4.24.2020

Opening another box of prints and looking at past work. Yes, the edge print is real, not digital...

This photo was taken in the early 1990's in my studio on San Marcos St. in east Austin. Renee and I were shooting just for fun and then I was using the images to work on my printing. Before clients beat it out of me I loved making portraits with large pools of dark tones. If I used fill light at all it was in the form of a passive reflector and not a light at all. Most of the time I moved the reflector so far away that I ended up with no detail in the shadows; and that's how I liked my prints. Once I'd logged enough "client hours" I knew I'd have to shoot with more shadow detail. Killing my preferred style slowly, a session at a time.

I used a 90mm-R Summicron on an R series body to make this image and I'm pretty certain I was using Agfapan black and white film at the time. Probably Agfanpan 100 souped in Rodinal developer, diluted 50:1.

I know I printed it on Seagull Portrait paper because this photograph is just a quick copy shot of the actual print and I can tell a toned Seagull print from everything else I've printed on. The copy capture added a warmer, browner tone to it that will make some people think that the paper was Agfa Brovira or Agfa Portriga Rapid but no.

When I look at this image I remember that we had a lot of fun and took a lot of photographs but what it really makes me think about most is how great it was to have such a large studio at the time. I was able to shoot 35mm film at a middling aperture, and with a fairly short telephoto lens, but still able to drop the background nicely out of focus. It's because I could put Renee as far forward from the background as I wanted to.

I mentioned the edge print because everyone whose printing experience only extends to digital probably doesn't even know why photographers printed with the edges of the sprocketed film showing. We did it mostly to prove that we were able to compose without after-the-fact cropping. That we were printing the full and unvarnished content of the negative.

To achieve the effect it was necessary to take a negative holder (and most were machined to fit the exact live area of the negative and NOT the edges) and file it out on all four sides so one could see the edges, and in some cases, the edge print of the film. Digital "artists" copied this idea and made endless actions people could buy in order to translate a physical attribute of analog film production to their more clinical digital images.

The position of the negative in the holder could vary from print session to print session so that now two sessions produced exactly the same edges.

I loved working in the dark room but I find ink jet printers to be less that fun. I still print the occasional ink jet print but always under self-imposed duress. It's not the same. And paying for ink sucks.


6 comments:

  1. Kirk,
    This post and the ones that Mike J. has posted on digital printers and ink prices (of which I have been aware of for a long time) keeps bringing me back to the idea if not the reality of a traditional film darkroom in my basement. I would have to pump the sink waste up to the drain line that runs overhead which is keeping me from dragging all my darkroom equipment out of the shed right now.
    Fred

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Art School darkroom was magical to me; I spent many hours there, in a profound tray-induced postural hunch. In my late twenties I did something stupid involving my lumbar region and the darkroom became a place of pain. But not quite as painful as shelling out for OEM inkjet inks and the uniquely excruciating experience of hearing your money being lavishly squandered in a wholly unnecessary 'cleaning cycle'.

    Then I discovered Roy Harrington's QTR process and found I could make astonishing b/w prints by inkjet. No, they're not the same as Agfa Portriga (yep, my fave too) but they are different in a good way I think. And it was bye-bye to OEM ink piracy, also. The components for the grey inks are so cheap, litres of the stuff for less than the price of one set of cartridges. The sound of a cleaning cycle became a prompt for smug self-congratulation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Before clients beat it out of me" ,,, this makes me so sad.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Beautiful portrait. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ahhh! working in the dark, with some music, till late at night. One light, with red gel, to focus attention on a print. Loved it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I too filed out a negative holder. When things were going well I loved working in my B&W darkroom, but on those days when nothing was going well,it was enormously frustrating. I learned on those days to just shut it down and not waste any more time. If I could afford to shoot film I would still be doing so. But I do not miss developing film. Developing 40 rolls using a five roll canister, drying the film, cutting the film into sections, and making contact sheets, would take me hours.

    ReplyDelete

We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!