This is an interesting characterization.Originally Posted by Ben Rubinstein
The work that turned me around on digital was Charles Cramer's scanned and Photoshoped images printed on C paper printed with a Lightjet. Absolutely stunning.
I like both. I've been getting very nice results with my 4000 printing ultrachrome 2 inks on Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag. The paper one uses makes a big difference.
Kirk
Up to 3 years ago all analogue b/w. Then I bought a scanner, printer and digital camera as well as getting further into large format with 5x7 and 8x10 cameras. After much faffing about I have settled on printing black and white traditionally from film on a variety of formats and learning to love colour captured through the digital camera and printed on the inkjet up to A3+
Late last year I had an exhibition of 35 monochrome prints of a pilgrimage in Spain mostly printed to 19x19 inches ( Mamiya 6 ) that I couldn't ( with my current digital equipment and level of skill ) replicate digitally.
I can see no reason to change currently.
Geoff
Dohhh just noticed age of thread - still hope its relevant
One vote for the lab geeks: 90 percent darkroom because the research grade equipment still depends on 3x4 or 4x5 ortho film to acquire data. the negs from these scopes are scanned for reports and publication. It's impt to note to grad students that journals will not accept photographs anymore. I mention it because someone has to teach these guys how negs are made.
Commercial/consumer -80% digital, 20% chrome, once in a great while, black and white. The film shooting happens more often with the high buck high profile client.
Art- 95% traditional. The 5% is the occasional digital negative.
Hmmm, I'm building a darkroom to do 8x10 and 5x7 contacts, and eventually enlargements. I also have just bought my first digital camera. I have watched and waited for years for the right camera to hit the market.
Interesting that this old thread has been resurrected. I doubt that this forum is the best place to get a representative sample today any more than it was when it was started four years ago. But FWIW - among the local photographers I know (roughly 5 commercial, 30 non-commercial) none use a darkroom, in fact none use film any more (four years ago it probably would have been 60-40 digital to film). The last film hold-out was a platinum printer who just bought a 5D a few months ago. But here I'm sure there still will be far more darkroom users. I'm now 99% digital (as opposed to 95% when I responded to this thread four years ago) except for processing the occasional sheet of film to scan. I sold the last of my real darkroom equipment a few months ago but sold the bulk of it - enlarger, lenses,easels, etc. - about four years ago. If I had the room I'd probably keep a bare bones darkroom on the off-chance that I might some day want to use it again. But I no longer have the room and the chances of ever using a real darkroom again are so remote that it isn't worth making the room.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
I'm 100% darkroom - silver gelatin enlargements, Ilfochrome, C-prints, and on those rare occasions when I have enough time, dye transfer. It's a quality as well as personal
preference.
Man, I think dye transfer is the most beautiful color process ever invented.
My experience is probably not typical because most of the photographers I know are highly involved with alternative printing processes. Alternative printing involves some wet processing but it is very different from traditional silver printing in that you don't need a full darkroom of the type required for printing silver. None of these folks would be considered "commercial" photographers, though many of them make money from print sales and workshops, and a couple earn most of their income printing for others.
The twenty or so photographers whose work I know well have been involved with digital processing almost from its earliest days, in large measure because printing a digital negative was seen as a wonderful alternative to the tedious task of making enlarged negatives in the darkroom. I was frankly shocked when the guardians of analog at APUG did not see making digital negatives as an important means of preserving traditional photography. But the fact of the matter is that nearly all of the top echelon of alternative printers have been using digital negatives for a long time.
Ten years ago nearly all of these people used only film and scanned. Today most of them use both digital and film capture. One or two use only digital capture, one or two only film capture, but all are involved in making digital negatives.
I personally printed only with in-camera film negatives until about 2001, then switched pretty quickly to printing mostly with digital negatives. I currently print with digital negatives from both film and digital capture. Both systems of capture have certain advantages and disadvantages for my work flow.
Most of the people I know see digital and film capture as tools, not as an ideology. They use what they want, for whatever reason they want, and don't spend much time proselytizing about why they do what they do.
Sandy King
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks