survey digital vs traditional darkroom

[Ted Harris]

Two years ago I was printing some, but not all, of my black and white work digitally. I was already printing all of my color work digitally. Last December I built a new studio and darkroom. I have not yet unpacked and set up an enlarger. I keep thinking about it but have not seen the need or the reason to do so. It was also about two years ago that I realized that if I was going to get the best possible results from both color and black and white digitally I had tomake the investment in a high end scanner and did so. The cost may seem high but it is no higher than the same investment in top-of-the-line enlarging equipment 10 or 15 years ago.

I embrace and will continue to embrace anything that allows me to improve the quality of the images I display and sell and speeds the work I do for my clients. While I don't rule out the possibility of returning to the wet darkroom I also don't see any immediate need.

I'll go one step farther. The day a digital back that equals 4x5 film is available for under $10,000 will be the last day I shoot film .... but, before everyone gets up in arms .... I don't expect to see that day in this lifetime.

[otzi]

[QUOTE=Ted Harris;257345] I had to make the investment in a high end scanner and did so. The cost may seem high but it is no higher than the same investment in top-of-the-line enlarging equipment 10 or 15 years ago.

Ah, yes. But there is a caveat. The enlarger so mentioned would undoubtedly give you a life times use and when thrown on the scrap heap some student will take it for an other life time of use. Not so sure about the scanner though.

[ic-racer]

100% b&w silver film and projection printing to silver paper. I think the only 'digital' thing in the darkroom is a calculator.

[Ted Harris]

otzi,

When we are talking about the high-end flatbed and drum scanners the same principle applies that applies to the enlargers, IMO. My Screen Cezanne is now in its second life, having served as a Screen company demo for three years before I got it. Same is true for lots of other high end scanners in use by our members.

[resummerfield]

......nothing beats digital technology when it comes to sucking the joy out of a craft.......

I do all my work in a traditional wet darkroom. I’ve had most of my equipment for many years, maybe 20, and it operates today as it did when it was new.

All my work is personal. If I did commercial work, then I would probably use digital.

[Gene McCluney]

Profesionally, my darkroom time is about the same, as I still shoot 4x5 E-6 for a major client, and I do my own processing. The big change came about four years ago when my major client went from sending out color print product/news release prints to sending out electronic images on disc. I have since not had to do any large volume printing in the lab. Now, for my personal work, I am spending more and more time in the lab developing large-format b/w film, but most printing is done thru scanning and printing digitally.

[adrian tyler]

shoot: film

proofs: analogue / digital 30 /70

exhibition prints: digital

[Doug Howk]

I enjoy the craftsmanship of traditional photography whether its enlarging or alternative processes. The prints are not perfect, but that's part of the lure. I've tried digital (computer programmer so no luddite); but as an image approaches perfection after many hours on the computer it loses something intangible yet real.

[xavier deltell]

All my capture are film (provia, tmax100,TriX ) 70% 4x5, 30 % 120
All my prints are digital (epson ultrachrome k3)
All my family shots are digital

[al olson]

95% of my work is photographic and the other 5% is digital. I mainly shoot negative films for low light photography because they are superior to transparency films and to digital because of their greater exposure latitude. All of my film and prints are done in my darkroom.

Digital has its place. I use it for snapshots, ebay ads, and preparing workshops that are presented with digital projection. I also scan my negatives to present on my web site, for workshop presentations, and for booklet printing.

On the other hand, I would never consider offering a digital print for sale. There is an aura to a photographic print, silver gelatin or a chromogenic, that cannot be replicated by inkjet.

It may be because the silver or the dyes are embedded in the emulsion, not sprayed on the surface of the paper, that gives the photographic print a feeling of greater depth. (I know, they are working on inkjet printers and papers that will permit the ink embed itself into the paper.) It may also be due to the fact that digital images contain so many artifacts caused by sharpening, pumping up the contrast, over-saturating the colors, etc., that they always look somewhat artificial.

But I guess that that is what contemporary imaging is all about. The past 6 or more covers of Popular Photography & Imaging have been absolutely garish!

Has anyone ever seen a digital image that has not been sharpened, either in camera or in Photoshop? The resulting edge effects may be subliminal, but they detract from the quality of the image.

I have worked with digital imaging since the mid-70s, at first writing software to analyze Landsat data while working at the U.S. Geological Survey. I have watched imagery bloom into a viable media. I view digital imaging as an adjunct to photography, not a replacement.

I know that digital will continue to improve, but film and photographic papers will be around as long as people care about quality, especially prints from LF and ULF. No chip will have sufficient surface area to record as delicately the texture and tonality that one obtains from LF, that is why LF is so much more impressive than 35mm.