Former RAF Photographer seeks some help and advice

[Robert McClure]

A new acquaintance of mine in Scotland would like your input to his below questions. He gave me pernission to post below.

I told him there were, as we spoke, " ... 100 old photography farts like us sitting at their computers just waiting to add their two cents." Younger farts, too!

A la our recent discussions on the importance of welcoming new folks, I think being an RAF photographer is pretty cool!

Andrew writes:

I am not yet active enough to be a LF Photography Forum contributor but
have been following the discussions for some months.

I am based in Scotland and trained as an RAF photographer 40 yrs ago
using 5x4 cameras. Went on to study dye-transfer colour printing in
London for 2 yrs then gave up photography altogether.

Now I'm back at it, writing for a magazine, taking pictures and dusting
off all four of my old film cameras! This time around I'm interested in
contact printing from digital negatives using (perhaps) Kodak T Max &
Efke 100 as a starting point developed in Sandy King's Pyrocat-HD
formula. I would love to have a fully equipped darkroom but my volumes
would never justify all the resources/equipement I'd need to invest in.

Comments, ideas, suggestions much appreciated and thanks in advance!

Best wishes,

Andrew.



Thanks, guys!

[Eric Rose]

Frankly I would skip the digital neg thing and just scan your new negs, do the PS magic to it and output directly to a high quality printer setup for B&W. I've explored both paths and the additional creativity allowed thru the use of various papers in a printer out weight, for me at least, any perceived advantages the digital neg would give.

I have seen prints made using an Epson printer that look exactly like a Pl/Pd contact print. As much as I love my wet darkroom, I have found that the Epson is a valuable tool to add to the warchest.

[Ron Marshall]

There are many good values now in LF enlargers on ebay.

If he wishes to contact print from digital negatives he will need: a scanner, Epson 4990, or wait for reviews of the newest Epson scanner that has just been released; a printer; a computer; and for ease of use Photoshop, or another photo-editor.

[Robert McClure]

Andrew,

What cameras do you have? What sorts of things do you like to photograph nowadays?

Would love to learn about what aerial camera you used. How did you steady?

Just curious!

[Nick_3536]

"I would love to have a fully equipped darkroom but my volumes would never justify all the resources/equipement I'd need to invest in."

Considering how cheap darkroom stuff is today that's a pretty low volume.

[darter]

There's been somewhat of a rebirth of dye-transfer technology. I have seen nothing to match its beauty. See Jim Browning's work at http://www.dyetransfer.org/.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have seen prints made using an Epson printer that look exactly like a Pl/Pd contact print.

The you have not seen a pt/pd contact print.

Seems to me the expense of a good digital set up is greater than one for a chemical darkroom, specially if we are talking low volume. A Beseler enlarger, a timer, a few trays and a developing tank can be had for less that the cost of PS CSII alone.

[paulr]

"Seems to me the expense of a good digital set up is greater than one for a chemical darkroom, specially if we are talking low volume."

i think it depends. people often have some of the most expensive digital stuff already (like the computer, and maybe even much of the software). also, darkrooms are very inneficient for low volume, sporadic work. i felt like a rockstar when i was printing in my darkroom 3 or 4 times a week. but during dry spells when i'd print once a month or so it was pure tedium ... mixing up fresh chemicals every time, throwing out old ones, spending as much time setting up and cleaning up as i did printing ... and there's also the space consideration. a digital darkroom can be whatever space you already use for your office.

"The you have not seen a pt/pd contact print."

i don't know about that. i don't think the strength of any printing process is its ability to look like another, but i've seen some carbon pigment inkjets that i'd have a very hard time telling from pt/pd contact prints. and i have one of the latter on my wall, and i just saw over a dozen nice looking ones at the museum of modern art last saturday.

[Terence Spross]

The term Digital negative is why Eric Rose assumed you were talking about Platinum Palladium Printing , and I might differ that Epson printer output is exactly like such a print. However, what I am confused about is my concept of digital negatives used in Pl/Pd printing is a inkjet printed negative transparancy used in place of a silver negative. This is how some photographers go from digital camera shots to contact printing to make alternative process prints. But Andrew talks of T-Max and Efke which are of coase camera films and unless I'm missing something I don't know of a digital output that exposes negative film. (except - I know some people conventionally photograph a computer screen but the 1 megapixel resolution is wanting although I suppose for a 4 x 5 inch contact print that would be fine.)

If you took out the word digital I would think Andrew was just looking for advice on getting into a conventional wet darkroom again.

[Eric Rose]

Hey Jorge, I've got one of yours!! Plus one of our Large Format group members prints PL/PD all the time. So yes I have seen the real thing. I'm not knocking their beauty, I'm just saying there are alternatives.

Your prints are gorgeous, but I just don't have the time or the energy to devote to that type of output.

Look forward to seeing you at the APUG Conference in Toronto. And yes I will have the print I promised you at the conference. Really ...