enlarging / printing - am I missing out?

[Toyon]

I have to agree, in that you're viewing the results of light from the subject impinging on the emulsion.

With any printing process, you're looking at a secondary image, created by light on an image creating a new image.

- Leigh

Not quite what I meant Leigh. The image I create with a negative in my darkroom is not a secondary image. It is a primary image made from the subject - which is the negative. I do not see it as a reproduction of the original scene. This is akin to the human brain that creates an image using the eye and neural processing. That is the original, not the atomic resonances and frequencies that we use as raw material for vision.

[bob carnie]

The darkroom is where I want to be, I love the mixture of digital , and wet processes . I still find time to do straight enlarging from negatives but for me its all good and really what I need to be doing for the rest of my life.

Those of us who print regularly have the best pastime possible, Hard to keep a big darkroom in Large City , that is why I like the contact from digital negative idea as it opens up many doors for us.

[Steve Sherman]

Progressively and specifically designed film negatives for modern Multi-Contrast papers which have been processed in PyroCat via minimal agitation really have little rival whether it be digital scan to ink output regardless of resolution or even original slide film where three layers of emulsion must come to focus in one plane.

one man's opinion

[Tin Can]

Not absolute Zero: I've recently bought 2 enlargers, as a newcomer to darkroom printing. I feel that in the near future wet printing may have some revival. Just IMHO.

I will test that theory.

Shortly.

[Pere Casals]

I will test that theory.

Shortly.

Wet, wet, wet... yeah !!!

[esearing]

For me the darkroom gets me off the computer except maybe to scan the final image and post it to my blog. I spend 40-50 hours coding per week for my day job plus an hour or two a day doing "research" in forums like these. As I age too, I feel I have less time to split my interests and want to focus on my creative side and pursue something worth remembering before I go.

I still feel magic of the print coming up in the tray (just like a day at Disney World). So you have to ask yourself how you want to spend your time, energy, and money and how it makes you feel at the end of the day.
Project 5-10 years out and ask yourself will I be a great computer printer, or a great darkroom printer? or Both?

I also did the math. To keep up with digital technology and printing is more costly than a wet darkroom and supplies.

[Thalmees]

... So it is not that the quality of wet is or is not better than digital, ...

Hello ac12,
For me, it is the quality of the photographic print. Quality not necessarily be sharpness and randomness of grain, it's beyond that. But, to finish a job, digital is the way.
For a photo that represent itself(artistic), photography is unsurpassed.
For a photo that represent subject(functional), digital photography is unsurpassed. That's the reason why many professionals adopting digital for their living, but when it comes to their own self work, they use film.

[Pere Casals]

The darkroom is where I want to be, I love the mixture of digital , and wet processes . I still find time to do straight enlarging from negatives but for me its all good and really what I need to be doing for the rest of my life.

Those of us who print regularly have the best pastime possible, Hard to keep a big darkroom in Large City , that is why I like the contact from digital negative idea as it opens up many doors for us.

Bob,

I think you are pretty right. Today we are privileged because we can make perfect prints from Lambda, we can enjoy the extremly valuable darkroom handcrafting, and also we have the poferful technology crossover.

So we are very fortunate to have those 3 possibilities. Well, some pepople like you are more fortunate because mastering and practizing all that...

Just I want to point that classic darkroom printing deserves an strong revival, and not only because the fun one can get with it. There is a big cultural asset in wet printing, so knowing how masters of photography got those formidable prints with basic tools is an incredible skill.

I think that by mastering classic printing is when one also can later take full advantage of Lambdas and tech crossover, IMHO.

[Pere Casals]

.

I agree with you, use both if possible, just let me add some thoughts:

So it is not that the quality of wet is or is not better than digital, it is the environment and how I feel in the darkroom.

Quality will depend on careful process in both cases. So this is, the choice it's not about qualiy

Technically classic Contact Printing can deliver even final 30 Lp/mm resolving power while digital printing delivers a little fraction of that, anyway in practice you may need a magnifier to see the difference.

Digital delivers an easy image control and then make reprographic series, while in darkroom you can obtain a master print that shows the artist hand (also you can obtain a nasty print... not difficult)

Yes it is a LOT more difficult or impossible to do certain stuff that I can easily do in Photoshop, but so what.

CRM/SCIM opens a new world in darkroom. Also there is the Alan Ross aproach, just use Hybrid. You can print a mask with a common laser printer (on transparent sheet) and control imabe as you want by making a sandwitch with negative, that will also deliver a sharper look (unsharp masking). You can make the mask control all or leave some manual burning/dodging for you.

Sometimes the task is not technical (digital), but subjective (film and wet darkroom).

I completely agree

[jim10219]

What I find most interesting about this thread, is how the argument of darkroom vs. digital parallels the old argument of painter vs. photographer. Those arguing that digital is something that anyone can do and takes no skill reminds me of the same accusations painters hurled at photographers back in the days of its infancy. Oddly enough, the painters reaction to photography was the modern art movement so one could argue that the introduction of a new technology that threatened to make their trade obsolete actually reinvigorated it and made it even more necessary. I believe digital process is now doing that for the darkroom. I know it has for me.

I am witnessing the begging of the resurgence of the darkroom and believe we have Instagram and it's siblings to thank for it. With smartphones, everyone's a photographer, but not everyone's a great photographer. This accessibility has heightened consciousness and fostered appreciation for that skill. More and more young people (read hipsters) are becoming intrigued by that collaboration of science and art that is darkroom photography. Film in general has been making a comeback for years now precisely because of it's flaws and limitation. After all, limitation breeds creativity and flaws define the individual, which are two things our society is struggling to maintain in this modern, fast paced, technological era. So I think we're getting ready to see some new life breathed into this old beast. But don't expect them to give up THEIR old habits just to embrace YOUR old habits. Make no mistake about it, they will bring digital technologies along with them. And I think that's a good thing. Which brings me to the theme of my post:

Why argue the two against each other? The screwdriver does not replace the hammer, does it? Just because something is created through a computer, does not mean it was created by a computer. In the future lies in the past, and the past says everything is always changing, always evolving, seized by perpetual motion. I own several different cameras of several different formats (digital and film) and use several different methods of creating the final print. I don't approach photography as a craft, I approach it as an art. And that means my final product isn't meant as a display of technical achievement, but rather as a realization of a vision. Now if you're more concerned purely with the craft side, that's respectable. The two approaches don't have to oppose one another and can even coexist symbiotically. But I'm chasing a vision, not a specification. And sometimes my vision requires Adobe Photoshop. Sometimes my vision requires potassium dichromate. Sometimes it requires both. They're all just tools, and I most value the right tool for the job. I'm new to this field of photography and have probably made more paintings than prints at this point. But coming from the painting world, I can tell you that the whole argument seems rather pedantic and myopic. All of the mediums require an immense amount of skill to master and none should be shrugged off as inferior. In the hands of a master, any tool looks easy to wield to the untrained eye.

So yes, if all you ever do is digital prints, then you are missing out on a great experience! If all you ever do is wet prints, then you are missing out on an equally great experience! If you've never put down the camera and picked up a brush when moved by the urge to capture a moment, then I suggest you try it, for it too is a great experience!