Premature Darkroom Euphoria

I was contact printing some 4x5 negs on Azo the other night and one print, of an old chair and flower pot in sunflight (admittedly boring)looked to me like the greatest thing since "Moonrise, Hernandez," when I turned on the white lights. But looking at the print for a second time several days later, I thought to myself 'what was I thinking? This is a terrible print.' Even taking into account dry-down effects, it's incredibly dark, heavy and crappy looking. How could my judgement change so radically? Are the chemicals clouding my judgement? How could the print look so good to me one minute, and so terrible the next? Has anyone else experienced premature darkroom euphoria?

You may simply have too bright a light in the darkroom. Darkroom

illumination should be set to evaluate the wet print. If you take a

good print into the darkroom and it looks good there, you've got too

much light to judge wet prints. "taking into effect dry-down effects"

is not a simple matter. I use two different darkroom light levels

depending on whether I'm printing silver or Pt/Pd, which dries down

more. Take a print that looks good, dry, in normal viewing conditions,

soak it fully in water, and then adjust the light level in the

darkroom until the print looks right.

I quite often suffer from this condition - usually I find I've got the

print just right........then it comes out of the wash and I see the

hair/dust marks!!!!!!!!

You say you were printing SOME negs. I find that at best I can

print 3 negs in one all day/night session (pd/pt). When I try to do

one more, it seems to look good at the time, but the next day it's

crap. I have found that I just get too tired and loose my ability to

judge things well. The next session, I can reprint the same neg

with a fresh mind, and all is well. Sometimes it still sucks. I

would agree with the other post too that your viewing conditions

are critical as well.

Interesting! Had a different but similar experience. Does this stuff

"mature" for a week afterwards?? I did some prints that I was

ecstatic about, (in the darkroom with a 60 watt incandescent) looked

at them the next day and said for crying out loud my developer was

tired, no deep blacks! then looked at them a month later and said What

the?? Glad I didn't pitch them. They seem to change over extended

time. These were toned in Selenium too. Probably my imagination

looking at the same prints with a bunch of different light sources but

wonder if others have seen this phenomenon?

Ben, I think Carl has the answer. Darkroom illumination for wet print

evaluation is an interesting topic. I have found a 40w incandescent @

3' works well for silver gelatin.

In addition to the darkroom light being too bright, I think there may

be another factor. I find I must allow my eyes to adapt to the room

illumination for at least 2 minutes before I can trust myself to

evaluate a print. Before I lowered the illumination and learned to

wait a bit, my prints looked good only under very strong illumination.

Are you using a flourescent light source in the darkroom? This type

of light greatly exaggerates highlights and contrast of a wet print.

Beyond taking into account drydown effects you may need to do an

actual dry down test. This will graphically demonstrate the amount of

dry down you are getting. Knowing the actual effects of dry down for

a given paper, determining you final viewing illumination intensity

and matching the illumination intensity in your dark room are

critical, yet un-sung, elements to producing prints with consistent

tones.

 

<p>

 

You may find that your images never look "right" wet under a normal

light, but after drying look very different, much as you describe in

your post. If I am going to print images to be hung in a gallery I

determine the illumnation there and print to fit that light. That

print might look weak when wet but look very strong under the

gallerys dim lighting. If they are to be handed around a table at a

picnic it would require a very different print to be as effective.

That print would actually look to dark wet but have vibrant tones in

the bright outside light. I know these are two extremes, but each

light and room has a different feel that can have an effect on

the "look" of the print.

Dry-down factor being one solution to the problem, I also think one�s

particular mood has a play in this.

 

<p>

 

When I make something new, and it looks satisfactory to me, I usually

feel euphoria because I know that I am still in the ballgame, still

able to produce. But I remember a test of a 15th century painter �

�After completing a canvas, turn it against the wall. Come back to

it in 3 months, and then decide if it does what it was intended to

do.� � so I am usually reserved about anything that is less than a

few months old. If I can still feel good about a print a year later,

I then begin to think that there is something in it.

 

<p>

 

I remember reading that Eugene Meatyard believed that listening to

music while looking at photographs made the images more powerful (I

am surprised that most gallery owners do not pipe in classical music

while prospective buyers wander around the room).

 

<p>

 

The surroundings of the picture can have an effect. Adams believed

chocolate brown walls increased the beauty of his prints. Looking at

a photograph loose, or in a mat, can change the feel. I remember

seeing a photographer working on prints for an exhibition pull his

fiber photographs from a dryer, and when I looked at them they seemed

flat and lifeless. When I later went to see his show I was surprised

to find that matting and framing them, and the warm lights of the

gallery, had somehow given the prints more luminosity.

 

<p>

 

I remember seeing a great photography exhibit with the theme being

the interpretive print. Each photograph was seen twice, side by side.

The most memorable photograph for me was Adam�s �Moonrise,

Hernandez�. The first print was an early version, printed with great

subtlety, the contrast being quite low, and the sky very light. The

second print was made about 20 years later, and is the version I

always see in books � the contrast much greater, and the sky quite

dark. Which was better? For grabbing attention, the one with the

higher contrast seems appropriate, but I prefer the softer version

because one has to look at it with more intensity before finding the

greatness of the vision.

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. This forum is always a great

help to me.