Couldn't have said it better myself! And, I totally agree.
-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute and reply to posts and download the resources.
Creating The Proper Proof - Fred Picker
- Thread starter Ian-Barber
- Start date
Couldn't have said it better myself! And, I totally agree.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2016
- Messages
- 619
Mr Picker does a good job in selling his contact printing method as the one which will give the photographer finely-wrought control over essential technicalities. But I don't think his claims stand up to too much scrutiny. He says his method will give you a record of what is on the negative. But so will any other half decent contact print. He says his method will show you exactly what is on your negative and help you decide if you want to make a print. But so will any decent contact print made by other methods. And he says that his method will give you essential information about exposure and development, and by standardising on it you will spot any changes that occur in the nature of the film, developer or paper. And so you might. But you can just as easily keep a check on these things by other means.
Two things that all film photographers try to get right are accuracy of exposure, and good control of negative contrast through the right amount of development. Accuracy of exposure is easily checked by looking at the negative. If you have clear areas that are as clear as the film border, where you actually wanted shadow detail, then you have underexposed. Or if your darkest shadow areas are noticeably denser than the film borders, then you have probably over-exposed. And if one of these things is happening consistently, then you have an exposure problem that needs sorting out. This is something you can keep a check on without even making a contact print.
As for contrast, if you are consistently having to print on grade 3.5 or 4 - or 1.5 and 1, then you need to change your development regime. But if your 35mm negatives usually print on grade 2.5 or 3, but you have to deal with the odd one that is rather flat or too contrasty, then this is quite normal. I write this for beginners; it is common knowledge among experienced photographers. What I am trying to say is that I feel your skills and creative judgement will be honed more usefully if you force yourself to assess your negatives and your final prints, than if you follow a step by step method and set of "rules" laid down by someone else.
Alan
Two things that all film photographers try to get right are accuracy of exposure, and good control of negative contrast through the right amount of development. Accuracy of exposure is easily checked by looking at the negative. If you have clear areas that are as clear as the film border, where you actually wanted shadow detail, then you have underexposed. Or if your darkest shadow areas are noticeably denser than the film borders, then you have probably over-exposed. And if one of these things is happening consistently, then you have an exposure problem that needs sorting out. This is something you can keep a check on without even making a contact print.
As for contrast, if you are consistently having to print on grade 3.5 or 4 - or 1.5 and 1, then you need to change your development regime. But if your 35mm negatives usually print on grade 2.5 or 3, but you have to deal with the odd one that is rather flat or too contrasty, then this is quite normal. I write this for beginners; it is common knowledge among experienced photographers. What I am trying to say is that I feel your skills and creative judgement will be honed more usefully if you force yourself to assess your negatives and your final prints, than if you follow a step by step method and set of "rules" laid down by someone else.
Alan
What Fred is trying to convey in the use of the Proper Proof is consistency. Many photographers will determine correct exposure for any single roll or sheets of film by doing a contact strip first, then a contact print is made after selecting the best exposure. This method may give you a nice looking contract print, but it tells you absolutely nothing about your processes. The contact print has been tailored to that one roll of film. The PP, on the other hand, is specifically designed for a single exposure for maximum black through clear film with all other variables at repeatable settings. Going forward, this tells you all you need to know about your process and materials through crafting the negative. Nobody has to work this way, if they chose other methods, but it sure is simple and straightforward. I could regale you with a tale of how Kodak tweaked HC-110 many years ago and stated, emphatically, that the formula was identical; the PP told another story!
Sorry, I disagree. Can you tell the difference in shadow detail between a Zone II vs Zone III placement? And, I'm talking whole zones here. What if you tried, in the field, to place your textured shadow detail as low as you could get it and still retain some semblance of detail? Could you see that dark texture in the negative? Could you tell the difference, just by looking at the negative, between bits of texture along the shoulder of the curve? Again, what if you wanted to retain bits of texture into the higher values of Zone VIII and/or, maybe, into the lower region of Zone IX? Would you know by looking at the negative that you missed it and blew out these highest values?
A PP will tell you the answers to these questions. If you missed it, you'll know right away and can make adjustments. No one ever said anything was "cast in stone"; rather, it's one controlled way of working. Not trying to be argumentative here. I can assure you that after nearly 40 years of crafting LF negatives, I cannot tell much simply by looking at a developed sheet of film.
Not rules...just a straightforward, simple, repeatable way of working. There is nothing creative about the development of film; IMO, you should follow some sort of step-by-step method. Sure, everyone is going to make mistakes, but, if you're consistent in the rote side of photography, then you can hone your skills working on the hard parts--want are you going to put down on the film? How are you going to craft an expressive print?
A bit of an anecdote, but, I think, kind of applicable to what we're discussing here...
I remember Fred saying once, "If Ansel printed in a bikini and trout boots, I'd think it weird, but I'd try it!" The point is, what if Ansel had discovered some "magic" repeatable method for crafting beautiful B&W prints?
Alan,
I don't think anyone doubts Mr Picker's ability as a salesman. Perhaps we are making a bit too much of a bit of common sense, that he's chosen to give a name. A you say, the information is still embedded in the neg, whatever system anyone might choose to follow.
I don't think anyone doubts Mr Picker's ability as a salesman. Perhaps we are making a bit too much of a bit of common sense, that he's chosen to give a name. A you say, the information is still embedded in the neg, whatever system anyone might choose to follow.
Yep, Fred was a consummate business man, if nothing else. I really like you line of "...whatever system anyone might choose to follow." That's EXACTLY it! Chose some consistent, repeatable way of working and stick to it. You'll be a better photographer, the technical side of photography will be put to rest, and then you can concentrate on the harder creative side.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2016
- Messages
- 619
Hello Alan, and thanks for your very detailed response. If I tried, as you say, to place textured shadow detail as low as I could get it, then I would know I was running the risk of under-exposure. And this would show up in the negative as clear film. As for retaining detail in high zone VIII values, I wouldn't look to the negative to judge these. As I said earlier I judge exposure by looking at the negative. The proof of contrast control comes in the final print, and what contrast grade is needed to print it.
I can see how Fred Picker's method works for contact prints. I used it myself for a long time. But I don't think it supplies all the answers. The Zone VIII detail might not appear on a PP contact print if printed on grade 3, which Fred said he standardised on, but might show very nicely if you switch to grade 1.5. True, you would know you got the development time wrong if it didn't appear on a PP grade 3 print. But without doing PP prints you would know anyway if you had to keep using grade 1.5 to do your prints.
And Fred's method prints with the minimum full black time through clear film. Lets say you do a PP print and it has no blacks anywhere. This doesn't mean that you have got your exposure wrong. It just means that you didn't place your exposure at the absolute minimum which you would need to do to get full black in some small areas of shadow. To my mind, placing the exposure at the absolute minimum is too risky. And too any times I have struggled to get shadow detail that I could see on the negative to actually appear in the enlargement. So I like to expose generously. And as a result PP contact prints of my negatives would typically look slightly too pale, though there was actually nothing wrong with the negatives.
Finally, I seem to have got the wrong information somewhere along the line. Doesn't everyone wear a bikini and wellies in the darkroom?
Still enjoying the Morley Baer book, Alan. I showed it to a digital photographer friend who's just been staying with us. Not sure what he made of it!
Alan
I can see how Fred Picker's method works for contact prints. I used it myself for a long time. But I don't think it supplies all the answers. The Zone VIII detail might not appear on a PP contact print if printed on grade 3, which Fred said he standardised on, but might show very nicely if you switch to grade 1.5. True, you would know you got the development time wrong if it didn't appear on a PP grade 3 print. But without doing PP prints you would know anyway if you had to keep using grade 1.5 to do your prints.
And Fred's method prints with the minimum full black time through clear film. Lets say you do a PP print and it has no blacks anywhere. This doesn't mean that you have got your exposure wrong. It just means that you didn't place your exposure at the absolute minimum which you would need to do to get full black in some small areas of shadow. To my mind, placing the exposure at the absolute minimum is too risky. And too any times I have struggled to get shadow detail that I could see on the negative to actually appear in the enlargement. So I like to expose generously. And as a result PP contact prints of my negatives would typically look slightly too pale, though there was actually nothing wrong with the negatives.
Finally, I seem to have got the wrong information somewhere along the line. Doesn't everyone wear a bikini and wellies in the darkroom?
Still enjoying the Morley Baer book, Alan. I showed it to a digital photographer friend who's just been staying with us. Not sure what he made of it!
Alan
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2016
- Messages
- 619
What I should have made clear in my last post and didn't, is that I don't try to judge the shadow detail in a 35mm and 120 negatives by looking directly at them. I put them in the enlarger and view the enlarged image on the baseboard with the safelight off.
Alan
Alan
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,586
A valid point
@Alan Clark - very detailed and useful thoughts. Basically, I agree...again...with what you've said. I have used the PP concept for all my negs from 35mm up to 10x8 for nearly 40 years, and it has worked for me. One modification I made--can't remember exactly what grade paper Fred used for a PP--is to do the PP on grade 1 paper; or, now, with a grade 1 filter on VC paper. I'm not looking for blacks in my contact prints; rather, I want to see all the info that the negative contains. Again, that consistency of making the PP the same way each time ensures that things are working, as expected. Somewhat like you, the final arbiter is putting the negative in the enlarger and doing a work print. Only, then, will I know if it's a negative I wish to work into a fine print. Fine prints take a lot of time to achieve (at least, for me) and I don't want to waste time on dogs!
Glad you're enjoying the Morley Baer book. He has always been one of my favorite photographers.
@Ian B - I happened to stumble across this today looking for something else...you may find it interesting:
http://www.jbhphoto.com/articles/indeterminacy-effect/
Glad you're enjoying the Morley Baer book. He has always been one of my favorite photographers.
@Ian B - I happened to stumble across this today looking for something else...you may find it interesting:
http://www.jbhphoto.com/articles/indeterminacy-effect/
One small detail puzzles me about the Picker demonstration. (...apart from The Great 18/21 Paradox.) He (rightly) says that the bellows extension should be the same each time, and then uses a negative to focus. The edges of the frame would be quite adequate for this purpose and much easier to see. Mr Picker was generally known for making things simpler.
I've just read the Harlin article. Interesting. Today we have very bright LEDs and I wonder about their performance. To test if there was a specific paper effect, we'd need an always-on lamp and a reliable shutter. Does anybody have the time, motivation and equipment?
A small operational detail: both sheets should be developed together. It would be comparatively easy to make both exposures on one sheet by masking.
I've just read the Harlin article. Interesting. Today we have very bright LEDs and I wonder about their performance. To test if there was a specific paper effect, we'd need an always-on lamp and a reliable shutter. Does anybody have the time, motivation and equipment?
A small operational detail: both sheets should be developed together. It would be comparatively easy to make both exposures on one sheet by masking.
David, I believe the Durst AC1201 uses a shutter to control exposure.
The lamp comes on just before the shutter opens so in theory, the lamp is at it's optimum brightness before the shutter opens and closes for the set exposure time.
Sadly, my AC1201 controller is non-functional.
Mike
The lamp comes on just before the shutter opens so in theory, the lamp is at it's optimum brightness before the shutter opens and closes for the set exposure time.
Sadly, my AC1201 controller is non-functional.
Mike
Mike,
I didn't know that. Whipping away the red filter very quickly won't be quite the same thing.
Although it is certainly fascinating to ramble through these delightful meadows of unlikely opportunities for ever more elegant mistakes, when we are knee-deep in the muck and bullets of the darkroom, we look at the object in the fixer tray and say "Give it a bit more." (Or less, or a different grade, or whatever.)
Here's another tiny paradox. Leaf shutters are timed from fully open to fully closed. When the aperture is closed down the moving shutter blades pass the edge of the working aperture before the fully open position is reached, but the fully closed position is the same, whatever the aperture. Consequently, stopping down increases exposure.
I didn't know that. Whipping away the red filter very quickly won't be quite the same thing.
Although it is certainly fascinating to ramble through these delightful meadows of unlikely opportunities for ever more elegant mistakes, when we are knee-deep in the muck and bullets of the darkroom, we look at the object in the fixer tray and say "Give it a bit more." (Or less, or a different grade, or whatever.)
Here's another tiny paradox. Leaf shutters are timed from fully open to fully closed. When the aperture is closed down the moving shutter blades pass the edge of the working aperture before the fully open position is reached, but the fully closed position is the same, whatever the aperture. Consequently, stopping down increases exposure.
David, I can't say I know all the exact details of Fred's exact setup for the PP, but I can tell you what I did about 40 years ago. Since I have a Beseler 45M and the largest neg I print in that enlarger is 5x4, I just chose a good, sharp 5x4 neg, set sharp focus at my contact printing frame with the head raised up for about an 14x11" print, then used a Sharpie to make black marks where the lens stage and head assembly fell on the columns. I use this same setup for PP of all negs from 35mm through 10x8. Very easy to return to these same settings at a later time.
I have a strip of Dymo tape at the right height. It was the bellows extension that Mr Picker was adjusting by focusing a neg. My only point was that for this purpose, focusing the edge of the frame, without the extra step of inserting a neg, would be sufficient. A slight de-focus might even be preferable in case any dust got into the system. Any repeatable system will do the job and as we've seen here, some people seem to manage with other methods.