Digital BW, The Print

This is what happens to me also. I may redo an image file, generally just a simple gamma adjustment, immediately after the very first print. The decisive adjustments, however, are not made until a few days later.  I will typically take the print to shaded outdoors, examine some more under bright artificial lights, take it to work. I am a hazard on the road because I keep the print propped up near the shift control. The print just sits around for a few days barely in my conciousness, but always there, on the dining table, on my night stand. My wife does not appreciate it at all. After I have lived with it for a a few days, I start seeing nuances or possibilities thereof that I missed initially. Many times, first is the final print, but that decision only gets made after a few days.

Shilesh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "piezobw" <jon@...> wrote:
>
> probably this is obvious so don't shoot me...
> 
> but in b&w printmaking, if you spend more time looking at the print than you do at the display image, you will spend more time making evaluative judgments about what to change in the display image.
> 
> most imagers today spend 20 minutes looking at the image on the display - they can spend hours - but it takes minimum three full minutes for the brain to begin to "see" a print without the psychology imparting things that usually dissipate by concentrative looking - and yet many often make decisions in just a minute and the very important gestalt of the print goes unnoticed. 
> 
> Over the years I have watched those who come here to take workshops glance at their prints and then run back to the display to make changes...we try to slooooow them down, make them mark up the print, then spend three minutes in photoshop and twenty looking at the print, letting it sink in, playing "pre-visualization" through imagination, squinting, blocking out, using a pencil to darken something temp to see... really just photographic practices...
> 
> Jon Cone
> Piezography
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mrjimbo" <mrjimbo@> wrote:
> >
> > I find that regardless of what I do when scanning with B&W that I make further adjustments to get the print to get the "feel" that I need .. The contrast and tonality I see on my screen typically is different when I print the job.. It's not like the image is that far off it's just the relationship of areas in the image with respect to contrast and tonality are slightly different .. enough that I need to fool with it to get teh feel back..... I'm having a hard time putting words to this. I don't honestly feel I have these same issues in color printing.. This may sound like I'm incredibly unskilled and have horrible tools .. but I find B&W printing to truly attain a level  of excellance quite complex. I would love to make it easier but have yet to really get it truly figured out.. I mean I can make a good B&W print ...but when I get an image on the screen that talks to me.. It takes a while to get the print to talk that way also.. I honestly admit I need more experience.. hopefully it'll come..
> > 
> > jimbo
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> >   From: Mark Savoia 
> >   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> >   Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:22 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is Camera Raw enough?
> > 
> > 
> >     
> >   Well everyone has their workflow that works for them and they think is 
> >   the simplest and easiest. Yours is just one of the many, many ways 
> >   with that approach. Only thing I see as an issue is why you need to do 
> >   that much adjusting of your scanned negs? Perhaps you need to work on 
> >   your scanner software so it gets things much closer.
> > 
> >   Mark
> >   http://www.stillrivereditions.com
> > 
> >   On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> > 
> >   > I'm a bw film photographer & need to learn how to print my scanned
> >   > negs digitally. In CS4, I've discovered that if I open my scanned
> >   > tiff's in Adobe Camera Raw, I can find pretty much all the adjustments
> >   > I need (mostly exposure & contrast) to keep my street look. I then
> >   > save the adjustments, open the file in Photoshop, probably apply a
> >   > gradient & then straight to print. It seems like I'm missing a world
> >   > of Photoshop possibilities, but if I tool around too much in PS, the
> >   > shots look too studied. Is anyone else using the simplified approach?
> >   > Comments appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>