Topic: Forcing a Negative into a Positive

[JOhn Reeves]

I had a fine Sunday. I negotiated a flat enough 8x10 print of this
shot to frame. I cut the matt. It was ready for delivery on Monday. At some point I was searching APUG for toners and I found a link to Rolfe Horn's website. I quickly became disallusioned with myself, print, etc.

Look at the images he pulls out of his negatives. http://www.f45.com/html/tech/techc.html . He shows the basic work prints and workflow. How the hell do you do this? To be honest, I do not have the patience (or time or money) to pull/force/create an image in this manner. All of a sudden I think I've missed something. I realize that there are twelve or more ways to find your own nectar/sweet spot, but is this how IT is done?

How much do you manipulate your image to arrive at your prints?
Maybe I should learn to fish.

[Dave_M]

Look at the images he pulls out of his negatives. http://www.f45.com/html/tech/techc.html .

  Bloody nora! 

Erm, do you want someone to go fishing with? I'm off to buy a rod...

[Ailsa]

I know - depressing, isn't it? It may or may not be of consolation to learn that he assisted Michael Kenna for several years, which is where he learned his craft.

[LT]

yes very talented indeed - I often look at his site and feel very depressed. 

[FrankB]

Yup, saw this a while back but had (mercifully) forgotten just how he can made an exceedingly flat negative sing like like a choir.

If someone could hand me a loaded pistol, I'll just step outside for a moment... 

[Tammy]

Me too!    Inspiration to the point of devastation....

I like your print, by the way.  

The entire printing thing with toning is really an art- all the way to the finished hand touching (as Rolf pointed out) and the visualization of a finished work.  Like a painting, or any fine craft.  One man I met locally surprised me with beautiful prints, lovingly toned an matted.  I say surprised because I'd never really seen prints done up this way except in Lenswork reproductions.  They were that good to me.  I was so blown away.  He claimed that to print was painful for him because he much prefered taking the image.  But, when he did print, he printed for a "mood".  His intent was not always known when he clicked the shutter but he felt it important enough to convey a feeling in the print that he would take the time to only print when he was really ready to give it full attention.  It really showed.

That sort of statement has made an impression with me.  Now- hand over that pistol...

-Tammy

[Susan B.]

I'm strangely inspired to know that his original neg was less to be desired --then he was able to make an exceptional print.

You guys can go fishing, but I'll be in the darkroom trying to figure all this out. Check back with me in about ten years.

Interestingly enough, I attended the Silver Conference this weekend. It was a mixed bag, but some incredible highlights by Keith Carter (best and most entertaining, inspirational presentation I've ever seen and I've seen it twice), Mona Kuhn, Mary Virgina Swanson and Ken Rosenthal.
Oh, and John Sexton's portion of his presentation which focused on Ansel Adams orignal negs/prints versus his final prints--wow. Eye opening I'll tell you. The original prints prior to manipulation were dullsville. Then Ansel worked his magic. Not sure if any of you have seen the before and afters of Ansel prints--but it's a serious eye opening experience and should be viewed by any photographer going through what John is going through right now. It inspired me to lock myself in the darkroom....for the next ten years. 

[Theresa]

I rarely go to great lengths to "save" a picture.  It doesn't seem worth it to me.  I guess if I was working on contract and couldn't re-shoot I'd feel different.  Or if I was lugging around an 8x10 view camera.  Also could be because I prefer the cheap equipment.  I've gotten to the point where I never get attatched to an image until I see the negative.  If the negative doesn't sing, I'm on to the next frame (or roll). I'd rather be out shooting something new than trying to save a bad negative.

[LT]

the thing is, it isnt about a flat negative being a bad negative - it's about the ability to realise the potential from the negative.  the majority of my negatives are pretty flat as that is how I am able to retain the most details in skies and foregrounds (when shooting landscapes).  I like it that way as I can then use darkroom controls to pick out what I want from it - sometimes split grade printing, somtimes pre/post flashing/fogging, somethings some post development bleaching etc etc etc.  clearly, it would be great to get a the prefectly exposed negative that needed no work at all, just straight print, but I dont ever seem to be able to get that, so I try to get there in the darkroom instead.

so - for example, here is a scan of the neg for my Embleton Beach shot - no contrast controls or sharpening at all, very flat and dull, and it certainly doesnt sing.. 



And here is the scan of my final print - which has 7 additional burn exposures to various parts and 2 dodge actions, and this is quite typical in getting to where I want the print to be - and I dont think I am unusual in doing so.  Theresa, I reckon you'll suprise yourself if you do stick with some of your less obvious negs.

[Tammy]

Absolutely, Leon.  Thanks for sharing your vision!

I'm where John is I think...  I'm watching, I'm listening, I'm soaking it in.  I wish I could see the Ansel before and afters that Susan mentioned.   It's of the utmost importance to try to work some of that out so that any tweaking in making the negative or shooting the negative can be made too.  What works, what doesn't...  It all ties together!

BW is an exciting thing.  It's inspiring and challenging and mentally/artistically rewarding. 

Susan, a workshop sounds fab!  Thanks for sharing that too.

Tammy

[Theresa]

clearly, there is a big difference between an intentionally flat negative and a bad negative.  one of the images in the posted link clearly required heroic measures.  that is more kind of image I was referring to.  the example you posted, leon, already sings pre-darkroom.  albeit softly.

but I also think it's a very valid approach to put the emphasis on image capture.  many of the greats consider darkroom manipulation to be, well, manipulation. obviously, I'm a manipulator to some degree http://tmanzanares.com/cms/index.php?galleries, and I also found the Ansel retrospective to be eye-opening.

I was answering the question "How much do you manipulate your image to arrive at your prints?"  saying that I spend my time fixing my shooting rather than fixing my printing. I didn't want JOhn to be discouraged just because his darkroom technique isn't off the charts.  there is so much more to it than darkroom technique. some don't think darkroom technique is important at all in photography.  some value field time and the quest for "decisive moment" over the print.

besides, fishing requires technique, also. why start at square one again?

[LT]

I was answering the question "How much do you manipulate your image to arrive at your prints?" 

me too!

[Theresa]

Theresa, I reckon you'll suprise yourself if you do stick with some of your less obvious negs.

I was clarifing myself since you addressed me by name.

[JOhn Reeves]

besides, fishing requires technique, also. why start at square one again?

Oh I couldn't actually handle a wriggling fish. that's too gross. besides I have a painful memory of walking into a room full of fishing lures on the floor- I was barefoot!

I dunno where I'm heading with all of this nonsense. Maybe I should give some thought to the extra time f/32 or whatever my smallest aperture is. To get 7 burns like LEon mentioned, I guess you must stop it way way down.

I really did not know so much manipulation was possible, let alone feasible. Seems like fogging or a loss of contrast is bound to happen. LEon: can you post a video of making that print? Maybe at youtube.com. You'll be a star in no time.

Dammit. now I'm feeling challenged.

[Zoe]

that's a great link. might have to borrow that one.

[LT]

To get 7 burns like LEon mentioned, I guess you must stop it way way down.

I really did not know so much manipulation was possible, let alone feasible. Seems like fogging or a loss of contrast is bound to happen. LEon: can you post a video of making that print?

John - I stayed with my usual f stop for this paper (f5.6 as the paper is VERY slow) - base print exposure (for the highlights) was approx 40 seconds, and I dodged the bits I needed to during this, I then gave the seven extra exposures to selective parts of the print (sky, edges, left hand side etc) - there was no stopping down at all.  My enlarger timer switches off the safelight while it is exposing the paper, and back on when not, this helps with preventing safelight fog, but, as long as you do a few tests and adjust the brightness of the safellight, and take preventative measures like developing prints face down and away from the direct light of the safelight, it should be ok. I've never had problems with safelight fog with my set-up. 

[Janet_P]

Wow. Great thread. I've always felt disappointed when I have to really work hard on a neg to get a good print - almost as though I'm cheating. But this is making me change my mind.
I'd love to know what books you guys have read to give you pointers on printing in this way. I'm guessing Ansel Adam's 3 but any others?

Janet

[LT]

ok Janet - I'll kick off .....

my faves are:-

John Blakemore's Black and white photography workshop

Les Mclean's Creative black and white photography

Carson Grave's the Elements of Black and White printing

Steve McLeod's The Master Printer's Workbook: A Professional Guide to Black and White Darkroom Techniques

tim Rudman's The Photographer's Toning Book: The Definitive Guide

theres a few, of course + the Ansel 3 as you say

 

[Andrea.]

Gosh, just read this and the work going into Horn's prints are amazing. Would be great to do something like this on Filmwasters. Show the straight [flat] neg and then the finished print - just like that Mag used to do!

[rore]

that would be really cool. I?ve been really frustrated with my prints lately , and seeing other people?s negatives would be enlightening, i think.

rore.