Not unmeaningless...

[Mark Sawyer]

There's an old truism (that may or may not be true) in photography that a really well-made negative can be printed a bit light or dark and still give a good print.

I was looking through some prints tonight and noticed that some were a bit light or dark, but still looked like pretty nice prints.

And for one brief, shining moment, I almost felt as if I knew what I was doing...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

And for one brief, shining moment, I almost felt as if I knew what I was doing...

Who says you dont? It is hard to be your own critic, but if you are pleased trust your instincts.......they might very well be very good prints and you do know what you are doing.... :-)

[Oren Grad]

Expose a lot, develop a little, and true bliss shall be yours evermore...

[Frank Petronio]

Mark, the hard part is making two different prints look good together, like they all come from the same photographer while still being different. I've been struggling with this for twenty years now...

[Conrad Hoffman]

Adams called it interpreting the negative, and his early and later prints of the same negs can be very different. You also have variable lighting, requiring different density prints. Or, if you don't want to change the print, change the lighting! IMHO, overall print density can't vary by much, or the highlights don't look right to me. Regardless of lighting, I find highlights have to have the slightest perceptible density, then the density of the shadows, and thus contrast, has to be adjusted for viewing conditions. Obviously not all prints will have areas that need to be just over the base density, but pure white paper areas are usually my clue that a print needs more work, as are prints where I can't find anything light to fasten my eye on. I think the master of dark, yet effective prints, was W. Eugene Smith. Struggling for 30+ years here :-)

[Scott Davis]

Oren-

that sounds like the motto for a streaker.

:D

[Oren Grad]

that sounds like the motto for a streaker.

So long as they don't show up in my negatives!

< pause for reflection >

On second thought...

[Mark Sawyer]

"Adams called it interpreting the negative, and his early and later prints of the same negs can be very different."

Yes, they did change as he developed that very recognizable "ansel Adams" style; grand-scale, dramatic prints of grand-scale, dramatic subjects. One of Adams favorite mussic/pmetaphors was that the negative was the score, while the print was the performance. I always felt this was a little off, as I've heard wonderful performances of bad scores, but not wonderful prints from bad negatives...

Weston's style also changed in his later years, more in a way that reflected EW's changing perspectives on his own life, I think...

"I think the master of dark, yet effective prints, was W. Eugene Smith.

He was also the master of subtley bleaching back highlights, especially the whites of a subject's eyes. The highlights can glow fiercely in his dark prints creating an almost unearthly impact. I met him in his last years at the University of Arizona. A remarkable human being...

[John_4185]

"I think the master of dark, yet effective prints, was W. Eugene Smith.

He was also the master of subtley bleaching back highlights, especially the whites of a subject's eyes. The highlights can glow fiercely in his dark prints creating an almost unearthly impact. I met him in his last years at the University of Arizona. A remarkable human being...

Smith was fond of manipulating photographs except in his later years. He moved the eyes of one subject so that she wasn't looking at the camera. No harm. He never claimed he did not manipulate. IMHO he was a great 35mm printer.

You found him remarkable - that's good! Perhaps he had put the drug and alcohol issues behind him by then.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Gene Smith made some remarkable prints from atrocious negatives!

[Mark Sawyer]

".......they might very well be very good prints and you do know what you are doing.... :-)"

Perhaps, but I'd never admit to it!

When I met Gene Smith, he was in his final year; he was given a professorship at the UA as part of the deal to get his archives into the Center for Creative Photography. He was almost an invalid at that point, but could still be clear-minded, and was often philosophical and retrospective about his career, photography, and life in general. I think the Minimata experience took a lot from his health; he ate the same mercury-laden fish as the Japanese villagers. But I'm sure the drugs and alcohol (was that mostly related to his time in the Jazz culture?) took its toll too...

[Mark Sampson]

It's probable that Smith's drug/alcohol problems went back to WW2. At that time someone wrote that he seemed to exist on Benzedrine (speed), chocolate bars, and Scotch. And of course he was badly wounded in the war, so there may have been some pain-killer issues as well. He did teach a course called "Photography Made Difficult" at one time. My own feeling, FWIW, is that he made a magnificent achievement in spite of himself.

[Mark Sawyer]

Wounded in WWII, beat up by anti-union thugs while documenting a labor struggle (I think that was where his nose was broken; it made Ansel's look straight!), getting mercury poisoning along with the Minimata villagers... he didn't talk about it much, but Smith felt an involvement with whoever he photographed, and often shared in whatever tragedies were occuring.

Okay, let's go back to complaining how deeply we suffer having to mail-order our film...

[Walt Calahan]

Gene Smith father committed suicide during the years of the Great Depression. It's my opinion that was the great tragedy in his life is what drove him to drugs and alcohol. Losing his father put a huge hole in his heart that he could never fill, so the pain never went away. All the other suffering paled in comparison.

[David Hempenstall]

from what I have read, Gene Smith's father shot himself in the stomach in the parking lot of a local hospital.

Gene was brought in to make a transfusion, but it didn't save his father.

On the drugs, jazz, photography, darkroom work.... all I can say is he went for it. Commitment to what he felt.

Whether his approach was right, wrong or misguided is for other people to form an opinion on.

D.