Yes, if you learned to control print tone by observation.
Like being able to tune a violin by ear instead of a meter.
Ilford's MG, a great paper otherwise, rewards time and temperature workers.
If you varied the ratio of exposure and development to fine tune the image,
that no longer works; it penalizes a traditionally skilled craftsman.
I strongly resist this comparison because it implies that those who develop their prints by inspection are somehow more creative than others. I always develop to completion simply because I prefer to fine tune by inspecting the final print (quick-dried) under good light. This doesn't make me somehow less creative than someone who does it another way.
For the record, I have been a musician for over 50 years (started as a child). Violinists do not tune by ear, regardless of how warm and appealing this analogy may sound. Professional violinists always tune to a standard A-440. Anyone who has had the excruciating experience of a violinist who did not tune closely enough to the other instruments, particularly if they are slightly sharp, knows exactly what I mean. Recognizing standards so that musicians can work together is not a limit on creativity but rather creates an environment within which imagination and spontaneity can flourish.
I don't mean to suggest that one way of performing is better,
only different. It was brought up to discuss the characteristic of the paper under discussion
and that it demanded a work-around.
I apologize if my analogy offended you.
I don't actually KNOW any violinists,
just fiddle players.
As for artistic standards, in photography, all that matters are the results.
what the heck is develop to completion?
i have heard this over and over again, but
in 30 years no one has ever told me what it means,
they just said it. ( maybe they knew better? )
does develop to completion suggest that if a developer suggests
" 3 mins " and ... THAT is the only way to make prints in that particular developer ??
why shouldn't one have the same tools one has making prints as one has
turning film into negatives. there is no "1 time fits all" when one makes negatives
for quite a long long long time photographers have developed film by inspection.
i can't imagine a "one time fits all" approach when making prints.
i turn film into negatives and negatives into prints the same way
i cook, by my own eye ( taste ) and intuition ( experience ).
i am sure others do things differently, whatever floats your boat, as they say,
but if someone could explain to me what develop to completion means, i would love to know what i have been missing!
thanks in advance!
john
Last edited by jnanian; 05-13-2008 at 10:49 PM.
Reason: "and ... "
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
i can't imagine a "one time fits all" approach when making prints.
i turn film into negatives and negatives into prints the same way
i cook, by my own eye ( taste ) and intuition ( experience ).
...
I think the idea of development to completion is an aesthetic that some people just won't like. Some people like to scramble the variables, go by instinct, and take satisfaction when the educated guess works well.
The develop to completion crowd (including me) likes to improve craft by eliminating (or controlling) variables. Developing prints "to completion" means leaving them in developer for a sufficiently long time to minimize variation based on slight differences in time or temperature. For me, that means developing at ambient temperature in my darkroom, with at least relatively fresh developer, for 3 minutes. I can develop a batch of 10 or a single print this way with identical results and account for dry down. I could buy an expensive compensating timer that someone else has calibrated and hope that works to account for temperature variation but why bother? I don't see any realistic way of accounting for dry down by developing based on visual inspection. Perhaps people who are printing constantly for years can develop some consistency in that, but rare virtuosity is not a method.
The idea of cooking to taste is not the same as basing development time on a view of a print under an amber safelight. It's more like taking a bite out of the side of a cow and "knowing" that the steak will be good once it finishes cooking. Some people can no doubt do that, but why bother acquiring the skill.
Certainly other methods exist that can control printing variables. But to my mind, basing development time on the visual inspection of an aging man (me) under a 15 watt amber safelight, especially within just 120 seconds after turning off the room lights, is one of the worst methods for for most people. Of course, the proof is in the pudding.
Develop to completion is where the print nolonger gains density in the dev. In otherwords you don't pull the print when you think it looks 'right', but when the development has slowed to a crawl -- I suspect if you left a print in the developer overnight the whole print might turn black. Depending upon the developer (in my limited b/W experience) Rc prints develop to completion in around 2 min, fb depends upon the paper.
I think I'm with you on about 90%, Doctor, but not completely.
While I AM a practitioner of witchcraft, alchemy, factorial development or ... inspection,
there is no argument from me about the need for development for a 'sufficiently long' time.
I think - if anything - that there is a misunderstanding of what is going on in an 'inspection' darkroom.
First, there is a hard won consistency. Temperatures are stable. In my darkroom, the lights are quite bright, just the right color, and fog-proof. Yes, fog is tested on a regular basis. This is, after all, the room that supplies my income. Surprises are not encouraged. And I usually turn my safelights on while I am getting ready to print, so my eyes adjust long before I have to make any decisions.
Dry down is not a surprise. It is a basic consideration, as is the illumination level of where the print will hang. Exhaustion rates of developers are accounted for. The characteristics of a given paper and developer combination are known: what is the working range, does contrast change over a long development time, can the curve be reshaped to move the midtones relative to the whites and blacks - some can, some can't. I seldom work with a paper I haven't made a hundred prints with. I buy a lot of paper at a time. I spend a lot of time with a step wedge getting to know the full personality of a paper before it ever makes a picture.
What is the print color going to be ? If a warmer tone is desired, that means a shorter development time will be needed, 1 or 1 1/2 minutes. Careful tests need to be made before putting a precious, full sheet of paper into the developer. Always beginning with a softer developer, adding contrast as needed, restrainer as might be required, based on dry tests. And not heat dried paper, not if the prints will be air dried. This means, obviously, that a print might take a while to dry.
It takes as long as it takes. I have a rocking chair in my darkroom. Sometimes, I just sit and listen to music. A piece of music often becomes an analogy to what I hope to make of a print; I'm working on a portrait this week that seems to have summoned Casals to the darkroom, and the picture of my old friend seems to taking form as I listen to Bach.
All of this is prologue to the production of the final prints, whether an edition or a one-off. By the time I get to this point, I've made several test prints, and lived with the toned, and dried variations pinned to a wall for a day or two, or more. So, when it is time to push the button, I'm sure what is going to happen, and I'm free to WATCH THE PRINT. I use a re-wet test print for reference, and develop until a threshold white looks right. At this point, I trust my eyes to discern what a timer cannot comprehend. By now, changes happen slowly, and it is a rewarding and stress free moment. It may SEEM to be an unproductive way to work, but every week there are drying racks full of good prints. Getting the first one just right DOES take days, but then the fun starts.
All of this suits my temperament, and the mystery and slow paced progress is what has kept me enchanted by the craft for 40+ years. There are many different ways to make good prints, and I believe we each need to work out a method that is successful and fulfilling for ourselves. The proof IS in the pudding, but also in enjoying the MAKING of the pudding.
There are many different ways to make good prints, and I believe we each need to work out a method that is successful and fulfilling for ourselves. The proof IS in the pudding, but also in enjoying the MAKING of the pudding.
And most people use a mixture of methods - I know I do. It's important to know the time at which the print will achieve maximum Dmax (which I take to be developing to completion) at a certain temperature. Then the variables come in, which it is more, or less, easy to control (depends on the time of year for me, with regard to temperature fluctuations) and then there's the particular result you want from that print. Watching when the print starts to appear gives you a good idea of how long the print needs to stay in the developer and if you want to adjust from a difficult negative it's important to watch what's going on. As for dry-down, you can work it out to some extent, but for me learning about a paper's characteristics comes about through observation mainly in the wash, with lights on. So I suppose I've learnt in retrospect. Some people achieve results by working it out beforehand e.g. knowing exactly what percentage/ how many seconds to allow for dry-down for any paper. I've never done that, just know from experience how much if at all to adjust from the first print I see in the wash, under my particular lights-on lighting, for a particular paper. I find this more reliable and convenient than taking the print into daylight, which is what all people in communal darkrooms obviously have to do, and most students are taught to do for obvious reasons. I'm not one to do lots of analysis on a new paper before doing anything else - I find it quicker and more satisfying to get on with it and quickly learn to make adjustments.
There's no 'better' or 'more creative' way - and in this way it is like music, or anything else for that matter. We all learn in different ways, and find different tools more or less useful or appealing.
Suzanne & RZ 
thanks!
Linear Mode
