"good enough" what does it mean to you ?

[Vaughn]

I should do that, too. It has happened way too many times that I just couldn't tell which one was the "final" print and which was hours earlier in the process...

I do not clip the corners of the work print (straight print with no burning/dodging, Print #0). I then clip the upper left corner of the next print (print #1) -- going around clockwise, clipping only the upper right corner for #2. Working around, print #5 would have both upper corners clipped, and so on. Print #9 (and the last one from the pack) will have all four corners clipped. Works for me.

Generally, I was disappointed by what I would see on the work print. But somewhere in the 12 hour printing session, the image would change and come alive in my eyes. I think this is one of the reasons I like printing so much and find it equal to the joy of exposing the film. But it was always a bummer to see the dry prints from one of these sessions and find that none of the prints were good enough. If the problem was fixable, I would print it again. If it was a problem with the original seeing, or if would require too much work, I would put the negative away and print an equally enticing negative instead. Life is too short for shitty negatives.

[invisibleflash]

If a photo is good enough to get into a museum it is generally good enough for me...but not in all cases.

[invisibleflash]

I do not clip the corners of the work print (straight print with no burning/dodging, Print #0). I then clip the upper left corner of the next print (print #1) -- going around clockwise, clipping only the upper right corner for #2. Working around, print #5 would have both upper corners clipped, and so on. Print #9 (and the last one from the pack) will have all four corners clipped. Works for me.

Generally, I was disappointed by what I would see on the work print. But somewhere in the 12 hour printing session, the image would change and come alive in my eyes. I think this is one of the reasons I like printing so much and find it equal to the joy of exposing the film. But it was always a bummer to see the dry prints from one of these sessions and find that none of the prints were good enough. If the problem was fixable, I would print it again. If it was a problem with the original seeing, or if would require too much work, I would put the negative away and print an equally enticing negative instead. Life is too short for shitty negatives.

Yes, lots of work to get a crapper in shape. I spent 2.5 hours on this one.

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.files.wordpres...d-teoli-jr.jpg

[Bill Burk]

Generally, I was disappointed by what I would see on the work print. But somewhere in the 12 hour printing session, the image would change and come alive in my eyes. I think this is one of the reasons I like printing so much and find it equal to the joy of exposing the film.

Is this with Carbon?

Anyway, I found your thoughts here valuable... After all... Good enough should be when it comes alive!

[Darin Boville]

what does good enough mean where you are standing at the moment

It means I'm exhausted and should put things on hold until I've had a bit of rest...

---Darin

[LabRat]

I think this abstract needs to separated and divided up a bit...

Is there a technical problem one is trying to overcome??? Is the glaring problem something that started before the printing session, like a thin neg, new (old) box of paper or something??? Or something in that session, like a cold developer, prints not snapping due to overused developer, etc??? These are problems that are affecting the outcome, and there is a solution somewhere...

I find that with a good neg, all the other ducks-in-a-row, and consistent process, wet printing should be fairly straightforward... If something looks weird, there is a problem somewhere...

Is it just that you don't like it??? That's another matter...

Maybe you have never printed that neg before... Maybe you expect the print to look like something else??? I think that at that point it's a good idea not to beat it into your submission, but to go through one's normal process, not to make the final call on the fly, but wash/dry it, move on to the next print, and see if what you dislike carried over... Before it makes 'you nuts, (and you waste a lot of material) put it aside for a few days without looking at it, and then take a fresh look at it when you are not so tired... It's new, and has a personality of it's own...

Often before truly drying (like 48hrs, then hot pressed flat in a dry mount press), some DWFB papers don't have a good bite/mushy tones/blacks not solid/highlights to light etc...

And maybe your mood is coloring what you see...

My usual big mistake is choosing a more difficult neg to start my session with to get it out of the way... So if I have trouble with it, I've started the session hammering on my own brain, and likely to make me feel irritated for the rest of the session (and cloud my vision)... Now had I warmed up with the easy negs, I'd be more in the zone during the workout and more confident finding a solution to the harder negs... And have more good prints to show for it in the end because I got into the zone early... Not just that one tough print at the end...

Yes, I respect and practice pre-visualization, but a important milestone for me is that I realize that I don't control the process, it controls me... That is, I create an environment the best way I can for the processes to do their thing during the "birthing" stage, but it will find it's own potentials... But I help it along, give it what it needs to grow, and I hopefully have the experience to second guess it while it grows... (Like plants or children) And it's important to be able to know when to walk away from it because IT reached it's potential...

Good enough??? I think it's like rolling a rock up a hill... You have to roll it as high up as you can, because it will roll back down on 'ya, but maybe it will end up in a OK place you are cool with...


Steve K

[Vaughn]

Is this with Carbon?...

No, this was with silver gelatin printing, up to about 1992. But 99% of my printing sessions for the past 30 years go from about 8 or 9 in the evening, then through the night.

A carbon printing session will see me make about 8 exposures over the 12 hours. Exposure times under the UV lights are 1 to 2 hours and I have a couple exposing at a time. I spent two years printing carbons before getting prints "good enough" (pre-internet fora, so I was learning on my own and a magazine article). Then perhaps I would get one or two 'keepers' per printing session -- but many times none...many many prints were not 'good enough'...if I managed to get a print at all.

But the way I approach an image is totally different now that I am carbon printing and platinum printing. All that burning, dodging, and creative work I did under the enlarger lamp with silver printing I now do as part as the act of seeing when I compose on the GG. My carbon and platinum prints are full frame with no dodging or burning. I reject a lot of my negatives because they were not seen good enough, and/or not technically good enough (exposure, contrast, focus, etc).

[Peter Spangenberg]

I have this Stieglitz quote pinned up in my darkroom:
"Nearly right is child's play."
I can't count the times that quote has resulted in me going to bed to take a fresh look the next day.