My photographs are hardly ever representative of objective reality, but they are representative of my vision, my artistic interpretation of the scene. In this article, I will talk about why I made a particular photograph, what was done in the camera, and then what I did in the darkroom to realize the finished image—or at least the image as it is right now. Realizing that I hardly ever reach a final conclusion on a photograph, especially when I am working on it in a wet, traditional darkroom, everything remains a “work in progress.”
The Original Negative
Here is a scan of the original negative. There are a couple of problems with it. As you will note, it is a flat image, meaning that the contrast level of the image is low, which is purposeful. I always want to start out with a very low-contrast original. Next, there is overall fogging of the negative from some source—I later figured out that there was a pinhole leak in the bellows of my camera, which was made worse when the bellows were fully (or a lot) extended. That turned out to be the source of the low-level fogging. However, there was detail down into the deepest shadows with tonal separation that is carried into the most brilliant highlights, so the negative is very printable.
The original exposure for the photograph, “Forest over McDonald Creek,” was made when I was in Glacier National Park, Montana, in September 2018. When we left for Kalispell, Montana, a large portion of Glacier National Park was closed due to fires that were burning out of control. The worst of the fires were near McDonald Creek on the western side of the park. Parts of the lower Going-to-the-Sun Road were accessible, but not all the way through to Logan Pass and the eastern parts of the park. When Going-to-the-Sun Road was opened, I then had full access to McDonald Creek.
On the third or fourth morning, very pre-sunrise, that we were there, I parked my truck and was attempting to walk along McDonald Creek. I say "attempting" because it’s a very difficult and, in places, impossible hike. It's hard because there are numerous places that would require a scramble over house-sized rocks or the ability to walk on water, which I do not possess.
When I finally did come to this spot, I began to recognize patterns that could lead to a rewarding photograph. As I moved back up the embankment, the pattern of the water and its flow around the rocks in front of me began to make sense, and I was able to build what I thought would be a nice composition incorporating the foreground rocks and creek (it’s really a raging river, but they call it a creek, so who am I to argue?) and the deep forest on the other side of the creek.
The Proper Proof
This is a contact print, or proper proof, of the original negative. Again, as you can see, it is very low in contrast. I am hardly ever interested in getting a proper proof that is beautiful. I want one that is low in contrast and will tell me if I have printable detail in the shadow areas as well as good separation of tones in the highlight areas. Looking at this “proof print,” there is easily discernible detail into all but the very darkest areas in the center-right area of the print. This simple exercise, making a proper proof, can give a lot of information as well as the ability to begin the decision-making process for what will be the finished print and the first step in the actual evolution of the “final” image.
To Show, or Not to Show
For me, the next step in the process will be to determine what I think will be the cropping of the image. I will work to figure out what I will include in the refined printing of the image. My intent is to be pretty unmerciful at this point, cutting out what I think will be of little or no consequence or will actually detract from the final visual statement. Ideally, I would do this in the camera at the time of the actual exposure, but sometimes getting the exact crop in the camera is extremely difficult or even impossible. In this case, I was as close as I could get to my subject without using a much lower camera angle or even standing in rapidly moving, icy-cold water. Neither scenario was appealing to me at the moment. I also would have liked to use a longer focal length lens, but that would have cropped out material that was important to my composition. It must be remembered that large-format view cameras don’t have zoom lenses, so you pick the lens that will give you more than what you want and then crop away the excess. So, I made the compromise that I felt I could live with in the long run.
In cropping the image, I look for things on the edges of the image to get rid of and things that don't contribute to what I want my final visual statement to be.
Determining Contrast
The next step for me is to begin determining what the best exposure time is for the image overall and to determine what level of contrast is pleasing to me. In this case, my basic exposure was four segments at four seconds each, with my overall contrast set at ½, or .5 contrast, followed by two segments of four seconds each, with my contrast set at 5. Incidentally, I hardly ever print at a set contrast like a #2 or #3 contrast. What has worked best for me is to expose the paper to a lower contrast like a #0 or #1 filter, followed by an exposure with a very high contrast or hard filter like a #5. Doing this allows me to control overall and local contrast to a very precise degree. The times for each contrast filter are determined by a testing procedure I have devised over several years of working in the darkroom.
Refining the Print
What I want to do next is to find areas of the print that will need to be brought down in value and also those that may need to have local contrast either increased or decreased.
This step is intended to drive attention into the patterns of light in the water by increasing local contrast in the water while leaving the forested area alone so that the shadows stay luminous.
There are several more steps that will be taken to arrive at an iteration that is pleasing to me, and over time, those steps will change because my vision is constantly changing and, I hope, improving with experience and maturity.
Here is a representation of what I had in mind as I made the initial exposure and then began seeing where the finished image might take me. I try to have an idea in the field of what I want, but then when the film is processed, and I get it into the printing process, I try not to let what I saw in the field influence me too much. Often the preconceived notion of what I thought I wanted when I exposed the film goes out the window, and I end up with a print that is actually quite different from what I conceived of in the field. I usually like that iteration much better. The printing of this will evolve over time, and what I do with it right now will undoubtedly look a lot different when I print the negative again a year or five years from now. As you can see, this is not a one-and-done proposition. The actual rendering of the image should change, and will change, as my vision and technique change. It’s one of the beauties of the artistic process.
My eye seems to get stuck on the two areas circled in red. Possibly because of the unusually wider shape of the tree trunk at the top, and the rock in the lower right that's quite a bit darker than its neighbors. Shapes and tones which break from a pattern tend to do that. Whether good or bad is not for me to say. Just making an observation. It certainly looks like a lot of work for something that can be done in the digital darkroom comparatively quickly. Although I hear what you're saying about evolution. Just when I think I've completed the editing process, something else pops out at me, usually after having made a print or two or three.