Black & White printing from scanned 4x5 negs

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Agreed Ken, but what I am saying is that perhaps all those "extra" controls are not necessary when things are calibrated properly.

From my experience until I learned the BTZS I had some of the same struggles Hogarth mentioned. Even with the zone system I often had either blown highlights and/or a morass of black with no separation, and of course to produce a "good" print required many of the tricks we all know, masking, flashing, 5 hands for dodge and burn, selenium intensification of the neg, etc, etc...then when I decided to print in pt/pd I realized I had to learn a better way to do this as those "tricks" are less effective and harder to do, so reading Davis's simple concept of "test your paper and adjust the negative to the paper" and putting it to use I have found I rarely have to do all those gymnastics I had to do before.

I will even go as far as saying that even with digital output, if you are still doing all that burning and dodging, masking, unsharp masking etc, you still do not have your process under control. Given than most people doing ink jet prints are printing in some kind of watercolor paper I am sure the reflection densities are not that different from a pt/pd print, yet as well calibrated your printers and monitors are, I bet few have taken the trouble to print a step tablet, see the exposure scale of your printed tablet and adjust your negative development so that when you scan it you get the same density range as the exposure scale of your paper.

My point is that is all a matter of proper testing and control of the materials. Of course, further aesthetic decisions might require the use of all these techniques, but they should not be the basis of saying "digital offers more control" or "digital is easier" since it is not if it is use to fix problems created by improper technique.

[Bruce Watson]

If you have compressed highlights or shadows, that is not because the process is less capable or harder, is only because the operator lacks the correct procedure.

Well, no. It is not about proceedure. It is about the laws of physics. Photographic paper has toe and shoulder response curves. Having toe and shoulder sensitometric response, by definition, compresses your shadows and highlights. You don't have to like it, but no amount of technique is going to change the laws of physics.

Inkjet prints, on the other hand, can exhibit linear response. Clearly, you have to linearize your printer/ink/paper. But you can get linear response, from black to white. No toe, no shoulder, no compression of tones.

On the other hand, I agree with you that you have to get your entire process under control regardless of the process you are using. I've done both. I've done the full darkroom thing of getting the range of tones on the negative to match the capabilities of the paper. I used to develop paper in tubes on Jobo to exact times (no watching the image form and pulling the image when it "looks right"). I even calibrated my paper's highlight dry down. The whole nine yards, basically right from Fred Picker's darkroom methods.

I've also done the equivalent system calibrations for my digital workflow.

If those who have gone the digital route had taken as much care and effort in calibrating their materials as they do with digital output, perhaps they would still be using the darkroom.

As I said, I have. For both conventional wet workflow and for digital workflow. When it's all said and done, I prefer digital printing, and 98% of what I do is B&W. I may well be wrong, but based on your posts, I would venture to guess that you haven't done much work with a digital workflow. And I'm not encouraging you to -- you should use the process that works for you.

Robb's post, however, wanted to know if controlling the deepest blacks and whitest whites is the problem... The short answer, from someone who prints all his B&W work on inkjet printers, is that controlling the deepest blacks and the whitest whites is in fact not a problem at all. There is no reason not to experiment with a digital B&W workflow if you want.

[Brian Ellis]

Every curve I've ever seen for digital printing is designed for use only with a specific paper or perhaps a small handful of papers. For example, the curves for the MIS inks I use are designed for use only with Epson Enhanced Matte and Crane's Museo papers. If you try to use the curves with other papers the results range from mediocre to terrible. So I'm not sure what is meant by the term "calibrating" paper for ink jet printing. The "calibration" is done in the design of the curve. Once you have the curve you have "calibrated" the paper that the curve was designed to be used with. Also, using unsharp masking doesn't mean the user has done something wrong. Unsharp masking is necessary with ink jet printing from scanned negatives because of the loss of "sharpness" that is inherent in the scanning process.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, no. It is not about proceedure. It is about the laws of physics. Photographic paper has toe and shoulder response curves. Having toe and shoulder sensitometric response, by definition, compresses your shadows and highlights. You don't have to like it, but no amount of technique is going to change the laws of physics.



It has nothing to do with physics, it has to with with lack of understanding of sensitometry principles. Although papers have a toe and a shoulder, nothing says that you have to print in those regions. Those of us who use alt methods have learned this and it is the reason, among others, why we use contrasty negatives. We simply "move" all the tones into the straight line of the curve.
But then, you followed Picker's methodology so I am not surprised that the results were less than satisfactory.



As you say, printing blacks and whites in an ink jet printer it probably is not hard, but then again is not "easier" than doing it in the darkroom either. That is my point, every time I read "I have more control and it is easier to print" I interpret I can fix my mistakes and lack of proper testing procedures in the computer easier than I can in the darkroom, and to that I agree.



I agree there is nothing wrong in trying digital methods, if this is going to improve the "artistic" content of the print, but if it is only going to be a band aid to poor darkroom procedures, well then probably the digital print will be crappy also.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Brian, I get what you say and that was my understading of ink jet prints. But tell me, how many times did you do this for your papers when you were doing darkroom prints? This is exactly my point, the digital workflow forces you to standarize and calibrate before you even make your first print, and if you change papers, you do it all over again, yet I bet you never did this with enlarging paper. What I mean is not the "max black" printing time that Picker promoted so much, but true sensitometric tests of your paper response.



Most people still doing darkroom prints either use VC paper, or have a bunch of different papers in different grades, I was one of those. I still have a shelf full of different grades and brands of papers. So of course, you go to a workflow that forces you to calibrate and standarize before you print all of the sudden the prints seem to be "easier" to make. I dont think this is a by product of the technology, I think this is a symptom of improper testing when using darkroom materials.

[Bruce Watson]

I don't know why I bother....

We simply "move" all the tones into the straight line of the curve.

Then, by definition, you print no blacks, and no whites. Your prints go from dark gray to light gray. If restricting your range of tones like this satisfies you, who am I to try to dissuade you? You should do what makes you happy.

But then, you followed Picker's methodology so I am not surprised that the results were less than satisfactory.

I never said that my prints were less than satisfactory. You said that, and you've never seen my prints. That's somewhat presumptuous of you, don't you think? And I don't even want to know what you have against Fred Picker.

Jorge, based on your posts here, I conclude that you are yet another digital bigot. Nothing I can say, no amount of logic, is going to make you any less bigoted, so I'm not going to try. Unlike you, however, I'm not going to deride someone else's process. I hope that you enjoy your alt process as much as I enjoy B&W inkjet printing.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Then, by definition, you print no blacks, and no whites. Your prints go from dark gray to light gray. If restricting your range of tones like this satisfies you, who am I to try to dissuade you? You should do what makes you happy.



Yeah, like you I dont know why I bother, but once again this statement shows a lack of understanding of the behavior of photographic materials, you do not need to be on the toe or the shoulder to print blacks and whites, as a matter of fact this is one of that basis for obtaining proper blacks and whites, have you heard of setting your Dmax as 90% of maximum black? I bet not..., but I wont go on with this.



I never said that my prints were less than satisfactory. You said that, and you've never seen my prints. That's somewhat presumptuous of you, don't you think? And I don't even want to know what you have against Fred Picker



Ah, you are correct, since you implied that you were printing and getting compressed values and that digital is "easier" I thought you were saying you were not happy with the prints, my mistake, but then if you think digital prints are "easier" and better, there must have been something wrong with your darkroom prints...no? I dont have anything against Picker, other than spreading faulty information. Yet I do have many of his wonderful gizmos.



Jorge, based on your posts here, I conclude that you are yet another digital bigot. Nothing I can say, no amount of logic, is going to make you any less bigoted, so I'm not going to try. Unlike you, however, I'm not going to deride someone else's process. I hope that you enjoy your alt process as much as I enjoy B&W inkjet printing.



Well Hogarth, I bought 2 Burkholder prints back in the early 80's and have known Dan since then, I knew about digital negs before you even thought about doing it. So your conclusions are wrong, and your logic faulty. Yet you do deride the darkroom process when you say that digital is "easier" and "better" because you "have no curve and compressed values" etc, and this is the only reason I decided to answer to your response, seems to me, like a reformed alcoholic, there is nothing worse than a convert, specially one with no understanding of the behavior of photographic materials.



I simply get tired of hearing that digital is "easier" and "has more control", when this is far from the truth, at least in B&W. I would not know about color since I dont do it, if I was doing color perhaps I would be doing digital prints.



If you are happy doing ink jet prints, good for you! but dont go on a public forum saying that is easier and better than darkroom work, specially when you lack understanding of proper testing procedures.

[Bruce Watson]

have you heard of setting your Dmax as 90% of maximum black?

Yes, I have. And that makes the dense parts of your prints dark gray, not black, by your own definition. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying it isn't black. And so are you.

Yet you do deride the darkroom process when you say that digital is "easier" and "better"

No. I do not deride the darkroom process. I just choose not to use it. You can delude yourself all you want, but I've never derided the darkroom process. Listen to what I actually say, not what you want to hear.

I simply get tired of hearing that digital is "easier" and "has more control", when this is far from the truth, at least in B&W.

Based on what you've writen here, I'd say you lack the experience necessary to make that claim. I do have the experience, and for me, it is somewhat easier, and I clearly have more control.

So much anger Jorge. So much anger. A fear of change I can understand. The anger directed at others who have different experience and different views, I don't understand that.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes, I have. And that makes the dense parts of your prints dark gray, not black, by your own definition. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying it isn't black. And so are you.



Ah well, clearly you have never seen a print done this way or you would not state this.And no, I am not saying this.



Based on what you've writen here, I'd say you lack the experience necessary to make that claim. I do have the experience, and for me, it is somewhat easier, and I clearly have more control.



You dont know what experience I have, but then as you say, for you it provides more control, but that does not mean it is an universal law that automatically makes digital easier.



So much anger Jorge. So much anger. A fear of change I can understand. The anger directed at others who have different experience and different views, I don't understand that.



Ah yes, the anger response. If you choose to think of my response as anger simply because I choose to expose the fallacy that digital is "easier" then go ahead, I have no problem with this. Seems the anger comes from you because I dared to oppose your view. I have not said digital is "bad", only that is not easier than darkroom work, if you kow what you are doing.

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Robb. I make my B&W prints in a darkroom, the old fashioned way, but I've been researching digital imaging to learn wether or not there is a place for it in my "toolbox". From what I've learned, I think it's possible that the preference for color digital prints might have something to do with their comparison to C type, chemical prints, and the permanence issues involved. In other words, a color inkjet print might be more satisfying relative to a C print, than a B&W inkjet print is relative to a traditional, darkroom printed B&W print. I could be wrong, and if so, I appologize. As for the second part of your question, I would suggest that controlling the deepest blacks and whites whites is the biggest chalenge in printing B&W, regardless of the technology involved. Digital processes, or workflows, have their own unique set of tools to deal with these issues, as do darkroom printers. I can't speak to which is easier, as I have no experience with digital workflows. I would only add that, to me, ease and convenience are poor reasons to choose one process over another if one's intentions are artistic. I think the old adage, "you get what you pay for" applies here, and in the realms of artistic expression and craftsmanship, one pays with patience, dedication, commitment and persistence. I wish you the best of luck and greatest success, whichever methods you choose to use.