PDA

View Full Version : Multiple Printing


vincent
4th May 2010, 04:40 PM
How do members feel about using more that one negative to achieve a final image.
At one time it was a popular technique used in the darkroom and I used it on occasions to import a better sky with more impressive clouds. Printing infrared negs allowed me the opportunity to drop in a full moon to enhance the image when I thought it appropriate.

It never occurred to me to consider the integrity of what I was printing until the arrival of the digital age, which allows someone to have numerous photos (or part of) joined into a final image.
Nowadays I am reluctant to use the technique and just hope that the weather conditions suit my photo.

Neil Smith
4th May 2010, 05:06 PM
I have no problem with it, but I would rather take the image the way I wanted it in camera.
I would be more inclined to use it to produce something that was not possible in camera. Like some of these surreal shots from John Heartfield

http://quazen.com/arts/visual-arts/the-extraordinary-anti-nazi-photomontages-of-john-heartfield/


Neil

TheoP
4th May 2010, 05:46 PM
As Neil said I love using it when creating surreal images, it poses such a challenge that really interests me. With landscapes however I tend to try to get the best out of my camera in one neg.

Dave miller
4th May 2010, 05:51 PM
Since my finished prints bear little resemblance to reality I have nothing against those that wish to use multiple negative to achieve a particular effect that way. It’s something that I have never done, but that’s entirely due to lack of skill on my part coupled to a complete absence of suitable negatives.

Richard Gould
4th May 2010, 06:06 PM
Its not something I have ever done, I don't have the skills to attempt it, but I have no objection to multple printing, it's whatever you need to do to produce the final print that you want,Richard

B&W Neil
4th May 2010, 06:18 PM
I knew someone who used to do this back in the late 70s. The images that stick in my mind were suitable sections of his wife superimposed on sand dunes. The images worked quite well and he got very good at it. I think the secret is to keep it simple. Never tried it myself though.

Neil.

Mike O'Pray
4th May 2010, 06:41 PM
I see no problem with this. Tim's book is full of such examples and how to do it as is the Ilford printing manual.

There's a world of difference betwen this and a deliberate "fake" which purports to be authentic for all the wrong reasons - usually financial and thus coming close to fraud.

It is difficult to define what constitutes a "fake" but most can usually agree on what a fake is.

The 1932 picture of "Nessie" in Loch Ness springs to mind.

Mike

Trevor Crone
4th May 2010, 07:39 PM
Something I did occasionally back in the early '80's but now prefer to be as 'straight' as I can. It really is a personal thing and I have no hang-ups if that is what is necessary to realise ones vision.

You might want to check out the work of American photographer, Jerry Uelsmann who used to say he only used one camera but used up to 6 enlargers to make his final print :)

vincent
5th May 2010, 08:08 PM
I must confess that I'm rather surprised at the lack of negative (pun intended) response to my post. I would have thought with the arrival of the digital age and its endless possibilities of the final image, would have forced us analogue user's to reconsider our art and its final image.

I believe that we should capture what we see before us as best we can with the film that we are using and not depend on importing other images to make up our final photo. While I accept that I don't see in B & W I am entitled to capture the scene in B & W because of the film that I'm using.

While I am a great admirer of Jerry Uelsmann's work I can't help but think that the great skill and imagination that he employed has been greatly undermined by the use of photoshop etc. Almost anyone with a little computer skill and an imagination can equal Jerry's work.

As I said, in earlier times I did employ darkroom techniques to produce a final image, but I am reluctant to do so now.

DaveP
5th May 2010, 08:45 PM
My take on this is that multiple exposures are fine as long as they're disclosed up front. Unless the photo has (or placed in a context implying) any documentary value, in which case I'd say its a clear no-go.

I think in an age where anyone with enough time on their hands can technically create any "image" or graphic they want pixel by pixel on a computer that the (sometimes wrongly assumed) integrity of analogue images has a value which is more relevent today than anytime in history.

Obvisouly its not true that the camera never lies, but generally people viewing images that are not obvisouly artificially contructed (like a ducks head on a horse's body) tend to implicity assume they are not being lied to, even if the photographer is happy to do so.

Tony Marlow
6th May 2010, 09:22 AM
I think this point shows the difficulty in separating the different types of photography and picture making. Multiple negative printing has been a well used technique in the past and I have done one or two myself but feel wary now because of the digital ease of doing the same thing. There is no clear cut division between analogue and digital photography and then you can add in the work of artists who paint or draw and add or omit from a scene with ease.
Surely it all comes down to what you are comfortable with, are you being honest in what you produce and not trying to deliberately deceive, and is the end result a pleasing picture appreciated by others. For example is it deception to recreate a scene or situation which existed by photographing components separately and putting them together in the darkroom or computer?
A good subject for a long debate over a few beers.
Tony

Richard L
7th May 2010, 06:32 AM
Its OK by me!
There are way too many do's and dont's with photography.

Richard

Ian David
7th May 2010, 08:30 PM
Morning Vincent. I think people should do whatever they want with their photography, provided they don't try to pass it off as documentary if it is not. I personally don't do multiple exposure stuff primarily because I think it is tacky, unless one is out to create an obviously surreal picture. I also like working with limitations - I find it satisfying and liberating. One of my personal limitations involves trying (not always successfully :D) to make good images with a single exposure.
Ian

RH Designs
8th May 2010, 07:55 AM
Check out Hag's Photography (http://www.hagsphotography.com/Page1P.htm). He's a master of the art.