Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later

[Heroique]

The following quote from photographer Bruce Barnbaum’s article “Thoughts on Digital Photography” caught my attention, mainly because it implies that B&W digital methods may someday be able to produce the same “radiance” and “excellence” he exclusively associates with traditional silver prints.

He says:

“Nothing has the radiance of a finely crafted silver print. Nothing. Even after 20+ years of improved digital technology, the traditional silver print is still the epitome of b&w photographic excellence. Even with the many remarkable — truly remarkable — digital b&w prints that I have seen, the traditional silver print still ranks as the standard by which all others are judged. I recognize that this may change in the future, but as I write and update this article (most recently in March, 2008), it still remains true.”

I’m curious if — 20 months later — the LF photographers here, familiar with both methods, think Barnbaum’s claim “still remains true.” Or perhaps a little less true. :rolleyes:

Of course, that presumes you agreed with Barnbaum in the first place. You may not have.

Either way, I’d enjoy hearing your first thoughts — and your more-considered ones.

[Drew Wiley]

Even though I wouldn't put Bruce on my "A" list of fine print makers, and once had an
ugly e-mail brawl with him, I'd essentially agree with his statement. I've seen a
considerable number of black-and-white digital prints, and certainly understand the
practical appeal as an alternative to the darkroom, but visually - no way. The best of
them look crude by comparison to a well-made darkroom print. I even prefer 35mm prints made traditionally. It's the smoothness of the tones, the ability to produce that
subtle glow, etc. And I know a lot of people who would agree. But I am referring to
silver prints versus inkjet per se, not necessarily to hybrid digital techniques which
involve some kind of digital negative, like those frequently employed in platinum or other alternative techniques. And once you get into large format, there's absolutely
nothing comparable in digital capture itself, especially for black and white work. I
don't think twenty months alters the validity of the statement in any respect. Twenty
years might (or might not). I have albumen prints hanging on my walls that were
considered an obsolete technology when they were made around 1910, and they
completely blow away anything digital I've seen. Ever see an actual Julia Cameron
platinum print made in her chicken house in the Victorian era? Whether or not you
care for her subject-matter, the prints absolutely glow.

[Steve Sherman]

Wow, lots of similarities here.

I go back with BB to before email to an ugly US postal service brawl with the fella.

However, he is correct in his thinking that silver continues to trump anything made from the D word.

Cheers!

[paulr]

I'd probably say "nothing looks as much like a silver print as a silver print."
I love silver prints. Some of my images look best in silver.

But over the last few years I've started to really love ink prints. They look different from my silver prints ... for my tastes, they often look better. Maybe not for Barnbaum's.

[rdenney]

At the margins of what is possible, subtleties beyond the skill of many to appreciate will inform these opinions.

Not everyone can fish in those waters, even if they wanted to.

So, I did a comparison more within my own means of production. I compared two 16x20 prints made from the same negative.

Print 1:

Oriental Seagull RC VC paper.
Omega D2 enlarger with condenser head. (Enlarger was set up with great care.)
Omega 4x5 negative carrier (glassless).
Peak grain focuser, the expensive kind.
Bausch and Lomb 139mm Ic Tessar enlarging lens.
Ilford Multigrade paper developer.
Toned in selenium.

Print 2:

Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper.
Epson 3800 printer, using the Advanced Black and White driver.
Epson V750 Scanner, at 2400 pixels/inch grayscale.
Vuescan.
Photoshop CS4.

Neither represents the state of the art by any means, but both are solid performers typical of what well-equipped amateurs might be able to use. Thus, I consider them to represent a real-world comparison relevant to amateurs who have to live with some compromises or give up on the activity altogether. Importantly, both represent about the same degree of compromise. It would not be fair, for example, to compare a print made back in the day on Gallerie Fine Art paper with the Epson Premium Glossy, or the Oriental RC paper against, say, Harman FB Glossy.

In terms of apparent sharpness when viewed using the bottom lens on my trifocals, I can tell no difference between the two. The Epson print does not display false edges, fake detail, or any other artifact that would make its rendering of detail different from the silver print. I call this a draw. Both display exception detail, as one would expect from a 16x20 print from 4x5.

In terms of the richness of the blacks--the Epson print shows a bit more richness.

In terms of the cleanliness of the whites--they are the same. The Epson paper isn't as reflective where there is no ink deposit as where there is, and this is a flaw. I'll give this one to the old silver print.

In terms of gradation--I can't see a difference.

In terms of visualization, here is where the Epson print goes well beyond the old silver print. I was able to achieve much closer to my visualization using reasonable techniques. I might have needed a mask to achieve the some of the same results on the silver print, or a negative made better in the first place. The Epson print, benefiting as it does from the greater power of Photoshop, gets closer to my original visualization than does the enlarger print.

Thus, I conclude that at levels slightly below the state of the art, the Epson print is every bit the equal of the silver print overall, and the digital process in the end provides a bit more control than the traditional process.

Rick "offering a practical comparison" Denney

[sidmac]

To me digital B&W look about as good as Resin Coated paper from the 80's. They still have a long way to go.

[willwilson]

I had a chance to see quite a few of Bruce's prints about a year ago, both large and small, at the Rymer Gallery here in Nashville and I can say without a doubt that he is a remarkable photographer and printer. They were simply fantastic inspiring prints.

As to the topic. I agree with Bruce and Drew, 20 months hasn't changed anything. Digital printing is good but it hasn't been able to capture that BW fibre print feel yet. Behind glass on a wall in typical room light is another story.

I tend to think about this particular issue in relation to music recording technology. Most people can't hear tones above 18Khz, so a CD playing back at a sample rate of 44.1khz and a bit depth of 16 should cover the entire audible range...wrong. Even untrained ears can tell the difference between 44.1khz 16 bit recordings and say a 196khz 24bit high resolution recording. There are many reasons this is so, but the main one is that you need to dramatically over sample the input to accurately reproduce it, somehow we can feel that inaudible information and it changes our perception of the music.

Lot's of top recordings are still tracked to analog, because it sounds good, not necessarily better than digital just good. Lot's of photographers still shoot LF and print wet because it looks good. Done and Done for me.

BW Digital printing is still an infant. Like digital audio in 1996 or so, give it 10 to 15 years and then we'll be talking. By then I will be dumping my 4x5 for a 1000mp canon that shoots in 3D. This is not to say that there aren't great digital prints being done now, but have you heard the remastered Beatles collection? I mean it just sounds better.

And that's not to mention digital is expensive. I can print a 40x50 for $50 including film and chemicals, and that's if I screw it up twice and have to toss two sheets of paper. You can't even get a drum scan for that!

[Bill_1856]

The best of the silver papers are long gone (Agfa Portriga, Ilford Galerie, Kodak Elite and Medalist), and the current Inkjet papers and inks are greatly improved and getting better.
We have reached a state where some silver prints are "better" and some Inkjet prints are "better." But it's clear which way the wind is blowing.

[r.e.]

The best of the silver papers are long gone

That's what Gregory Heisler says in the video presentation referred to in the current thread on his old employer, Arnold Newman. As Heisler puts it, and I'm paraphrasing: "There was a time when the papers had about 65 pounds of silver in them, and it wasn't possible, even when I was working for Newan, to make equivalent prints". Heisler worked for Newman decades ago.

[Paul Kierstead]

I think if Bruce spent a lifetime beating the last drop out of inkjet prints, shooting for their look and sweating over them, he would likely say the same thing in reverse.

[r.e.]

I think if Bruce spent a lifetime beating the last drop out of inkjet prints, shooting for their look and sweating over them, he would likely say the same thing in reverse.

:) I stopped reading after the first couple of paragraphs, because the affectation of objectivity was pretty obviously just that. It wasn't even subtle.

[willwilson]

Rick, interesting experiment, but Oriental RC is terrible. I thought we were discussing top of the line exhibition quality printing. BW fibre papers vs drum scanned digital inkjets.

[Brian Ellis]

Is Barnbaum still on this kick? This sounds like the same garbage he was spouting in a Photo Techniques article five or six years ago.

Barnbaum doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He knows nothing about digital printing because he's never done it on any serious basis. I took a workshop from him. It was a good workshop and he was a good teacher but he made a variety of outrageous claims with no evidence to back them up. This is one of them.

I also lost a lot of respect for him when he was started belittling a poor waitress who was trying to serve breakfast to a large table of students plus Barnbaum when someone was always getting up and leaving and being replaced by someone else. The waitress was having trouble keeping the orders straight with all the comings and goings. The workshop was in Georgia and the kindest thing Barnbaum had to say about the waitress was she was a dumb redneck.

[Brian Ellis]

To me digital B&W look about as good as Resin Coated paper from the 80's. They still have a long way to go.

It sounds like you've never seen a digital b&w print on matte paper because matte paper looks nothing like RC paper. Which makes me wonder just how many b&w digital prints you've seen and who made them because many people, including me, who print digitally do so on matte paper.

[Kirk Gittings]

There is more to the comparison than what he takes into account. FWIW I am extremely fond of traditional silver prints and have been making them and exhibiting them for...geez....like 38 years? First show was in 71 or 72? But the latest digital papers and inks, like the Harmon, are truly amazing, fine natural looking surface. clean white base and D_Max to die for. After struggling with digital prints for some 3 years now I feel like I can produce one that rivals my traditional prints and in some ways surpase them-because of my ability to work the file, I feel like I have much more control of the fine tonalities of a digital print. I simply did not have enough hands or the fine motor skills to dodge and burn nearly as effectively as I can by working the file.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Print 1:

Oriental Seagull RC VC paper.
Omega D2 enlarger with condenser head. (Enlarger was set up with great care.)
Omega 4x5 negative carrier (glassless).
Peak grain focuser, the expensive kind.
Bausch and Lomb 139mm Ic Tessar enlarging lens.
Ilford Multigrade paper developer.
Toned in selenium.


RC paper?? You should have printed on a good fibre-based paper.

[rdenney]

Rick, interesting experiment, but Oriental RC is terrible. I thought we were discussing top of the line exhibition quality printing. BW fibre papers vs drum scanned digital inkjets.

It is useful to compare top-of-the-line exhibition quality prints. But only top-of-the-line exhibition-quality printers can talk about such prints.

On the other hand, only a few of us are top-of-the-line exhibition-quality printers, and I'm certainly not one of them. So, I presented a comparison relevant to me and people like me. Unfortunately, we outnumber the top-of-the-line exhibition-quality printers and to some extent drive the market.

I used RC paper before because I could never get fiber paper to dry flat enough to mount without a press, which I could neither afford nor find room to house. In order for it to be possible for me to make my own prints, I had to make some compromises, and that was one of them. I'm more likely to experiment with high-end fiber paper in the Epson than I ever was in the darkroom. But I'm going to develop my skills a bit further before making that big investment. The Epson paper is expensive enough in 17x22.

And there is no way I will have my film drum-scanned. I like having control over the process because that's why I do it--if I just wanted the best possible outcome, I'd hire one of you guys to make the photo. I sneak my work into odd hours and rare opportunities, and it's almost more than I can do just to get film processed. So, to do it at all, I have to make some compromises.

I wasn't attempting to comment on Mr. Birnbaum's comparison, but rather to provide an additional comparison to check whether his hypothesis was true or false down-market.

Rick "living within his means--sort of" Denney

[rdenney]

RC paper?? You should have printed on a good fibre-based paper.

I should have had a 1200-square-foot darkroom, too. And I should have quit my job so I'd have had time to use it.

Rick "lots of should-haves on offer" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Bill - there are much richer silver papers on the market right now than Galerie or
Elite. I miss the tone of Portriga, but can simulate it. Fiber-based VC papers in particular are much, much better than before. I miss Brilliant bromide and the old
Seagull G, but am actually getting equal if not better results with current papers.
Yeah, there was a spell when I was getting frustrated; but when a vacuum is created
someone will probably fill it. It will indeed be fun to see how these two parallel
technologies proceed in the coming years.

[rdenney]

...I feel like I can produce one that rivals my traditional prints and in some ways surpase them-because of my ability to work the file, I feel like I have much more control of the fine tonalities of a digital print. I simply did not have enough hands or the fine motor skills to dodge and burn nearly as effectively as I can by working the file.

This isn't just true at the level of top-of-the-line exhibition-quality printers such as yourself. It's also true for boneheads like me. Maybe even more true.

Rick "for whom digital prints picked up where silver prints left off" Denney

[Michael Kadillak]

One of the variables that has been conveniently left out of this discussion is what the sales market is saying about the digital print? At the end of the day this is likely where the pavement meets the pedal.

Are fine art digital prints selling as effectively as conventionally produced fine art silver images? My gut tells me that this is not the case but I am not a full time market follower of the photographic resale markets either at galleries or at auction. One of the things that I find is a hard sell to the buying public at the few times I was at a gallery open house is the fact that digital images are "different" to those that have been consumers of conventional materials and have the resources to spend on collecting.

My intuition tells me that at the top of the heap in fine art photography sales in any economic market are the select few real craftsmen doing alternative process because each image is absolutely unique in every regard which is quite different from the digital process where each is absolutely identical.

[Michael Mutmansky]

“Nothing has the radiance of a finely crafted photogravure. Nothing. Even after 100+ years of improved and devolved silver gelatin technology, photogravure is still the epitome of b&w photographic excellence. Even with the many remarkable — truly remarkable — silver gelatine prints that I have seen, photogravure still ranks as the standard by which all others are judged. I recognize that this will never change in the future, it remains true for ever more."

Slightly modified...

I don't really believe that (do I?).

Horses for courses. Opinions are like... you know where I'm going with this. You cannot debate opinions, only what you believe vs. what he believes. There is no right or wrong in this debate, only opinions.

[vinny]

I haven't read every post in the entire thread or the other dozens of thread regarding this topic on the internet but what's not often discussed is the digitization process. I've got dozens of large format negs that have yet to be printed because of dust or scratches which would prove too large on the print to bother with in the darkroom. I often scan them just to get an idea and am greatly disapointed in most cases with the results I'm able to achieve with my scanners (epson 3200 flat bed and Screen 1030ai drum). Put those PMK processed negs in the enlarger and the extremes are easily printable. I'm not versed in multiple pass scanning but I can't get anywhere near the detail in my single pass scans as I can in the darkroom. I'd love to get some Lambda fiber prints done of these negs in question but there is just too much range to "digitize". I realize that shooting to scan would make things easier but I'm wondering how you guys deal with this?

[sidmac]

Interesting one should mention recording technology. I welcome and use digital transfers and recording. My problem is I only see out of one eye and am completely lost in 3-D movies. The newer style glasses don't help either. I guess I cling to older technology as a way to fight back.

[Mark Sawyer]

One of the variables that has been conveniently left out of this discussion is what the sales market is saying about the digital print? At the end of the day this is likely where the pavement meets the pedal...


Knowing (at least in passing) a couple of people in the high-end fine-art photography gallery world, I'll offer that both have expressed a strong preference for digital work simply because if additional prints are needed, they can be printed very quickly and there is little worry that the work will be consistent from print to print.

[willwilson]

I would get out of the darkroom today if I thought I could do better work scanning and printing digitally. Obviously for some this has already become true. Kirk, for instance, makes an excellent argument in relation to his own work. If digital is improving your work, then by all means print digitally.

There was a great thread Kirk started in April that fizzled but is of some interest to this discussion. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=48207

Kirk obviously feels that digital printing is what he needs to be doing as an artist and I respect that. Ultimately you should choose one or the other because it makes you a better artist and allows you to make prints that more closely match your artistic intent.

I believe that digital printing can be of exhibition quality, but I do not believe that an inkjet print can duplicate a traditional print just yet. They are different and should be regarded as so. One of the great things about traditional silver prints is that everybody knows how good they can be. All you have to do is see a print of "Clearing Winter Storm" or "Pepper #30." Traditional prints are what they are; with digital there is no ultimate inkjet print. They haven't invented the printer, ink, or the paper to print it on yet.

[tgtaylor]

I'd probably say "nothing looks as much like a silver print as a silver print."
"... ink prints. They look different from my silver prints ... for my tastes, they often look better. Maybe not for Barnbaum's.

And that's the difference in a nutshell. As noted by Bob Dylan, "...times, they are a changin'... and changing also is what people view and perceive as "art." Some, such as the poster, have come to their (new) opinion only after careful and objective evaluation of the new and the old. For others their opinion is "sold" to them by cleaver marketeers.

A well executed Gum bichromate print, Platinum print, Silver print....Ink Jet print... - which is the better?

[Michael Kadillak]

Knowing (at least in passing) a couple of people in the high-end fine-art photography gallery world, I'll offer that both have expressed a strong preference for digital work simply because if additional prints are needed, they can be printed very quickly and there is little worry that the work will be consistent from print to print.

One of the issues I have always had with digital is the planned obsolescence that is comes at a serious cost to the consumer. Whatever sector of the sales spectrum is being targeted by the digital photographer as a function of time I believe that the market will sort out if it is willing to support it and things will sort themselves out. It either sells or it does not and the market corrects. I have a hard time believing that hobbyists are willing and/or able to stay abreast of the latest digital technology for very long particularly in this economy.

Esthetics, which are highly subjective, can become subordinate to the realities of simple economics if the desire to execute exceeds the ability of the digital photographer to continue to do so medium or long term. With conventional photography the investment in basic equipment is a single event at the beginning. Film is acquired as necessary along the way. With digital it seems like every four months there is a new and improved for everything being brought into the market while what you are holding in your hand is depreciating faster than a Hummer when gasoline was $4+ per gallon.

[Jim collum]

One of the issues I have always had with digital is the planned obsolescence that is comes at a serious cost to the consumer. Whatever sector of the sales spectrum is being targeted by the digital photographer as a function of time I believe that the market will sort out if it is willing to support it and things will sort themselves out. It either sells or it does not and the market corrects. I have a hard time believing that hobbyists are willing and/or able to stay abreast of the latest digital technology for very long particularly in this economy.

Esthetics, which are highly subjective, can become subordinate to the realities of simple economics if the desire to execute exceeds the ability of the digital photographer to continue to do so medium or long term. With conventional photography the investment in basic equipment is a single event at the beginning. Film is acquired as necessary along the way. With digital it seems like every four months there is a new and improved for everything being brought into the market while what you are holding in your hand is depreciating faster than a Hummer when gasoline was $4+ per gallon.

It's only depreciating if you look at the gear as an investment. I still use digital technology from 2000. I have other cameras that i've acquired over the past 8 years, and they still function as they did then... they serve the same purpose now. Functionally, there's no reason to really buy into the 'latest-greatest'.. any more than there is wanting to get the latest model of LF or ULF gear. There are still new models of LF cameras coming out.. and the only reason most people here want them, is the joy of using a great tool. When the new Byron was announced here.. there were plenty of people who wanted the 'latest-greatest' :)

[Arne Croell]

It's only depreciating if you look at the gear as an investment. I still use digital technology from 2000. I have other cameras that i've acquired over the past 8 years, and they still function as they did then... they serve the same purpose now. Functionally, there's no reason to really buy into the 'latest-greatest'.. any more than there is wanting to get the latest model of LF or ULF gear. There are still new models of LF cameras coming out.. and the only reason most people here want them, is the joy of using a great tool. When the new Byron was announced here.. there were plenty of people who wanted the 'latest-greatest' :)
Certainly GAS exists in LF and/or analog circles as well, and I don't exclude myself. However, I still think Michael has a point. Do you also use your computer from 2000, and the printer? Not many people bought a new enlarger every few years (unless they were going to larger formats, of course).

[Jim collum]

Certainly GAS exists in LF and/or analog circles as well, and I don't exclude myself. However, I still think Michael has a point. Do you also use your computer from 2000, and the printer? Not many people bought a new enlarger every few years (unless they were going to larger formats, of course).

wholeheartedly agree on the computer end. I've been a software engineer since 1978. Started on old DEC minicomputers.. where 4K was a *huge* amount of memory. When you wrote code back then, every byte was important.. most programming was done in a very low level 'machine language'... not a higher level language.
The computers keep getting faster and faster.. more and more memory.. but the underlying code gets more and more bloated. very inefficient in execution and storage. Granted, the tasks get more and more complicated as well. I can't imagine coding Photoshop entirely in machine/assembly code.

As far as what i use goes... yea. i have a Mac from 2000 that i use to run a Kodak Eversmart flatbed scanner. Uses OS 9. Still runs with no problems.

[Brian Ellis]

I would get out of the darkroom today if I thought I could do better work scanning and printing digitally. Obviously for some this has already become true. Kirk, for instance, makes an excellent argument in relation to his own work. If digital is improving your work, then by all means print digitally.

There was a great thread Kirk started in April that fizzled but is of some interest to this discussion. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=48207

Kirk obviously feels that digital printing is what he needs to be doing as an artist and I respect that. Ultimately you should choose one or the other because it makes you a better artist and allows you to make prints that more closely match your artistic intent.

I believe that digital printing can be of exhibition quality, but I do not believe that an inkjet print can duplicate a traditional print just yet. They are different and should be regarded as so. One of the great things about traditional silver prints is that everybody knows how good they can be. All you have to do is see a print of "Clearing Winter Storm" or "Pepper #30." Traditional prints are what they are; with digital there is no ultimate inkjet print. They haven't invented the printer, ink, or the paper to print it on yet.

It's a very simple matter to duplicate a silver print digitally. But who wants to do that? If I couldn't make a better print digitally than is possible in a darkroom I'd still be using a darkroom.

[Jim collum]

Certainly GAS exists in LF and/or analog circles as well, and I don't exclude myself. However, I still think Michael has a point. Do you also use your computer from 2000, and the printer? Not many people bought a new enlarger every few years (unless they were going to larger formats, of course).

.. and one of the problems is all the media hype about the latest/greatest digital camera. The marketing folks have made a fine art of playing to GAS.. much more than ever before. When the Nikon F3 came out.. you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone but professional or very very dedicated amateurs to buy them.. for what $1000 for the body? Now they have Uncle Joe who would have had a hard time justifying a Canon AE1, out spending $7K on a 21Mp camera.

[Marko]

One of the issues I have always had with digital is the planned obsolescence that is comes at a serious cost to the consumer. Whatever sector of the sales spectrum is being targeted by the digital photographer as a function of time I believe that the market will sort out if it is willing to support it and things will sort themselves out. It either sells or it does not and the market corrects. I have a hard time believing that hobbyists are willing and/or able to stay abreast of the latest digital technology for very long particularly in this economy.

Esthetics, which are highly subjective, can become subordinate to the realities of simple economics if the desire to execute exceeds the ability of the digital photographer to continue to do so medium or long term. With conventional photography the investment in basic equipment is a single event at the beginning. Film is acquired as necessary along the way. With digital it seems like every four months there is a new and improved for everything being brought into the market while what you are holding in your hand is depreciating faster than a Hummer when gasoline was $4+ per gallon.

The main reason why there are no new film camera models (save for a few exotic formats and manufacturers) is not because it was planned that way but because of spontaneous obsolescence - as a result of nobody buying them. I don't really see how can buying a multi-thousand dollar (i.e. new) film camera be justified at the time where film supply for them is uncertain to the point that nobody is surprised when another type goes away or when you have to ask where to find an E6 or C41 lab on the internet fora. True, you may not need to buy another camera like that in your life time, but you may also not be able to find any film for it way before a digital camera bought the year before breaks down.

Speaking of pricing, how exactly is purchasing a film camera one time event if you have to keep purchasing film for it? The way I see it, with digital you pay a fixed price upfront for both the camera and the "film" supply equivalent for the life of that camera and the more you shoot, the less it will cost you per shot. With film cameras you buy the camera and then you keep buying film every time you want to shoot. And you pay for processing of that film, regardless of whether it is a keeper or a discard. Each shot costs you the same (I'm ignoring the rising prices of diminishing films here for the sake of a clean argument) and adds up to the total cost of ownership over time.

In other words, the true cost of owning and operating a digital camera system remains more or less constant over the projected life of equipment while the cost of film camera system rises linearly with usage.

Depreciation is the term best left for business users who should be able to charge their clients for the bulk of the prorated equipment cost and deduct the rest from their taxes. Just like they charged film and deducted cameras in the old days. For us hobbyists, it is all just expense and I'd much rather be able to plan mine than not.

[tgtaylor]

.. and one of the problems is all the media hype about the latest/greatest digital camera. The marketing folks have made a fine art of playing to GAS.. much more than ever before. When the Nikon F3 came out.. you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone but professional or very very dedicated amateurs to buy them.. for what $1000 for the body? Now they have Uncle Joe who would have had a hard time justifying a Canon AE1, out spending $7K on a 21Mp camera.

Actually the F3's (hp) selling price was in the neighborhood of $650. I bought mine used a few years back at a local camera shop. They had a bunch of empty F3 boxes up on the shelves for display/decoration and I asked for one to put the camera in. The price on the box was $650 or $653, plus tax, of course. Expensive at the time.

I recall back then that new camera models were comming out one after the other. They sold you a camera this year and to stay in business they were out to sell you another one next year. Hey, we're a consumer society aren't we? it's the same thing today except the prices were more within reason.

[rdenney]

Certainly GAS exists in LF and/or analog circles as well, and I don't exclude myself. However, I still think Michael has a point. Do you also use your computer from 2000, and the printer? Not many people bought a new enlarger every few years (unless they were going to larger formats, of course).

I didn't have to buy a new enlarger (though the Omega D2 I ended up with was my third, and second that did 4x5), but I had to pay substantial sums for the stuff necessary to build darkroom every time I was forced to move because of my work. When I moved to Virginia, I gave up. (I'm reserving the right to change my mind someday--the stuff is all still my store room.) And I had to buy paper and chemicals. Given my small volume, I usually paid through the nose for chemicals because batches would go stale before I could use them up. I would be hard-pressed to prove that digital has been more expensive.

On the other hand, I bought an Acer 1240 flatbed transparency scanner in 1999. I replaced it with an Epson V750 earlier this year.

And I bought a (used) Minolta Multi II film scanner in 1999. I replaced it in 2005 with a (used) Nikon 8000ED film scanner. The 9000 isn't enough better than the 8000 to be worth the upgrade.

I'm pondering a new computer. The one I have I built in 2000 or 2001. I've steadily upgraded it since then, but it's still got the original processor. Replacing a computer is so difficult any more that I have to face horrible performance problems before I'll do it.

The Epson 3800 that I bought this year replaced a 1270 that was six years old. It still worked, and suffered only from being too small. But I'm really enjoying making acceptable black and white prints again.

I bought a Canon 10D in 2003, and a 5D in 2008 (near the end of its model cycle when it was being fairly deeply discounted). I still use the 10D, and the images that I thought met a certain standard when I bought it still do.

I'm on my third 4x5 camera system in as many decades.

I own a ton of equipment (probably literally as well as figuratively), but I don't think anyone could accuse me of buying the latest model of anything, just because a latest model came out. Some of it is ancient, much of it so when I bought, and some I bought new. It all did what I bought it to do, and still does.

Rick "not thinking people like the inhabitants of this forum, even those who do digital work extensively, change their stuff just because new stuff came out" Denney

[Rodney Polden]

I wonder how the price comparison looks if one totals all of the necessary digital hardware (plus updates), software, peripherals, papers and toners plus all the other stuff, versus the equivalent film camera equipment, film supplies, chemicals, papers and so on. That might prove to be a different picture.

Most people seem to be spending (every year or two) sums on the 'computer' side of their life now, that previously they only paid out for their cars or equivalent. I filled up a chest freezer with photographic materials some time back that will keep me shooting and printing for a good while longer than the lifespan of my latest computer, I suspect.

[Bill_1856]

Bill - there are much richer silver papers on the market right now....

There probably are, but I have neither time nor money for checking them out, and judging from the Forums there is no concensus about which ones are "best," and the quality is all over the place from batch to batch. Unless one lives in NYC they must be bought by mail-order, and apparently there is a supply problem with some being often unavailable, and some going out of business.
I must admit that the prospect of ADOX MCC becoming available has tweeked my interest in a brief return to the darkroom snakepit.

[Doug Howk]

I've been in the computer industry for almost 20 years; but after watching Burtynsky's DVD "Manufacture Landscapes" my conscience is bothering me. About the last thing I want to do is send more outdated digital gear to another village in China. Three of my film cameras are older than me ( and I'm ready to retire), but they keep on working.

[willwilson]

It's a very simple matter to duplicate a silver print digitally. But who wants to do that? If I couldn't make a better print digitally than is possible in a darkroom I'd still be using a darkroom.

Really? Then why are we having this discussion?

I would love to see an actual comparison, maybe a few high resolution scans of two prints. I'd do it myself but I don't have a printer. I do have a drum scanned 4x5 negative that I could offer up (It has a scratch and I am planning on having a digital neg printed). Brian, Rick or anybody else, I'll send you the file and my traditional fiber print if you want to try and match it with an inkjet print and send it back. I will then scan the prints and post the results.

Any takers?

[Robert Hughes]

I make and use digital prints, and silver based, and cyanotype, and am getting interested in gum bichromate prints now. They all have their good points and bad.

- I love digi's repeatability; work the file until it's perfect and print as many as I need.
- After making silver based prints, my world smells of hypo; the smell of victory!
- Cyanotype is magic; it grows as I watch, out on a sunny day! No darkroom needed.
- Any bichromate print looks like Art, with the Capital "A".

As for GAS - I just built an 8"x10" camera - what would that be, GBS?

And, as for digital replacing film? Nah, they work so well together. The biggest money-making film out in the theaters right now, "Paranormal Activity", was shot on a home digital camcorder. The production cost $15,000 and by now the film has probably made $100 million in receipts. And the projection print that I saw was on 35mm movie film.

[Michael Kadillak]

I understand that people can choose to stay the course with technology "longer" than the expected manufacturer lifetime and that is great. Folks can also continue to acquire used newer technology than they have and go that route. But how long? What is the expected life span for a digital camera? My experience is that these cameras are very sensitive to dust, shock, water and only last so long. I am on third point and shoot camera in four years as they have just stopped working and could not be economically repaired.

In my business I am forced by technology to purchase new computer equipment about every two years because of the need to have support and interact with my clients. I just bought two new iMac's and less than two months I now have acquired the new OX operating system and get updates at least once a week.

I have communicated with a number of folks that have come full circle. Gone completely digital and now are back working with analog and loving it.

There will always be film as long as there are consumers. I have heard this claim from the time that digital was introduced and it simply is not true. The only thing that is changing is the shape and size of the market and the industry is changing to reflect these conditions.

After banging on a computer all day it is a nice change of pace to close the door on a darkroom and turn off the lights. Plus the deals are incredible on what you need (or do not need). We will have this discussion five years and ten years from now (hopefully) and film will still be scheduled for a funeral service and technology will be opening up our wallets on a regular basis.

[bdkphoto]

Really? Then why are we having this discussion?

I would love to see an actual comparison, maybe a few high resolution scans of two prints. I'd do it myself but I don't have a printer. I do have a drum scanned 4x5 negative that I could offer up (It has a scratch and I am planning on having a digital neg printed). Brian, Rick or anybody else, I'll send you the file and my traditional fiber print if you want to try and match it with an inkjet print and send it back. I will then scan the prints and post the results.

Any takers?


I did this years back when I first adopted a digital workflow. It was really good then and better now in every respect. Digital inkjet printing can yield results that rival or surpass analog.

The whole notion of analog vs. digital as a which is better argument is idiotic. The digital technologies have added opportunities to traditional processes, and the reverse is also true. Photography is better for having the choice.

The professional community as moved on from these arguments--digital is the present and future of the business. I see this as something that ultimately enhances the creative process for photographers -- analog and digital alike.

[Marko]

Most people seem to be spending (every year or two) sums on the 'computer' side of their life now, that previously they only paid out for their cars or equivalent. I filled up a chest freezer with photographic materials some time back that will keep me shooting and printing for a good while longer than the lifespan of my latest computer, I suspect.

And you seem to be hanging around with people who are either buying awfully cheap cars or throwing their money on extremely expensive computers too often. :D

No, seriously, I keep seeing these kinds of comparison-like sound bites and they are always very vague. It would be interesting to see the actual numbers behind this kind of statement.

What kind of computer vs. what kind of car?

In my world, cars cost $30-40-50K and get bought once every 5 years or so. Computers typically cost $2-3-4K and get bought once every 4-5 years or so. I do regular maintenance on both - take my cars to the shop for interval service as prescribed by the mfg and regularly update my OS and other software. Yes, it costs money, but it is the "price of doing business" and comes out cheaper in the long run because I can't remember when was the last time I had an unplanned failure on either, save for an occasional flat tire. Or Microsoft Office crash.

Since I am using computers professionally (and am therefore properly depreciating and deducting them), I am buying what and when I need and can justify from the business perspective and not what I would really want. I am NOT driving professionally and therefore am free to buy whichever car I fancy and whenever I feel like it.

I use my computers for many things beside just my job. Such as photography, music and movies, correspondence, communication, budgeting, planning trips, million other uses.

A car and a camera are one trick ponies, a computer is a true "renaissance man".

And all being said, how much did you pay for your freezer chest, I wonder? ;)

[evan clarke]

Close your eyes and feel the texture of both kinds of prints, tilt them from side to side and inspect them, take them into different kinds of light and inspect them, take both out of some frames after 6 months or so to compare the frame glass and lastly squirt both with a healthy dose of water and then see which you like best...Evan Clarke

[Donald Miller]

These discussion eventually fall into two camps.
1. "It isn't as good" and the counterpoint is "yes it is".
2. "It costs more money" and the counterpoint is "you're not cost accounting properly".

This has been discussed ad nauseum and there simply is no point that everyone is going to agree on this. Now I am not suggesting that these discussions should not continue, I am only stating what seems to be clear and redundant about this matter.

Donald Miller

[mandoman7]

I think if Bruce spent a lifetime beating the last drop out of inkjet prints, shooting for their look and sweating over them, he would likely say the same thing in reverse.

Agreed. You're not going to get a lot of objectivity from someone who's had a long and successful career with a given method of image production.

[Michael Alpert]

Heroique,

This dog of a discussion has been chasing its tail for years. Can anyone say that they have gained anything from this comparison between technologies? I personally think that no print-on-paper can complete with the clarity and "radiance" of a fine Daguerreotype. But am I about to polish metal plates and breathe mercury vapors. No, not at all. Like everyone else, I'll do what is feasible. That is, I'll work within the confines of my ambition and resources. Rather than a direct comparison between dissimilar technologies, I think it would be far better to view each of them as a distinct breed of the same species, propagated for different qualities.

[shadow images]

I will never understand these arguments. I am not a hugh fan of digital, I use it when it is required by the job. I see traditional prints and digital prints as two separate entities , neither is better or worse than the other. Except for the longevity aspect, and only time will tell if digital is truly archival. They have their own look and comparing them is not an apple to apples comparison. This coming from a luddite that is very resistive of this whole digital thing.

[Heroique]

[...] I would love to see an actual comparison, maybe a few high resolution scans of two prints. I'd do it myself but I don't have a printer. I do have a drum scanned 4x5 negative that I could offer up (It has a scratch and I am planning on having a digital neg printed). Brian, Rick or anybody else, I'll send you the file and my traditional fiber print if you want to try and match it with an inkjet print and send it back. I will then scan the prints and post the results.

Any takers?

Thanks, that’s a generous and tempting offer. ;)

Keep in mind, to make the comparison, your audience would be observing two digital images. That is, they wouldn’t have in hand your beautiful b&w fibre print. And I suspect this would rob them of your silver print’s visual & tactile immediacy – from which Barnbaum’s “radiance” and “excellence” is presumably born.

Still, if you do come into possession of a competing inkjet print, I’d enjoy hearing (if not seeing) your comparison with its analog counterpart. (For example, see Rick's effort in post #5.) Yes, we’d all understand your comparison to be subjective – just like Barnbaum’s. But that wouldn’t make it any less interesting to hear. (And besides, if you do post two images, that would still give people a chance to make their own judgments about photo attributes other than analog “radiance.”)

[Drew Wiley]

The only digital stuff I've seen that really starts narrowing the gap isn't inkjet, but
high-end lithography from folks with literally millions of dollars invested in equipment
and expertise. That's a tall order for most of us, who could easily produce equal or
better black-and-white prints with about a thousand dollar investment and a spare
bathroom!

[cowanw]

Eat one print and then the other and see which one comes out best. I am going to stay with the gelatine fibre print. Healthier.
Regards
Bill

[Robert Hughes]

I am going to stay with the gelatine fibre print. Healthier.

Eww, I hope yr not serious. :( Silver is classified as poisonous.

[Arne Croell]

Eww, I hope yr not serious. :( Silver is classified as poisonous.
Mostly for bacteria - otherwise the western upper class would have killed themselves long ago by using silver spoons. Seriously, yes, silver IONS are a cell poison, but oral ingestion of the metal will just form silver chloride in the stomach, which is pretty insoluble in water and will just go through the system. So you can munch away on your prints.

[rdenney]

Mostly for bacteria - otherwise the western upper class would have killed themselves long ago by using silver spoons. Seriously, yes, silver IONS are a cell poison, but oral ingestion of the metal will just form silver chloride in the stomach, which is pretty insoluble in water and will just go through the system. So you can munch away on your prints.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I'm feeling peckish.

Rick "what about prints toned in selenium?" Denney

[Arne Croell]

Rick "what about prints toned in selenium?" Denney
Selenium is an essential trace mineral, but in minuscule amounts, so it might not be a good idea. Better start using gold toner...

[Maris Rusis]

So, when digital pictures match or exceed the formal technical appearances of photographs are people are going to ditch photography? No way!

The reasons for looking at digital pictures are the same as the reasons for looking at paintings and drawings. Photographs offer a cleanly different relationship to subject matter and a cleanly different visual, emotional. intellectual, and aesthetic experience for the discerning viewer.

Even if digital attains perfect color accuracy, geological stability, negligible cost, and a thousand lines to the millimetre resolution, I won't be doing it. And I doubt I'll want to look at it either.

[Armin Seeholzer]

If I would do so expensive lab workshop as Bruce is doing I would for a long time say the real print is the whet lab one!!!!

Just my two cts. Armin

[cowanw]

Selenium is an essential trace mineral, but in minuscule amounts, so it might not be a good idea. Better start using gold toner...

Good for your arthritis:p
Regards
Bill

[Struan Gray]

http://www.icingimages.com/

Case closed.

[vinny]

http://www.icingimages.com/

Case closed.
It should say "archival inkjet icing"!

[Robert Hughes]

"Develops in your mouth, not in your hands!"

[Brian Ellis]

Really? Then why are we having this discussion?

I would love to see an actual comparison, maybe a few high resolution scans of two prints. I'd do it myself but I don't have a printer. I do have a drum scanned 4x5 negative that I could offer up (It has a scratch and I am planning on having a digital neg printed). Brian, Rick or anybody else, I'll send you the file and my traditional fiber print if you want to try and match it with an inkjet print and send it back. I will then scan the prints and post the results.

Any takers?

I was responding to your statement to the effect that you didn't believe digital prints could duplicate darkroom prints just yet. I disagreed and said it was easy to duplicate "a" silver print. I didn't say that I could duplicate every silver print that anybody chooses to hand me (though that probably could be done too if one was willing to spend the time to do it, which I'm not). In other words, I meant that I can make a print digitally that's indistinguishable from a print made in a darkroom (when placed under glass so that the paper surface isn't a give-away). You apparently don't think that's true. Which is why we're having this discussion.

I spent about 15 years in the darkroom and I've spent about 7 years printing digitally. I've taken four weeks of darkroom workshops from John Sexton and another two weeks from Phil Davis. Which doesn't mean I was a great darkroom printer but it does mean I was very serious about making excellent darkroom prints. So I think I'm in a good position to be able to compare the two methods of printing. What's your background in digital printing, i.e. how much have you done and if you haven't done any significant amount what digital prints by which photographers have yous seen? In other words, what's the basis for your opinions about digital printing?