Topic: The printer's art

[dave miller]

Black and White issue 69.
The lad’s gone and done it again.
Leon 10, Tim Daly 1. 

Or am I biased towards a proper print?

[FrankB]

I don't think it's bias towards a traditional print. Someone could probably produce something in PS that looked similar to Leon's print when reproduced on the pages of a magazine (even one with as high production values as B&WP UK). Up close and personal is another matter...

I too preferred Leon's version (by a wide margin). However, having a crack at someone else's neg is a pretty intimidating prospect, especially when the someone else in question is well-versed in the druidic arts! All credit to Tim for having the bottle to step up and take a swing.

I'm not sure I'd be brave enough (not that I'm likely to be asked anytime soon! ).

[LT]

thanks chaps ... I havent seen the finished article yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

[david b]

This would have been a much more interesting feature if they'd got someone to do the digital print who had the same degree of competence and skill with Photoshop as Leon does in the darkroom ... a great wet print vs. a lousy digital print doesn't tell anyone anything.

[dave miller]

Whilst admitting to a slight bias in favour of traditional printing I feel you missed the point. This is a question of interpretation rather than production skill, of which there is plenty of evidence in both efforts. Certainly a digital copy could have been made of the darkroom original, but this wasn’t the task required of Tim. Obviously Leon had the advantage of having more time to consider his approach, and IMO correctly choose to produce a warm image to illustrate his mood. Tim’s picture is, in comparison rather insipid, although he seems to have been trying to head in the same direction.

[Andrea.]

Surely, in the case of reprints in B&W, it really doesn't matter how that point was reached. In the flesh, so to speak, it is probably another matter. The end result is what counts and I agree that the wet print version was better in my eyes. As suggested, it might have been a different result with another PS operator - maybe one of the Altphoto lot who seems to work wonders to create excellent works of ART! 

[david b]

I realise it's about interpretation Dave, but I don't see much going on in the digital version except for some basic contrast control - plus it's clearly presented in a digital vs. tradition way in which there's a huge mismatch. On one hand you have Leon describing some quite complex dodging, burning and split toning - and then in the digital bit it's a simple contrast curve and "here's how to add a layer". It's like comparing a Michelin starred chef with someone who's explaining how to operate a can opener!

[LT]

ok people .... I think we should give Tim a bit of credit here.  He is an accomplished digital worker and has various books published on the subject (http://tinyurl.com/3xvbpa http://tinyurl.com/2twyqm http://tinyurl.com/3dpeh8 to name a few) and also has various stuff in magazines too like AG+ etc.  so we're not talking about a novice bedroom photoshopper here ... I havent seen the article yet so I can really comment on it's content, but I think a lot of us here would always tend towards the wet print simply because most of us either prefer that anyway, or would do if we had access to a darkroom.

And dont forget, I had the benefit of actually being there when the shot was taken, which I think goes a huge way in making the print "right" - and that is the ultimate key to making a creative print - expressing the emotions felt at the time of taking the shot through the interpretation of the negative. (I think).

[CarlRadford]

And dont forget, I had the benefit of actually being there when the shot was taken, which I think goes a huge way in making the print "right" - and that is the ultimate key to making a creative print - expressing the emotions felt at the time of taking the shot through the interpretation of the negative. (I think).

This is an interesting supposition Leon! A good printer should be able to print/interpret any negative. I am pretty sure your interpretation of botanypeeble is not qute what was in front of you and differs somewhat from the negative. Sometimes having the technical skills doesn't make for a good end result! However, this leads us to the point of giving your film to someone else to dev and print - can they make a better print/interpretation than the person that made the image without some guidance?! An eye for an image and what makes a print right - some have it some don't.

Yes many people on this forum are bias - as long as they are happy and bias - and the digi folk continue to sell their film and darkroom kit for peanuts on ebay

[LT]

This is an interesting supposition Leon! A good printer should be able to print/interpret any negative.

- you are right there, Carl, but each interpretation will be entirely different owing to all sorts of variables. When I made the exposure, I had in mind what I described in the article, and on this occasion, I think it was the right interpretation of the negative - but probably only right in my eyes! 

I am pretty sure your interpretation of botanypebble is not qute what was in front of you and differs somewhat from the negative.

yes, that is the case, but it doesnt differ from what I planned when I previsualised the print and took the shot (I havent actually printed it yet, and what I posted here was just a rough representation of what I want to acheive, but you get my meaning I hope)

  Sometimes having the technical skills doesn't make for a good end result!

that is entirely my point carl.  It takes more than that to get the image "right" IMO.

However, this leads us to the point of giving your film to someone else to dev and print - can they make a better print/interpretation than the person that made the image without some guidance?!

I'm not sure they can - I think they ca make a perfectly brilliant print from the materials infront of them, but how can they know what the photographer was trying to acheive without discussion with them?

I'm glad you've turned this around from a digibashing thread to some excellent thought provocations:) 

[CarlRadford]

However, this leads us to the point of giving your film to someone else to dev and print - can they make a better print/interpretation than the person that made the image without some guidance?!

I'm not sure they can - I think they ca make a perfectly brilliant print from the materials infront of them, but how can they know what the photographer was trying to acheive without discussion with them?

I fully accept every point you have made but there is still room for debate on this one. Who is to say that the person who made the image is best able to interpret it? I have made some images I really like full frame - a friend has offered suggestions for a crop which alters what I pre-visualised but I like to think the post-visualised image is even stronger! I have a way to go yet. However, three points, one needs to continue to develope an 'eye' for an image, to be able to achieve the end result you wanted - regardless of others but not in spite of them and finally to continue to look for and make images as often as possible. Again just look at the images made by Andrew Sanderson - how many of those have we all walked past today 

[FrankB]

Playing devil's advocate here... 

It could be that knowledge of the original scene in some cases constrains the photographer from fully exploring all the possibilities offered by the negative when printing. A fresh pair of eyes viewing the negative without preconceptions may be more able to realise its full potential.

This is one of the things I like most about "the printers' art" section in B&WP UK - whilst sometimes the prints are remarkably similar, in other cases they are worlds apart. I frequently find that the second persons print is 'better' (i.e. more to my taste).

( Right, that's enough deep thought for this godawful hour of the morning! Where's my coffee?! )

[Ailsa]

A fresh pair of eyes viewing the negative without preconceptions may be more able to realise its full potential.

Especially as a talent for photography doesn't always equate to a talent for printing. (God knows, I aspire to mediocrity in either! And yes, before any of you start, I know I'll never reach that standard if I insist on staying in bed on glorious Sunday mornings.)

Many 'top' photographers use the likes of Robin Bell, Steve Macleod, Mike Crawford etc to print their work because often the photographer is photographer, and the printer is printer, and the expertise of one can be complemented by the other - especially when time constraints mean that the photographer can too busy shooting to devote themselves to printing, too. Eamonn McCabe regularly states that the late Larry Bartlett was more responsible for Eamonn winning competitions than Eamonn himself was.

It's a partnership, and in many cases the photographer will have sought out a printer s/he feels really understands his/her work and can achieve the kind of interpretation the photographer had in mind.

Having said that, there are obviously plenty who would never let anyone else near their negatives. Horses for courses, I suppose.

[LT]

I guess I've just always seen taking the photograph as only the very begining of the process of making a print - I think it was always the print that I was after.  that probably makes no sense at all!

I dont think this has anything to do with working in spite of others though, each and every interpretation will be governed by the context from which it came, that doesnt make it less or more valuable than any other.  But, I do think that if the photographer were to see the creation of the final product through to the end using various creative processes (possibly assisted along the way by others), their version would have a head start on those who chose to delegate the stages - that said, I suppose the key point to being a master printer must be to not only have technical expertise, but also be able to listen well to and knowledge of the client - it must be very hard thing to do, getting the best out of our own negatives is pretty damn hard enough, so imagine doing it for others too, not sure i could manage that.

I like this discussion  - keep it going    

[CarlRadford]

Many 'top' photographers use the likes of Robin Bell, Steve Macleod, Mike Crawford etc to print their work because often the photographer is photographer, and the printer is printer, and the expertise of one can be complemented by the other - especially when time constraints mean that the photographer can too busy shooting to devote themselves to printing, too. Eamonn McCabe regularly states that the late Larry Bartlett was more responsible for Eamonn winning competitions than Eamonn himself was.

It's a partnership, and in many cases the photographer will have sought out a printer s/he feels really understands his/her work and can achieve the kind of interpretation the photographer had in mind.

So we now have a colaboration - how would we feel if a painting was made by more than one artisist, I know this has happened but woul it change our perception or value for it compared to another created by the same person?

Devils advocate of course 

[dave miller]

My best prints, or those few that I currently regard as good, contain something of the emotion that I felt when I took them. Whether the viewer feels any emotion, other than boredom, is debatable, and something I’m thankful not to know. I have found it very difficult to turn a grab snapshot into a worthwhile print, it has to be a studied picture to allow that. As an aside, I once made the mistake of hovering near one of my “masterpieces” at a public exhibition to overhear viewer remarks; I moved out of earshot after a few minutes, somewhat reduced in mental stature, quite humbled in fact.

[FrankB]

I guess I've just always seen taking the photograph as only the very begining of the process of making a print - I think it was always the print that I was after.  that probably makes no sense at all!

...or, alternatively, a pretty good definition of 'previsualisation'.

My best prints, or those few that I currently regard as good, contain something of the emotion that I felt when I took them. Whether the viewer feels any emotion, other than boredom, is debatable, and something I’m thankful not to know. I have found it very difficult to turn a grab snapshot into a worthwhile print, it has to be a studied picture to allow that.

Most of my "good" (all things are relative!) images are studied compositions and made using a tripod. However, this is because I shoot mainly landscapes (trees and rocks are more patient than people and much less likely to laugh at my amateurish ineptitude!). Most of the (few) worthwhile photographs that I've made of people have been handheld grab shots and (I think) are generally better at conveying emotion.

The attached is a case in point. It was a case of face the other way while I preset aperture and guess the right amount of zoom, turn, aim quickly and let the F80 handle the rest!

...quite humbled in fact.

  I'm saying nothing!



[attachment deleted by admin]