Has Digital Changed Darkroom Printing?

[Peter Lewin]

Background: building excitement for my summer trip to Scotland, I've been looking at (B&W) pictures others have taken of the Hebrides, Orkneys, standing stones, and so on. I found one site I really like (https://tomrichardsonphotography.mypixieset.com) whose Scottish gallery has many dramatic images that I would have been proud to make. We exchanged emails, and while Tom started in film, he has switched to digital for the options in printing which I don't think can be duplicated (at least by mortals like me) in the darkroom. Then while considering buying a print to use as a "target" for my own printing, I took a volume of Paul Strand photos off my shelf, turned to his Hebrides section, and was struck by the complete difference in the images. Photoshop allows for super dramatic skies, increased internal contrast, a lot of the "edge effects" some of us try to approach with pyro. Strand's classic images are wonderful, but don't use what I think of as Photoshop effects. So I wonder whether our "targets" for our prints have changed due to our exposure (unintended pun) to the huge number of Photoshopped images.

[Mark Sampson]

We have more options now, certainly. But are they good options? The current over-sharpened, HDR, ultra-dramatic look finds little favor with me.
Certainly using such techniques will not give you the emotional depth of a Strand portrait or landscape, any more than using 5x7 and 8x10 cameras and making contact prints (as Strand did) will. That's on the photographer, not the craft.
Since I shoot landscape with a 4x5 camera, and make enlargements to 11x14 on fiber-base paper, you can tell what I prefer. Is it better? For me it is.
But you might look at the work of our esteemed moderator, Kirk Gittings, who is a master of dramatic light. (AFAIK he still works with film and prints on silver.)

[Willie]

Hybrid workflow makes for magic in the darkroom for some.

Shoot digital with high quality files and produce digital negatives to contact print in your darkroom. You can dial in contrast and work with any area you want and output a "perfect negative" for whatever process you want.

[h2oman]

I would venture to say that much changed since Strand's time just in darkroom printing. Consider Strand to Edward Weston, to Ansel and on to folks like John Sexton and Bruce Barnbaum. Comparing a Strand print to a Sexton print, skipping all the in-between, would show a vast difference in presentation, I believe. It might also bring to mind the Charles Scheeler quote "Isn’t it amazing how photography has advanced without improving?"

BTW, it is probably time to retire the term "photoshopped," and replace it with something like "digitally produced."

[h2oman]

If you haven't looked at them already, two photographers whose British Isles work you might enjoy are Fay Godwin and Dick Arentz.

[Peter Lewin]

If you haven't looked at them already, two photographers whose British Isles work you might enjoy are Fay Godwin and Dick Arentz.

I already have two books of Fay Godwin photos on my shelf, but had never visited Dick Arentz's website until your suggestion (thanks!). He brought my original question into sharp focus. In his "thoughts" section he has one titled "Subtlety" which argues in favor of his classic style of platinum/palladium printing, which encourages closer viewing over dramatization. My basic question was not whether digital photography, or even AI, allow approaches which are hard or impossible to achieve in the darkroom, my question was whether our exposure (another unintended pun) to the drama of stormy skies, super sharp imagery, etc. (which I associate with Photoshop) has changed our aesthetic in the way we print in the darkroom. As a life-long (I'm now 76) B&W film and darkroom photographer, whose approach to printing was formed well before digital existed, I print, let's say, "more quietly," but am beginning to wonder whether I should go for more contrast, more burning in of stormy skies, i.e. more "drama." So what I was really asking was if others of you have asked the same question of your printing, whether your own definition of "a good print" has changed.

[Merg Ross]

As a life-long (I'm now 76) B&W film and darkroom photographer, whose approach to printing was formed well before digital existed, I print, let's say, "more quietly," but am beginning to wonder whether I should go for more contrast, more burning in of stormy skies, i.e. more "drama." So what I was really asking was if others of you have asked the same question of your printing, whether your own definition of "a good print" has changed.

No!

Scotland will provide plenty of "drama" without having to change your technique. "Quietly" is fine, you will stand out from the crowd.
Wish you a wonderful and productive trip.

Best,
Merg

[Oren Grad]

My basic question was not whether digital photography, or even AI, allow approaches which are hard or impossible to achieve in the darkroom, my question was whether our exposure (another unintended pun) to the drama of stormy skies, super sharp imagery, etc. (which I associate with Photoshop) has changed our aesthetic in the way we print in the darkroom. As a life-long (I'm now 76) B&W film and darkroom photographer, whose approach to printing was formed well before digital existed, I print, let's say, "more quietly," but am beginning to wonder whether I should go for more contrast, more burning in of stormy skies, i.e. more "drama." So what I was really asking was if others of you have asked the same question of your printing, whether your own definition of "a good print" has changed.

It hasn't.

Print with more drama if that is what you need to do at this point in your life to make pictures that you find satisfying. If you don't know, try it and see - print some pictures that way and live with them for a while.

[Tin Can]

Never liked paint by numbers

[Drew Wiley]

Changed? Darkroom techniques continue to improve on their own. We have better films, better papers, better cameras, enlargers, and lenses than former generations, plus a bigger bag of tricks. Or, for those who actually benefit from hybrid techniques, this might be the golden age of technological overlap. But our own minds and eyes have always been the most important tools. All the digital revulsion has really done is to make photographic image presentation far more ubiquitous, including far more obnoxious images than were possible before; the darkroom has been replaced with an Inquisition dungeon torturing pictures to the limit.