Print defects, what do you consider acceptable?

[vinny]

So I'm a perfectionist. Maybe it's because my dad is the opposite and it drives me crazy. When I ship a print to a buyer, the print and all aspects of the mounting process must be aligned and free of defects even though I know the majority of viewers would never notice if something wasn't perfect.
I've got plenty of negs I don't print because of dust, scratches, defects in film and others where the resulting prints have one or two dust spots in the open sky that I can't fix with spotting techniques. I've seen plenty of gallery prints in person that were made much worse by picking at them with an exacto and spotting inks. Personally, I've never had anyone complain about my work hanging on a wall or a purchase.
When it comes to silver gelatin darkroom prints, at what point do you say "this is good enough to ship"?
How many defects are acceptable in this analog world where dust happens?

Lets not make this another spotting techniques thread.

[Bill Burk]

I try to be realistic about print defects. I spot to make the print presentable, but I do not expect perfect. I am irritated by big white spots you can see a mile away. And I wish more photographers would spot their work (when I see raw posts of neg scans).

I spot on the negatives when there would be black spots on the print. I just haven't had much luck scratching the black off the print even though I have the right tool.

Six spots of black on the neg (to pick an arbitrary threshold) is about it. Past that point, I reconsider the print. Once I did maybe 20 spots on the negative and then had to spot them back on the print. It "worked" but I knew that was pushing the limit of flaws that I am willing to attend to in a print. The finished print is OK but not going to be one of the negatives I return to for more prints...

I think nothing of 20 or more white specks on the print that need to be spotted. And I will try to fix a white hair or scratch in the sky but results can be iffy. A white hair or scratch in the midst of trees or other easily camoflaged areas are no problem.

When I do my spotting, I have a stack of prints that I want to finish, and I spend maybe 5 minutes a print... Go on to the next and then after a pass through the stack I'll go through again to get the spots I missed last time. The work itself goes very quickly and in context of one print compared to the next - pretty soon all the prints are up to standard.

[Jody_S]

I have never offered one of my prints for sale because I have never been satisfied with the technical side of any of my prints. So I guess you can take this a little too far (or I'm a really bad printer).

[Vaughn]

Many of AA's prints are covered with 'defects'...I was surprised.

My Silver gelatin prints that I mount and consider to be finished prints are defect-free. I am looser with my hand made prints (carbon)...the hand of the artist and all that.

[Heroique]

Zealous dust management, from moment one, is the ounce of prevention that’s worth a pound of spotting and etching tools.

So is careful film handling. Not just during loading and unloading, but during field work, tray development, and enlargement tasks.

You might say that acceptability, for me, starts early and stays late.

[Bill Burk]

Zealous dust management, from moment one, is the ounce of prevention that’s worth a pound of spotting and etching tools.

So is careful film handling. Not just during loading and unloading, but during field work, tray development, and enlargement tasks.

You might say that acceptability, for me, starts early and stays late.

You have a point. Being relegated to the garage, my darkroom is a worst-case scenario. Drew Wiley's cleanroom with no cotton shirts is the best-case scenario. You may have chosen a point of cleanliness in-between and get fine results.

That IS a dog hair in the sky of the unspotted print in my viewing area. Only one place that would have come from. Loading. I do have a dog who spends much time in the garage. I swear, I am not a slob about it. By that I mean I am not careless. I wipe the loading table with damp sponge and vacuum the Grafmatics between loads. But the inevitable does occur. I like Vaughn's phrase... the hand of the artist.

I accept these defects, minimized by retouching, as the hand of the artist for my Silver gelatin prints.

Like Jody_S, I haven't offered prints for sale. Not because I am unsatisfied... I am satisfied with my results... Maybe the topic of another thread...

[Vaughn]

...I like Vaughn's phrase... the hand of the artist...

A beard hair in the gelatin in the midst of the busy forest of the image I can over-look, but a print where the 'hand of the artist' (another beard hair) ended up over the right buttock of a beautiful woman leaning against a redwood was a bit too much! LOL!

The image without the beard hair: (the image is reversed when carbon printing, thus her right buttock is on the left).

PS -- and before anyone else says it, No...her boyfriend was with us, and the actual hand of the artist did not touch her buttocks...:cool:

[vinny]

Zealous dust management, from moment one, is the ounce of prevention that’s worth a pound of spotting and etching tools.

So is careful film handling. Not just during loading and unloading, but during field work, tray development, and enlargement tasks.

You might say that acceptability, for me, starts early and stays late.

I'm pretty careful when loading holders but I DID live in southern california* for about the first 10 years of my large format foray. Even with the windows sealed, dust just appeared in my makeshift darkroom, not to mention out shooting. I've got plenty of roll film negs with unexplainable defects as well. That's just how it goes and not the point of this thread. The more I try to "fix" a print, the worse it gets 9 out of ten times so I'm often tempted to leave it alone.

Vaughn, no one likes a hairy ass. (I guess I shouldn't speak for the entire forum here but I sure don't).


*los angeles, dirtiest place north of mexico

[Bill Burk]

Keep in mind, you are supposed to spot to hide the defects from viewing distance. This can be done in a somewhat illogical way, by making a dark spot inside an otherwise white speck, on average it's invisible at a distance.

But if you persisted at that same spot trying to make it look right close-up - you would end up with a halo at a distance.

Yet many smaller spots disappear entirely when the correct amount of spotting is done. Watching this happen is magical, in the same sense of the magic watching the print come up in developer. I get an emotional response when I see a spot disappear.

[Leigh]

How many defects are acceptable in this analog world where dust happens?
For prints that hang on my wall, for guests to view or throw darts, defects that are invisible at 2-3 feet are OK.

For prints that are sold (very few), zero. This may entail post-printing clean-up.
If there's an issue that might make that impossible, a dialog with the purchaser is appropriate.

Just a personal opinion.

- Leigh

[Heroique]

A beard hair in the gelatin in the midst of the busy forest of the image I can over-look, but a print where the 'hand of the artist' (another beard hair) ended up over the right buttock of a beautiful woman leaning against a redwood was a bit too much! LOL!

Nothing like Redwood bark to conceal film defects!

It’s one of the very best perquisites of living from N. California, Oregon, Washington, to BC.

(Vaughn, your shot is the best example of “providing scale” ever posted on this forum. Not just to the gigantic redwood, but to the tiny Barbie-like human figure. I just hope the boyfriend never finds out about your beard hair being found on her right buttock, or you better run!)

[Liquid Artist]

I usually try my best to avoid defects, however 2 of my best pieces had more dust specks and even beard hair than you could possible count.
All the imperfections just happened to add to the themes
One on digital, and one on 4x5.

However both of the pieces are rather ghostly. Which may help explain it.

[Vaughn]

...(Vaughn, your shot is the best example of “providing scale” ever posted on this forum...

Of course that is the only reason I used nude models out in the redwoods...:o

The wharf image below takes about two hours to spot -- and I can (or could -- it has been a long time) get it to the point where no defects are visible up close. "Viewing distance" be damned -- I want to get my nose up to the glass! The problem was high humidity static discharges while the exposed 4x5 film rattled in a film box for over a 1000 miles while bicycling in NZ (lots of rain, lots of gravel roads). I have some negs with static discharges that were worse and some not as bad -- but I felt this image made the time spent worthwhile.

For 'scale', I tossed in another of my boys in the redwoods -- and no, I can not get them to take their clothes off! (8x10 Carbon print)

The wharf was taken with a 4x5 on TMax100 and this is a 16x20 silver gelatin print.

[Stephen Willard]

My best selling print is my largest print at 20x50. Big panoramic prints fit real nice over coaches. It sells for $1450. At that price any print defect would result in a return and an angry customer.

I use two llamas and my tired old back to port 250 pounds in the back country. We can stay in for up to 30 days before we have to return for fresh film and provisions. Over the years I have learned how to cut film from 8x10 to 5x7 and 4x10 and change film in the field with less 1% of my negatives having a dust spot. I only bring 4 film holders of each size into the back country. So I do a lot of film changing in the field.

Enlarging big prints can be a big problem with the smallest dust spots on the negative growing many times in size. When I first embarked on doing big prints in my tiny darkroom it would take me on average 2 hours to spot a color 20x50 print. As time marched on, and I developed methods of how to clean a negative, I have reduced my spotting time to less than 15 minutes.

Handling big prints is highly problematic because of how easy large sheets of photographic paper creases. Cutting 20x50 sheets of color paper from 40” x 160’ roll paper in total darkness is not easy and handling that size in the darkroom is just as hard. When I first started up to 60% of my prints were scrapped because of creases in the paper. Now, I have reduced that to less than 5%.

[Kevin Crisp]

If it is a print I am framing and giving to someone, or they are buying one, then no defect that is noticeable. By that I mean that if I would have to take the recipient up close to the print and point them specifically to where I retouched something, I don't consider it noticeable.

I am sure anybody who has spotted has had the experience of being unable to find what you worked on when you come back to the print after a few minutes. That's the goal for me.

[Vaughn]

I just love the way a raw 16x20 B&W print cleans up with just a little Spotone.

[mathieu Bauwens]

Hello Stephen,

could you please explain us what is your technique to avoid dust when changing films on field ?

Thanks

[Stephen Willard]

Hello Stephen,

could you please explain us what is your technique to avoid dust when changing films on field ?

Thanks

Hi Mathieu,

I will try to get back to by midday tomorrow. I hope to attach a document that I take into the field with me. I will have to supplement it with some photos so that you can understand what I am talking about. I always take two exposures to cover any dust problems, but even then, it is so rare I ever get a dust hole in the negative. In most cases, when I do get dust hole, it is usually very very small. I use a 10x head jeweler magnifier to inspect my negs for dust holes. If there is a hole, then I will find it no matter how small it is. Remember, I do big enlargements and tiny dust spots can get real big when doing that kind of stuff. So I am real particular, and I will look for any imperfection to reject a negative.

-Stephen

[mathieu Bauwens]

Thanks a lot

[ROL]

When it comes to silver gelatin darkroom prints, at what point do you say "this is good enough to ship"?

Good enough is when I can no longer correct by spotting anything viewable under normal viewing distances, normal lighting, and normal magnification. I spot with 3.5 strong diopter eyeglasses under strong light, changing to normal specs (it used to be the naked eye :rolleyes:) for final evaluation. Sufficient spotting corrections are achieved when no thusly visible imperfections are noticeable. That said, I have thrown out an entire run of 20x24" otherwise well executed prints, when I discovered at the spotting stage that a hair had fallen within an inopportune region of the composition during enlarging, and could not be spotted out. I believe the "wastage" is part and parcel directly related to pricing, both in terms of the commitment to excellency and to craft. BTW, anyone who has witnessed this, is absolutely horrified. Never let them see you make the sausage!

As previously referred, I was cured once and for all of all pretense of unerring perfection in making fine art prints after seeing one of AA's better known prints, literally peppered with small, easily discernible dust spots.




So I'm a perfectionist.

I offer the following bit of unsolicited philosophy, not aimed at you specifically, but instigated by the loathsome term, perfectionist:


perfectionist |pərˈfekSHəˌnist|
noun
a person who refuses to accept any standard short of perfection: he was a perfectionist who worked slowly.

adjective
refusing to accept any standard short of perfection.


I don't know you, or your posts, so anything that follows should not be viewed as a personal attack. If it hits home in any way, as it does with me, and makes a potentially bitter pill easier to swallow, simply replace all pronouns with I, he/she – W(hatever) (with proper syntax corrections).

Who the hell do you think you are? God? You're better than the rest of us? Maybe your perfect isn't as perfect as mine, or his/hers, or theirs. This may be fourth grade remembrances, but I recall a study of Native American (Indian, then) cultures in which it was common practice for Navajo/Hopi rug weavers to purposely weave in errors at the corners of their otherwise perfect work, because as humans, they could not, by definition, attain the perfection of "god". That used to be one hallmark of an authentic hand made Native American weaving.

Forget film, and printing your own work, if you want perfect. Digital is your answer for the perfect. The world is now awash in perfect imagery in all its forms – perfectly executed by machine, and in great part, perfectly mundane and soulless. Absent the imperfect human hand, of what value is art in representing the human soul? How is art to be judged? One machine against the next? Which is all to conclude that it is the imperfections, no matter how small, which mark the work as unique, and human.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the (very) good. Rejoice in those imperfections and your commitment to make them while machines churn out perfect work (obviously – not talking of sloppy, poorly executed work of any kind). They will mark your work as yours, no one else's – not even God's.


I hope you accept the above in the spirit within which it was offered – and I apologize for using so many perfectly obscene words. ;)

[vinny]

Good enough is when I can no longer correct by spotting anything viewable under normal viewing distances, normal lighting, and normal magnification. I spot with 3.5 strong diopter eyeglasses under strong light, changing to normal specs (it used to be the naked eye :rolleyes:) for final evaluation. Sufficient spotting corrections are achieved when no thusly visible imperfections are noticeable. That said, I have thrown out an entire run of 20x24" otherwise well executed prints, when I discovered at the spotting stage that a hair had fallen within an inopportune region of the composition during enlarging, and could not be spotted out. I believe the "wastage" is part and parcel directly related to pricing, both in terms of the commitment to excellency and to craft. BTW, anyone who has witnessed this, is absolutely horrified. Never let them see you make the sausage!

As previously referred, I was cured once and for all of all pretense of unerring perfection in making fine art prints after seeing one of AA's better known prints, literally peppered with small, easily discernible dust spots.





I offer the following bit of unsolicited philosophy, not aimed at you specifically, but instigated by the loathsome term, perfectionist:


perfectionist |pərˈfekSHəˌnist|
noun
a person who refuses to accept any standard short of perfection: he was a perfectionist who worked slowly.

adjective
refusing to accept any standard short of perfection.


I don't know you, or your posts, so anything that follows should not be viewed as a personal attack. If it hits home in any way, as it does with me, and makes a potentially bitter pill easier to swallow, simply replace all pronouns with I, he/she – W(hatever) (with proper syntax corrections).

Who the hell do you think you are? God? You're better than the rest of us? Maybe your perfect isn't as perfect as mine, or his/hers, or theirs. This may be fourth grade remembrances, but I recall a study of Native American (Indian, then) cultures in which it was common practice for Navajo/Hopi rug weavers to purposely weave in errors at the corners of their otherwise perfect work, because as humans, they could not, by definition, attain the perfection of "god". That used to be one hallmark of an authentic hand made Native American weaving.

Forget film, and printing your own work, if you want perfect. Digital is your answer for the perfect. The world is now awash in perfect imagery in all its forms – perfectly executed by machine, and in great part, perfectly mundane and soulless. Absent the imperfect human hand, of what value is art in representing the human soul? How is art to be judged? One machine against the next? Which is all to conclude that it is the imperfections, no matter how small, which mark the work as unique, and human.

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the (very) good. Rejoice in those imperfections and your commitment to make them while machines churn out perfect work (obviously – not talking of sloppy, poorly executed work of any kind). They will mark your work as yours, no one else's – not even God's.


I hope you accept the above in the spirit within which it was offered – and I apologize for using so many perfectly obscene words. ;)

I'm going to mail you a bunch of prints I do not want to spot (I'll make them worse) and give you a week to clean em up. Deal?
I spotted three prints (same image) today that had only one speck of white in the clouds. It was in the emulsion of the neg and rollfilm. The spot is still there, doesn't match the light grey cloud, but is less noticable. I guess I should have one of you guys show me how to do this in person because all the reading I've done doesn't make it any easier.

[Stephen Willard]

Hey Mathieu,

Here goes...

I use the harrison film tent in the field. It is mounted to a wooden platform made of two pieces of 1/4” plywood bolted together. This allows me rope each half on opposing saddle packs of my llamas.

90% of all dust contamination in the field is from dried skin flaking off and falling the emulsion surfaces of the film. This is aggravated by the bands on the sleeves of the Harrison tent which will loosen lots of dried skin. Air board dust in the back country is only a fraction of the air board dust in urban areas.

I seal my film holders in antistatic bags. I store my film between two pieces of black mat board that protects the film. This sandwich is then inserted into a paper sleeve made out of black poster board and sealed. The paper envelope is then inserted in a plastic envelope that is made from silver coated black plastic that is light proof. I recycle this material from the sleeves that my 16x20 Fuji Crystal archive paper is stored in. All sleeves and envelopes are tape together using super heavy duty duck tape. The duck tape adds rigidity to the sleeves and envelopes.

Attached please find the following:


Field Notes.doc. Section B covers changing film in the field.

A floor plan of how I layout the film in the Harrison tent. This will help you understand my notes.

An assortment of other images to help you understand my notes.



If you go to the following thread you will find how I clean my negs in the darkroom.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?18562-Cleaning-Film-Electrostatic-Cleaners-and-Filters&p=983185#post983185

I was unable to attach the doc file so what follows is a cut and paste. Hope this helps...


Procedure for changing film in film tent

1. Check List:

• Film tent secured to the wooden platform
• Compressed air and backup canister
• Nitrate film gloves and sleeves
• Tripod with table top attached
• Scotch-Brite Scouring pads
• Two seat pads for kneeling
• Both llama panniers
• Film storage bags
• Film holders
• Knee brace
• Back brace
• Headlamp
• Bug spray
• Lantern
• Glasses
• Sponge
• iPod
• Hat

2. Compressed Air: You need about 1.5 cans of compressed air for every 40 sheets of new film brought into the backcountry. The four cans I brought in were sufficient for a long trip.

3. Compressed Air: For the year of 2009, I only used 4 cans of compressed air.

4. Compressed Air: Use the almost empty weaker compressed air bottles for cleaning the outside of film holders. Use fuller air bottles with higher pressure for cleaning the interior of the film holders prior to loading new film.

5. Compressed Air: For extended trips bring 3 cans of compressed air and extra pair of film gloves

6. Preparation: You should not let the film come in contact with any surfaces other than film. The protective card covers, or when it is in the film holder.

7. Preparation: Make sure the film-changing tent is level.

8. Preparation: It is very important to vigorously shake out the film gloves and arm sleeves before changing film. They can pick up a lot of dust.

9. Preparation: I have switched from using baby wipes to washing my hands to dish soap and then scrubbing them with the green Scotch-Brite scouring pads to remove any dead skin before changing film. The dish soap not dry out the skin as much.

10. Preparation: Rub hands vigorously together with fingers interlocked. This will further help to remove any dead skin that may flake off on to the film. Perform the task over the black floor of the film tent. This will allow you to see if any dry skin is still shedding. Hands should be dry before rubbing hands to be most effective at shedding any dry skin.

11. Preparation: Playing iPod music while changing film makes the job go faster.

12. Preparation: Put back brace on to prevent lower back pain.

13. Preparation: Put knee brace on if knee is acting up.

14. Preparation: Wipe down the interior of the tent with a synthetic sponge. Place two layers of kneepads at base of changing tent for kneeling, a bottle of compressed air on office tripod table, the propane lantern light to heat the compressed as it cools and loses pressure, and eye glasses.

15. Preparation: Using bottled compressed air, blow off the film holders before removing the exposed film.

16. Cleaning: When using compressed air, place the air can on top of lantern for a brief moment to warm it up before applying a discharge of air. This will help to maintain the compression in the can.

17. Cleaning: When placing exposed film holders in the film tent, do not blow them off with compressed air. Blowing on them with your own wind is sufficient because dust is no long a problem after exposure. This will save on compressed air usage.

18. Cleaning: Use the lantern to warm compressed air canisters only when cleaning empty film holders. This will save on propane fuel.

19. Cleaning: Whenever possible, change film during the day because it is warmer than nighttime and the compressed air cans will work better.

20. Critical Technique: 90% of all dust comes from the hands and arms shedding dried skin. Cover the hands using Atlas Nitrile gloves with the tip of the forefinger cut off and the upper part of the thumb cut off. Cover the arms with arm sleeves. By only exposing your forefinger and your thumb you can still manipulate the film. Insert hands and arms up to the very end of the sleeves. Do not expose any arm skin inside the tent. The gloves should be as dark as possible in color to show the dust that is clinging to them.

21. Technique: Place clips, and slide covers of film envelops inside the left-hand side of tent so that they do not interfere with loading film and the dark slides.

22. Technique: After removing the exposed film from the film holders, clean all surfaces of the film holders with bottled compressed air. Make sure you blow out the light traps of film holder. Place the film holders back in the tent with the dark slides installed. Treat the dark slides like film and do not allow them to touch any surfaces either.

23. Preparation: Clean the outside of the new film package with the synthetic sponge. Use the film storage package to push against the inside walls of film changing tent to remove wrinkles in the tent floor. Remove the rubber band from package, and place the new film package in the back center of the tent with flap down.

24. Technique: Place all film inside the changing tent facing downward on the protective mat board covers to protect against dust.

25. Technique: Place the new film in the middle of the tent on top of the matt board film covers. The emulsion side of the film should be facing down to further prevent dust from landing on the emulsion surface. Place the unloaded film holders to the left.

26. Technique: When getting an unloaded film holder to load, do not allow your hands to pass above the uncovered new film.

27. Technique: Put your left finger on lower left corner of the film stack for removing or adding film. This will keep the film stack from sliding all over the place.

28. Technique: When loading the film, only open the dark slide of the holder up just enough to let film in. Close the dark slide immediately. The will help reduce and dust from getting inside the holder.

29. Technique: After loading the holder, make sure the dark slide lock screws are locked by pulling on the dark slide.

30. Technique: Place the loaded film holder to the right.

31. Technique: Once loaded, each film holder is then clean again on the outside and place in an antistatic bag (that has been blown out clean) and sealed.

32. Technique: The plastic car boxes worked very well as a table for the film-changing tent.

[Stephen Willard]

Attached are some more pictures that may help...

Good luck.

-Stephen

[Vaughn]

A real mountain man could change film while walking along the trail with the tent set up on the back of a llama...;o)

[Stephen Willard]

A real mountain man could change film while walking along the trail with the tent set up on the back of a llama...;o)

Whether I am a real mountain man or not is not the point. What I can say, definitively, is that I am the oldest man on the mountain and nothing more...

[Bill Burk]

I'm going to mail you a bunch of prints I do not want to spot (I'll make them worse) and give you a week to clean em up. Deal?
I spotted three prints (same image) today that had only one speck of white in the clouds. It was in the emulsion of the neg and rollfilm. The spot is still there, doesn't match the light grey cloud, but is less noticable. I guess I should have one of you guys show me how to do this in person because all the reading I've done doesn't make it any easier.

You can send me a few... How much harm can I do?

[Bill Burk]

Stephen Willard,

Thanks for sharing your detailed procedure. It proves you can operate cleanly in the wilderness, something I couldn't even imagine before.

While I couldn't see myself being that thorough, following even a few of your tips could make a big difference.

[Vaughn]

Whether I am a real mountain man or not is not the point. What I can say, definitively, is that I am the oldest man on the mountain and nothing more...

I packed mules for ten summers -- I never trusted them (or my skill) with my 8x10 camera. Plus waking up with the hint of light, taking care of the mules, building/maintaining trails for 8+ hours then back at camp taking care of the mules and cooking dinner never left me with time nor energy to photograph before or after work. But I was a younger man then -- quit while I was still a young punk of 36 years and went to work at a university.

I may have packed mules, but I don't call myself a mulepacker. Not enough time spent at it and seasonal as well...and a city boy at that -- the mules taught me everything I know about packing and riding...which makes me about as smart as they were (but brighter than some of the local boys that were hired to work with me, though).

Keep on trucking!

[mathieu Bauwens]

Thanks a ot Stephen, this will sure help a lot.