In the old darkroom days, was it possible to make a print perfect the first time?

Question

I've heard it so many times how a photographer had to reprint a photograph 7 times to get it right, etc. Was this always so, or was this just the occasional few prints that ended up in picture frames mounted in some art gallery?

There are so many awesome answers here, I'm going to have to read them over and over and try make a decision as to which is the best

I don't know who to give best answer to because almost all the answers are great. I will leave this one up to the voters

Answer 1

Others have mentioned the use of a test strip to get the exposure right. There also exist a few pieces of equipment that help increase the odds of getting it right. One is called a photodensiometer or exposure meter. It's just a light meter for darkroom use. You check various key elements of the image and see what the proper exposure would be for the paper you are using. I never did any of my own color work (helped a friend with his on rare occasion, though...), but stuck to black and white. In fact, I was almost "standardized" on Plus-X. I didn't use a light meter in the field and I got to the point that I didn't need test strips in the darkroom with a "normally exposed" negative. Thin, pushed negs (Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600-6400...) were worthy of a test strip, though.

One piece of equipment that I eventually bought and used without question was a grain focuser. If the grain is in focus, you know thet it's as good as it can be. If you want to defocus in the darkroom, I think you should always start with the sharpest possible image and decide from there. A grain enlarger looks sort of like a microscope. It's just an inspection loupe mounted above a mirror in a jig that would place the eyepiece at the same virtual distance as the surface of the paper. Here are several examples: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/748/Enlarging_Accessories_Focusing_Aids.html

Most people seem to be unaware that enlarger lenses also have apertures that can be opened and closed just like a camera lens. This will alter the sharpness and exposure the same way it does in a camera. If you want the image to be tack sharp, go to an f/11-f/22 range and it will be crystal clear, in spite of any minor "waves" in a sheet of paper that doesn't lie flat. Gonzo crazy darkroom techs use vacuum easels to suck the paper down perfectly flat, but those of us in the real world had to use ordinary easels that only secures the paper at the edges and allowed some potential error, albeit it extremely slight. Using a small aperture might mean using a 30-60 second exposure, though, instead of the more convenient 4-5 second exposure often used with an f/4 or so.

Similar to Photoshop, you always have to option to mess things up with image manipulation (burning, dodging, tilting the easel or enlarger, on and on...) and I won't address them as far as the "perfect" print question. After a while, you can analyze the enlarger image and decide before hand to burn or dodge casually with no more than a wave of your hand or hands, but if you want a critical result as you might for an exhibit, it is likely that you will make 10 prints before you get one you like. When I was "coming up" in the darkroom in my early teen years, I must have made a hundred prints of one negative my dad had of Big Ben and another of the Arch d'Triumph, just seeing how a little change here or there made changes in the final print. Heck, even the temperature of your solutions makes a difference if you are picky enough!

To answer your question, after you've done a few hundred prints and thrown away about 90% of them, it IS possible to get a print right the first time. It's just like learning to use a camera. You get 95% of your shots right the first time, I am sure. It wasn't always that way... :-)

I didn't discuss color at all, because I decided not to learn! It was just too time consuming and way too expensive to waste all that paper and chemical trying to learn something that was so readily available commercially. Even with the relative ease of Photoshop, I am sure that very few pros do much "virtual darkroom" work with time constraints. The color darkroom is ten times more complicated than black and white and about five times more complicated than color on Photoshop, so I just never got into it. My time spent watching my friend go through paper at $50-100 a night was enough for me!

Answer 2

Of course it is possible to "get it right" the first time. This is especially true of a photographer's "standard" subjects, such as studio shots or other situations at which the photographer was most familiar.

But, the missing part of the equation, as you described it is in how well the photographer is able to "read" his negatives and/or is contact prints. With practice, and a magnafying glass or photographer's loupe, I could look at a set of negatives and, pretty much, pick out the one's most likely to make a good print. There are, also, darkroom tools to help the processore measure the density of light passing through parts of the negative, that helped in determining the exposure and timing of the enlarger's light on the photographic paper.

Just like the taking of the actuall shot, processing is an artistic and technical skill.

Remember too, that those of us who did (do) our own processing, didn't, just, cavelierly toss reams of photopaper under our enlarger heads. That stuff cost money, so, each attempt WAS a stab at getting it right. That included taking measurements, carfull selection of setting, running test strips and using all the skills and experience at our disposal.

There were, and still are, "purists" who did not beleive that a negative should EVER be tampered with. No cropping, dodging, burning-in, etc. They believe that all the variables should be controlled at the camera, and, NEVER in the processing.

I had no problem with that, as long as THEY didn't stick their noses into my darkroom. (or smugly stand behind me while I work my Photoshop magic)

Answer 3

Good question and great answers, there's not much to add but I would like to point out to those digital folks that may not have ever done their own developing that until you actually produce the print you have only seen the negative of the image and sure a trained eye can read a negative but it's still easier on the finished print. Digital you get the enlarged computer screen size positive image before you even begin to "photoshop" it.

There may be areas that need to be dodged or burned that will only be really obvious post print. With experience one should be able to judge what areas need dodging/burning and by how much etc but for an art print it's going to be more involved than that, you may make one print and decide to print it on a harder paper.

It's been a long time since I did much in the dark room perhaps it's changed but there was a whole range of papers available depending on the contrast levels you were after.

Answer 4

The answer is both yes and no. Yes, if the original negative held all the values you wanted, none that you didn't and everything was in the right relationship between values. Just pick your paper and with experience, you can print from the numbers. That's B&W. With color, you would usually have to adjust the color balance in the color head of the enlarger after a test print.

I learned print making from Ansel Adams, one of the truly great masters and people think he would just take an image and get a perfect print. Nothing could be further from the truth. He would do the first print and, from there, work out the burning in and dodging (plus other things) that he would need to get the final image he wanted. Seven prints is not an unreasonable number.

The perfectly exposed and composed negative (or digital image) is not necessarily the perfect print.

Answer 5

I have dry to dry roller transport processors for color printing.

Usually, I can nail a print on the first try as far as exposure, composition, focus, etc. But it's common on inspection to find a tiny flaw in a print such as a speck of dust on the negative or a tiny chemical spot on the print. I would say this would happen on about 1 in 50 custom prints.

I bought paper in lots of about a hundred boxes at the time so the dye lot numbers would match. And my color would remain fairly consistent through the entire dye lot. If there was a chemical shift that could change. But the chemistry is checked constantly and automatically replenished in the processors. You run test strips through the machine to check for consistent chemical and temperature balance. If you blow an enlarger lamp out it will change a few things.

Sometimes if a shot wasn't lit exactly right a few reprints would be required to dodge or burn in areas to correct that.

But once you zeroed in a new batch of paper and chemicals using a color analyzer and a densometer you could roll out hundreds of prints with little problem.

The color prints you don't like have to make a lot of copies of are the 30x40's and larger. But those are most likely to be a problem.

Printing color in a small home darkroom isn't worth the effort in my opinion. But there are those who manage to do it.

Black and white can be mastered in most any size darkroom. Really great black and white prints usually take three or four times to get perfect.

Answer 6

Yes, but the answer is it depends. For someone working at home with familiar equipment, film and papers you can get away with printing something first time if you don't want to necessarily do something special with it... you have experience - and familiar materials you are working with.

However if you then decide to darken (burn in) certain areas, or to lighten (dodge) them, or to change the grade of the paper to increase or decrease the contrast it will obviously need more time and effort.

In fact you often didn't need to reprint the whole image - you could work things out on test strips and then apply them to your final image.

So you couldn't afford to do this every time - unless you were working in a particular high value market who would actually pay for the extra time and effort you put in!!

Answer 7

Possible? Sure ...

Likely to happen? Rarely, I'd say (from my own experience).

No matter how good the first print was, I'd usually do others just to see variations.

I'm really glad that I'll never have to do THAT again. I know some who still enjoy that process. But NOT ME! Give me Photoshop and a MAC ... I'm a happy, and much more fulfilled and capable, photographer and printer.

And, of course, I'm seldom satisfied with the first print using this process too. Proofing is just part of the creative process.

Answer 8

It is possible. Most of prints came out first time when I was in the college darkroom. I would make my own judgements after using a test strip and then my prints would be perfect.

Answer 9

You could sell it to some people who would love it. Students or people just looking for that kind of stuff... Let me tell you, if I had the place for it, I'd have a darkroom and would always be in it! I just love it!

Answer 10

It is possible, and I'm sure there are many out there who are familiar enough with the dark room materials. Sometimes the first time might be good enough, but most don't want good enough they want perfect.