Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

[djdister]

At great personal risk, first I'll preface this with the usual "this is only my opinion, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah."

Three points:

1. Not all of us are able to maintain, borrow or rent wet darkrooms, for various reasons. But we still shoot film. What's wrong with making use of inkjet technology to make prints from my negatives that in some cases are equal or better than what I could have done in a darkroom?

2. A bad print is a bad print, whether it's a silver print or an inkjet. If this is relatively agreeable, then the converse could also be true - a good print is a good print, regardless of the process involved.

3. Shooting on film and scanning for inkjet printing can yield better, worse or the same results as shooting film and printing on conventional photo paper. I get a bit mystified by people who only talk about how a print was made, as if that trumps things like composition, lighting, mood, or emotional impact of the image.

[Taija71A]

In my opinion, darkroom prints can't come close to the quality of an inkjet print...
So, for me the question would be -- why would I make a lesser print by going in the darkroom?

You keep bringing it up, Lenny. Blame yourself if you get flak. You deserve it for making a ridiculous comment like that. It's like saying, "Great chefs only cook with pork and never with beef". But thank you for the disclaimer, "in my opinion". That might keep you from getting lynched.

... but yes everyone is titled to their opinion.

Like Drew and Bob originally said...

Thank-you. Best regards, -Tim.

[Drew Wiley]

I judge with my eyes. I've seen very very few truly nuanced inkjet prints, and many many superb silver ones, not to mention alt processes like Pt/Pd and carbon. This fact might just be an artifact of history - inkjet simply hasn't been around very long. It also interposes a lot of secondary hurdles between film and output, like scanning, which kinda either appeals to your workflow or it doesn't. I'm in the tactile camp, so would prefer darkroom regardless. But I've also been around some people with heavy-lifting big-budget prepress ability who can run rings around garden-variety inkjet. In the final result, a Stradivarius in the hands of Bozo the Clown still sounds like Bozo the Clown; so at a certain point all these technique A versus technique B arguments get downright idiotic. It's like debating whether oil painting or watercolor is the "better" medium. What's far more important is the person behind the brush, either way.

[sanking]

Regarding the article itself, the methodology of Tim Parkins is first rate in my opinion. Anyone who thinks they can do better, go for it. I did some similar testing some years ago with a couple of friends and decided to not try to publish the results because I saw it as a waste of time. People find a way to convince themselves they are right regardless of what the tests show. But the effort sure taught me how complicated it is to do this kind of testing right. In my work film is better some time, other times digital offers advantages, sometime both work equally well.

In my print making I am firmly in the world of hybrid, with the end an analog print with the carbon transfer process. I printed with carbon for more than two decades by contact printing with traditional camera negatives, then about a decade or so ago I switched to scanning my film, with output to a digital negative, and then making the print by contact with the digital negative. I miss some of the features of the camera negative but there is no question in my mind but that I am able to craft a much richer print by adjusting tonal values in PS than I could achieve with traditional negatives, even though my camera negatives were generally well exposed and developed for the process. It is hard to explain to someone what is meant by this as most people's imagination is limited by their own experience and they are simply unable to cross the bridge from their way of doing something to an alternative path.

As far as regular inkjet printing, I do some of this also as it is part of crafting the image in PS and serves as a bridge for me between the image on the monitor and the image on paper, so I often proof for carbon on the inkjet. And some of the inkjet prints are very good, and of course have their own image qualities that are quite unlike my carbon prints.

What people really need to do is go out and find a way to look at outstanding work in the various media, inkjet, silver, pt/pd, alternative, so that they can understand the potential. You will never grow holding on to preconceptions based on ignorance of the potential of different processes.

Sandy

[Lenny Eiger]

Like Drew and Bob originally said...

Thank-you. Best regards, -Tim.

1) You must learn to read more carefully. The key concept I was talking about is that for my purpose a darkroom print is lesser. I am looking for something different. Anything else is merely reacting to the perceived over-reaching statement by Ray Heath. Ray later clarified his statement

2) No, I didn't bring this up. Drew is, well, he's just Drew.... he didn't read before he posted.

3) Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's been my point all along.

There are more ways to make a print than silver gelatin. Everyone should do what they enjoy, and what works for their images.

There's no reason to dismiss any of the methods as "lesser". It's no different from suggesting that journalistic photography is not really photography, or landscape isn't really valid anymore. They are just arguments that separate us.

[Drew Wiley]

My central point is that once you have chosen your particular instrument (watercolor versus oil / cello versus banjo), you need to master it. It takes discipline, and certainly helps to know what it is you're trying to achieve, and to what qualitative level you aspire. Every really good digital printer I've ever met was an excellent darkroom printer first. Now that stereotype probably will not apply to the next generation who know nothing but digital; but then, qualitative expectations seem to be much lower in general too nowadays. Yet somewhere in this mix, you either aspire to high quality craft or you don't. A great sculptor can do more with a shovel and a pile of dirt than a dingbat with a block of Carrara marble. Heck. I sell tools, and there are endless arguments over what is "best" in that field. A klutz will just cut his fingers off, even with the most expensive choice. And in the final analysis, we are talking about mere choice of tools here. I'll state my preferences. You state yours. Whatever works, works.

[prendt]

After all the pages written about it I wish somebody said it clearly (and proved it!) what is really better in the couple digital - analogue. Otherwise it's just beating the poor dead horse all the time. Nobody up to the challenge? No, I don't think so, it's just to wait and wait. Yawn.

[Lenny Eiger]

After all the pages written about it I wish somebody said it clearly (and proved it!) what is really better in the couple digital - analogue. Otherwise it's just beating the poor dead horse all the time. Nobody up to the challenge? No, I don't think so, it's just to wait and wait. Yawn.

Neither is "really better". That's the point.... it's a subjective question.

[prendt]

Neither is "really better". That's the point.... it's a subjective question.

I agree. That's why I never take part in those fights. To watch it it too is rarely interesting without yawns.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh throwing a few punches now and then is almost mandatory to survival as I see it. On one side you've got hundreds of millions of dollars being spent annually
to tell you the superiority of all things digital. On the other side, just a David here and there with a sling and pebble. But it has its rewards. Only a few people passed me on a rather steep trail last Saturday. But everyone of them stopped to gawk at my Norma. Even a couple of teenagers stared a moment and clearly
pronounced the word, "Cool". Nobody does that for cell phones or DLSR's. And whether they know exactly what it is or not, they somehow know it takes serious
pictures that involve a darkroom too. Life is too short to make a technical debate about all this. That's fine if you have a junction in the road and realistically need to decide how to best allocate your budget and workspace. I've already got a nice darkroom and know how to use it. So it's a settled question. And if you don't like my answer, that's what the spikes on that big Ries tripod are for replying with! Some things are more fun the Medieval way.