Photoshop / Darkroom similar

[Pfiltz]

with regard to dodging and burning results wise?

I mean, I understand that while dodging and burning in the darkroom is more of art/technique, do the results run along similar lines when doing D/B in Photoshop on a image, or, are they worlds apart with regard to end results?

I would think it's more subjective in what one see's in the final print, or am I over thinking it.

I've bought an enlarger, and am hoping to have my own darkroom up by this winter, so I get a bit deeper in Analog.

[bob carnie]

With a bit of practice you can mimic dodge and burn in the darkroom to what you do in PS and vice versa.

I found that I became a better enlarger printer with the skills I learned in PS.
I think that they both work with the same principles, draw your eye to the storyline that you are trying to convey with your prints.

[Brian Ellis]

Hopefully this won't devolve into which is "better." But to answer your question, you certainly can make particular areas of a photograph darker or lighter in a darkroom just as you can in Photoshop, if that's what you mean by dodging and burning. The main difference in my experience when it comes to dodging and burning is that you can make finer adjustments in Photoshop that are feasible for most people in a darkroom, especially with color.

I should add that by "dodge" and "burn" in Photoshop I don't mean simply using the dodge and burn tools. I mean the almost innumerable ways of affecting the tones in a photograph that are available in Photoshop. I don't think that people with even minimal Photoshop experience use the dodge and burn tools since there are so many better ways of doing what those tools do and more.

[bob carnie]

I never use the dodge and burn tool as well, but I have to disagree slightly about BW as I believe the tools to make an image are present in the darkroom as well as PS.

I would agree about current colour , PS has completely overtaken enlarger printing, with all its possibility's of controlling local colour. What one does in five minutes could only be mimiked by an advanced photo comp worker of the past , timelines would be in hours if not days to match equal moves.


This does open up a interesting discussion about current printmaking... Can anyone here state that we are making better prints than we did 20 years ago??
Judging by a lot of the shite on the wall today my answer would be no, we are no further along.
I just think it got a lot easier for the masses to make prints on demand , now everyone is a printer, photographer, chef , musician, blogger, designer and curator. We seem to be gaining skills at an alarming rate.

If I did not have photography , the only thing I would be good at is driving the Zamboni at the local arena, or preparing the ball diamond in the summer.
I am not good at multi tasking careers.

[Pfiltz]

To be honest, I'm not a big D/B guy in Photoshop with my normal day to day work. I watched a video on AA this week, and some of it showed him dodging and burning, and it just made me think.

I've never been in a darkroom, so I'm clueless as to the techniques. But I hope to cut my teeth on it, this winter, when things slow down for me, and I get to play.

[Brian Ellis]

. . .
This does open up a interesting discussion about current printmaking... Can anyone here state that we are making better prints than we did 20 years ago?? . . .

I don't know about "we." But speaking for me, I almost never see one of my old b&w darkroom prints without seeing improvements that I'd make to it in Photoshop that weren't possible in a darkroom. I'm thinking primarily of very small areas of the print that I'd like to lighten or darken without affecting surrounding areas, something that is easy to do in Photoshop but that was either totally impossible or possible only with a massive expenditure of time, effort, and paper to do in a darkroom. These improvements perhaps wouldn't be noticeable to a lot of other people, especially non-photographers, but they're noticeable to me.

[bob carnie]

I have been watching Ed Burtynsky's work since the 80's, his early quarry colour prints are every bit as good as his current Oil prints.
Ed had a bit of a retrospective show at the Royal Ontario Museum this year, included were some very old enlarger prints and current Chromira PS prints, too be honest the digital prints did not look vastly superior in fact the only reason I knew what prints were which is that I knew all his past traditional printers and have been looking at his work for a long time so I knew what were old stock.
** now I may be completely off base here as Ed may have just rescanned old work and made new prints. But he has been known to mix in new and old prints.**


When I first started digitally printing I always felt there was something different in the prints.
I can describe it this way,, an enlarger print has a somewhat softer colour gamut with very detailed resolution. A digital print has an extended colour pallette not possible with enlarger prints with a slight stronger overall contrast .
I may not be explaining this correctly, but the improvements, capable through PShop do not necessarily translate to a better print at least to my eyes.

I have a Black White darkroom print hanging now in the cave, that I printed my last year in photo school on a enlarger that I do not see what PS would improve on.
I agree that PS allows you to fuss like never before, but I just don't feel that in Black & White PS gives you any advantage over a well executed darkroom print. I print both ways each week and IMO both ways are equal.

To be honest, I have not done an enlarger colour print for at least 6 years but daily make digital RA4 and digital inkjet colour prints.
My switch was for the some of very reasons you point out, as well the speed at which our current clients need their work. This makes me wonder about the differences a bit more as I always strive to make my digital prints look like I would expect from an enlarger print.

I think I am going to make some colour prints from 4x5 negs on an enlarger and compare them same size colour prints from scans and PS edits.
I do not have old colour prints to view side by side new colour prints, so this could be an interesting test.
Others may have different results, but it is interesting at least to me to see a visual side by side of the best I can do.

[Gem Singer]

Bob,

Take it from an "old timer".

You will eventually reach a point in your life where you will realize: "that was the best I was able to do with what I had to work with".

When you reach that point, you will understand that it is impossible to please everybody.

You will be much happier with your own work, and that's all that matters.

[Vaughn]

...draw your eye to the storyline that you are trying to convey with your prints.

I like the way you said this, Bob. Very simply stated. I hope you do not mind if I steal it regularly when talking to our students! The concept of a 'storyline' might confuse them at first, but working through that confusion will be of great value to them.

I think the main advantage PS has when working with B&W is dealing with local contrast issues. Other than that, I see no other distinct advantage other than print color (warmth or coolness of the black and 'split-toning').

I quite enjoyed the task of burning a print in to bring out the storyline of my 16x20 B&W prints. Since I print for myself and my time is my own, I do not equate faster as better. Why rush thru a process I enjoy and am using to express myself? Unlike Brian, I do not look at the prints I have made in the past 25 years or so and think what I could have done better, or could do better in PS. They are finished pieces, the best I could do at the time, material and the equipment. Their stories are complete.

I am now primarily contact printing in alt processes. I no longer burn and dodge, but instead create images that do not require it.

[bob carnie]

Gem

I thought I was an old timer, I always have been pretty happy with what I have done.

I am just launching a large body of work to travel to gallery's and I am taking that approach that some will like the stuff and others won't.
I am very happy with the end result, and it is the best I can do on any given day.

thanks

Bob



Bob,

Take it from an "old timer".

You will eventually reach a point in your life where you will realize: "that was the best I was able to do with what I had to work with".

When you reach that point, you will understand that it is impossible to please everybody.

You will be much happier with your own work, and that's all that matters.

[sully75]

With the minimal skills of a part time guy I can make superior prints digitally than what I would be able to do in the darkroom. My digital prints are "good", I'm pretty confident of that. I think if I'd spent equal amount of time in the darkroom, my prints would not be as good. If I could turn my negatives over to Nachtwey's printer, it might be a different story. In truth though, my negatives are often pretty mediocre, and I need photoshop to fix the defects in them. But I'm quite satisfied with my digital prints now that I finally got a printer (knock on wood) that works consistently, without too much fuss (Epson 4900).

Being able to see your dodge and burn on the screen before you actually make the print is pretty awesome.

I do know a really good custom printer who once offered to make a print of one of my 5x7 negatives. I should take him up on that. When he saw my old negatives though he was like "oh my god, what happened". Still, I was able to scan them in and make decent prints. (My negatives have since improved quite a bit).

I think maxed out: great photographer, great printer, both darkroom and digital are going to be pretty close and each will have some advantages. But for the ham handed among us who are going to be trying to make prints from not that amazing negatives, digital printing is going to win.

[Pfiltz]

I had a friend of mine edit my image. He's more proficient with PS than I am. I like his version over mine, but I really would like to see it printed. I'm kind of bummed out on how my Seattle negs turned out as a group.

[RichardSperry]

I found that I became a better enlarger printer with the skills I learned in PS.

Likewise. It also gives you an idea of how creative you can be under an enlarger. If I had come the other way instead, I would probably have been restricted or limited with a smaller view of what is possible.

Once you start thinking of your filters as not just contrast tools, but dodging and burning tools as well, your printing skills will improve.

Black foam core works rather well in the darkroom. Easily cut, thick enough to have a large penumbra if you wish. Holes can easily be cut out of any size, use as a burn mask. And can be cut into dodge tools easily, then take a metal black kebob skewer(from Walmart) and slide it into your custom cut dodge piece. Ovals and circles of varying size are useful.

[Mark Sawyer]

Going back to the old Ansel Adams adage, "the negative is the score, the print is the performance"...

Making a print in the darkroom would be comparable to a live performance, each work a unique creative process done in real time.

Making a print via photoshop is more akin to a studio performance, where you can do and undo this part and that, change your mind later and modify the file again. In the end, you have a recorded performance that can be reproduced exactly, ad infinitum.

Photoshop, like a music studio, gives more control, but there's something vital about a live musical performance or making a print in the darkroom.

No value judgement, it's all good...

[Lenny Eiger]

When I was doing darkroom printing I could burn and dodge with the best of them, but I think the best prints I made were done without any burning and dodging at all... On occasion I had to, when I burnt out a sky. However, I think the technique of getting the right negative is far superior to burning and dodging any day.

I used a two bath development system, dektol and selector. The combination allowed me to control the overall contrast very specifically, and if I exposed the negative properly, the highlights would come right in. I used to start my classes with the question, "who would like to make a great print without burning and dodging?" The room would erupt, many of the students had been taught that it is a "performance" to quote another post about AA. They didn't believe it was possible. After a few months of developing their negatives correctly, they never went back. And the prints were gorgeous.

I think burning and dodging is useful, but I see it as a technique to use when one fails vs the working premise. Consider printing in an alternative process modality. There are things you can do, but much of the time burning and dodging is not possible, or easy. I reject the contention that you have to burn and dodge to make a great print. Of course, I don't like black skies either.

I think the great thing about Photoshop is that you can use curves to control things. They keep the values in a tight relationship to each other. (Unlike what Levels might do or Brightness Contrast.) Rather than burning and dogging, keeping every zone in a balanced relationship or moving an entire zone up together is something one could not do in the darkroom (or could not do easily). More manipulation is possible, for better or worse. However, many of those changes could also be done in negative development.

I offer this as a different perspective, and not as a way anyone else should think about it... its just me...

Lenny

[Joe Smigiel]

In the end, you have a recorded performance that can be reproduced exactly, ad infinitum.

That is the largest difference to me. Try making an exact copy of a print that you have burned/dodged in the traditional darkroom. One can get close, but unless you've made some sort of interneg or mask that has the tonal adjustment built in, it isn't going to be the same.

I think PS also gets the precision award, but fails miserably in terms of enjoyment of the printing process.

[bob carnie]

Lenny . I have never made a silver darkroom print that did not require dodge and burn, your negs must be incredible.. how you figured out how to reverse the laws of optics is impressive indeed.

When you apply a curve in PS you are making a decision, darken lighten areas , increase contrast , basically what us traditional printers have been doing for years.
Ansel Adams would burn each side of a print for enlarger falloff , I have found this to be true as well, how you figured out how to fix this falloff in the neg is majestic.

Decktol and Selectol , two bath development will only give you at most 1/2 grade difference , done that enough times myself before VC papers.

My response is tongue in cheek because I reject the contention that dodging and burning is not required in silver wet printing.
Spent the better part of today working on two murals that would be impossible without it.

There are those who like to make their prints look like pt pd prints, I have seen your comments about how you prefer this look.. This explains a negative that requires no dodge or burn as there are no true blacks achievable in Pt Pd without mutiple hits, which by the way would be burning in extra density.
If you are looking for a black that feels black or can pass for black a very simple approach like you mention is valid, but I am from the camp that requires a true black and true white with everything grey in- between and that is only possible with dodging , burning, flashing, multiple filter printing .
I would be interested in seeing the work of printers in silver who do not dodge and burn, this old fart can still learn a few tricks.
I have watched MAS print here in Toronto, and even though he was contacting on Azo , he still had some dodge and burn tricks up his sleeve.




When I was doing darkroom printing I could burn and dodge with the best of them, but I think the best prints I made were done without any burning and dodging at all... On occasion I had to, when I burnt out a sky. However, I think the technique of getting the right negative is far superior to burning and dodging any day.

I used a two bath development system, dektol and selector. The combination allowed me to control the overall contrast very specifically, and if I exposed the negative properly, the highlights would come right in. I used to start my classes with the question, "who would like to make a great print without burning and dodging?" The room would erupt, many of the students had been taught that it is a "performance" to quote another post about AA. They didn't believe it was possible. After a few months of developing their negatives correctly, they never went back. And the prints were gorgeous.

I think burning and dodging is useful, but I see it as a technique to use when one fails vs the working premise. Consider printing in an alternative process modality. There are things you can do, but much of the time burning and dodging is not possible, or easy. I reject the contention that you have to burn and dodge to make a great print. Of course, I don't like black skies either.

I think the great thing about Photoshop is that you can use curves to control things. They keep the values in a tight relationship to each other. (Unlike what Levels might do or Brightness Contrast.) Rather than burning and dogging, keeping every zone in a balanced relationship or moving an entire zone up together is something one could not do in the darkroom (or could not do easily). More manipulation is possible, for better or worse. However, many of those changes could also be done in negative development.

I offer this as a different perspective, and not as a way anyone else should think about it... its just me...

Lenny

[Erik Larsen]

Lenny, your post makes me feel inadequate:) if I want a print with any kind of snap with my negatives I always have to employ a dodge or burn. Bob assured me I'm not alone in this practice. I do tend to print on the higher contrast side however which might explain my deficiency.
Regards
Erik

[sanking]

Bob,

Not sure what you mean by "true black". There is such a thing as "believable black" which to me is more important than absolute reflective density. With good practice pt/pd printers can get a reflective Dmax of up to log 1.60 or slightly higher in a paper like Platine, with one coating. That is about what you get with inkjet printers when printing on the better matte surface photo rage papers, and it is plenty dark enough for most people.

There is, however, a real problem when you try to compress the tonal values in pt/pd (or other alternative processes) when printing with an in-camera negative where no dodging or burning is used. This usually results in mid-tones that look very flat, and the problem not be corrected with negative development by itself. Fortunately, this can be corrected in PS with curves if you print with digital negatives. For this reason prints made with most alternative processes via the digital negative route, including carbon and pt/pd, are visually quite different from prints made with in-camera negatives. People who have printed the same negative with both methods would immediately see and appreciate the difference.

Sandy

[Vaughn]

Bob, with my pt/pd prints and carbon prints that I print without B&D, one part of photography I love is discovering light on the landscape that I can capture on film to make prints without D&B. If an image requires burning in a part of the print to get the best possible image, the I just don't expose the film. Just a different way of seeing/working. This holds for about 98% of my prints -- I have used a sharpy on the glass of the contact printing frame to dodge an area, and have been known to keep one end on the frame under the UV light a little longer to do some burning...but rarely.

My pt/pd prints have Sandy's 'believable' blacks -- pretty rich. I do not use any contrast agents (NA2 or Potassium chlorate or Ammonium dichromate) in my mix. Just Ferric oxalate, and the regular pt/pd salts. If anything I am expanding and not compressing the values.

I print with in-camera negatives only.

Vaughn

[sanking]

Vaughn's comment about the importance of discovering the right light is spot on. With a process like pt/pd, where there is no selective area control of contrast when printing with an in-camera negative (and no dodging and burning is used), it is essential to expose the film with the right light. You can control the overall density range of a negative (to match the exposure scale of the process) with development. But if the scene is one of very great contrast, compressing negative DR to match the ES of the process will in many cases result in unacceptably flat mid-tones.

Sandy





Bob, with my pt/pd prints and carbon prints that I print without B&D, one part of photography I love is discovering light on the landscape that I can capture on film to make prints without D&B. If an image requires burning in a part of the print to get the best possible image, the I just don't expose the film. Just a different way of seeing/working. This holds for about 98% of my prints -- I have used a sharpy on the glass of the contact printing frame to dodge an area, and have been known to keep one end on the frame under the UV light a little longer to do some burning...but rarely.

My pt/pd prints have Sandy's 'believable' blacks -- pretty rich. I do not use any contrast agents (NA2 or Potassium chlorate or Ammonium dichromate) in my mix. Just Ferric oxalate, and the regular pt/pd salts. If anything I am expanding and not compressing the values.

I print with in-camera negatives only.

Vaughn

[Lenny Eiger]

Lenny . I have never made a silver darkroom print that did not require dodge and burn, your negs must be incredible.. how you figured out how to reverse the laws of optics is impressive indeed.
...who like to make their prints look like pt pd prints, I have seen your comments about how you prefer this look.. This explains a negative that requires no dodge or burn as there are no true blacks achievable in Pt Pd without mutiple hits, which by the way would be burning in extra density.


Look, I have a different perspective. I have no intention of making anyone feel less. There are obviously different printing styles that we are addressing. For one, I don't give a hoot about a good, solid black. It isn't something I consider a virtue, altho' it appears it is very important to you. To each his own...

I do care very much about an expressive print, but that is a vey subjective term. When I look at the great prints that I like from famous people, it is more often from Frederick Evans, O'Sullivan, Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, Caponigro, Coburn, Demachy and Clarence White - and a lot of other folks in the photo-secession. I respect the man very much, but I don't personally like the way Ansel printed. I recognize that a lot of people love it but it doesn't match my vision. I can do it when asked; when I printed for Avedon he certainly didn't want a softer print, his aesthetic was "brutal," to use his words. However, I wouldn't print that way for myself. It isn't invalid, however, it also isn't the only photographic aesthetic that is valid.

I contact printed with Azo in Amidol for years before I moved over to platinum. When I did I found I had to increase the density quite a bit over my sliver negatives. This spread the mid tones out.

I would invite you to come over and see the prints. And anyone else... If I have learned anything in my time here its that people can succeed using very different techniques, some that I would never have imagined would be successful.

I have been printing with Hahnemuhle PhotoRag for years. I have tested it every way I could think of, made my own ink preparations and everything else. Yet lately I've been printing on Japanese Kozo. It has a little less black but the paper is translucent so the highlights go thru the print and bounce off the white mat. Some of them are quite luminescent and that's really interesting. I'm learning.... and having a good time. The first step was to let go of the intensity of the black of PhotoRag and see something else.

As I said, I'm having a good time. I'm certainly not telling anyone else they are doing it wrong. But there are other options out there.

Lenny

[bob carnie]

OP has asked is the darkroom similar to PS, I walk into both arenas each day and have built my printing style around making one wonder ** was that live or betamax**
The darkroom I refer to is one that contains enlargers and silver prints are part of the mix.
my 2cents is yes, PS was designed to please enlarger printers... every wonder why the red ruby tool is in PS. I use this tool with every print I make , just like I dodge/burn every print.

Inverse Square Law dictates some edge burning.
Our human visual optical system adapts to the scene before us and we automatically dodge and burn... film and camera sensors were not designed that way.

To that end if I must do some type of darkening or lightning **dodge/burn** to bring me back to what the mind's eye sees.

I understand quite clearly the thinking about getting it in the negative and I applaud that effort.
I equally understand the history of silver print making where the printer adjusts the image via simple darkroom tools in front of them. **dodge/burn**.
There are many styles some very aggressive some very minimal in respect to dodge and burn.
I do have many clients who ask me to do minimal work on their prints... I respect their wishes.. I understand the point of laying down a simple black, also I apply the flash till you see the blades for blank white sky's.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno. As far as color printing and PS goes, all the guys I know who are really good at it
claim to spend as much time and effort getting that first keeper print as I do with advanced analog masking controls in a traditional dkrm; and I don't see any improvement
from their own previous dkrm efforts, maybe the reverse. It's just a different option with a
different look. For me, more of a philosophical choice - hand-on and more contemplative,
and less carpal tunnel or eyestrain. The darkroom is more relaxing and I don't have to worry about replacing software every few years. Film availability is a different matter.

[Drew Wiley]

As far as black and white goes, alt processes or imitating their kind of look is a relatively
involved subject, but when it comes to basic silver gelatin, I don't see how things could
get any simpler than in a traditional dkrm. Even things like complex dodge/burn, split print
and full development can be done in a matter of minutes; and after treatment like bleaching and toning is super simple too, esp if one has good negs to begin with. It's not
all that rare for me to bag a hole-in-one, given the high quality of today's papers. Nuance
is a matter of esthetic skill and taste, and not process-related per se. But it helps if one
is comfortable with their tools and can operate spontaneously, without over-thinking it.

[marfa boomboom tx]

"Dance isn't calisthenics, to a dancer."

[Drew Wiley]

That's exactly the analogy I've philosophically discussed with a couple of my relatively well known photographer friends - recognized printmakers - who have gone over to the non-dark side. They keep trying to convert me to digital on the premise that if offers so much
more "control". And I tell them that I don't want to control the medium. I want to dance
with it.

[Brian Ellis]

Just to clarify, while we all like to make a photograph that requires no dodging and burning to make the print we want to make, that almost never happens for me, maybe once every couple hundred photographs. And it isn't because I've made a mistake in the exposure, it's because the film doesn't know what's important in the photograph and what isn't. I dodge and burn to help create the relationship between tones that I want in the print, which rarely is exactly the relationship recorded on the film.

[sanking]

Just to clarify, while we all like to make a photograph that requires no dodging and burning to make the print we want to make, that almost never happens for me, maybe once every couple hundred photographs. And it isn't because I've made a mistake in the exposure, it's because the film doesn't know what's important in the photograph and what isn't. I dodge and burn to help create the relationship between tones that I want in the print, which rarely is exactly the relationship recorded on the film.

Exactly. Dodging, burning and other tonal corrections are sometimes made to correct mistakes in exposure and development (or in digital capture), but more commonly they are used to creatively render the tonal relationships in a way that satisfies our vision.

I don't see any essential difference between analog and digital methods of rendering the tonal relationships.

Sandy

[Vaughn]

Just to clarify, while we all like to make a photograph that requires no dodging and burning to make the print we want to make...

When I was making Silver gelatin prints, I felt just the opposite. I am not quite sure it is as universal as you say.

[Pfiltz]

And I tell them that I don't want to control the medium. I want to dance
with it.

Your my hero

[Kodachrome25]

Funny how you never hear of someone trying to convince an acoustic guitar player to use "Garage Band" or an oil painter to convert to Adobe Illustrator....and yet we compare computer generated printing to real darkroom work. As a pro who has used digital alongside of film for some 20 years, I can say I have zero desire to sell someone a computer print and I have zero desire to buy a computer print.

Photoshop and the darkroom the same...?....ummm, no, not by a long shot as far as I am concerned.

[Lenny Eiger]

Funny how you never hear of someone trying to convince an acoustic guitar player to use "Garage Band" or an oil painter to convert to Adobe Illustrator....and yet we compare computer generated printing to real darkroom work. As a pro who has used digital alongside of film for some 20 years, I can say I have zero desire to sell someone a computer print and I have zero desire to buy a computer print.

Photoshop and the darkroom the same...?....ummm, no, not by a long shot as far as I am concerned.

I am a pro who has used both as well. Personally, I wouldn't consider buying a darkroom print.

As a professional printer, with extensive experience in both mediums, darkroom prints are quite limited by comparison to the other choices. You can't state unequivocally that darkroom prints are better. Darkroom prints and inkjet prints, or alternative process are not better than one another. They are different. You just happen to like the darkroom print.

It's not any different from liking acoustic guitar music or electric guitar. There are great musicians on both sides. I wouldn't want to dismiss either. You want to dismiss Eric Clapton or Hendrix? Ridiculous. You don't have to like them but it doesn't mean they are nothing.

It's the same with printing. The real question is what was the photographer trying to accomplish, does the medium fit the message, and how successful were they in communicating? One kind of paper vs the other? Meaningless.

Lenny

[Kodachrome25]

No Lenny, I would never dismiss Clapton or Hendrix, because they play or did play actual guitars, not Garage Band on a Mac...

I just don't believe in digital anything anymore....its what *everyone* else does, life is too short for that crap.

[Gem Singer]

"Everyone"?

A long time ago, a wise man told me: "Don't be the first to accept the new, nor the last to let go of the old".

Judging from the handle " Kodachrome 25". it's obvious where you stand.

[Lenny Eiger]

No Lenny, I would never dismiss Clapton or Hendrix, because they play or did play actual guitars, not Garage Band on a Mac...

I just don't believe in digital anything anymore....its what *everyone* else does, life is too short for that crap.


When I see those ads on tv for whatever (I wasn't paying attention) and they are all playing their iPhones and Androids, strumming across the phone to make a guitar sound, it leaves me wondering what happened to music as well. I don't disagree. The beats are too even and it all sounds so plastic.

However, I think the issue is not the medium, its our culture. The great printers, over time, printed with their whole being. Integrity, presence, all the subtleties and nuance of each type of printing were there, from the early days of salt and albumen, platinum thru to the darkroom. It's the heart that's missing today, not a subtle enough medium. Much of today's photography is about, "oh look, there's a whatever" stuck int he middle of the frame - without the real connection that makes it come alive for us all. That's why many of us love LF - it slows us down so we can really look, and maybe even connect with something before we photograph it.

A few years ago another great printer, who will have to remain nameless, gave me a great compliment. We were discussing medium dot vs small dot in StudioPrint and he said, "Don't worry about it, you could print with chocolate syrup and it would be amazing. It's what's in you that matters." Always nice to be appreciated by one's peers, but whether he was addressing me or someone else, the point is what's important - if someone does the inner work to get there, it doesn't matter what medium you use (as long as its a capable medium).

I am printing up a new portfolio and blending the lower end of the black and white ink set to match the exact amount of warmth I want in these prints. Most everyone here would notice, but non-photographers wouldn't see the difference. It is very subtle, but important to me. It is true that there are endless amounts of mediocre printing in the digital media - all you have to do is go to a trade show... However, there are a group of people that have made very beautiful things with this medium. It's very capable.

I don't know if smartphone music will ever get there. It may not be a capable medium. But inkjet printing, in the right hands, with the right inks, paper, etc., can be quite beautiful. It all depends on the care one puts into it...

Lenny

[sanking]

No Lenny, I would never dismiss Clapton or Hendrix, because they play or did play actual guitars, not Garage Band on a Mac...

I just don't believe in digital anything anymore....its what *everyone* else does, life is too short for that crap.

Do you know about APUG? You would feel warm and fuzzy soaking there, basking in the warmth of kindred souls.

Sandy

[tgtaylor]

Good photography, like good music, is ageless. Just this afternoon, while driving home listening to the local jazz station, a tune came on that I immediately recognized as being a modern day rendition of a Scott Joplin piano rag. Although I knew the melody and had actually played it on the piano, I could only guess the title. Eugenia, I thought, knowing I was only guessing, until the announcer came on to say it was Joplin's Solace – A Mexican Serenade. When I arrived home I dug up the sheet music and, yes, Solace it was. Good music well performed, like a good image well performed, is ageless.

Thomas

[bob carnie]

Yes . both methods require you to lighten or darken areas of the final image to get the result you are seeking

Have fun in the darkroom, you will never regret the decision if once the prints emerge you feel the magic.


with regard to dodging and burning results wise?

I mean, I understand that while dodging and burning in the darkroom is more of art/technique, do the results run along similar lines when doing D/B in Photoshop on a image, or, are they worlds apart with regard to end results?

I would think it's more subjective in what one see's in the final print, or am I over thinking it.

I've bought an enlarger, and am hoping to have my own darkroom up by this winter, so I get a bit deeper in Analog.

[Pfiltz]

So I can safely assume now after reading through the thread, that when I get my darkroom up and running, and stumble through the growing pains of trial / error, that I'll be able to see / tell a difference, in my darkroom print from a scan from the same neg, and sent to my regular daytime job lab print?

[bob carnie]

Yes


So I can safely assume now after reading through the thread, that when I get my darkroom up and running, and stumble through the growing pains of trial / error, that I'll be able to see / tell a difference, in my darkroom print from a scan from the same neg, and sent to my regular daytime job lab print?

[Kodachrome25]

Do you know about APUG? You would feel warm and fuzzy soaking there, basking in the warmth of kindred souls.

Yes, of course. This is the darkroom forum, not the Lightroom forum two categories down. I shoot digital, have some digital prints made. Starting tomorrow, I have a three day commercial job, all to be shot on digital, I am fine with it. But what I am not fine with is the hype of it all that rules the Internet and the perception that one medium is better than the other.

So I don't even bother to read the digital parts of this site...I would rather not....after 20 professional years of using the medium, I can't stand the garabage photography and garbage attitude associated with it. In the next five years, I am phasing digital out of my life for good...that will be 25 years folks, millions of digital picutures made. That is far more experience than most here....I feel I am well within my right to call it garbage and to not want to have to read about computer aided garbage in a forum subsection that should basically be just about real photographic process, not computer aided imaging.

I know some will argue my point and maybe even take offense to it all, but honestly, one of the reasons I enjoy this site is because for the most part, LF is *not* a digital process, so I get yet another break from the nauseating drone of the digital Walmart-ization of a once very well respected craft.

[sanking]

........
I know some will argue my point and maybe even take offense to it all, but honestly, one of the reasons I enjoy this site is because for the most part, LF is *not* a digital process, so I get yet another break from the nauseating drone of the digital Walmart-ization of a once very well respected craft.

I certainly agree that many will take offense at having the media they work with described as crap.

Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

So I can safely assume now after reading through the thread, that when I get my darkroom up and running, and stumble through the growing pains of trial / error, that I'll be able to see / tell a difference, in my darkroom print from a scan from the same neg, and sent to my regular daytime job lab print?

The path to great printing is just like anything else. One has to have an idea of what they want to create and then make enough attempts to get there. To develop these ideas or strategies, find out what is at the foundation of any art, one looks at work done by the people whose work has been elevated by the history of that medium.

I would say that whether you scan and print, or darkroom print, provided you do a little study and a lot of practice, ultimately the work you produce will be better than any lab can do. It will be closer to your own vision. The harder part is defining that vision.

There is no better here when it comes to printing mediums. would one say platinum or albumen were better than one another? It's silly. There is only what makes you happy with the result.

Lenny

[emh]

I don't do any digital (never really have), but to dismiss it all as garbage is a bit extreme. I know many people doing great digital work. They seem to work just as hard to get the results they want as I do in the darkroom. You're painting with too broad a brush...

[Drew Wiley]

Ho hum. ... here we go again. I like what I like to do, that is, darkroom. But I also like to look at any print especially well done, regardless of how it came into being. Doubtless,
jillions of horrible prints have been made in labs, darkrooms, and corner photo stands; and
doubtless jillions of additional horrible image are now being gernerated in newer ways. So
what. I too ridicule the cultural obsession with techie gadgetry, and am even fond of
mocking what I term "Fauxtography". But that has no relation to how thoughful printers
employ the newer technologies. Just another option.

[Preston]

In my very humble opinion: Use what works best for you and makes you happy, and continue to strive for excellence.

"If one does not keep pace with their companions, perhaps it is because they march to the beat of different drummer."

--P

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Just to clarify, while we all like to make a photograph that requires no dodging and burning to make the print we want to make, that almost never happens for me, maybe once every couple hundred photographs.

When I attended John Sexton's darkroom workshop, he jokingly said that if he had a negative that would just print straight, he would find an area to dodge and then to burn it back in, just to have something to do.

Personally, I felt liberated when my D&B moved from fixing exposure problems and into the creative zone, but I still prefer a lighter touch to heavier manipulations. Having said that, one of the images which I get complimented on more than any others, is the very one that had the most creative burning. Hmm.

[Jim Noel]

This statement is bacxkwards.. What you do in PS mimics what has been done in the darkroom for well over 100 years.


With a bit of practice you can mimic dodge and burn in the darkroom to what you do in PS and vice versa.

I found that I became a better enlarger printer with the skills I learned in PS.
I think that they both work with the same principles, draw your eye to the storyline that you are trying to convey with your prints.

[bob carnie]

Actually Jim I feel I became a much better darkroom printer after learning the tools in PS, specifically curves.
I have been playing more with hard and soft burns combined due to the soft light blending mode.

so I stand by the statement.


This statement is bacxkwards.. What you do in PS mimics what has been done in the darkroom for well over 100 years.

[Drew Wiley]

I always seem to guess my negs wrong. I'll select maybe three to print in a given session,
typically of different formats so I can clean and load each one into a different enlarger in
advance. What I think will be an easy neg will turn out to be complicated to print, and what looks hard at first will almost print itself. This has nothing to do with correct exposure, which I rarely goof, but with all the creative nuances inherent to dodging/burning etc. Extremely samall adjustments can make a huge difference between
an OK print and a great one. Just comes with the territory, and I don't see how a change
in technology would alter that fact itself. But darkroom tinkering is fun for me anyway.

[RichardSperry]

This statement is bacxkwards.. What you do in PS mimics what has been done in the darkroom for well over 100 years.


It's really hard to burn>shadows or dodge>highlights under an enlarger.

They may have the same names but they work very differently.

On another vein,
I don't understand why there is a need to state to the effect, "I have a perfect negative..." With the implied conclusion, that dodging and burning is not necessary. I have yet to see a straight print ever look like my negative. Now I am a beginner, relatively; but no paper I have used yet has had the exact same response as any negative I have used. Maybe I just havn't found the right paper, but always in every case I have experienced, there is more detail on the negative than EVER can be printed in a straight print.

Ex:
There may be fine wisps of clouds in the sky that are clearly visible on the negative and invisible on the print(printed straight).

If you guys are getting every negative detail on every straight print, I am clearly doing this whole thing wrong. Which I don't think is the case.

I try to think of the process as malleable like paint on a pallet that can be spread around the print as I desire. Like clay in a block to be molded by hands, or water color spread around paper. The process becomes creative then, and not merely copy work. And this works best for me.

A machine can make straight prints. There is no creativity there. And I bet it doesn't really look like the film anyway.

[Lenny Eiger]

A machine can make straight prints. There is no creativity there. And I bet it doesn't really look like the film anyway.

Are your calling me (and everyone else here who works with photoshop, masking, curving and printing) a machine?

Lenny

[RichardSperry]

No.

[Drew Wiley]

Richard - if it's there on the neg it can be printed. Just depends on whether you WANT
everything on the paper. Masking and burning are pretty damn simple. Making an outstanding print is about the nuaces of doing it and evaluating afterwards. I'm not a digital printer myself, but I bet that what counts - one's own eyes - and that amt of effort
that can go into a really fine gets just as involved either way - right, Lenny?

[Drew Wiley]

OOps, did I really say "masking" and burning, rather than dodging and burning? Yep. Well,
that's getting a step ahead; but it's how you "automate" it without a computer.

[Lenny Eiger]

but I bet that what counts - one's own eyes - and that amt of effort
that can go into a really fine gets just as involved either way - right, Lenny?

Absolutely correct, in my opinion.

Making a great print, in any medium, is just as involved as making a great image. Just because we happen to visit a beautiful place, it doesn't mean a resulting image will be great. Great comes from how well you connect with the place, your approach to what you are photographing, some skill, history and context, among a few other things.

If you shoot with a digital camera, open the image, do no corrections, or just print from the camera itself, I am sure the results will be "mechanical". However, I can't image anyone here would do that, certainly not for something they would show as a photograph...

Lenny