MMDesign wrote:
I spent hours and never did get what I wanted. Not everyone is cut out to be a darkroom printer.

I'm in love with some of the work I've produced in the darkroom. It's just this single image that's giving me incredible difficulty. It's my fault for not getting it right in camera.

Art Silva wrote:
A single image? Maybe four or five hours win no final success, then I would return the next day and nail it in a half hour.

Maybe stepping away from it overnight with all those test strips in your mind, absorbing your thoughts and then come back to the darkroom with a fresh game plan.

Yeah, that's the plan. I walked away today. I'll pick it up Thursday (too busy tomorrow).

I started work on a new image. Three test strips in, one for black, one for white, and in another area just to be sure, and it already looks great.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

I'm in love with some of the work I've produced in the darkroom. It's just this single image that's giving me incredible difficulty. It's my fault for not getting it right in camera.

Set it to one side for a week or so, then come back to it.

Hugh Alison wrote:
My print washer took 12 16"x20" prints to wash overnight.
I'd print for 4-5 hours, until it was full.

One film, one developer, and the Zone system for a long time made printing easy.

I was quite fast - no test-strips - always printed full frame straight onto 16" x 20" paper. Knew the base exposure for black through clear film base before I started. Could judge the contrast grade by looking at the negative.

Fourth or fifth sheet would usually nail it because it was mainly about fine-tuning where I dodged and burnt in details.

I don't think my first darkroom teacher ever used test strips. She was a printer, not a photographer. She printed vintage negatives, including from famous photographers like the Cappas. She could match their print EXACTLY just by eye.

Did you ever split filter? That's what's taking me so long.

Hugh Alison wrote:

Set it to one side for a week or so, then come back to it.

It's due in a couple weeks, and I have many more to print too.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
What's the longest you've ever spent in the darkroom on a single image?

Probably no more than four hours.  If it's taking that long, it's getting more frustrating and less enjoyable, so I stop and do something else.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Did you ever split filter?

Always!  That is the single reason why I prefer multigrade papers.  The ability to dodge and burn the shadows and highlights independently is something I find very valuable.  I always print split filter, just so that I know where I'm starting if I decide to fine tune later (which I usually do).

Art Silva wrote:
A single image? Maybe four or five hours win no final success, then I would return the next day and nail it in a half hour.

Maybe stepping away from it overnight with all those test strips in your mind, absorbing your thoughts and then come back to the darkroom with a fresh game plan.

But I've had it work against me as well.

Keep notes!

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I find split filtering pretty much eliminates the need to dodge and burn.

I would find that amazing...

Although I probably felt the same way at some point.

Another trick is two developer baths.  Standard Dektol and Selectol Soft (which you can find by Photographers Formulary or make your own).  Very handy way to control shadow density on difficult negatives.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

I would find that amazing...

Although I probably felt the same way at some point.

Another trick is two developer baths.  Standard Dektol and Selectol Soft (which you can find by Photographers Formulary or make your own).  Very handy way to control shadow density on difficult negatives.

It's what I've been taught by my teacher, who is one of the best photographers and printers I've ever come across, so I pretty much trust him.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
It's what I've been taught by my teacher, who is one of the best photographers and printers I've ever come across, so I pretty much trust him.

Cool.  If that's the case, then all of your prints should be made rather quickly, no?  If all you need to do is a straight split print to achieve your ultimate vision, what could possibly take so much time?

I'd love to know more (and I mean this honestly).  I have worked with, been taught by and had extensive conversations with some of the best darkroom printers of the last half decade - including Brian Young, Gene Nocon and John Sexton.  I've spoke with people who printed for Irving Penn, Helmet Newton, and George Hurrell.  Robert Randall, who is on this site, printed for Penn as well.

I have almost never met a print, regardless of method, that couldn't benefit from some level of D&B.  But, if you or your teacher have a method that allows for that (other than creating a digital negative, which I also do), I would certainly love to know what it is.

I'd also love to see what it is your printing.

Friday Art Photography wrote:
I find most negatives pretty easy to print.  I get close to the exposure and contrast based on the contact print.  Dodging and burning are a few experiments, but usually not a big problem.

But every once in a while, I have one of those negatives; a negative that I just can't seem to get right.  All my usual step leave it flat, lifeless, etc. 

When I have one of those, I use the "jig saw puzzle" method of printing.  I make a straight print at the best contrast and exposure I can get.  I put the straight print on my viewing board and then start experimenting with changes.  If I think an element in the middle needs burned in, I will try three different burns.  I cut three prices of paper and put it on the easel so the element is projected on the paper scrap.  I give the scrap the base exposure and then the burn, say a 10% burn.  The next scrap gets base exposure plus 20% burn.  The third 30%.  After processing, I put the scraps over the straight print one at a time.  I can switch them quickly to find the best burn.  Once I settle on a burn, I leave that scrap on the straight print and then move on to the next element and do scraps for it.  I keep building up the print until I'm happy with it. 

If you try it, keep notes as you go along.  I write my steps on the back of the scrap.  When I'm happy with the print, I will write all the steps on the straight print and then make a final print following the steps--if I can get them all in, sometimes I don't have enough time to dodge all I want to dodge.

I find my own negatives to be very easy to print, it's other people's negatives that can be a bitch.  lol  And, I like to craft a print, so even using the zone system, I find myself tweaking reality a bit.

I'm printing a negative right now from my last shoot.  I actually did the shoot digitally, but fired off a few rolls anyway (such as my avatar).  Anywho, I was able to control the lighting since it was in studio, and it prints right at grade two.  I'm waiting for it to dry down to evaluate creative choices after that.

I had a model/photographer friend who did some amazing film self portraits and got the attention of a gallery through another gallery that represented her painting.  That gallery wanted me to print her work (how we met).  Some of her negatives were unbearable (I'm mean requiring custom dodge and burn tools, contrast masking, etc).  But the results were great.  She had me make a rather large one to hang in her home.  Sadly she passed on, but I still keep all the tools, print sheets and test prints I made of her work.

Commercial Works Photo wrote:
I used to have a lot of trouble with consistent dodging and burning.  drove me crazy.  Then I attended a printing seminar by Howard Bond in Ann Arbor Michigan.  During the seminar, Howard demonstrated what he called  dodge and burn mask.  basically it was a piece of vellum or other non-textured white material that will pass light.  Where he wanted to dodge, he would gradually fill in the area on the mask with a pencil, until he got the tone he wished on the print, smoothing out any lines with his finger.  Where he wanted to dodge, he would cut the mask to a shape approximating that area on the print.  Here is where you have to be careful.  Howard had a cold head enlarger.  He used a small piece of diffusing plastic over the negative with the mask on top.  I had a condenser enlarger.  I had to use a thicker piece of diffuser or else the cutout parts of my mask would show on the print.  It sure made dodging and burning a lot easier and more consistent.  Try it out for yourself.

Basically from top to bottom it is light source, print mask, diffuser, negative carrier, lens.

We would also do this by creating a mask via an internegative.  But today, you can also do it, with an inkjet printer, some velum and a pin registration unit:

http://www.maskingkits.com/carriers.htm

Such a system (and you don't need to use this one) allows you to make and use SCIM masks, Fog Masks, separation negatives, special contrast masks, and special effects requiring double-printing.

Look at the straight/masked samples here:

http://www.maskingkits.com/maskingkits.htm

Ok, back in the dark for another half hour...

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I find split filtering pretty much eliminates the need to dodge and burn.

I agree and would love to know the exact tech. Although, I am sure that it is mainly what works for yours and Prof's negatives. 

When printing for other artists I found that I had to understandably adapt to their tastes which almost ruined my own. There was not one method used consistently to make prints. You name it, it was all used.

One of my Prof's would compose, expose, dev., set enlarger height, f8, 12 sec at grade 3, and have a damn near finished print every time. I did not have the patience for controlling the neg that way.

beta wrote:
I agree and would love to know the exact tech. Although, I am sure that it is mainly what works for yours and Prof's negatives. 

When printing for other artists I found that I had to understandably adapt to their tastes which almost ruined my own. There was not one method used consistently to make prints. You name it, it was all used.

One of my Prof's would compose, expose, dev., set enlarger height, f8, 12 sec at grade 3, and have a damn near finished print every time. I did not have the patience for controlling the neg that way.

A lot of it also has to do with testing.  I don't shoot zone that often anymore, maybe several times a year if.  But I know what I like, I've tested and plotted the film, plotted the paper, after a while you just know what gets you what you want.  But testing saves a lot of effort.   When I do shot a cityscape or landscape or any still life that allows for use of the zone system, I employ it.  It has never failed me.  I'm a big believer in controlling the negative - but hey, look at Pablo Inirio's (shown above in the thread) work for the Magnum folks - it's nothing short of amazing, and they were not known for producing perfect negatives.  lol

This shot was shot on Pan F+ and souped in DDX.  I've never used this combination before.  Neg came out nice and printed straight at grade 2 just fine. 

But....  I really want more contrast in most of the shot, so now I'm printing it at grade 3 (which is were I tend to sit for my work).  The lighting was spot on so all the major elements are right, but there some crystal in the shot that I would like to be a bit brighter.  Some white roses that could pop just a bit more as well.  Her chiffon dressing gown, is lovely at that grade, but a tad more tone (without any contrast) will improve that as well.  Do I need to do any of those things?  Not at all, looks just fine without doing any of that.  Will doing those things make it look just that much better?  Yep.

It's just like working in PS, lots of very small adjustments that add up to a greater sum.

M A S T E R S wrote:
I've spent around 4 hours on a single image.... and sometimes still not satisfied with the results.

This is good advice:


But I've had it work against me as well.

Keep notes!

It can if you over think it and over process.

I found that if I come back to it the very next day, all the thoughts, adjustments, test strip examples and where and how much I would dodge and burn is all still fresh in my mind, it works much better than if I otherwise wait too long to resume the process, it's like starting over in that case.
I'm bad on taking notes so I keep it all in my head, I'm more of a "see and react" kind of person and work from memory. I may just jot down the enlarger setting tho

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

I don't think my first darkroom teacher ever used test strips. She was a printer, not a photographer. She printed vintage negatives, including from famous photographers like the Cappas. She could match their print EXACTLY just by eye.

Did you ever split filter? That's what's taking me so long.

Split filter - very rarely - but I started before Multigrade was invented (I know, ancient!). You can do similar things with dodging and burning, and with local temperature control during development (ice-cube in to the developer to lower temperature, rub the print or pouring boiling water to raise contrast locally). That assumes you are working with fibre paper, not RC paper, which devlops too fast.

Just like Photoshop, there's always more than one way of getting a result.

I soent a lot of time once producung prints for publication in scientific journals* - at leas 30 prints per hour - with very tight contrast and exposure requirements. Point source enlarger with a spot exposure meter linked to the timer (point source enlargers - very very sharp, always used with the lens wide open). Make the print (four copies!), feed it into the processor, make the next print - after half an hour, walk out of the darkroom to the other side of the processor, pick up a stack of 30 dry prints, keep the good ones, reprint the bad ones - keep doing it until you got it right. All I had to do was pick the spot to take an exposure reading from, fine tune the conrast, and dodge/burn by hand.

[*Working for NIH/NIEHS in North Carolina - unlimited money for equipment - so the best darkroom setup that could be purchased - but no money for support staff - so it was do it yourself, or wait weeks until the only tech support had time to do it]

It comes down to eliminating as many of the variables as possible

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I'd love to know more (and I mean this honestly).  I have worked with, been taught by and had extensive conversations with some of the best darkroom printers of the last half decade - including Gene Nocon and John Sexton.  I've spoke with people who printed for Irving Penn, Helmet Newton, and George Hurrell.

The best print I've ever seen in person was made by John Sexton, and I've seen a lot of prints.

Toto Photo wrote:
6-8 hours on one image.

For several images much, much more.

+1

I've spent that much time on a single negative in the past, from contact sheet through to final fiber print for an exhibition. Typically that's over two or three separate darkroom sessions.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I'd love to know more (and I mean this honestly).  I have worked with, been taught by and had extensive conversations with some of the best darkroom printers of the last half decade - including Gene Nocon and John Sexton.  I've spoke with people who printed for Irving Penn, Helmet Newton, and George Hurrell.

MMDesign wrote:
The best print I've ever seen in person was made by John Sexton, and I've seen a lot of prints.

+1

I was a total hack at first and then plateaued at pretty decent for a very long time.  Just when I was starting to approach good, digital hit and took me away from it.  I've finally settled into a place where I can dedicate a portion of the rest of my days to really trying to master traditional printing.  I figure I have a good 30 years left to get there, but man, seeing one of his prints is certainly humbling.  I don't know if I'll ever reach that level.

MMDesign wrote:

The best print I've ever seen in person was made by John Sexton, and I've seen a lot of prints.

Which one in particular?

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Cool.  If that's the case, then all of your prints should be made rather quickly, no?  If all you need to do is a straight split print to achieve your ultimate vision, what could possibly take so much time?

Haha, no. It's not that simple.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Cool.  If that's the case, then all of your prints should be made rather quickly, no?  If all you need to do is a straight split print to achieve your ultimate vision, what could possibly take so much time?

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Haha, no. It's not that simple.

So explain.  And there's no reason to be condescending, I've spent quite a number of years printing in darkrooms, for myself, for other artists, and exhibitions for museums.  I've printed on graded paper, multicontrast paper, I've used virtually every type of head available.  I've made my own chemicals for paper development, plotted paper curves, split printed, f-stop printed, retouched negatives, used some pretty advanced masking techniques, and done post print manipulations, I'm pretty sure I'll understand...

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

So explain.  And there's no reason to be condescending, I've spent quite a number of years printing in darkrooms, for myself, for other artists, and exhibitions for museums.  I've printed on graded paper, multicontrast paper, I've used virtually every type of head available.  I've made my own chemicals for paper development, plotted paper curves, split printed, f-stop printed, retouched negatives, used some pretty advanced masking techniques, and done post print manipulations, I'm pretty sure I'll understand...

If anyone was being condescending, it was you. "It should be easy, right?" You have no idea of my creative process, and now I don't feel like explaining it to you.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
So explain.  And there's no reason to be condescending, I've spent quite a number of years printing in darkrooms, for myself, for other artists, and exhibitions for museums.  I've printed on graded paper, multicontrast paper, I've used virtually every type of head available.  I've made my own chemicals for paper development, plotted paper curves, split printed, f-stop printed, retouched negatives, used some pretty advanced masking techniques, and done post print manipulations, I'm pretty sure I'll understand...

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
If anyone was being condescending, it was you. "It should be easy, right?" You have no idea of my creative process, and now I don't feel like explaining it to you.

I wasn't being condescending, I was asking a question.  I don't understand how a straight split print, with no other manipulation, can take six hours or more.  And I dare say, I've done a fair bit of it.  That remark has nothing to do with your creative process.

I also don't understand why you would wish to be hostile to someone who is trying to have an intelligent conversation with you on a topic you presumably care about?  I'm not claiming to be some master you should listen to, but I do have the experience to have a conversation on the matter.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
So explain.  And there's no reason to be condescending, I've spent quite a number of years printing in darkrooms, for myself, for other artists, and exhibitions for museums.  I've printed on graded paper, multicontrast paper, I've used virtually every type of head available.  I've made my own chemicals for paper development, plotted paper curves, split printed, f-stop printed, retouched negatives, used some pretty advanced masking techniques, and done post print manipulations, I'm pretty sure I'll understand...

I wasn't being condescending, I was asking a question.  I don't understand how a straight split print, with no other manipulation, can take six hours or more.  And I dare say, I've done a fair bit of it.  That remark has nothing to do with your creative process.

Because, do you honestly think you just slap down a test strip for a #5, get it perfect, do the #00, perfect, then instantly get your final print done?