established
Your post was a great read...thank you.
Good luck with the contest.
Good luck with the contest.
mbisc
Silver Halide User
Great read - and welcome back to the Dark(room) Side!
Best wishes for the show!
Best wishes for the show!
williams473
Well-known
Thanks for the good wishes all - I am not hanging super high hopes on getting juried in as the competition will be stiff, but I'll let you know how it goes.
Oftheherd, the main difference I see in work at the computer versus the darkroom is the lack of fear to try new things. The scanner and PS enable me to do quick scans of a lot more volume of negatives than I have time or money for in the darkroom, and all while remaining firmly on my rear end with a hot cup of Joe to boot! Then I am able to file it away and consider it done.
Further, PS enables me to try various contrast settings, exposures, dodging and burning schemes and toning so easily that I am able to truly get the image where I want it in relatively little time. Then (and perhaps most importantly) I find time spent with a finished image is king in terms of really understanding whether or not an image is any good. I routinely keep my spirits up in my day job by sifting through folders of low res jpgs in small pockets of spare time, experiencing my images again and again. This ability to walk away from an image and come back to it gives me some sort of honesty - perhaps devoid of the the feelings I have surrounding the making of the image. How often do we get caught up explaining an image to someone, telling them the story behind it, or just wanting an image to be as good as we know it should be, when maybe it just doesn't stand up. So by coming back to images, I can see them for what they are, and it makes me a better editor of my own work.
By making my aesthetic decisions on screen, I find I am not wasting time in the darkroom trying to decide which way to go - I have the image on screen as a "map." I then have to just use my knowledge of printing technique in the darkroom to replicate what I did in Photoshop. Course, the image does look different on rag paper, but in terms of light values, contrast, cropping etc., I try to stay true to the file I have already worked on.
As far as the difference in prints, I have plenty of inkjets and pigment prints, as well as many silver prints that I am very pleased with. I guess in choosing which I want to use for a particular audience depends on what I am trying to express. I went with Ilford Multigrade Art 300, selenium toned for this upcoming show because I know my work will be showing next to more organic forms of art, and I want to "fit in." There is an unflinching sharpness to digital prints that is beautiful, but I feel has become the standard of what "good" is in photography. I have been swimming against that current a long time. To be honest, the prints I made last night don't "pop" like some of the other prints I have had made from similar negatives, but "popping" is just one way to present work. The whole presentation, from print, to mat and frame needs to be unified and convey my message. So that is a super long-winded way of saying I guess it just depends on the job as to whether I would go with an optically or digitally-base print.
Matt
Oftheherd, the main difference I see in work at the computer versus the darkroom is the lack of fear to try new things. The scanner and PS enable me to do quick scans of a lot more volume of negatives than I have time or money for in the darkroom, and all while remaining firmly on my rear end with a hot cup of Joe to boot! Then I am able to file it away and consider it done.
Further, PS enables me to try various contrast settings, exposures, dodging and burning schemes and toning so easily that I am able to truly get the image where I want it in relatively little time. Then (and perhaps most importantly) I find time spent with a finished image is king in terms of really understanding whether or not an image is any good. I routinely keep my spirits up in my day job by sifting through folders of low res jpgs in small pockets of spare time, experiencing my images again and again. This ability to walk away from an image and come back to it gives me some sort of honesty - perhaps devoid of the the feelings I have surrounding the making of the image. How often do we get caught up explaining an image to someone, telling them the story behind it, or just wanting an image to be as good as we know it should be, when maybe it just doesn't stand up. So by coming back to images, I can see them for what they are, and it makes me a better editor of my own work.
By making my aesthetic decisions on screen, I find I am not wasting time in the darkroom trying to decide which way to go - I have the image on screen as a "map." I then have to just use my knowledge of printing technique in the darkroom to replicate what I did in Photoshop. Course, the image does look different on rag paper, but in terms of light values, contrast, cropping etc., I try to stay true to the file I have already worked on.
As far as the difference in prints, I have plenty of inkjets and pigment prints, as well as many silver prints that I am very pleased with. I guess in choosing which I want to use for a particular audience depends on what I am trying to express. I went with Ilford Multigrade Art 300, selenium toned for this upcoming show because I know my work will be showing next to more organic forms of art, and I want to "fit in." There is an unflinching sharpness to digital prints that is beautiful, but I feel has become the standard of what "good" is in photography. I have been swimming against that current a long time. To be honest, the prints I made last night don't "pop" like some of the other prints I have had made from similar negatives, but "popping" is just one way to present work. The whole presentation, from print, to mat and frame needs to be unified and convey my message. So that is a super long-winded way of saying I guess it just depends on the job as to whether I would go with an optically or digitally-base print.
Matt
John Bragg
Well-known
Williams473 Well done for getting back to the darkroom. I hope your prints are favorably received. It is difficult ro define what makes a print work overall and some negatives just seem to have a certain quality. I find that I miss the darkroom and hope to return there one day, but scanning will have to for now. I still want to see that illusive "glow" in my scans that I desire in my silver prints. That is what makes a picture pop for me. A certain luminosity that comes from within.
Vics
Veteran
Welcome back to the darkroom, Matt. Ansel Adams didn't have much patience for the dry-down process either. So he stuck 'em in the microwave oven. I saw a video in which he put a smallish (11x14?) print of Moonrise in the microwave!
Bob T
Established
I saw the same video of Adams using the microwave and it does the trick, I usually just put test strips with the highlights in for "cooking", my oven is kind of small.
ChrisN
Striving
Nicely explained. I also use this approach, to allow me to easily and flexibly explore my visualisation. I came to darkroom printing late, and will never have the time (nor the expert coaching) needed to develop a high level of printing skill. Playing with an image in Lightroom (and Silver Effects) lets me find a pleasing treatment (and often something I would not have thought of in the darkroom), and gives me something to aim for in my wet print.
FrankS
Registered User
Sincere, thoughtful, and thought-provoking post. Thank you.
With film, one pretty much has to be committed to the process as well as the resulting image. If you prefer the digital process, then a full film process does not make sense, though a hybrid process (scanned film) may.
With film, one pretty much has to be committed to the process as well as the resulting image. If you prefer the digital process, then a full film process does not make sense, though a hybrid process (scanned film) may.