Nice PDF Bob. Did someone convert all his articles to PDF files?
Originally Posted by Bob F.
Not officially, but I converted a few for reading on the Tube on the way in to work...
Originally Posted by JHannon
I agree. I have scanned negatives that looked great on the screen but were very difficult to print in the darkroom. I now resist the urge to "peek" with scanning and do a proper proof sheet. Like Fred says, if a negative looks bad on the proof sheet, it is because it is bad.
Originally Posted by esanford
I have not found the contact sheet of much value to my self, as I can simply look at the negative and tell pretty much what it will look like printed,
However editors art directors and most other like the proof sheet. I do not use them for file purposes, so they are pretty much a waste of time for me personally. My thoughts are if you need them, like them and use them then indeed make contact sheets, if you are like myself, I can work very well without them. Each unto his own. I do not personally agree with a lot of Fred Pickers philosophy and tecnique, it worked for him, if it works for you,
I personally would feel pretty dumb to have spent all these years in photography and not have learned how to be able to read a negatives potential at a glance.
I guess proof sheets are a matter of preference , six of one and 1/2 dozen of the other. The ease of filing and ability to wright notes on the back of proof sheets would probably improve my system, which is at best ,a fairly chaotic undertaking.
Thanks one and all.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
It's really personal preference. I find making proper contact sheets to be a waste of time and photographic paper and contact sheets in general to be totally worthless. Obviously others disagree and get good results by making them. I'm a much better judge of a negative than a contact sheet.
I have not made a contact sheet of 35mm since I was in High School, and don't feel my photograhpy has suffered for it...But as others have stated, contacts are a personal preference thing, if you have never done any, you might do some up and see if it works for your particular work flow.
This is not something to debate, and I think the answer to the original question is, it's both yes and no at the same time.
Originally Posted by esanford
I prefer the neg scan of 35mm negs because I know my negs are pretty consistant in quality, so their appearence on the computer screen is for the benefit of demonstrating the potential images of the final prints. And if the exposures are poor, I can see that, too.
Also for the magnification purpose, it's easier.
And about scratching the negs, not really if you use a decent 35mm scanner like Nikon Coolscan V. But I remember when I used the flatbed scanners (old Agfa and Epson) for my 35mm negs, their neg folders often caused scatches. But still, those scarches were on the plastic side, which affected none to the prints when I put nose oil.
Considering how much I have to spend for each 25 sheet pack or 100 sheet box of 8x10" Ilford RC today, I just don't see the reason why I have to have such expensive index paper for filing my negs. Filing on the computer however saves all that, and I don't have to print them out.
At the same time it serves as a backup just in case something terrible happens to the negs and they get deteriorated, which hasn't happened, though. But of course, if you don't have negs but just digital files, then you have to worry about storing them even more carefully. So I think the combination works the best.
But if I were to teach someone who's never developed film and/or made a contact sheet before, I would say no neg scan yet.
Originally Posted by Charles Webb
You are one of the people on this site who I highly respect because of your vast experience. But really, you can look at a set of negatives and determine which ones are printable and which are not? I can't count the number of times after developing film that I thought that I'd really hit it on the button only to find after proofing the negatives that they were all trash. I don't have your experience, but I have been doing this for 25 years. I absolutely cannot look at a negative and determine anything short of fogging or severe underexposure.... Bravo man!!!
I have to proof everything. I will confess that I am a student of Fred Picker... I've done all of his tests and many of his exercises, and I have found his methods to be absolutely dead on... Now I don't want to start a debate on Fred, God Rest his Soul, because mentioning his name can start a soap box controversey. I just found his methods to be based upon hard work and discipline. Not only did I use his technique for photography, I've applied it in other aspects of life.... For instance his saying that products do what they do and not necessarily what the manufacturers says is something that I use all the time...
Often wrong, but never in doubt!
No debate here man... just a discussion.... In my case, if I look at negatives too hard, I tend to scratch them. For me, it's develop, dry, place in the neg holders, and never touch them without film gloves. The negs never come out unless I find one that deserves printing...which is very seldom.
Originally Posted by firecracker
I understand all of your other points and have tried them. Frankly, when I want to do all that, I just pull out the digital camera and stay electronic all the way.
I am glad that you would teach a newbie the old analog way before you would recommend short-cuts... To me, most of the digital photographers have entered that world because its easy and not because its better. Having said that, there are some very creative digital photographers out there.... But for me, when you add the computer, you've left the analog world... I know, I know, we have to scan prints for post here on APUG. I only do prints for that purpose; never neg scans. Moreover, I never comment on someone's negative scans. I think that printing in the darkroom is a necessary part of that process.... But then again, I'm just one guy...
Often wrong, but never in doubt!