login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > marked-up darkroom prints Search   Reply
Photographer
Mortonovich
Posts: 5,495
San Diego, California, US


Cool article showing some marked-up darkroom prints.
Man . . . . that is some attention to detail!!

http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked- … -darkroom/
Sep 12 13 07:38 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leonard Gee Photography
Posts: 16,346
Sacramento, California, US


Sometime it took many hours to days for one print. Gets bad when you have to cut dodge and burn masks on black paper. The scribbles become important when the clients says "Can I get another print of that?" It was also important to make two copies of every important print anyway.
Sep 12 13 07:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
GER Photography
Posts: 7,881
Imperial, California, US


WOW!!! A peek into the mind of a MASTER of image making!!
Sep 12 13 07:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Collins
Posts: 1,879
Orlando, Florida, US


This is a pretty well known one from Richard Avedon...or his studio manager.

http://aphelis.net/avedons-instructions/
Sep 12 13 08:10 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11,986
Costa Mesa, California, US


I have a book called "the Darkroom". It shows 20 famous art photographers (Harry Callahan, Wynn Bullock and others) and how they worked in the darkroom to get their look. Nothing "straight" about any of their imagery.
Sep 12 13 08:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Simpson Images
Posts: 1,328
Bangor, Maine, US


Next time someone dumps on photoshop and says they get it right in the camera like the old masters did we should whip this page on them. Master printers were the photoshop of the masters. Film had its limits and images have always needed massaging.

Great article.
Sep 12 13 08:30 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
Giacomo Cirrincioni
Posts: 21,327
New York, New York, US


This is awesome Chip, thank you!
Sep 12 13 08:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
FleM1984
Posts: 23
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


Haha I mark mine as well but this is eehmmm different wink
Sep 13 13 06:31 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mike Collins
Posts: 1,879
Orlando, Florida, US


David Simpson Images wrote:
Next time someone dumps on photoshop and says they get it right in the camera like the old masters did we should whip this page on them. Master printers were the photoshop of the masters. Film had its limits and images have always needed massaging.

Great article.

I agree 100%  People who really don't understand photography don't realize it's a "process".  There is capture. Then there is process, development and print.  It has ALWAYS been that way.  Even a Polaroid had to be developed.  But even IT could be manipulated. 

Film and digital chips have limitations and we can only do so much "in camera", so the rest we rely on the processing, development, retouching and printing stages...of the process.

Sep 13 13 07:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
PhillipM
Posts: 6,511
Martin, Tennessee, US


I'm a novice at best in the DR, and still find it mind blowing just to dodge and burn, and compare one print to the next....
Sep 13 13 07:31 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply