The Difference Between Work Prints and Test Prints

...They're not at all the same things, at least traditionally. Some basic terminology:

Work print: Work prints are in effect enlarged contacts, which enable you to see the frames that interest you larger and better than you could see them on the contact sheet (speaking "traditonally" here). Another use for work prints is for editing purposes—editing is a visual process and you often need visual representations you can shuffle around, pin to a work board, or rearrage—or for making book mockups. Example: I used to gang-process full-frame 6x9 prints on 8x10 resin-coated (RC) paper from my 35mm negatives. I'd expose all the paper based on a eyeballed "seat of the pants" average exposure, usually at a relatively low contrast (because you want to get a good idea of the detail the negative contains) and then develop all the paper together. The prints were good enough for me to "see" the negative but had none of the refinements or balancing of a fine print. Work prints aren't strictly needed in digital photography, since most people simply look at the image on the computer monitor.

Test print: A test print is one of several or many intermediary steps along the way to making a final or fine print. In the traditional darkroom it was a process from an initial "straight" print to one that was corrected for contrast and exposure, balanced, and perhaps selectively darkened or lightened (burned and dodged). The first one was often the test strip, a segment of the image usually printed on a strip of paper at varying densities to arrive at the initial basic exposure. There was no standard; some photographers would slam out a "final" print using just one or two pieces of photo paper, while others would refine their expression over dozens of test prints over several days or even weeks. (My own process was to make a very good print, pin it up and look at it for three days, then return to the darkroom to make the final prints.) Traditionally, a fine printer would arrive at the final print, make however many copies were wanted or needed, and then destroy all the intermediate steps. Test printing is still needed in inkjet printing, just as it was in the darkroom—it just refers to all the intermediate trials you made before you arrived at the one that fully satisfies you.

Proof print: a proof print is a preliminary print offered to a client for their review. Examples: a portrait photographer might provide small proofs (often watermarked to prevent copying) to a portrait client to help them make a selection, or a book producer might send a printed proof to a publisher's production manager for approval before printing the run.

Repro print: a print created specifically to be reproduced. Reproductions were in some cases made from fine prints, but in other cases are made from prints specifically made for the reproduction process. In the '80s when I was "coming up," a repro print might be a small (often not larger than 8x10) print on RC paper. In earlier eras, repro prints needed to be tailored specifically to the needs of the reproduction methods: early newspaper prints often had to start out with much lower contrast because the halftone process added contrast. (It offended me to see obvious repro prints of Cartier-Bresson masterpieces exhibited as "vintage" prints in a museum. They might have been vintage [that word means the print was made roughly contemporaneously with the taking of the photograph], but they were vintage repro prints, not vintage fine prints.) Repro prints are often marked as such and there were various restrictions intended to guard against their further dissemination or resale. Another reason for repro prints was to try to limit theft. I once made the mistake of sending a rare fine print (of another photographer's work—I had been the custom printer) to a magazine for reproduction purposes—it was American Photo, and they deserve to be called out for this—and they stole it from me, by refusing to return it despite repeated requests, finally claiming that it was "lost." I'll bet dollars to doughnuts it is currently "lost" in a frame on some former sub-editor's wall; it's a gorgeous print and a superb picture. I still have one.)

Fine print: can also be thought of as a "final print." A fine print is the photographer or custom printer's best effort to print a photograph as the author of the photo intends it to exist in final form—it's the way you want the work to be seen. Traditionally, a fine print will be signed by the photographer, which is in essence the ultimate authorial approval of a print as the fixed expression of the picture; a signature on a print says "yes, this is how I intend this to look." This is the case whether the photographer him- or herself made the print or not.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Comments

[Mart]

Thank you for this. I use these in error like many people probably do and then have to explain what I mean.

[Charles Lanteigne]

Some more:

Universal print: print that exhibits an obvious redshift.

Warning print: print made while hoping, in vain, that there would still be enough damn light magenta left.

Finger print: print that has not been manipulated properly.

[Tom Kwas]

The "repro" print is a point of argument for me for years with people who did poor pre-press...

People who did half-tone cuts for early reproduction in news papers, all the way down to modern reproduction people before digital scanning (and for that fact, even after scanning), all have the tools in their kit to make any print look good in reproduction. Bad and lazy pre-press workers, who didn't want to change their settings per photo they were working on, somehow would use this as an excuse for poor quality work, claiming they weren't given a print "for repro" (meaning it wasn't flat, light, with over-burned edges).

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was notorious over the years for this kind of lazy work, they have some of the most inept union print workers on the planet. They spent years blaming their poor reproduction on old presses that were way beyond their years, then when they got new presses, they weren't any better! One look at the beauty of black and white reproduction in my local New York Times vs. The Milwaukee paper, is proof enough.

Anyway, this "repro" mentality is so pervasive, that one time I was working with an art director that came up through working on newspapers, and he wanted my photography staff to deliver transparencies that were one stop over-exposed because they looked better in the paper, vs. making the pre-press department do their job and reproduce the correct transparency, correctly for the print media.

Lest you think I'm crazy, we went through this whole thing again with color transparency, when the prepress houses and printers wouldn't change their setting from Kodak materials to Fuji, and claimed the film was just "bad". Talk about not wanting to do your job. And the unions wonder where all the hate comes from...

Photographers, make the best print you can! Any talented pre-press person can reproduce it perfectly for the vehicle it's going in!

[Andrea B.]

Very useful info, thanks.

Raises a question for us printing novices: how do you mark the prints to indicate whether they are work, test or proof prints?
Do you attach a label on the back? Or write on the back? Or front margin? Or what??
If so, what kind of label or pencil/ink is archival and considered ok to work with?

[Hudson]

Foot print: Someone forgot to wipe their feet.

-Hudson

[Taran Morgan]

"Test printing is still needed in inkjet printing, just as it was in the darkroom—it just refers to all the intermediate trials you made before you arrived at the one that fully satisfies you."

I beg to differ. The whole point of a digital workflow is to mitigate the intermediate trials you speak of. If you have a color calibrated set up, you get a "fine print" every time. If you need those extra steps, then you are doing something wrong.

[With a very good, very well-maintained color-managed system, an experienced operator can get a good starting print on the first try most of the time. *Very occasionally* one of those might also be the final print. If you want to argue any further than that, I'd have to see your prints. Lots of them. --Mike]

[g carvajal]

Please tell us all about the American Photo
print.

[John Krumm]

How about the Doh! print, for when you print on the wrong side of the paper?

[In all my years of printing in der dunkelkammer--more than 20, from 1980 to 2000--I don't think I've ever done that! --Mike]

[Stan B.]

Back in the day, I remember a photographer who would take his DW test prints (process and wash them archivally) and dry mount them to his portfolio prints for presentation. The result were prints with an ideal stiffness and pliability that made them both more durable and a joy to handle!

[rnewman]

Since like many working digital, I no longer do what you term a work print. I experiment first with the screen image. If I think I want to print an image, I start with a small (usually 4x6) test print. If I like what I see, I usually go to an 8x10 or 11x14. Sometimes, I'll try different small size variations in print saturation, color shift, paper surface, or whatever. Generally, this gets me to what I want, or at least fairly close. Occasionally I get a surprise, not always bad. The digital workflow, with image 'testing' on screen, is a great savings in time, paper, ink and money. Few if any paper 'test prints' is a big advantage.

[Dennis]

We can only hope that American Photo is in a forgotten landfill.