Darkroom vs Scanning

[prado333]

Personally , for me the big trouble in digital version is the scanner. Knowing how extremely good is a Heidelberg drum scanner , i hate to have to do this part with a Epson or similar budget one.

[jnantz]

Exactly. But good copy film did.

Merg. sounds like you had a good plan! ...
You're right, I could have made copy negatives and subbed them out to one of the 5 or so local commercial labs that used to be around and said rush, but there really was no point — extra time, extra expense extra headaches ... I mean when the Governor's Office calls and says we want 500 of those prints ... besides, in the end I would have had to do the exact same thing (if I didn't sub it out) ... print hundreds of prints — it made very little sense to waste time and effort to reinvent the wheel. It's not like making a large run of prints is / was hard, once the first print done, made the map, listened to my little man talking like Mr T, ... it was just making prints, and I was already making prints every day for 6 hours. This was a portrait studio that had been in business for 60 years, great 5x7 tri-x negatives, souped in DK50, hand retouched, not much burning and dodging but there always is some. No point in a copy negative would have still required a little burning, dodging, and matching prints, im not someone who believes there is any such thing as a perfect negative (easier to print, sure, perfect nope) ... It is a great experience to make a large production run of prints, but I can see how someone who doesn't have the experience, time or want that experience &c can think it would be a waste of time / effort ...

[ASA1000]

Exactly. But good copy film did. I used to make a copy negative from a master print; not "fine art" quality, but acceptable for commercial use. Sometimes hotels used my photographs, one-time rights and copy negative went to them if they wanted a large number of prints. Most worked with good labs, I didn't want to print in quantity.

I know what you mean, but 'not fine art quality' is another whole different thing. Like newspaper reproduction where the whitest white depends on the paper roll in the press. But we're talking about the best- of-the-best of ink vs silver.

[ASA1000]

I made a lot of digital prints by duplicating layers, adjusting the bottom layer and erasing through the top layer to get to it. No two digital images made like that are the same, just like no two hand dogde/burn prints are the same. But from that point on Digital lets you make 'clones' and so that's why, to me, digital is less valuable.
I have a photographer friend in Florida, David Susman, he creates beautiful images, but he uses so many layers I used to kid him about being a single-frame cinematographer!

[Bernice Loui]

Nothing enforces making a proper negative to print from when limited to (one) grade of paper with a pile-O-prints to be made that must look good, with "good" being very well defined and referenced.


Back in a time when digital images and mass printing via inkjet and similar was not a possibility,
Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Digital printing reduces costs and makes nice photo prints in larger sizes available to people who can't afford darkroom-produced prints. Of course, that may lower profit margins for the photographers. But it should increase the quantity of sales.

[Michael R]

Digital negative printing also puts all the "alt" processes within easy reach of people who don't want to mess with large format cameras.

[jnantz]

Digital printing reduces costs and makes nice photo prints in larger sizes available to people who can't afford darkroom-produced prints. Of course, that may lower profit margins for the photographers. But it should increase the quantity of sales.

Hi Alan
I am not sure if you have priced "digital prints" in galleries &c, there is no low profit margin, if the work is "good" and people want it, it sells for $$$$$$$, even images sold through
print on demand companies like "image kind" where I sell some of my work. Their quality can't be beat, their framing and production staff is top notch &c. Sure there are people who sell their work
for very little, and unfortunately they tend to lower the potential values all around, like the lady I know who does weddings and 'mitzvahs" for 100 bucks ...

Digital negative printing also puts all the "alt" processes within easy reach of people who don't want to mess with large format cameras.

Michael:
exactly!! I've made beautiful gum prints, cyanotypes, gum over cyanotypes, platinum prints, ziatypes, albumen prints &c from images made on my cellphone and printed with a 65$ inkjet printer (my classmates who were using ink printers that cost thousands were kind of cranky), I also got a 17-18year old interested in making tangible archival hand made cyanotypes from cellphone images as well. there isn't a better time to be making photographs ( if one has an open mind ) than right now ...

[Califmike33]

I'm sure a lot of you guys shoot digital alongside your film. Is it possible to get a film-look final result on a print with a digital camera and an inkjet printer?

I was told by a guy at Sammy's camera here in California, he has over 40 years of exp, in film, 4x5, printing, and digital, and he teaches. So I'm really curious if this is possible to get a BW image shot on digital and make it look so much like a film you can't tell the difference?

[bdkphoto]

I'm sure a lot of you guys shoot digital alongside your film. Is it possible to get a film-look final result on a print with a digital camera and an inkjet printer?

I was told by a guy at Sammy's camera here in California, he has over 40 years of exp, in film, 4x5, printing, and digital, and he teaches. So I'm really curious if this is possible to get a BW image shot on digital and make it look so much like a film you can't tell the difference?

Yes.