bye bye silver?

[lostcoyote]

Okay, I remember visiting this forum perhaps a year ago and saw a topic on silver vs. digital prints. And I am unable to locate it so I am starting a new topic on this subject, perhaps, once again.

Right now, I have a conventional darkroom that is collecting dust. I am getting pressure to clear out the room to open it up for other use.... and I am probably going to do it. Will I regret it? That's my dilemma.

I do love what can be done in digital these days and I have some negatives that I have manipulated in such a way that I can not do with a conventional enlarger process. On the other hand, I have some awesome silver images stashed away in my closet and just do not know whether digital can reproduce some of the tonalities I have been able to achieve in these prints. Some of my higher key negatives might not scan well because of the saturation of silver (with detail) in the highlight regions.

I am wondering with the current state of the art in digital primtmaking and drum scanning, whether the depths I have been able to achieve with the silver process can be duplicated in digital with printmaker resources such as West Coast Imaging, for example.

Here is a shot that I have that can only be achieved in digital manipulation:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2145/...be9a14f4_b.jpg

Here is a shot that I am not so sure digital can get to. highlight and deep shadow detail because of scanning dynamic range limitations:


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2198/...35a3998c_b.jpg

Anyway, what do you guys think? Should I clear out my room?
Another poster said that silver "feels" different. I have to admit that I have not visited many galleries lately to see just how far digital prints have come... but I read things like Huntington Witherill claims, that digital can now match silver. Is that true?

How does a silver print feel different than a state of the art digital print on the finest papers available?

[Eric Woodbury]

Everybody will have a different answer, but inevitably it will be a personal choice. Analog/digital, silver/inkjet are different mediums and I think it is wrong to try to trade one against the other. If you are a silver printer, then do silver. If you are a digital, inkjet printer, then do that. Maybe you are both. Maybe it is like choosing between painting and drawing. They are just different.

State of the art is probably a big 7 or 8 ink epson, with a big Mac computer, and a new Canon MK super duper 22M pixel camera, exemplified best done by Witherill. Look at:

www.huntingtonwitherill.com

Just have fun.

[Leonard Peterson]

You summed that up nicely Eric. I agree completely. I recently sold most of my darkroom equipment. I just haven't been using it. While the silver prints were nice to look at, I'm just as happy with the digital prints. I never liked the chemical part of the darkroom, or film dev either. I know this is a lot of fun to many darkroom people, just not to me and I did it for over 25 years. I'm not a I Hate Digital or Film Is Dead person. I've managed to blend the two together and make prints I like. Now the firestorms will start.

How does a silver print feel different than a state of the art digital print on the finest papers available?

If you mean actually touching the print, just put it behind glass. That'll solve that problem!

[roteague]

with a big Mac computer,

Or a Windows Vista PC - my personal preference.

[Bruce Watson]

I advise that you use the tools and methods with which you are most comfortable. If that means darkroom printing, so be it. If it means inkjet printing, so be it. If it means gum bichromate, so be it. Etc...

[mountainpix]

I do love what can be done in digital these days and I have some negatives that I have manipulated in such a way that I can not do with a conventional enlarger process. On the other hand, I have some awesome silver images stashed away in my closet and just do not know whether digital can reproduce some of the tonalities I have been able to achieve in these prints. Some of my higher key negatives might not scan well because of the saturation of silver (with detail) in the highlight regions.

I am wondering with the current state of the art in digital primtmaking and drum scanning, whether the depths I have been able to achieve with the silver process can be duplicated in digital with printmaker resources such as West Coast Imaging, for example.

Beautiful images, especially the second.... I love the high-key tonalities. Bob Cornelis at Color Folio (the fellow who does my drum scans) has assured me that a good drum scanner with an experienced operator can read the brightest white and the darkest black out of a b&w negative. The way I understand it is that the clearest film base and the heaviest highlight density are no clearer or blacker than the base of a color transparency, which falls within the dynamic range of a drum scanner. With a 16-bit scan, you can pull out a far more levels of tone than the eye can differentiate. So, I think the issue is really about how you would plan to print the digital file, and whether you would like the available printing technologies relative to silver halide in the darkroom.

By the way, Jay Dusard has started printing digitally, and his prints are some of the finest b&w digital prints I have ever seen. If you can make it to the Eastern Sierra Nevada, we'll be showing his work at Mountain Light Gallery in Bishop, CA May 1 - July 31.

Ultimately, I agree wholeheartedly with Bruce Watson's comment about using what you are comfortable with. If you are most comfortable with darkroom printing, and you like the results, then why not stick with it? A masterfully made darkroom print really is a thing of beauty.

Best,

Justin Black

[domenico Foschi]

I am only going to tell you that your work is wonderful.
For the digital vs. analog,...oh, you'll see what happens soon.

[neil poulsen]

I haven't been using my darkroom a lot lately, either. And, I've bought three additional enlargers! I couldn't resist.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Go with what you know. For me, it's the wet darkroom. I st in front of computers too much for work as it is, and I find I cannot relax in front of a computer.

Inside my darkroom, it's like sensory depravation (spelling), and remove from all the background noises of daily modern life, something on a sub-concious level takes over and I "see" things more clearly.

For me, the same reason I use LF is the same reason I use a wet darkroom. The whole process slows me down, makes me think.

On a recent trip I had two cameras, my Nikon D40 and my Tachihara. I took over a 1,000 images on the Nikon, and less than a dozen with the Tachihara. Now that I am back, I have 2-3 "keepers" fromt eh Nikon, while almost all my 4x5 whots are "keepers".

Your milage may or will vary, but to me, it's how the process slows you down, and makes you think that brings out creativity.

Good luck either path you go
joe

[Ted Harris]

I now print almost exclusively digitally. I find that there is absolutely nothing that I do/did in the darkroom that I can't do "in the light" faster and at least as well and often better. The trick is in having good tools and knowing how to use those tools as others have said. I have also found that I can sometimes bring out details in prints from well scanned negatives that were extraordinarily difficult or impossible to bring out using wet enlargement. This assumes a scan from a high end flatbed or drum scanner.

Lost coyote, the second shot you posted where you were not sure you get get the feeling and/or details from a scanned image is exactly the sort of image where I have been able to extract more detail digitally.

I don't suggest that folks lock their darkrooms forever, especially if you are doing this for fun. Do what you enjoy.