Consistent Printing Over Time For The Same Negative

[neil poulsen]

I just reprinted a really neat B&W negative. As a matter of practice, I always keep the best print as a reference, and I keep a print record so I know the amount of dodging, burning, etc., that I did. Yet, it's still difficult to get the same result. There can be so much variation in the darkroom printing process.

What do others do to obtain consistent results? Of course, one can improve the print, and tastes change over time. But, given that one wants the same print as before, what steps can one take to accomplish this task?

[ronald lamarsh]

Sounds like you have done everything possible. I've found it very difficult if not impossible to exactly repaeat burning and dodgeing. The only method I know of to reduce this to a science is a selective masking technique as detailed in View Camera AugJuly 99 issue article by Alan Ross. It seems rather complex but could be the solution for you as the masks can be sotored with the neg for alter use.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Neil,

I have found that once I determine the proper exposure, contrast, and burning/dodging sequence, I expose three, or four sheets of paper using the same exact sequence. Then, I develope all of the sheets of paper at the same time. Shuffling them in the developer tray, similar to tray development of film. At least, I have a few prints that are as close to identical as I can possibly make. I store the extra prints in an archival box for future use.

[Ron Bose]

I remember reading one of Michael Simith's articles on this, one factor he accounted for was that the time taken for the enlarger light to reach peak output was variable.

He then described a method where you turn on the enlarger light with the paper covered, wait a few seconds, then remove the cover to begin exposure.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

When I was doing silver printing, the one factor that contribuited to consistent printing was using graded paper. I was never able to make the same print with VC paper, with graded paper this problem was solved.

[Robert J Cardon]

But is 100% consistency always the goal? I bet even with the slight variations, the prints are still wonderful. Isn't the fact that every traditionally print is slightly different, especially with complicated dodge/burn moves, one of the attractions of the wet darkroom, knowing you've created a one of a kind work? This isn't quite the case with digital. Custom craft vs. flawless replication through technology.

RJ

[Guy Tal]

The obvious answer would be to have it scanned, digitally processed, and profiled. I'm assuming you're looking for something other than the obvious though.

Guy

[Mike Chini]

You can also use a timer (or metronome) that beeps every second to precisely time your dodging and burning. Also, as was mentioned above, expose all of the prints at once and then develop them in fresh developer. You should then have almost exact results. Almost.

[David F. Stein]

How different is striving for identical hand-made prints any different from "identical" copies generated by computer controlled laser-optical enlargers or an inkjet printer. Nevertheless, I think one answer is that photographers often made a new master negative by copying the best or desired print and then contact printed that negative for editions. Much like the LensWork Special Editions prints, which are contact printed on fiber base paper through an imagesetter-generated negative—or Hollywood films for most of this century. Look at the some of the dodging and burning "game plans" in photo articles over the years; they make an NFL coach's "chalkboard" look like grade school stuff! I never believed them. The best analogy is traditional printmaking where a plate could be inked and wiped and printed by hand to get an as close as possible series-that could run into the low hundreds. How much better to accept interpreting that negative or plate anew each time it is printed. GOOD LUCK.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I regularly make batches of prints with excellent consistency, some from negatives that require considerable manipulation. I generally warm up the Aristo VCL 4500 head while I'm preparing my trays of chemistry. I have a printing recipe for every negative and for those requiring detailed, localized dodging and burning, I make an Alan Ross DB mask as described in numerous recent articles by Howard Bond. I use a Gra-lab electronic timer and am generally working at exposure times under 20 seconds. My paper is always VC fiber. I think a lot of people have trouble making several prints because they haven't found the simplest way to make the first print. Finding the best contrast grade(s) of paper or filter(s) for the negative is for me the first and most important step. I then nail down the best exposure time. What isn't perfect by this stage is what will get dodged and burned. Some printers will use localized bleaching and I have no objection to that, just prefer to do all my manipulation with light. I make certain my chemistry is fresh and the temperature is the same. Small variations in paper batches sometimes require a small adjustment, but other than that, I've had no trouble at all.

[lee\c]

I like to reprint the negative but let it reflect how I feel now about the image. So, it is likely that the reprint may be slightly different than when printed the first time. I think that this is artistic growth. I could be wrong.

leec

[Michael Rosenberg]

I agree with what Robert has said in his reply. To make consistent dodges and burns I use multiple Ross D/B masks, most of them made now in photoshop and fitted above the glass on my negative carrier. I use an LPL4550 enlarger, which gives consistent light output when the bulb is prewarmed before each base exposure. My Beseler enlarger is equiped with a Starlite 55 color head that uses a shutter; i.e., after the lamps come up to temperature a shutter automatically opens and at the end of the time closes. Prewarnming the lamp and/or using a mechanical shutter will give you more consistent results. Developing the print to completion is also the best approach if trying to be consistent whether making the print in the same printing session or months later as I often have to do for a gallery. Dilute your develop more than the recommended amount and develop until no more detail appears in the HIGHLIGHTS. I use Dektol diluted 1:4 or 1:5 and develop for 5 mins. or 4 min.s respectively. Many people overlook this minor but significant point. As Robert has pointed out, use a temperature bath for your developer. If at the start of a session your develper is 72F it will drop to below room temparature from evaporation in a few hours. This will through off your timing as well. I make a note if I started printing a new negative using developer a few hours old. And like many others I use extensive notes and diagrams to guide me through the printing procedure.

It is almost impossible to make prints identical, but close is reasonable. And reinterpretation is routine. One noted photographer selenium toned the lower portion of his negative and printed the sky darker. Another remarked to me that his most popular print has evolved in his printing over a 15 year period.

[Jim_3565]

When making large format contact prints, I have no problem making as many prints as I want from a given negative which are absolutely identical. The only possible variation might be of print color due to changes in developer lots (I use amidol) or water chemistry, and this only between batches of prints run months apart. Certainly from a single printing session all of my prints are absolutely identical. I am able to do this only because I use a metronome. It is as essential a part of the printmaking process for me as is developer.

When making enlargements, where I'm forced to use a timer, tonality varies all over the map from print to print. You just have to keep the good and throw away the bad.