- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
The important thing about "print quality" is that it's a personal opinion. There are no absolute standards and it's difficult to see how there could be.
and please use their services
Darkroom Skills...A Dying Art??
- Thread starter Yashica FX3
- Start date
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,973
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Regrettably, I've clearly never managed to produce a proper negative as I've never managed to produce a fine print by straight printing. I assume straight printing would also remove the possibility of a different paper grade?
From my reading, I can't recall any recorded instances of either Ansel Adams or Edward Weston producing proper negatives either.
From my reading, I can't recall any recorded instances of either Ansel Adams or Edward Weston producing proper negatives either.
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,973
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,593
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wonder if any straight prints from either are easily available for public viewing.
Likewise, how many shots did it take HCB to capture that "Decisive Moment"? Has anyone got a link to his contact sheets?
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't disagree that there are occasions when you can get away with a straight print, and the aim should always be to produce negatives that require the minimum amount of work when printing them. But to repeat myself, I've never seen a negative that didn't benefit from some dodging and burning when printing it.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Ansel Adams book "The print" has several examples of straight prints with with those after dodging/burning as well as the effect of things like using different paper developers.
He says:
"Arriving at a "fine print" involves proceeding through various stages of "work prints" until you arrive at a rendering that looks and feels right in all ways."
As to your other question given CB used a Leica with a knob film wind, I doubt he would manage to get more than one shot of most of the time. That doesn't mean he didn't take lots of photos and then select the best. Searching on Cartier Bresson Contact sheets brings up many examples e.g.
Debunking the “Myth of the Decisive Moment” - ERIC KIM
When I started off in street photography, I believed in the “myth of the decisive moment”. What do I mean by that? Well, when I first heard of “The Decisive Moment” by Henri Cartier Bresson, I had the wrong impression that he only took one photo of a scene. I imagined Henri Cartier Bresson waltzing…
erickimphotography.com
However, as other people who use Leicas have explained. The optical viewfinder of the Leica shows areas outside the actual taking area, and unlike SLRs at the time, taking the picture was almost instantaneous with pressing the shutter release. So you can watch the "action" before it gets into your field of view, and you can see how a slight movement might improve the composition without needing to move the camera, and anticipate the action.
Given that the decisive moment is more about the image coming to together graphically, than capturing the action, this ability to see different potential compositions without moving the camera would seem be a particular benefit that Leicas give in catching the decisive moment.
As an aside, Ansel Adams was a great fan of CBs work, but thought his print quality to be very poor, and I'm sure I remember reading that he offered to make prints for him. CB on the other hand was not a fan of AA, as CB thought that given the state of the world, faffing about taking landscape pictures was a disgraceful waste of time. These aren't the exact words but reflect the sentiment as I remember it.
I wonder if CBs views influenced Ansel Adams work documenting the US internment camps for Japanese Nationals during the 2nd world war, which was a bit of a departure form the work we associate him with.
About this Collection | Ansel Adams's Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar | Digital Collections | Library of Congress
In 1943, Ansel Adams (1902-1984), America's most well-known photographer, documented the Manzanar War Relocation Center in California and the Japanese-Americans interned there during World War II. For the first time, digital scans of both Adams's original negatives and his photographic prints...
www.loc.gov
Ansel Adams, The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print" still make great reading, even today. If only to see how Adams drive for expressive prints matching his creative vision, forced him to master the technical aspects of his craft.
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,593
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Found a copy of The Print in a charity shop via Amazon - should be with me next week. Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye open for the other 2 in the series in local charity shops - they're rather less relevant (to me) these days but would be interesting should they turn up.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
If they are cheap enough, they are still useful even with digital. The discussions in the Negative, on how different shades of grey affect the emotional content of the print are interesting, as are the way filters effect the image.
I wouldn't say they were essential reading in the digital age, but then again if you make Black and White images (particularly prints) there is a lot of good material in these books.
I'm maybe biased as it was these books, and indeed briefly meeting Ansel Adams (when I was around 20) that completely changed my ideas about photography and what I wanted to put into it and get out of it.
Edit: which edition did you get? The 1983 "The new Ansel Adams Photography Series" is very different to the earlier editions, even though they cover similar ground. I also thnk there was an edition that came after this 1983 edition, which I haven't seen. I've just had a look at my 1968 edition of The Print" and it doesn't have the straight print examples.
Last edited:
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,973
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wouldn't. Honestly. I might feel for you, though.
Ah ha! I see where we disagree - please excuse my ignorance in assuming you were aware that there are many instances where the photographer has control over the subject and lighting - much nature, landscapes, portraiture, architecture, products, &c, &c.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, indeed we will have to just disagree, as our experiences of the subjects you list, and our aspirations for making fine quality prints of those subjects, are obviously very different.
As I've said already said my aim, and the aim of other photographers I've worked with, is to always produce negatives that require the minimum of manipulation at the printing stage. And there are multiple techniques that photographers are taught or learn to help with this, e.g using of fill in flash at weddings, spending a couple of days lighting large interiors with carefully positioned lights to balance out extremes of lighting (something I've done a lot of), using filters and modifying film development times to control contrast for B/W) etc etc etc
But both as a young boy when being taught printing by a neighbour and later, at the beginning of my career in photography, when being taught printing in a professional darkroom I was taught to always analyse a negative before printing (or after producing a straight "work print") to see how it might be improved by dodging, burning, grade of paper and cropping. I still have an equivalent approach with digital.
And I have learned that even a minimal amount of work, e.g. an almost imperceptible amount of burning in of the edges, can substantially improve how a print feels when viewed.
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
I find phrases like this to be a barrier to communication, when it comes to discussing any image. The use of such phrases implies an absolute scale of measurement. It was the rejection of such an approach to painting that (I think) moved Claude Monet to produce Impression, soleil levant and bootstrap the impressionist movement.
This is why I prefer to say that a particular image pleases me - or to say otherwise.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't believe it does imply an absolute scale of measurement. I would have thought that everyone will have a different concept of what "substantial" means. Isn't using a qualitative term like substantial implying the exact opposite of what you suggest.
In that response and earlier ones I was talking about my personal experiences (and in some instances other photographers I had experience of) , and I used the word substantial because the effect it has on the print is greater than you might expect, given how little dodging might be involved. It's also not only my view, but one shared by other people when viewing prints.
However, If someone doesn't think it makes a worthwhile difference when making their prints, then there is nothing says they need to do it.
You could, if you wanted to, make it more measurable i.e. show two prints, with and without dodging to a random sample of people and ask which one they prefer, and get a binary measure of preference. Or you could create study based around Likert scales and semi-quantify this emotional response i.e. draw conclusions that viewers find the dodged prints 2-3 time more pleasant to look at, or they draw the eye 2-3 times more, than the straight print, depending on the exact questions being asked.
I did this type of thing many times when helping people with the statistical design (and analysis) of food preference studies, and the same techniques are used by psychologists studying other preferences and reactions where there are no standard scales of measurement. Indeed, given that most of my work was with animal behaviour studies, quantifying the unquantifiable was a bit of a specialist area for me.
I’m afraid don't get the Monet allusion, even though I thought I knew a little bit about impressionism. I thought the big change was a move away from realistic representation in paintings (from early 19th century), but still normally studio based, to outdoor paintings aimed at capturing an emotional response to the subject, rather than an accurate rendering of what it looked like.
What absolute scale of measurement are you referring to?
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
Use of the adjective "fine" implies some form of measurement.
The derivation of the word is from the Latin "finis" via the French "fin" - both of which equate (generally) to the modern word "end" or possibly "boundary". Thus the phrase "fine quality" implies that the object is the ultimate or best of its kind and this in turn implies that a measurement of the quality has been performed and this is the result.
In a similar manner, "improve" is derived from the Latin "prodest" meaning "is of advantage" via the French "emprower" which had the meanings "make a profit" or "increase the value of" and subsequently "make greater" in amount or degree.
This is why I don't like the use of such terms in relation to images. Like (I believe) the Impressionists, I hold a simple opinion that all art is entirely in the eye of the beholder and there is no difference in kind or value between any two items. There can only be the effect that an image has on each individual viewer and therefor all opinions on the item are personal and in no way objective.
Of course, other opinions are available.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm still not at all sure what any of this has to do with me saying I have leaned that dodging the edges of prints can substantially improve them, but the core message of your comment seems to be the same one we have discussed, and disagreed on before, so I will leave it there.Use of the adjective "fine" implies some form of measurement.
The derivation of the word is from the Latin "finis" via the French "fin" - both of which equate (generally) to the modern word "end" or possibly "boundary". Thus the phrase "fine quality" implies that the object is the ultimate or best of its kind and this in turn implies that a measurement of the quality has been performed and this is the result.
In a similar manner, "improve" is derived from the Latin "prodest" meaning "is of advantage" via the French "emprower" which had the meanings "make a profit" or "increase the value of" and subsequently "make greater" in amount or degree.
This is why I don't like the use of such terms in relation to images. Like (I believe) the Impressionists, I hold a simple opinion that all art is entirely in the eye of the beholder and there is no difference in kind or value between any two items. There can only be the effect that an image has on each individual viewer and therefor all opinions on the item are personal and in no way objective.
Of course, other opinions are available.
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm simply pointing out that you're changing them but whether it "improves" them is a matter for each viewer to decide for themselves. That being the case: the decision to dodge or burn images has nothing to do with goodness but only with personal taste.
In my opinion, we have a duty to newcomers to point out that techniques which can be used to alter a "straight" print are not mandatory, may reduce the appeal of the image to viewers or may increase it.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
OK, I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I don't feel you have read my post(s) on this in the context of the post(s) I was replying to, which seemed to be suggesting that only people who weren't capable of making a "proper" negative needed to resort to dodging or burning.
And I still stand by what I said that "I" had never seen a negative that didn't benefit from some dodging or burning, even though there are occasions where a straight print may well be good enough.
As a retired university lecturer I believe we have a duty to newcomers/beginners/students to give them the skills, knowledge and understanding that helps them develop critical and independent thinking skills that will let them make up their own mind about things. So of course it is up to every photographer to make up their own mind about the need for dodging and burning. That is all part of the analysis stage I described.
I don't however, think that this duty extends to vetting every reply I make in this forum, just in case a beginner may misinterpret what is being discussed.
StephenM
I know a Blithering Idiot
- Messages
- 4,973
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I can only speak of my negatives, plus the few I've seen of others where they provided "straight" prints and their final prints. On that basis, I haven't seen a negative that printed straight to best effect. And I think (as someone said before me) that "good enough" is the enemy of the best.
?? I thought I made it clear that when the photographer has control of the lighting, subject and the processing, I don't believe further manipulation should be necessary. I will not insist upon it, however. Peace already!
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe you are just a better photographer than I am
Though it looks as if we are disagreeing over the subtleties of "necessary" and "desirable"
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I can speak for my own negatives and for others. Working as part of a team of photographers I often printed negatives which weren't mine.
Where I empathise with Carey, is that there were some photographers who spent their time to try and get as much right at the time of taking, whose negatives were easy to print (albeit still with some dodging and burning), I was one of them. Others obviously relied more on their printing skills and often produced negatives I found to be a nightmare to print.
This was hidden when they printed their own negatives, because they were often extremely good printers. But as I described in another post, it meant that instead of spending time refining a print to get the best out of it, with these negatives all my efforts went into producing "good enough" prints which were never as good as the prints made by the original photographer.
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't think we'll find common ground on this issue.
If I'm the better photographer, you ought to give it up! Exposure and focus is simple enough for what I do, and the way I do it, but that's about it.Maybe you are just a better photographer than I am
Last edited:
Had to think a bit about this (not an easy task!) That's not the way I see it. You want to add the effect when printing, I prefer to do it before releasing the shutter. So long as we each reach our goal, does it really matter?
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,593
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Almost impossible to get the same ideal settings for the sky and main subject so the sky may well need a bit of burning in to get the best out of any one negative. A straight print might be OK but the burned in one will almost certainly look better.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm all for people making their own photographs in the way they want to make them, and encourage it. But because of something you have now said, I feel like expanding on what I said earlier. Which I now realise is much more complicated to explain than I thought :-(
You said
"...many instances where the photographer has control over the subject and lighting - much nature, landscapes, portraiture, architecture, products, &c, &c."
I responded to suggest you had to be a better photographer than I am, because the refinements at the printing stage available from dodging and burning are "normally" too subtle for me to have even been aware of at the taking stage. So I don't see dodging and burning as adding an effect I could have chosen to add at the taking stage.
I see the taking, the developing and the printing (or digital processing) as a single unified process for making photographs With my understanding of the processing side (its strengths and weaknesses) informing the taking side. On occasions I will make decisions at the taking stage that involve anticipating some dodging and burning, but only for minor corrections.
For example, in a woodland shot where the best exposure to retain important shadow and highlight detail means some of the mid-tone tree trunks are likely to come out darker than I want them to (e.g. poor separation from the background) I will fall back on knowing I can lift these tones a little with some dodging during processing. I fairly regularly use a hand held spotmeter, to help with estimating tonal characteristics but in practice this type of issue may only come to light when I am analysing the image at the printing stage, and dodging or burning are my only option.
Another example, from the dark and distant days when people came into our studio for passport photographs, we had a standard set up so most people in the studio/shop could do the actual taking, and the most junior person would do the printing (which at one time was me) but everyone was taught to give a tiny bit of dodging or burning to make sure there was a little more detail brought out in the hair or/and people's beards. You could argue that this is an example where we should have got it right in camera, and adjusted lighting and exposure for every person, but in practice, it was more efficient and cost effective to rely on the tiny bit of dodging and burning required.
As the tonal range of film and digital is (normally) greater than the print, I am primarily working to make sure I capture as much information as possible on the film or file, at the taking stage, so I have maximum flexibility at the printing stage. If you don't get this bit right, then dodging and burning isn't going to be of much value.
I'm not sure what it is you disagree with about the necessary and desirable, the "necessary" part is getting it as good as you can get it in camera, the 'desirable' bit is refining it during processing to better match the intent and vision you had when you took it.
Which brings me back to how good a photographer one might be and that I don't have the skills, at the taking stage, to fully achieve the level of refinement I want in the final image, without some dodging and burning.
I'm interested in how you would tackle my woodland example.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
At least we don't disagree on everything
OP
- Messages
- 137
- Edit My Images
- No
It is interesting to read/hear all of the different perspectives. It highlights the fact that anything creative is open to interpretation. As for the decisive moment, I think it does exist. The attached image was spontaneous and taken within a fraction of a second of having seen the flag bearer out of the corner of my eye. Is it perfect....no, far from it....but then, what is perfect? Is that even attainable (sorry for the philosophical question). Do I like it, yes. Can I expect everyone to like it? No. That is the joy of creativity for me but it was certainly a decisive moment.
This whole thread answers my original question though....and no, darkroom skills clearly are not a dying art.
Do I like the principle of trying to get everything right in camera....yes. Do I always get it right....clearly, no. Would I adjust prints in the dark room....if I could, yes if it meant that there was an improvement (subjective) in my creative piece. (edit -taken on 35mm Kentmere 100)
This whole thread answers my original question though....and no, darkroom skills clearly are not a dying art.
Do I like the principle of trying to get everything right in camera....yes. Do I always get it right....clearly, no. Would I adjust prints in the dark room....if I could, yes if it meant that there was an improvement (subjective) in my creative piece. (edit -taken on 35mm Kentmere 100)
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
I think that the term "decisive moment" was a piece of mumbo jumbo that old Henri came up with when full of the vin ordinaire! 
But it is possible to freeze the action at the point where it provides the clearest record of what you saw and wanted to share with others. Some examples on film:
Leica M3 / 50mm Summicron...
Rollei 35B...
Mamiya 645 / 150mm...
Nikon F / 85mm ...
But it is possible to freeze the action at the point where it provides the clearest record of what you saw and wanted to share with others. Some examples on film:
Leica M3 / 50mm Summicron...
Rollei 35B...
Mamiya 645 / 150mm...
Nikon F / 85mm ...
Nod
Tootles
- Messages
- 45,593
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Thanks for that, Stephen. Had a quick look and will revisit the search. Did look at the petapixel comments which seem to descend in tone fairly rapidly! My copy of The Print should be with me by the weekend, as recommended by Graham (myotis). Not sure which of the editions it is - I'll know more when it gets here!
OP
- Messages
- 137
- Edit My Images
- No
@StephenM I am sure there is a YouTube video about that image of moonrise over hernandez. If I remember rightly it suggests that he was driving along and saw the image, but realised that the light was fading fast and took the shot with the intention of getting the contrast post......it was an interesting documentary. I will see if I can find the link.
(edit...my memory didn't serve me well....it was about exposing without a lightmeter rather than intending to correct post)
(edit...my memory didn't serve me well....it was about exposing without a lightmeter rather than intending to correct post)
Last edited:
OP
- Messages
- 137
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I may just be repeating what is in the video, but with Moonrise, Hernandez, as you say, Adams couldn't find his meter so based the exposure on the known luminance of the moon 250 candles per sq ft.
He initially processed the negative with a water bath development to keep detail in the foreground, but some years later decided this was too flat and treated the lower part of the negative with Kodak Intensifier to increase contrast.
In his book "Examples: the making of forty photographs" he describes the extensive burning and dodging needed to print this negative. He admits it’s a difficult negative to print that he never made a print he truly liked and that no two prints were ever the same.
He also says that, "The printed image has varied over the years; I have sought more intensity of light and richness of values as time goes by"
Briefly, if I cannot compose and expose as I want, I'll look for another subject. I use reflectors and electronic flash a lot. I mostly shoot color slides, and avoid bright sunlight – if it's not overcast I'm in the woods in the shade where the light is more even. I also don't photograph many wide or deep scenes, usually smaller detailed single subjects, which is probably what I would do with your woodland example.
- Messages
- 3,270
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
If you are using slide film, for a limited subject range, and have the option of simply not taking the picture then it's really a different discussion.
I have been talking about making prints where dodging and burning is used to allow detail recorded in the negative or digital file to be reproduced in the print.
All the things you have described are still needed before you get to the dodging and burning stage, because you still need a well exposed, well lit negative/file as a starting point. And I'm not saying every print needs dodging and burning, just that it’s a valuable creative tool and as I've said, I've never made a print where I didn't think it benefited from dodging and burning.
Much of what you describe is very similar my own approach, though as a professional photographer I didn't have the luxury of simply not taking a picture. And now a days I will often bracket digital files and merge them in Photoshop to extend the tonal range I can capture at the taking stage. I used to do the same with film for estate agent photographs, but its so much easier with digital.
The tree example was meant to illustrate subtle and localised tonal or colour ranges within a scene, which normally I wouldn't even notice at the taking stage, would be difficult to adjust for at the taking stage (probably impossible in the outdoor situations I'm thinking of) but become noticeable at the printing stage where they can be corrected through dodging or burning.
I think, with printing (or even posting online) there are two key assessment stages The first one where the aim is to get the best possible negative or digital file, and the second one where the aim is to get the best possible print from that negative or digital file.
But we are starting to go round in circles so maybe we should just end it here.
Last edited:
Time constraints and someone choosing my subjects are the very reasons I've had no interest in going pro.
And yes, we have beaten this to death, and then some. Cheers!
- Messages
- 9,258
- Edit My Images
- No
There are some compensations to taking pictures for money, like helicopter trips to odd parts of the country and the chance to take unusual pictures...
