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...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
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.... :-)
Expose a lot, develop a little, and true bliss shall be yours evermore...
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...
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 :-)
Oren-
that sounds like the motto for a streaker.
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...
"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...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
"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.
Gene Smith made some remarkable prints from atrocious negatives!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks