Proof to Print: the contrast difference

[Vaughn]

Proofing, for me, was just to see what was on the negative -- it had very little to do with final image.

[Pere Casals]

But trying how to "previsualize" and mechanically determine all that in advance is a bit unrealistic.

It depends on the scene... but IMHO previsualization can be very useful to take decisions in the taking and in the processing.

[Drew Wiley]

I suspect we all somehow previsualize how we think a resultant print should come out in the darkroom, at least subconsciously. But the notion you're going to peg it all in advance with some rote formula is very unrealistic. There a too many variables, light changes, etc. In a production studio or lab where everything is artificially controlled is a different situation. The point is to get a versatile enough negative to be reasonably malleable in the darkroom, not futz around forever with a calculator in the field.

[Pere Casals]

The point is to get a versatile enough negative to be reasonably malleable in the darkroom, not futz around forever with a calculator in the field.

Well... this is a YMMV.

I think that we can agree that usually a print has a priority: mids need a range and a gradient, this is the easy chapter.

Then we have to compress (more or less) deep shadows in a range left by the mids, and we also need to compress (more or less) the highlights in the other range left by the mids. This is the difficult thing, how we compress like we want the deep shadows and highlights in the narrow ranges the mids don't use. For both shadows and highlights we may want an extension and a local "gamma", so we have 4 additional factors to adjust after we have the mids in place, a lot of factors!


1st> A way is capturing all the scene range linearly with a linear film, say TMX. Then we have a flexible negative, but then we have to work the shadows and highlights compressions in the printing (the 4 factors), and this may not be easy, or it can be difficult we obtain what we want.


2nd> Another way is using a film/processing delivering more an S curve, so we compress shadows in the toe and/or highlights in the shoulder, this is the classical ZS approach, I guess, we place in Z-II those shadows of the scene we want compressed, with that job done we have more freedom to work mids/highlights in the printing. Karsh, to mention an artist using the toe to compress shadows.


Using the second approach requires a pre-visualization of the final print.


IMHO, with the popularization of VC papers the 1st approach became more feasible, simply because VC allows to burn shadows with 5 contast grade and highlights with 00 grade, this is (IMHO) the Sexton's approach, a linear taking, a flexible negative, and a very well controlled printing.


...but the Karsh's approach (to say a name) is not bad at all. IMHO high end portraiture requires a higher degree of control in the shadings (face volumes) and in the highlights (textures in the glares), so having the shadows solved in the taking is what allows an easier job and a better result in the printing.


hmmm, making a really sound darkroom print is not that easy, and there is a lot of YMMV in the path. This is IMHO, and I'm only a rookie in the darkroom.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, yes, compressing is one way of doing things. It is the correct term for what you're describing. Its synonyms are squashing, squishing, stomping, flattening, making lifeless, devoid of discrete tonal differentiation. That's why I advocate alternate methods that do not involve compression.

[Bernice Loui]

Which more often than not produces a flat-dead lifeless print.

All that theory and etc does much of nothing once the viewer demands a worthy image with life and expression of the artist's emotions to stir the viewers emotions.



Bernice

Well, yes, compressing is one way of doing things. It is the correct term for what you're describing. Its synonyms are squashing, squishing, stomping, flattening, making lifeless, devoid of discrete tonal differentiation. That's why I advocate alternate methods that do not involve compression.

[Keith Fleming]

Somewhere in the back of my mind is a memory of reading a piece by a well-known photographer (I cannot recall who it was) who wrote that once you achieve a satisfactory print, moving up to the next larger paper size called for a full grade of contrast increase. The article said this held true with either graded paper or contrast filters on multi-contrast paper.
Keith

[Vaughn]

I do believe that each print size has its own requirements to be successful. And 8x10 and a 16x20 print of the same image might easily require a different 'look' to be successful. They work differently -- viewing distance, attention to print detail, etc. The 8x10 might have areas of pure black shadows that work wonderfully when those areas are small, all of a sudden become objectionable when enlarged 4 times in area in the 16x20.

Or it just might be that when making bigger enlargements, the enlarger is higher, larger aperatures are required (and/or longer exposure times), and there is more unsafe light bouncing around to increase flare.

[Pere Casals]

Somewhere in the back of my mind is a memory of reading a piece by a well-known photographer (I cannot recall who it was) who wrote that once you achieve a satisfactory print, moving up to the next larger paper size called for a full grade of contrast increase. The article said this held true with either graded paper or contrast filters on multi-contrast paper.
Keith

IMHO this is a YMMV, as Vaughn points in a larger print we have two factors, one (possible LIRF) increases contrast (if a longer exposure) and the other one adds flare, and flare tends to deliver a less contrasty result.

I do believe that each print size has its own requirements to be successful. And 8x10 and a 16x20 print of the same image might easily require a different 'look' to be successful. They work differently -- viewing distance, attention to print detail, etc. The 8x10 might have areas of pure black shadows that work wonderfully when those areas are small, all of a sudden become objectionable when enlarged 4 times in area in the 16x20.

This is a interesting point I was not much aware.

Or it just might be that when making bigger enlargements, the enlarger is higher, larger aperatures are required (and/or longer exposure times), and there is more unsafe light bouncing around to increase flare.

A long exposure would increase contrast because lights (dense negative areas) would have more LIRF, while a larger print would catch more flare from the walls, IMHO the area behind the enlarger has to be black, for BW it can also be red.

That's why I advocate alternate methods that do not involve compression.

Drew, obviusly an scene may contain way more dynamic range than a print may support, in that case you have to compress more or less in certain or all tonal ranges, if not you would only be able to print scenes having a range equal or lower than the one a print may sport, this is your subject is in the shadow.

A master printer is able to compress the different tonal ranges in the scene (and/or adjust local exposure) to deliver a sound depiction of a higher DR scene in a medium than has a reduced DR. Me, I also love BW slides because I can display 20X or (even) 40X more dynamic range than with paper, this is 5 additional stops, if you try to place that DR on a paper you'll have to compress something, wanting it or not.

[Drew Wiley]

What you need to differentiate in this discussion, Pere, is the difference between a suitable NEGATIVE with a full scale of well-differentiated values can potentially use, which well might suffer from compression, versus how to selectively interpret all that information on the negative when you get to printing it. Don't tell me what a "master printer" can or cannot do until you start speaking from experience instead of hypothesis. And yes, slides have a special beauty illuminated from behind. Now, if you really know what you're talking about, go try to put that same impact in a print. Then we can decide who is a "master printer" or not.