Just spent the whole night in the darkroom printing my very first prints. They turned out really nice, IMHO, especially considering what I have to work with. I have no timer and no safelight -- I set up in total darkness and time my exposures and tray times by the hypnotic tick-tick-tick of the wall clock. Between that and the chemical fumes, I got it into my head that accuracy and consistency in the darkroom is highly overrated. The shadow density is essentially fixed when the film is exposed, so if development times or temps are off a bit, the detail is still there. Variations in contrast can be corrected in printing. If the water's a bit warm, I shorten the time a bit. I stop the film or pull the print when it "feels" right. No charts, no calculations. And it seems to work just great, especially considering this was my first attempt. So... beginner's luck? A case of not knowing what I'm missing? Should I invest in a bigger ventilation fan or what?

-- Kevin Krumwiede (kjkrum@concentric.net), July 09, 2000

Answers

Get a safelight and a timer. You will find paper development by inspection much easier and you will actually be able to see the clock. A good safelight is not an expensive item and is, I believe, a darkroom essential. As for a timer,you are correct,timing isn't as critical for printing,but,accurate developer timing will get you optimum results. On the other hand,if you ever decide to develop negatives, that wall clock just won't cut it. Very subtle differences in time can profoundly affect you negative contrast,density,grain ect. BTW Time and temperature is critical for negative development, therefore, if you don't have a thermometer, you need to get one.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), July 09, 2000.

Can't wait to see what people think on this topic, but here's my $.02- You should have a good gut feel for your materials and for exposure and timing. This prevents dumb mistakes, since you'll instinctivly know when something isn't right. You should know what 68 degrees feels like, how long a second is, and where everything is when the lights are out. If the power goes out in the middle of a developing run, it shouldn't be a big deal- just start counting and do what you normally do. At the same time, precision measurements and consistancy help you understand the process in a more sophisticated way. They let you know if your materials change batch to batch, and save both time and materials by reducing experimentation. They let you operate closer to the edge of the envelope in terms of contrast and tonal range. Also, printing isn't very fussy since you get real time visual feedback. Unless the climate is extreme, most people don't control temperature when printing, and any simple clock timer is sufficient (though I prefer a good digital timer since I often forget exposures between test strips and real prints!) What is fussy is the result- highlights and shadows have to be far more perfect than instrumentation will usually allow, and the eye is your best tool. Try to look at some really good original prints to see how your work stacks up.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), July 09, 2000.

How can you pull prints from the developer without a safelight to see what's happening? Actually how can you do this under safelight anyway... what's in the tray looks a lot different in natural light usually! This is a bad practice anyway, especially if you're just starting. It's another variable that you can take out of the equation by being consistent.

I use a battery powered timer for film development and a stopwatch for print processing (ie time in the chems) as I usually hang it round my neck and because I know it started at zero, I don't have those moments like "now was it 8:02 or 8:03 when I put this in the fixer..." A digital timer controls the enlarger and I love that device!

The time between 40 and 41 seconds might not make a difference to your print but if you're working in the sub 10 seconds range then you'll easily see the difference. And to repeat a print, say to burn an area in, you want to be able to repeat times consistantly.

Also, you want to make sure those prints stay in the fixer and get washed for long enough.

Sure, you can create prints without the items you've mentioned, but I think you'll enjoy yourself better by being consistant and not having to worry if you're counting right.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), July 09, 2000.

You're right, timing is irrelevant - if all your work is "one off" and you aren't interested in repeating your results. Why do I have the feeling it wouldn't matter to you anyway?

-- Alec (alecj@bellsouth.net), July 09, 2000.

Trolling is such fun. Where do these guys come from. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 09, 2000.

I disagree about developing prints by inspection. Once I settle on a "standard" development time with my particular film, paper, and chems (based on a maximum-black test with a blank negative), I'm going to always use that time as a starting point. If the print is too dark or too light, then something's different about the negative and I can learn from that and apply it to my next roll of film. The book that's got me this far makes a good case for developing by time, so I'm gonna stick to that for now.

I do use a stopwatch for film processing, but I don't see why it's THAT critical. I've been doing film for a while and I've kept a meticulous darkroom log. I have my "standard" times and temps all worked out. I'm also writing neg index and exposure time on the back of each print. Yes, I do want repeatable results. Still, I can't see where a "few seconds" makes any difference. I can see how precision might be more of a factor if I were trying to be Ansel Adams, but that kind of precision starts in the camera. I don't sit down and calculate filtration for optimal tonal range with each and every shot. This is 35mm, remember. Check shadows, check highlights, click away.

I think some people are just obsessed with perfection. Is it really worth worrying over?

-- Kevin Krumwiede (kjkrum@concentric.net), July 09, 2000.

No, I'm serious, James. I really do this. In the dark. It's kinda fun, actually. :o) I think I will get a safelight, though.

-- Kevin Krumwiede (kjkrum@concentric.net), July 09, 2000.

Re: Printing by inspection. I have found that each printing session is different. I use a voltage stabilized power source for my enlarger and a digital enlarging timer. In addition my water is filtered and temperature controlled and my darkroom is air-conditioned in summer and heated in winter with a year round exhaust fan. Despite all these precautions.I still get variations from session to session. I develop my prints for the full recommended developemnt time (I use an analog timer), but after years of printing I have learned how to read a print in the developer under the safelight, so if it needs a litte extra dev or it needs to be pulled, I can see it. [I am color blind so perhaps I am not affected as much by the amber (or whatever) light as people with normal color vision.]. In conclusion, as far as printing is concerned, paper exposure is critical (an accurate timer is essential) but development can be more intuitive.

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), July 09, 2000.

I can't imagine not having a safelight for printing. I guess it really doesn't matter, but why not? The time concern is much bigger for film than for paper. Yes, a couple degrees does make a differnce with film. So does the developer dilution, agitation, etc. If you have those kinds of darkroom habits, PLEASE do not EVER use T-Max and then rag about it on this board. This type of attitude is why so many people are stuck with "forgiving" films and papers instead of being able to use better products, or even give them a fair try.

-- E.L. (elperdido65@hotmail.com), July 09, 2000.

I knew this question would stir up a healthy round of responses, so here's my input. First I would ask that you take a step out of the photographic world and consider this question in the context of creative art.

If this was a painting forum and someone had a new technique of radomly mixing and throwing paint on canvas, without regard to precise mixing and brush strokes, it would be a non-issue - it's been done since the 1950's. So why does creative photography require such precision and control? Shouldn't we leave the rules and strict guidelines to commercial photographers, who's clients demand precise and repeatable results?

While the rest of the world is in a mad rush to embrace digital imaging for complete and total control over the printing process, why not use the imperfection of the wet darkroom process to your advantage? If creating art to you means throwing away the digital timer, scale and notebook, go ahead and do it!

I know this response raises more questions than it answers, but I'm inspired by the outspoken artist (and close friend of Man Ray) Marcel Duchamp who once gave this advice to other artists, "If you're not having fun, you'll bore us all"

-- Bill Noll (bill@neoview.com), July 09, 2000.

Amen Bill, Amen!

As I recall, Edward Weston used an egg timer. Walker Evans & Imogene Cunningham had darkroom technique that would send shivers down the spine of the dedicated Zonie.

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), July 09, 2000.

seems to me if you have no control over what is created, then you haven't really created anything have you? its just a happy accident.

At least an egg timer is consistent isn't it?

And Imogene's methods are based on her many years of experience, wouldn't you think?

All photographers use the Zone system in one way or another--its all just applied sensitometry-- they just arrived after many years of trial and error to the same conclusions.

who says I have to do anything the way a painter does?

Do you really think that all painters think that throwing paint at the canvas is legtimate art? come on....seems to me gravity would be the creator, not the person throwing paint.

I enjoy total control over my materials because I want my personal vision to be translated to the final print, if I can't put on paper what I saw in my mind's eye, then whats the point?

Kevin, if you are so easy to satify now then you will never improve

final word--talk is cheap--you can say you don't need all these methods to produce prints, but what do they look like? When I started in photography what I did ten years ago would have looked amazing to me, but from my present point of view what I did ten years ago is much less so.

P.s. Yes, I have loads of fun doing what I do.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), July 09, 2000.

As Larry Clark said, 'if it works for you, it works. There ain't no rules.'

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), July 10, 2000.

Well, thanks for all the opinions. I suppose that if/when I do decide I want to make "really great" prints, then I'll try to control things more. As it is, my 5x7's are already looking as good or better than the ones I was paying $3 apiece for a machine to spit out. I'm having fun getting my fingers wet*, and I'm happy with my results so far.

* Just a figure of speech. I don't actually stick my fingers in the chemicals. Don't flame me!

-- Kevin Krumwiede (kjkrum@concentric.net), July 10, 2000.

OK, here's my little secret. I use an old clock like a metronome (too cheep to by a real one -- 4 clicks to the second). For developing film, I use Rod Stewart's greatest hits, (First Cut is developer, then a little humming on the end and My Heart Can't tell me No). I imagine American Pie would work for prints, or Glen Campbell "by the time I get to Houston (I'll be Fixing).

Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), July 10, 2000.

BTW, Hudson Hawk was my FAV movie!!! Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), July 10, 2000.

I guess this thread is slipping a bit from printing into art theory, but I think it's a vital discussion and I'm thoroughly enjoying the responses.

Mark, the reference and comparison I made to painting was to make an observation that painters have constantly challenged society's definition and relative importance of art. I didn't mean to imply that photographers should necessarily look to painting for inspiration and direction (ironically, however, that'sexactly how (camera obscura) and why photography was invented 170 years ago).

I can't name a major artist (photographic or otherwise) of the 20th Century who didn't break new ground, but simply improved the work of others. This is perhaps the reason so many artists are not critically recognized until decades after their deaths, when their work can be seen in perspective.

Ansel Adams, undoubtedly the most meticulous photographer/printer in history, broke new ground by embracing precision to a level never before attempted. Sure, everyone should learn the Zone System and know how to create a correctly exposed negative and print, but when the obsession with perfect technique overrides the emotional content of a print, what's the point?

In the final analysis, the appreciation and creation of art and music is a unique phenomenon, unexplainable by experts. Best of luck to everyone who is inspired to capture an image from nature and create art with the miracle of photography, even with an egg timer.

You can view my out of focus (and poorly processed) work at www.infraredgallery

-- bill noll (bill@neoview.com), July 11, 2000.

all interesting perspectives... this board is good in that there's varying opinions and not too many flames! We are intelligent :)

but... I like my chemical reactions to complete :) (so timing the fix is a must regardless of how 'creative' you think your slap dash developing is getting you) BTW, maybe a water-pistol could be a darkroom aid! :) I've got a 'super-soaker' I keep handy to keep my nephew in line :)

and Kevin, you will get more critical of your work! esp when you start to print much bigger.

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), July 11, 2000.

Bill, I got a "This Page Cannot Be Displayed" when I tried your url.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), July 11, 2000.

Unless you are content to see what "happy accidents" come along, I'd suggest you try to control the entire process as well as you can. In the long run it will save you a lot of time and money, as well as giving you the ability to predict the outcome of experiments, and repeat those that work.

-- Chris Ellinger (ellinger@umich.edu), July 11, 2000.

Chris, I'm not sure why the last couple of characters get cut off in my responses (does anyone else have this problem?). The correct URL is www.infraredgallery.com. Thanks.

As a test, I'm going to type the letters A ... G below. I'm using AOL for email (which probably explains the problem!).

ABCDE

-- bill noll (bill@neoview.com), July 11, 2000.

Yea, I'm for timing, I got tired of listening to the same 3 songs for consistency, so I got a timer. But that Supersoaker is a great idea for selective development.Hmmmm. Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), July 11, 2000.

Re: Imogene, read Judy Dater's excellent book "Portrait of Imogene" and Jerry Thompson's book on the last years of Walker Evans

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), July 20, 2000.

Try repeating a great exposure two years later using a development and printing by inspection approach. You will waste a lot of frustating hours in the darkroom, I'll guarantee.

Standardize time & temp, and you will never look back. Productivity will increase, the mind's eye will be able to focus on essentials, and you will master the fine points of print evaluation much faster.

The point of standardization is to make things automatic, easy and avoid error and repititious work, not accuracy of results. Standarize and darkroom printing, which can be a hell hole experience, becomes more pleasant. The same goes for comfortable shoes and flooring, adequate space, and good ventilation in the darkroom. Be easy on yourself and the hobby lasts a lifetime. Make it hard and you will stop inside a couple of years, if that long.

Tick-Tick-Tick is not a bad way to time though. Many master printers used to use a metronome in the past. Even Mannes and Godowsky, when they invented the notoriously sensitive Kodachrome process.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), July 26, 2000.