Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Which one in particular?

A friend of mine owns it.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
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.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
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?

Of course not. 

I also don't believe that splint printing results in the perfect rendition of a print.  I will agree that it can get you a "proper" print, but there are often creative decisions with regards to how a print will ultimately look that split printing alone cannot address, thus not eliminating the need for dodging and burning or a host of other printmaking tools.  That was my point many posts ago.

If you have two highlight areas that are the same value, because that's how they photographed, split printing will give you the same nice highlight rendition in both areas.  But just because they are the same value on the negative, does not necessarily mean that you want them to have the same value on the print.  Maybe you do - awesome!  But maybe you (or someone else) don't.   You might feel the two areas compete for the viewers attention, therefore you burn one it a bit, or dodge the other out.  You might want more contrast in one area and more tone in another.  You might even decide you want to do some creative bleaching to one of the areas after the print has been initially fixed.

Split printing should insure that you have nice shadow tonality throughout your print, but maybe you want to crush the values of your blacks a bit in part of the print, but not throughout the entire print.

Split printing is great, I never said it wasn't.  I just don't see it eliminating the need for dodging and burning. 

I'm assuming that if you're split printing, you're making a cross hatched test strip and testing for both shadow and highlight values.  I understand that takes time, I just don't see it taking ten hours.

Once you start looking at Sexton's work you start to see what the power of creative local control masks can do for a fine art print.  That opens up an entirely new world of print control. 

In the end, do what makes you happy.  I do.  I just enjoy discussing traditional print making and thought you might enjoy it too.  But apparently, you don't feel I'm qualified to keep up with you or am allowed to disagree with you or your teacher (if that is, in fact, what he is teaching).

MMDesign wrote:



A friend of mine owns it.

I would die to see that one in person.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I would die to see that one in person.

It wasn't that good! 

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

Ahhh ... I'm so agree with you ... Mr. Sexton is a master printer indeed ...

Another great is Michael Kenna ... some of his prints from 'Japan' are just breathtaking.

IMHO

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I would die to see that one in person.

MMDesign wrote:
It wasn't that good! 

I bet it's close. 

I'm dying to travel out there and do another workshop.  It's been almost 15 years since I took one and while it helped, a lot of the concepts he was teaching was beyond my ability to fully appreciate at the time.

Alien LiFe wrote:
Another great is Michael Kenna ... some of his prints from 'Japan' are just breathtaking.

IMHO

YES!

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
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...

This is not the type of mask I was speaking of.  The dodge/burn mask I am speaking of are in addition to the internegative masks and do not need to be pin registered because it sits above a diffuser which is above the negative.  I too used to make dodging templates on prints to help me get the correct tones where I wanted them.  Once I started using the dodge/burn masks, I was able to incorporate hours of darkroom time into a permanent mask that I then filed with the negative for later use.  It also made my printing a lot more consistent from print to print.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
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...

Commercial Works Photo wrote:
This is not the type of mask I was speaking of.  The dodge/burn mask I am speaking of are in addition to the internegative masks and do not need to be pin registered because it sits above a diffuser which is above the negative.  I too used to make dodging templates on prints to help me get the correct tones where I wanted them.  Once I started using the dodge/burn masks, I was able to incorporate hours of darkroom time into a permanent mask that I then filed with the negative for later use.  It also made my printing a lot more consistent from print to print.

I know what kind of masks you're referring to, that's what the site is calling a contrast mask, I'm just showing other types as well.  Did you look at the site?

Check this page out:

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

And here's a video demonstrating use of the system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFAlIeCsNII

Now, here's what I don't know...

Why not pin register your mask (along with the diffusion material, even though you don't have to)?  If you don't pin register the the dodge/burn mask how do you align the mask to the negative (I assume by eye, each time)?  Wouldn't it be easier to just align it once, register the mask to the negative and then never have to worry about alignment again?

Also, you mentioned making the mask with a pencil (something I used to do on the back of copy negatives, and have experimented with when using paper negatives).  You can also do this today using an inkjet printer, which was the other point I was making. 

Scan the negative.  Use the negative on a base layer as a guide, paint in the mask on another layer and print that layer 1:1.  Then you just register that to the negative, use your diffusion in the same manner and viola!

The best part about doing it this way is there's no cutting involved.  Fill the mask with a 50% grey layer (or whatever level of grey you choose to calibrate to), darken where you want to dodge and erase (at varying degrees of opacity, where you want to burn).

I use Pictorico Ultra Premium OHP Transparency film to print on as it's clear, but they also have a white one, which some people like for creating digital negatives with SG prints.  I tend to use the TF for everything, but the white film can be a bit sharper for silver contact printing.

This is the stuff:

http://diamond-jet.com/ultrapremiumohpt … yfilm.aspx

Both methods work, obviously, but if you try this, I think you'll find you have an increased amount of control.  If you spend an evening testing with a step tablet, you can dial in what opacity (shade) gives you what F-Stop of dodge or burn.  A densitometer helps with this, but you certainly don't need one.

So, if you know you want a feature on someones face exactly on half stop brighter and the white cuff sticking out from their suite exactly on quarter of a stop darker, you can paint that in exactly without any trial an error.  Also, you can very precise control with where you dodge and burn (the cutting always messed me up).

Lastly, it's much easier (IMO) to do it this way on negatives smaller than 8x10.  Since I print a lot of 4x5 and even 6x7, I find this method to be very helpful.

Give it a shot sometime, you might like it!

Personally, I enjoy the little dance under the light.  Otherwise, I may as well just do all the work in PS and have an entirely new negative created from the digital file (which I've also done through Duggal in NYC).  But if you really need to churn out a bunch of precise prints, or if you just want to make that one special print sing, I agree this is a great method.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
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...

I know what kind of masks you're referring to, that's what the site is calling a contrast mask, I'm just showing other types as well.  Did you look at the site?

Check this page out:

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

And here's a video demonstrating use of the system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFAlIeCsNII

Now, here's what I don't know...

Why not pin register your mask (along with the diffusion material, even though you don't have to)?  If you don't pin register the the dodge/burn mask how do you align the mask to the negative (I assume by eye, each time)?  Wouldn't it be easier to just align it once, register the mask to the negative and then never have to worry about alignment again?

Also, you mentioned making the mask with a pencil (something I used to do on the back of copy negatives, and have experimented with when using paper negatives).  You can also do this today using an inkjet printer, which was the other point I was making. 

Scan the negative.  Use the negative on a base layer as a guide, paint in the mask on another layer and print that layer 1:1.  Then you just register that to the negative, use your diffusion in the same manner and viola!

The best part about doing it this way is there's no cutting involved.  Fill the mask with a 50% grey layer (or whatever level of grey you choose to calibrate to), darken where you want to dodge and erase (at varying degrees of opacity, where you want to burn).

I use Pictorico Ultra Premium OHP Transparency film to print on as it's clear, but they also have a white one, which some people like for creating digital negatives with SG prints.  I tend to use the TF for everything, but the white film can be a bit sharper for silver contact printing.

This is the stuff:

http://diamond-jet.com/ultrapremiumohpt … yfilm.aspx

Both methods work, obviously, but if you try this, I think you'll find you have an increased amount of control.  If you spend an evening testing with a step tablet, you can dial in what opacity (shade) gives you what F-Stop of dodge or burn.  A densitometer helps with this, but you certainly don't need one.

So, if you know you want a feature on someones face exactly on half stop brighter and the white cuff sticking out from their suite exactly on quarter of a stop darker, you can paint that in exactly without any trial an error.  Also, you can very precise control with where you dodge and burn (the cutting always messed me up).

Lastly, it's much easier (IMO) to do it this way on negatives smaller than 8x10.  Since I print a lot of 4x5 and even 6x7, I find this method to be very helpful.

Give it a shot sometime, you might like it!

Personally, I enjoy the little dance under the light.  Otherwise, I may as well just do all the work in PS and have an entirely new negative created from the digital file (which I've also done through Duggal in NYC).  But if you really need to churn out a bunch of precise prints, or if you just want to make that one special print sing, I agree this is a great method.

Man, that sounds like it takes a long time and fiddling around with aligning  a mask made from a negative I scanned in? Don't get me started.  It was hard enough aligning a mask made from a negative I had sandwiched together with the film.  Ok it wasn't really that difficult with the pin registration system but...

What happens if the mask isn't correct from the beginning?  Do you have to adjust it again and then print another?

Yes I looked at the site.. That's how I knew these were not the masks I was speaking of. 

I  didn't pin register the masks I am speaking of because they were in my case about 1/4 inch (diffuser thickness) above my negative.  Also, the dodge/burn mask of this type being rather crude in its expediency needs to be separated a little from the negative so as to be out of focus.  That also helps with realignment as all I had to do is put my neg carrier on a light table and position the mask accordingly. 

Finally, and here is the kicker.. I don't print any more.  I gave up darkroom work about 12 yrs ago when I moved to a smaller apartment and had no room for a darkroom.  Yep, sold it all.  Durst 1200 enlarger, Jobo processor, 20x24 archival print washer, and a Wisner 4x5 field camera.  Do I regret it?  Sometimes, but then I think of what I sold that gear for then, and what it is worth now.

Good luck with your printing!!

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I would die to see that one in person.

MMDesign wrote:
It wasn't that good! 

I bet it's close. 

I'm dying to travel out there and do another workshop.  It's been almost 15 years since I took one and while it helped, a lot of the concepts he was teaching was beyond my ability to fully appreciate at the time.


YES!

It is pretty stunning.

A friend of mine has a gallery and has just a ton of older prints. There are some great ones but the Sexton is just so far and away better that you have to wonder if he sold his soul or something.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I'm assuming that if you're split printing, you're making a cross hatched test strip and testing for both shadow and highlight values.  I understand that takes time, I just don't see it taking ten hours.

I don't really care if you don't.

This is exactly what I get for coming into this forum as a model.

Bye.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I don't really care if you don't.

This is exactly what I get for coming into this forum as a model.

Bye.

For what it is worth, people are gonna act like doodyheads to others regardless of account type.

Not that you're incorrect that photographers posting in the photographer forum using their model profiles are often treated more dismissively than if the post was from a photog profile.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

I don't really care if you don't.

This is exactly what I get for coming into this forum as a model.

Bye.

I would have responded exactly the same way to any photographer who posted.

Again, I don't understand the hostility?  Have I attacked you?  No.  Have I provided worthwhile information?  I think so...

DougBPhoto wrote:

For what it is worth, people are gonna act like doodyheads to others regardless of account type.

Not that you're incorrect that photographers posting in the photographer forum using their model profiles are often treated more dismissively than if the post was from a photog profile.

I did not dismiss her, I questioned her reasoning on a topic I have a good deal of experience with.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I did not dismiss her, I questioned her reasoning on a topic I have a good deal of experience with.

I don't recall saying you were dismissive, I do believe I responded to HER expressing understanding of her perception that posting in this forum under a model profile can often generate a more dismissive response than from a photographer profile.

If I was referring to your posts, my responses would not have been that you were being dismissive.

However, I might have referred to the topic being a question of how long people take in the darkroom, and not critiques of people's printing techniques nor a critique of how long it takes them to print.  Sometimes it isn't very easy for people with a lot of experience to relate to or be patient with someone less accomplished  (yet who still may feel more accomplished than they may actually be.)

I'm as guilty as the next person, finding it both frustrating and difficult to help others understand what I'm saying and why,  but the unfortunate reality is that this site has a "normal" state where criticizing and tearing others down happens without a second thought, and for some is a routine sport/pass-time, it is easy for people to think that is what is happening.

In other words, I can see it from both sides.

But, I was not making such a comment/observation, just validating her perception that "model" posts/topics are often treated as assumed to be from a less skilled/less experienced person (but not saying you were doing that.)

Just trying to clarify, since it seems like folks often misinterpret what I really am saying (even when I mean no offense.)

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

I don't know how to say this in a manner you'll accept as genuine, so I'll preface my statement by saying I wish to learn what and how you're doing, because it sounds like you're accomplishing quite a bit with your technique. I wish you would come back and explain your process.

Robert Randall wrote:
I don't know how to say this in a manner you'll accept as genuine, so I'll preface my statement by saying I wish to learn what and how you're doing, because it sounds like you're accomplishing quite a bit with your technique. I wish you would come back and explain your process.

The reason for my response is that I get the impression that the OP is currently taking a darkroom class with a specific instructor, which suggests to me (that at least for now) she needs to focus on what that instructor wants her to learn and wants her to do.  (That is what her grade will depend on.)

Perhaps, after she has completed that class, if she's interested in feedback about darkroom technique, that might make a worthwhile discussion thread.

However, for now, my impression is that the purpose of the thread was asking the time people spend, and not discussion of her technique nor other people's techniques.

Regardless of how well-intentioned they may have been, if someone isn't looking for feedback, being given that critique/criticism on what one is doing or telling them they should do something different is not always well received.

Like you, I find her comment interesting (and I can sense your sincerity), but I sense that our curiosity may exceed the scope of what she's looking for at this time.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Like you, I find her comment interesting (and I can sense your sincerity), but I sense that our curiosity may exceed the scope of what she's looking for at this time.

In the good old days when MM was in its infancy, someone would start a thread about shooting at high noon, and three pages later, the discussion was about Chaucer's sexual preferences, and no one said a word. The forums are being strangled by correctness.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I don't really care if you don't.

This is exactly what I get for coming into this forum as a model.

Bye.

No, this is what happens when you allow insecurity to color your perception.

Everyone in this thread is united in their passion for or experience in this craft. I sincerely doubt anyone is trying to slight you, or is anything but welcoming of your input. It doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, just chill out and state your case rationally.

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

I'm going on about six hours and still not happy. My teacher said he did somewhere between 15 and 20 hours, and he's incredible, so I don't feel too bad yet.

I'll never tell; hang in there.

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

I'm going on about six hours and still not happy. My teacher said he did somewhere between 15 and 20 hours, and he's incredible, so I don't feel too bad yet.

This reminds me of a conversation that I once had with Paul Caponigro, a fairly famous American photographer for those of you who aren't familiar with his work. I was at his house showing him a few slides of some work that I had been submitting around. He was fond of one image in particular, and I said "I love that one too but its a bitch to print... it takes me forever". His reply to me was, "What is time really"? I left his home with a different point of view about getting what I really want in the darkroom.

Robert Randall wrote:
I don't know how to say this in a manner you'll accept as genuine, so I'll preface my statement by saying I wish to learn what and how you're doing, because it sounds like you're accomplishing quite a bit with your technique. I wish you would come back and explain your process.

DougBPhoto wrote:
The reason for my response is that I get the impression that the OP is currently taking a darkroom class with a specific instructor, which suggests to me (that at least for now) she needs to focus on what that instructor wants her to learn and wants her to do.  (That is what her grade will depend on.)

Perhaps, after she has completed that class, if she's interested in feedback about darkroom technique, that might make a worthwhile discussion thread.

However, for now, my impression is that the purpose of the thread was asking the time people spend, and not discussion of her technique nor other people's techniques.

Regardless of how well-intentioned they may have been, if someone isn't looking for feedback, being given that critique/criticism on what one is doing or telling them they should do something different is not always well received.

Like you, I find her comment interesting (and I can sense your sincerity), but I sense that our curiosity may exceed the scope of what she's looking for at this time.

I agree with your reasoning here, Doug, I do.  And I responded to her OP and genuinely tried to be supportive.  I think it's awesome that she's learning to print traditionally (as you may have surmised, it's kind of a passion of mine).

She made a statement that, most printers I know would consider questionable at best.  I tried to offer some insight into why that might be the case. 

I also tried to expand on the subject in general for others besides her.  One of the problems that we've (forum guides) have been trying to address is bad information in the forums, with the understanding that threads are read by many besides those participating.  There are a number of folks here who have recently begun shooting film and have started looking into, or engaging in, darkroom work.  The information I've provided is as much for them as it is for her.

If she had actually taken the time to have a conversation about different printing techniques, it could have been quite a good one!  Bob Randall has forgotten more about printing than most of us will ever know, his insights are truly invaluable.  I do ok myself.  The fact is, there aren't that many here who do print traditionally, so I would think that a conversation with those who do, who genuinely care about the process and who are actively engaged (off site) with teaching a new generation how to print would be welcomed. 

I'll go back and read through the thread again to see if I could have said something better, but I've done that twice now, and I'm still not sure why she took offense.  I would think a first year printing student (if that is indeed where she's at, she may be further along) would understand that perhaps they don't yet know all there is to know on the subject yet and they might welcome a conversation with those who have a bit more experience.  I would never tell her to do something different that what her teacher is telling her, especially if she's working on an assignment (I would not like that if someone told one of my students that).  I would, and did, demonstrate that the path is a fascinating one with many ways of working and accomplishing various tasks.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I agree with your reasoning here, Doug, I do.  And I responded to her OP and genuinely tried to be supportive.  I think it's awesome that she's learning to print traditionally (as you may have surmised, it's kind of a passion of mine).

She made a statement that, most printers I know would consider questionable at best.  I tried to offer some insight into why that might be the case. 

I also tried to expand on the subject in general for others besides her.  One of the problems that we've (forum guides) have been trying to address is bad information in the forums, with the understanding that threads are read by many besides those participating.  There are a number of folks here who have recently begun shooting film and have started looking into, or engaging in, darkroom work.  The information I've provided is as much for them as it is for her.

If she had actually taken the time to have a conversation about different printing techniques, it could have been quite a good one!  Bob Randall has forgotten more about printing than most of us will ever know, his insights are truly invaluable.  I do ok myself.  The fact is, there aren't that many here who do print traditionally, so I would think that a conversation with those who do, who genuinely care about the process and who are actively engaged (off site) with teaching a new generation how to print would be welcomed. 

I'll go back and read through the thread again to see if I could have said something better, but I've done that twice now, and I'm still not sure why she took offense.  I would think a first year printing student (if that is indeed where she's at, she may be further along) would understand that perhaps they don't yet know all there is to know on the subject yet and they might welcome a conversation with those who have a bit more experience.  I would never tell her to do something different that what her teacher is telling her, especially if she's working on an assignment (I would not like that if someone told one of my students that).  I would, and did, demonstrate that the path is a fascinating one with many ways of working and accomplishing various tasks.

Presumably it is also the role of forum guides to keep threads on-topic rather than to facilitate the hijacking of threads to turn them into topics they find more interesting?

Perhaps she took offense because her technique is not the topic?

Perhaps she took offense because she felt feedback about her technique was not something she was looking for?

I'm obviously not a forum guide nor a moderator so I'm just sharing and trying to illustrate and articulate my observations and perceptions about the thread, the forum, and the site in general.

I don't disagree that the idea of discussing darkroom techniques is a good one, nor that such a discussion is a bad idea (in the right place), perhaps there should be a thread for exactly that purpose.

However, from what I have read, I don't think this thread was ever intended to be that thread, so perhaps that observation can make the unintended offense taken easier to understand?

DougBPhoto wrote:
Presumably it is also the role of forum guides to keep threads on-topic rather than to facilitate the hijacking of threads to turn them into topics they find more interesting?

Perhaps she took offense because her technique is not the topic?

Perhaps she took offense because she felt feedback about her technique was not something she was looking for?

I'm obviously not a forum guide nor a moderator so I'm just sharing and trying to illustrate and articulate my observations and perceptions about the thread, the forum, and the site in general.

I don't disagree that the idea of discussing darkroom techniques is a good one, nor that such a discussion is a bad idea (in the right place), perhaps there should be a thread for exactly that purpose.

However, from what I have read, I don't think this thread was ever intended to be that thread, so perhaps that observation can make the unintended offense taken easier to understand?

I thought this was an interesting thread, and some threads evolve for the good of all.

It's like starting a thread about beautiful rocks, and then someone posts something that breaks a rock open, and we see crystals inside.

Not being one from the darkroom era, I learned a few things.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
I thought this was an interesting thread, and some threads evolve for the good of all.

It's like starting a thread about beautiful rocks, and then someone posts something that breaks a rock open, and we see crystals inside.

Not being one from the darkroom era, I learned a few things.

Thank you.

And, fwiw, almost all of this is applicable to the digital age.  If you study the work of great printers, and understand, why, for example, Avedon's print map (shown above) was done the way it was, it will only make your work processing digital files stronger.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Thank you.

And, fwiw, almost all of this is applicable to the digital age.  If you study the work of great printers, and understand, why, for example, Avedon's print map (shown above) was done the way it was, it will only make your work processing digital files stronger.

Yeah I've seen that print map before, and I love the thought process behind it.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
I thought this was an interesting thread, and some threads evolve for the good of all.

It's like starting a thread about beautiful rocks, and then someone posts something that breaks a rock open, and we see crystals inside.

Not being one from the darkroom era, I learned a few things.

Since I was asked, my point was that for the good of all is a matter of perspective.

It would appear that from the perspective of the OP it evolved into something that not only was not intended, but also into something that was not wanted.

Perhaps for the good of "many", but "for the good of all", it would appear is not accurate.

Sure, one can say if she had taken the time to enter into a discussion of technique, but the point remains, she was the OP, she created the thread for a reason, she set the topic, and that was NOT her topic.

Could the same "good" not be accomplished by starting a new thread for the darkroom techniques discussion/"evolution", rather than steamrolling over her question, purpose and intent for the thread?

I understand that Mr. Randall indicated that is a long-standing tradition of the site (which has also been my observation, thus my initial responses of understanding why she might take offense to that happening to her thread and/or questioning of her techniques), but the site *seems* to be saying they want to evolve into a more respectful, professional place.

Anyway, while I was attempting to respond to what I was asked and help to explain why someone could be upset/bothered, unfortunately this discussion also detracts from her topic, just like taking over her thread to "evolve" it into something else has the affect of doing.

DougBPhoto wrote:

Since I was asked, my point was that for the good of all is a matter of perspective.

It would appear that from the perspective of the OP it evolved into something that not only was not intended, but also into something that was not wanted.

Perhaps for the good of "many", but "for the good of all", it would appear is not accurate.

Sure, one can say if she had taken the time to enter into a discussion of technique, but the point remains, she was the OP, she created the thread for a reason, she set the topic, and that was NOT her topic.

Could the same "good" not be accomplished by starting a new thread for the darkroom techniques discussion/"evolution", rather than steamrolling over her question, purpose and intent for the thread?

I understand that Mr. Randall indicated that is a long-standing tradition of the site (which has also been my observation, thus my initial responses of understanding why she might take offense to that happening to her thread and/or questioning of her techniques), but the site *seems* to be saying they want to evolve into a more respectful, professional place.

Anyway, while I was attempting to respond to what I was asked and help to explain why someone could be upset/bothered, unfortunately this discussion also detracts from her topic, just like taking over her thread to "evolve" it into something else has the affect of doing.

Yes Doug I agree. Hopefully the OP got enough info before we got off topic, and off topic again discussing the off topic-ness

Not one to applaud blanket statements, I should have said "some" or "few", like I usually try to do.

CHAD ALAN wrote:

Yeah I've seen that print map before, and I love the thought process behind it.

I was a product, food table top photographer for much of my career. In 1989 I bought a computer system and learned how to retouch my images. I was a much better retoucher than I was a photographer, and I began to hate my job as a photographer because of my lack of ability. So, in 1997, after my brother in law basically put me out of business by stealing from me, I decided to become a retoucher for photographers that I admired.

Because there weren't all that many of us around at the time, and because I had a drum scanner and an LVT film recorder, and more than a passing knowledge of all things BW, my client list started to grow. My job for the most part was to scan BW negs, retouch them to client specs, and return a digital neg with as close to a 1:1 gamma match to the original as possible. I was happy and they were happy, and I got to see the original negatives of some of the most revered photographers of our time.

I wasn't aware of what they did with my negatives until I saw a gallery show one of my clients put together. The stark difference between their prints and their negatives made my head spin. Mind you, I learned BW techniques from a master printer... at a catalog studio. Never had I made prints like those of my clients. they inspired me to start shooting again, but this time I wanted to make portraits.

My first clue as to how they did what they do in the darkroom came during a markup session at Victor Skrebneski's studio. He was the very first client that wanted to see if I could do on system what he did in the darkroom. I had to pretend I knew what he was talking about as he walked me through the process, the entire time the hair on my arms bristled with excitement at the knowledge that I was finally being let in on the secrets that had eluded me. Whenever I tell that story I have the same experience.

That markup was made on a picture he put into his book, "Moving Pictures". He told me that my digital work saved him between 20 and 40 hours of darkroom time.

Robert Randall wrote:

I was a product, food table top photographer for much of my career. In 1989 I bought a computer system and learned how to retouch my images. I was a much better retoucher than I was a photographer, and I began to hate my job as a photographer because of my lack of ability. So, in 1997, after my brother in law basically put me out of business by stealing from me, I decided to become a retoucher for photographers that I admired.

Because there weren't all that many of us around at the time, and because I had a drum scanner and an LVT film recorder, and more than a passing knowledge of all things BW, my client list started to grow. My job for the most part was to scan BW negs, retouch them to client specs, and return a digital neg with as close to a 1:1 gamma match to the original as possible. I was happy and they were happy, and I got to see the original negatives of some of the most revered photographers of our time.

I wasn't aware of what they did with my negatives until I saw a gallery show one of my clients put together. The stark difference between their prints and their negatives made my head spin. Mind you, I learned BW techniques from a master printer... at a catalog studio. Never had I made prints like those of my clients. they inspired me to start shooting again, but this time I wanted to make portraits.

My first clue as to how they did what they do in the darkroom came during a markup session at Victor Skrebneski's studio. He was the very first client that wanted to see if I could do on system what he did in the darkroom. I had to pretend I knew what he was talking about as he walked me through the process, the entire time the hair on my arms bristled with excitement at the knowledge that I was finally being let in on the secrets that had eluded me. Whenever I tell that story I have the same experience.

That markup was made on a picture he put into his book, "Moving Pictures". He told me that my digital work saved him between 20 and 40 hours of darkroom time.

(I got goosebumps at the idea of such a walk-through, and the perspective of I don't understand all of this, but wow none the less.)

DougBPhoto wrote:



(I got goosebumps at the idea of such a walk-through, and the perspective of I don't understand all of this, but wow none the less.)

Yes it sounds pretty exciting!