How does one become a master printer?

UC wrote:

I'm not sure. I'd like to see a straight print of these. I'm becoming
less satisfied with these crude techniques. For decades, this sort of
thing has represented 'mastery' of printing. Sure, I learned to put my
hand on the print in the developer to warm it up in a spot that needs a
little help, but today I really doubt that such measures are going to
save a marginal image.

I think a straight print would be pretty lacking. For what it is worth
I don't like to bring in the sky if it is going to blow out, I pretty
much give up on the photo as not worth trying to fix. But in this image
the people at the main subject and the sky adds a dramatic setting, so
I think it was worth the artifacts to bring it in. Clearly this is a
matter of tastes and it is easy to see how one could get sensitized to
these kind of artifacts.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
UC wrote:

I'm not sure. I'd like to see a straight print of these. I'm becoming
less satisfied with these crude techniques. For decades, this sort of
thing has represented 'mastery' of printing. Sure, I learned to put my
hand on the print in the developer to warm it up in a spot that needs a
little help, but today I really doubt that such measures are going to
save a marginal image.

I think a straight print would be pretty lacking. For what it is worth
I don't like to bring in the sky if it is going to blow out, I pretty
much give up on the photo as not worth trying to fix.


Stay away from TMY, then!

But in this image
the people at the main subject and the sky adds a dramatic setting, so
I think it was worth the artifacts to bring it in. Clearly this is a
matter of tastes and it is easy to see how one could get sensitized to
these kind of artifacts.

Scott

I suppose for an audience of non-photographers, they add something, but
I find them distracting.

Mayvbe Neopan 400 in Acutol has spoiled me, because I sure don't have
the need for such extreme manipulations. I keep telling people that
Tri-X in Rodinal sucks (although I am not sure that's what was used
here). I also think I might be able to make beter prints than these, if
I were motivated enough ($$$$).

Thanks for all the great feedback. I probably should have made clear
that it's not the "master" part that concerns me, but the "printer"
part. I know where I need to go to get the technical know-how, but
what I didn't know was the path to professional (i.e. making a living
as) printer. I'm getting a better idea now. I've been a amateur for
years and started studying photography a few years ago at university,
but dropped the course after a year. I wasn't learning anything there
I couldn't learn on my own. Since then I've built a darkroom and have
been slowly making progress. I'm thinking now what I need is some
expsoure to workshops/seminars, followed by some sort of related job
and then a roll of the dice. And of course, lots of time in the dark.

While we're at, what cities (anywhere) have the most printing "action."
New York and Paris come to mind, but where else? Hugo

In article . com,
" wrote:

Thanks for all the great feedback. I probably should have made clear
that it's not the "master" part that concerns me, but the "printer"
part. I know where I need to go to get the technical know-how, but
what I didn't know was the path to professional (i.e. making a living
as) printer. I'm getting a better idea now. I've been a amateur for
years and started studying photography a few years ago at university,
but dropped the course after a year. I wasn't learning anything there
I couldn't learn on my own. Since then I've built a darkroom and have
been slowly making progress. I'm thinking now what I need is some
expsoure to workshops/seminars, followed by some sort of related job
and then a roll of the dice. And of course, lots of time in the dark.

While we're at, what cities (anywhere) have the most printing "action."
New York and Paris come to mind, but where else? Hugo

Realistically anywhere can be an active location if you advertise.
Workshops are a great idea.
--
The things we hate most in life often turn out to be a mirror image
of ourselves. Better not to hate.

Findmedirectly - "infoatgregblankphoto.com"

Chicago and LA come to mind and we used to have a great printer in Omaha,
Nebraska: Maxim Muir, haven't heard anything about him in a while, I
suspect he's gone.

--
darkroommike
wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for all the great feedback. I probably should have made clear
that it's not the "master" part that concerns me, but the "printer"
part. I know where I need to go to get the technical know-how, but
what I didn't know was the path to professional (i.e. making a living
as) printer. I'm getting a better idea now. I've been a amateur for
years and started studying photography a few years ago at university,
but dropped the course after a year. I wasn't learning anything there
I couldn't learn on my own. Since then I've built a darkroom and have
been slowly making progress. I'm thinking now what I need is some
expsoure to workshops/seminars, followed by some sort of related job
and then a roll of the dice. And of course, lots of time in the dark.

While we're at, what cities (anywhere) have the most printing "action."
New York and Paris come to mind, but where else? Hugo

Mike King wrote:
Chicago and LA come to mind and we used to have a great printer in Omaha,
Nebraska: Maxim Muir, haven't heard anything about him in a while, I
suspect he's gone.

Maxim Muir used to post to rec.photo.darkroom a while back.
Checking the archives, it was about 10 years ago. There was
a mention of his retirement some time after that.

In article .com,
" wrote:

Here's a question that I haven't seen asked on the internet: how does
one become a master printer? I'm not looking for a quick recipe, but I
want to know what it takes. Is it a matter of getting a good
background in photography at a school, landing a job in a lab, honing
your craft for years, and building a reputation? I'd really appreciate
it if the printers out there could share how they did it. How did you
become a master printer?

Master printers usually get where they are by trial and error. It's
usually a deeply underexposed or overexposed negative that *has* to be
printed. Most master printers have switched to digital - the learning
curve is not any easier, but it's a bit more comfortable, instead of
standing for hours in pale yellow light, you're stuck in front of a
monitor.

The same way one gets to Carnegie Hall: Practice, practice, practice.

Gareth wrote:

A good teacher and a structured approach to exposure, development and
printing. Then doing it.

But, a fine print of an ordinary photograph is nothing.

I remember using my Hasselblad to make a copy of a photograph. I took
the best negative and made a copy of exactly how I wanted the 16x20 b/w
photo to look like. Unfortunately I didn't have my darkroom available
or I would have printed it myself (if you want it done right you've got
to do it yourself). The print had white highlights and black shadows.
What did I get? A flat print with gray highlights and very muddy
shadows. This was supposedly from a very reputable lab in San Francisco
that had "master printers." Of course I was at a loss when I saw the
finished product considering they had 5 days to print the thing. I
couldn't throw it back in their face and say "REPRINT IT!" I needed it
for a party that was happening the next day.

So, you don't need to be a master printer print. You just need some
common sense and a sense of pride in your work. Two things the printer
of my print didn't have.