One of the reasons, the main reason, I started to photograph in B&W back in the day was simply because it was the only way one could ultimately maintain some semblance of control over what one created- it wasn't necessarily because I thought B&W... superior. If you went to an analog printer with your negative or transparency you got back a result that vaguely approximated what you wanted (if that). Generally, the more you paid, the closer things got- but you never got what you really wanted unless you were willing to pay absolute top dollar for the dodging, burning, localized contrast, etc that would transform your film into the final print you envisioned. Printing B&W at home could allow that measure of control.
Digital changed that formula- a competent printer could, should give you back a printed equivalent on paper of the digital image on your monitor. That in itself is a massive sea change, it's puts the onus of responsibility on the photographer, the printer needs to merely be technically competent enough to accurately reproduce what they are given. That's not to belittle that formidable expertise, but it does take out their need to interpret, guess and second guess on your behalf. If I have a competent camera, I blame myself if I don't come up with the goods; if I hand over a technically proficient, digital file to a printer, I think ya see where this is going...
So in this day and age when you find a printer that gives you back what you originally give them (at a reasonable rate- $45 for a 16in W print)- you breathe a sigh of relief and rejoice! I had such a lab, but... it took some measure of perseverance to get back those equivalent results. That is, sometimes I would get my prints printed to a random size, or on a paper I did not want or order... frustrating. To his credit, the owner would always make things good, but this pattern continued to our increased mutual frustration. I tried to make things as clear and unproblematic as possible with: concise and uniform instructions, and reassurances that there was never a rush and was always open to questions. Still, 3 out of 4 times, we would still have to do this needless dance of retakes and redos because of their in house miscommunications.
This time around I ordered seven prints that all came back at least a 1/2 stop overexposed- they had never (ever) missed exposure! At first the owner tried to hem and haw, before finally admitting, that it was a new paper, yada, yada... So I went back to p/u the reprints- the one on top was better and did not bother to inspect the rest since they were all securely taped and packaged and besides, these were the reprints... Get back home and the rest of the prints underneath were the original rejects! Shoot off an email asking what the hell was going on with the Benjamin on top of the wad of singles. He says they gave me the rejects by mistake- no explanation as to the sole reprint on top. And suggested I pick up the remaining reprints- before we both go our separate ways... he wasn't the only one who had finally soured of our trial and error relationship!
Picked them up the following week- they were... better, but not spot on as their final work always was; four are... satisfactory. I'll now have to patronize a new printer (actually someone in my new hood)- and at a considerably higher price range. But the right size, on the right paper, at the right exposure would be a most welcomed relief, even if it means I can afford even fewer prints! To be continued...
Addendum: I've found a truly excellent printer, Dickerman Prints, "San Francisco's Premier Photo Lab," (they are) about a fifteen minute walk from where I live, gave them two of the most finicky files I have (along with the "close but no cigar" prints from my previous lab) and they banged out totally spot on versions within the week. They charge almost double what I used to pay, so... lets just say I'm very happy, not over the moon, crazy elated, but... HAPPY!
Actually, I'd be happier still, except that those two particular prints actually cost me... almost triple what I used to pay! Huh!?! Seems I assumed that the 16in images I usually get printed with 1/2in white borders on the sides, an inch on top and two on the bottom came with an unforeseen built in penalty! Their paper stock that goes from 13in vertical to 14in sends one to their next tier in size and price! I didn't ask prior, so... at least they gave me a 10% discount, and I now know better for sure.
The question moving forward: for the uniformity of presentation's sake- do I now cut all my previous color prints an inch from the bottom, in order not to pay an additional $40 bucks for 1 extra inch of white border? Always something- to get in your eye, stick in your craw, fuck with your life into perpetuity...
No comments:
Post a Comment