Ansell Adams Dodge Tool

Merlin5

Merlin5

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,295
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
I was watching a video about how Adams started to get lots of demands from galleries for prints and so he was in his darkroom a lot. Does this mean that every time he made a print he used the dodge tool on the enlarged negative making each print slightly different and unique to each buyer? Or am I completely misunderstanding how he printed?
 
Its worth having a look at his book The Print, most of your questions should be answered.
 
Merlin5 said:
I was watching a video about how Adams started to get lots of demands from galleries for prints and so he was in his darkroom a lot. Does this mean that every time he made a print he used the dodge tool on the enlarged negative making each print slightly different and unique to each buyer? Or am I completely misunderstanding how he printed?
Click to expand...

Hand made prints tend to be a little different by their nature, one of the things that makes them special.
 
Merlin5 said:
I was watching a video about how Adams started to get lots of demands from galleries for prints and so he was in his darkroom a lot. Does this mean that every time he made a print he used the dodge tool on the enlarged negative making each print slightly different and unique to each buyer? Or am I completely misunderstanding how he printed?
Click to expand...
Hand made prints that have a lot of dodging & burning are bound to be at least slightly different but professional printers seem to be able to reproduce complex ‘choreography’ from memory. I referred to this link in another post recently but I don’t think it got much interest but it contains a description that is worth reading:

My guess is those lucky few to have witnessed one of his talks will never forget seeing the demonstration Voja makes of showing a sheet of photographic paper of a H.C.-B., Koudelka, Burri, or Turnley "straight" print, exposed only once with no burning and dodging, held up next to a final print showing all of Voja's artisanry. It is a phenomenal sight to see—and a powerful indication of the degree to which a great printer like Voja has contributed immensely to the expression of the vision of the photographer. I have witnessed Voja many times spend at least one hour of physical burning and dodging of a print. I've also seen him be able to repeat perfectly, like a machine, the exact same gestures and make a series of ten identical prints from the same difficult negative.

As recounted in part 1 Peter Turnley also worked as a printer so I think his account has value.

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

Voja Mitrovic, Printer to the Greats (Part II)

(Continued from Part I) Voja Mitrovic, Montparnasse, Paris, 1982 By Peter Turnley I recently sat down and interviewed Voja Mitrovic for several hours about his experiences as a printer. Several important concepts emerged from this interview. He indicated to me...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

Also Adams, and no doubt others, produced different versions of his famous prints over time — some think that may be partly due to changes in his eyesight etc as he aged,
 
On printing, if you really want to “do your head in” (it did mine, just watching it years ago) this video interview show Ctein describing and making a dye transfer print, interviewed by the late Michael Reichman (Luminous Landscapes). It’s not about dodging and burning so much as the intricate process and timing but the same sort of problems with reproducibility or ’corrections’:


There‘s a part one also, just talking about the process. Ctein printed dye transfers for collectors until recently.
 
the average professional photographer made many thousands of prints in their life time, I know that I have.
Even small whole plate file proofs. were dodged and burnt to some extent.

Some Printers made copious notes as to how each print was dodged and burnt. others (including myself) never did, and mostly worked instinctively as they read the negative projected on to the paper. Some negatives were difficult enough so as to required test prints and strips. but most were simple enough to read as you went along.
Something a simple as a wedding set. could be printed straight off with a great deal of confidence. I would usually expose twenty or so at a time and develop them as a batch using a shuffle technique, If I was unlucky I would have to repeat one or two with further corrections.

Large exhibition prints, and the largest regular ones I made were three meter square . had to be made in strips one meter wide. these too had to be dodged and burnt, but also had to match up at the seams when dry.. Some could be so complex as to require a 7x7 copy negative could be made of a large print was made so that straight finished prints could be made. such giant prints were always made on single graded paper. as variable contrast paper introduced too many variables. ( I am not even sure one miter wide rolls of printing paper were ever made in variable contrast.)

I have never met another orographer who had to make such large prints, they were usually done in specialist print establishments.
 
sphexx said:
On printing, if you really want to “do your head in” (it did mine, just watching it years ago) this video interview show Ctein describing and making a dye transfer print, interviewed by the late Michael Reichman (Luminous Landscapes). It’s not about dodging and burning so much as the intricate process and timing but the same sort of problems with reproducibility or ’corrections’:


There‘s a part one also, just talking about the process. Ctein printed dye transfers for collectors until recently.
Click to expand...


I made both tri chrome Carbro and dye transfer prints at college in the 50's. I never made them again. By comparison every colour print process that followed was easy. Laying down fragile individual colours in register was just too demanding and unforgiving. but probably produced the best prints ever.
 
Thanks for the replies guys and sphexx, thanks for the link, I'll take a look. What I'm trying to figure out is, for instance, this photo of his, moonrise over hernandez, one of his most famous if not most famous,


where he famously darkened the sky with the dodge tool. For each print that he did for this particular photo, would he have recreated/choreographed it exactly the same from making notes plus memory? Would the one in my link have been his first and most original print, and each subsequent print after be slightly different?
 
Merlin5 said:
Thanks for the replies guys and sphexx, thanks for the link, I'll take a look. What I'm trying to figure out is, for instance, this photo of his, moonrise over hernandez, one of his most famous if not most famous,


where he famously darkened the sky with the dodge tool. For each print that he did for this particular photo, would he have recreated/choreographed it exactly the same from making notes plus memory? Would the one in my link have been his first and most original print, and each subsequent print after be slightly different?
Click to expand...
Though he did make notes on most of the prints that he, and later his son made. his images from them vary quite a lot.
(A "Dodge" tool make sky's and things lighter. Burning makes them darker......)
That Moonrise print is one of his most extreme manipulations of all time. the negative looks horribly underexposed and a virtual write off. He and others have written volumes about its creation.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
I made both tri chrome Carbro and dye transfer prints at college in the 50's. I never made them again. By comparison every colour print process that followed was easy. Laying down fragile individual colours in register was just too demanding and unforgiving. but probably produced the best prints ever.
Click to expand...
Yes, in that Part 1, Ctein makes the point that through most of the last nearly 100 years colour printing has got easier and quicker but no better, or even worse — until now, in his opinion All outside my experience though;).
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Though he did make notes on most of the prints that he, and later his son made. his images from them vary quite a lot.
(A "Dodge" tool make sky's and things lighter. Burning makes them darker......)
That Moonrise print is one of his most extreme manipulations of all time. the negative looks horribly underexposed and a virtual write off. He and others have written volumes about its creation.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah, good point about the dodge tool making things lighter! So to get the sky darker, he would have dodged or masked everywhere that isn't the sky while exposing the sky for longer to darken it? Presumably would have masked the moon as well to stop it getting darker?
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Thanks for the replies guys and sphexx, thanks for the link, I'll take a look. What I'm trying to figure out is, for instance, this photo of his, moonrise over hernandez, one of his most famous if not most famous,


where he famously darkened the sky with the dodge tool. For each print that he did for this particular photo, would he have recreated/choreographed it exactly the same from making notes plus memory? Would the one in my link have been his first and most original print, and each subsequent print after be slightly different?
Click to expand...
You may have already seen this but there’s some discussion of the prints here:

Andrew Smith Gallery - David H. Arrington Collection of Ansel Adams

www.andrewsmithgallery.com
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
the average professional photographer made many thousands of prints in their life time, I know that I have.
Even small whole plate file proofs. were dodged and burnt to some extent.

Some Printers made copious notes as to how each print was dodged and burnt. others (including myself) never did, and mostly worked instinctively as they read the negative projected on to the paper...
Click to expand...
My one and only experience in the darkroom (darkshed) was an Open Studio with the late John Whitmore. I think we spent 5 hours on my one 135 negative! It was fascinating watching him analyse the negative, make test prints, then a succession of "draft" prints until we (he) reached the final version (which I love). What impressed me was the meticulous set of notes he made and filed carefully away in case I ever wanted to print it again.
 
Merlin5 said:
Ah yeah, good point about the dodge tool making things lighter! So to get the sky darker, he would have dodged or masked everywhere that isn't the sky while exposing the sky for longer to darken it? Presumably would have masked the moon as well to stop it getting darker?
Click to expand...
Mostly you burn by making a hole shape with your hands and let the light shine through. Or use your hands like a shield and let the light be drawn down over the image to form an effect like a graduated filter. Effectively you are painting with light.
During the main exposure you can dodge areas that you want to lighten.
Though some people made tools to help with this it was mostly done with the hands. The secret was to keep them moving. And having lots of experience. I started printing from the age of ten.
By the time I was twenty it came naturally.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
My one and only experience in the darkroom (darkshed) was an Open Studio with the late John Whitmore. I think we spent 5 hours on my one 135 negative! It was fascinating watching him analyse the negative, make test prints, then a succession of "draft" prints until we (he) reached the final version (which I love). What impressed me was the meticulous set of notes he made and filed carefully away in case I ever wanted to print it again.
Click to expand...

I never made notes for black and white prints, but always noted exposures and colour filtration for colour prints. Either on the negative bag or contact sheets. But I never worked in 35 mm.
Always medium or large format, and mostly the latter.

I rarely even used a timer for black and white prints but just did steady count. After a year or so that can be extremely accurate and far more flexible.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I rarely even used a timer for black and white prints but just did steady count. After a year or so that can be extremely accurate and far more flexible.
Click to expand...

The last times I had a darkroom set up here in my bathroom I had no timer, so instead used to count the ticking sounds of the immersion heater timeswitch. Not sure my internal timer was quite consistent enough. :)

Definitely agree with using the hands - it was one of the things that made one feel involved in the printing process. I've never done some of the really arcane processes, but my first prints were from transparencies onto Cibachrome, which was possibly the most beautiful print material I have ever seen.
 
sphexx said:
Hand made prints that have a lot of dodging & burning are bound to be at least slightly different but professional printers seem to be able to reproduce complex ‘choreography’ from memory. I referred to this link in another post recently but I don’t think it got much interest but it contains a description that is worth reading:

My guess is those lucky few to have witnessed one of his talks will never forget seeing the demonstration Voja makes of showing a sheet of photographic paper of a H.C.-B., Koudelka, Burri, or Turnley "straight" print, exposed only once with no burning and dodging, held up next to a final print showing all of Voja's artisanry. It is a phenomenal sight to see—and a powerful indication of the degree to which a great printer like Voja has contributed immensely to the expression of the vision of the photographer. I have witnessed Voja many times spend at least one hour of physical burning and dodging of a print. I've also seen him be able to repeat perfectly, like a machine, the exact same gestures and make a series of ten identical prints from the same difficult negative.

As recounted in part 1 Peter Turnley also worked as a printer so I think his account has value.

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

Voja Mitrovic, Printer to the Greats (Part II)

(Continued from Part I) Voja Mitrovic, Montparnasse, Paris, 1982 By Peter Turnley I recently sat down and interviewed Voja Mitrovic for several hours about his experiences as a printer. Several important concepts emerged from this interview. He indicated to me...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

Also Adams, and no doubt others, produced different versions of his famous prints over time — some think that may be partly due to changes in his eyesight etc as he aged,
Click to expand...

I've just read this post of yours again. Very interesting and yes, it does answer my question.

Also, I'd not heard of Voja Mitrovic but I'm about to read that article you linked. I do mostly street photography and when I saw he was connected with Cartier Bresson and Koudelka, that got my attention!
 
sphexx said:
On printing, if you really want to “do your head in” (it did mine, just watching it years ago) this video interview show Ctein describing and making a dye transfer print, interviewed by the late Michael Reichman (Luminous Landscapes). It’s not about dodging and burning so much as the intricate process and timing but the same sort of problems with reproducibility or ’corrections’:


There‘s a part one also, just talking about the process. Ctein printed dye transfers for collectors until recently.
Click to expand...

I just watched that video. Incredibly interesting even though I barely understood any of it, it's mind bogglingly complicated! That guy is so knowledgeable and looks like he could have been a rocket scientist. I was going to say I don't know why anyone would want to bother doing that but if he is/was making a lot of money from selling them, then absolutely.
 
Merlin5 said:
I just watched that video. Incredibly interesting even though I barely understood any of it, it's mind bogglingly complicated! That guy is so knowledgeable and looks like he could have been a rocket scientist. I was going to say I don't know why anyone would want to bother doing that but if he is/was making a lot of money from selling them, then absolutely.
Click to expand...
Haha! He is a physicist by training. I believe he is a long-time sci-fi buff but recently he co-wrote a sci-fi book ‘Saturn Run” with John Sandford the big selling thriller writer — essentially he was the scientific adviser. Sandford (real name John Roswell* Camp) is a former newspaper journalist/photographer who is a keen amateur photographer which is the link I think.

*Roswell - he was bound to end writing sci-fi with a name like that and he now lives in Santa Fé New Mexico so …
en.wikipedia.org

Roswell incident - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Merlin5 said:
I just watched that video. Incredibly interesting even though I barely understood any of it, it's mind bogglingly complicated! That guy is so knowledgeable and looks like he could have been a rocket scientist. I was going to say I don't know why anyone would want to bother doing that but if he is/was making a lot of money from selling them, then absolutely.
Click to expand...
The advantage of Dye transfer prints, apart from their beauty, is that compared to other print process virtually archival in longevity. so well worth the money paid for them.
Ciba Chromes were also extremely long lived as it was a dye destruction process using permanent pigments, rather that generating ephemeral colours by a chemical process.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The advantage of Dye transfer prints, apart from their beauty, is that compared to other print process virtually archival in longevity. so well worth the money paid for them.
Ciba Chromes were also extremely long lived as it was a dye destruction process using permanent pigments, rather that generating ephemeral colours by a chemical process.
Click to expand...
Indeed but Kodak stopped making the materials as I understand it. They already have a record of more than 70 years real time and according to Ctein in that interview, should last for centuries kept in the dark as many collections do most of the time.

(I don’t have any expertise in this area, just find it interesting!)
 
Early in his career, Ansel Adams produced a portfolio where actual prints were bound in. He made 100 identical prints of each photograph (figures from memory - better check a biography if it matters). Tragically, after the first major printing session was over, he found that he hadn't allowed for print dry down, and had to remake them all.
 
StephenM said:
Early in his career, Ansel Adams produced a portfolio where actual prints were bound in. He made 100 identical prints of each photograph (figures from memory - better check a biography if it matters). Tragically, after the first major printing session was over, he found that he hadn't allowed for print dry down, and had to remake them all.
Click to expand...
That sound ap
 
StephenM said:
Early in his career, Ansel Adams produced a portfolio where actual prints were bound in. He made 100 identical prints of each photograph (figures from memory - better check a biography if it matters). Tragically, after the first major printing session was over, he found that he hadn't allowed for print dry down, and had to remake them all.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's rough. Can you imagine going through all that a second time!
 
Merlin5 said:
Wow, that's rough. Can you imagine going through all that a second time!
Click to expand...
It’s not all that uncommon situation in a lot of jobs outside photography — he was fortunate that he could repeat it, which isn’t always possible :(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top