Now this is cool!
Now this is cool!
Thanks for the link. It would be interesting to see the original darkroom notes and compare them with Iniro's notes would they be the same or are they very different due to the introduction of multigrade paper etc...
After reading the article, scroll down and read the comments until you get to the one by Andy Umbo. He basically says that in his experience, that level of manipulation in those prints would be wishful thinking, and that most likely none of them received anything like what the markings indicate. Unlike him, I make no claim to being an expert printer, but just based on my admitedly limited experience with dodging and burning, it does seem to be a bit of a stretch, that so many changes would be necessary to achieve the final result, or that the result of so many changes could be so seemless. In fact to me, some of the changes seem almost random, with two identical adjacent regions being given different times, with no discernable difference apparent in the final print.
I'd be curious to hear opinions from some APUG printers.
I have been printing for a living since 1976 , those notes are a joke and completely useless and very misleading to young printers.
Basically turning a simple process into a complete useless diagram that nobody in their right mind would follow. It is very misleading and complete useless info.
I suggest that one should , look at the neg, look at the easel , and look at the print as it emerges in the developer, by observing one will make better prints.
The more I print, the more I agree with Bob, but I have to say that for me to actually remember the sequences when I print, I HAVE to write it down. Especially if I make a burn with a harder grade. My brain is not capable of remembering.
So, I have tons of printing notes, but when I go back and print a negative, years down the road, I never follow them anyway. I re-interpret the negative, just because it's more fun that way. I think with time we change how we see, how we print, and what we like, so it seems a little stifling, perhaps, to go back to printing a negative in a way that you don't appreciate anymore as an artist.
Then again, before this thread I was re-reading the Pablo Inirio piece, and his print notes and scribbles of famous photographs are so complex that my head spins. I don't think I could work that way.
Perhaps there's a bit of a personality thing baked into what approach we take too. Or 'schools' of thought that are simply different?
I agree with all above, but thought I would let others comment first. It makes him look skilful though.
I have seen copies of Richard Avedon's printing maps and they are very intense.
For years I kept notes, and recommend that to my students; on the other hand with years of experience and the loss of materials those those aren't that important.
In Larry Bartletts book on Black and White printing (which i highly recommend , ) he shows printing maps, much simpler and certainly make more sense.
Perhaps some of these where work notes, ideas, not necessarily carried out when once working under safe light.
I think it really depends on the personality, and the nature of the forms/shapes in the picture. It is one thing to make things complicated for the sake of complexity, but another thing entirely for a specific image to require complex and exacting procedures to support an honest aesthetic. I've always believed in keeping things as simple as possible - but - stopping at nothing to achieve the result you see in your mind's eye. Some pictures need lots of careful work. Some don't. So I just don't like it when people apply rules to this sort of thing, what makes sense, what is useless, etc. Like when people say all prints should be simple or something is wrong. That is complete crap. It's usually just the sign either of a lack of technical skill, a disinterest in print quality, or plain low standards.