wet darkroom vs. inkjet

[Joseph O'Neil]

Well I do work in both computer and wet darkroom, and stright up, here's what I found first hand;

1) You cannot reproduce the look of a traditional print using a computer, but you can make unique looking prints on digital output that you cannot reproduce in a wet darkroom, so there can be said to be both need and use for both mediums;

2) In the long run, the "digital darkroom" is a heck of a lot more money to run than a wet darkroom. I do the books, write the cheques, do the cost analysis, and computers are a lot more money.

3) If you need to do more than one print at a time, the digital darkroom is the way to go;

4) Calibrating your monitor to match your printer output is a royal PITA, and just wait until you get everything setup and find out that they have changed or "improved" your inks, or you get a lighting surge, have to replace your computer moniter, and restart the calibration process all over again.

5) Unknown to most people, the enviromental waste from either system is roughly equivalent. Again, speaking from experience.

The bottom line is, you have to go out and determine what kind of "look" you want, what kind of work you want to do, what kind of audience you want to sell too.

You will also find other "sub-issues" that come. For example, one artist friend of mine, who makes a living form his artwork, does all of his own scanning, printing, mounting and framing in house because he cannot find anyone who does it to his standards. You might find yourself in a similar situation, who knows?

Another consideration is, you might be setup for both. To me, this "either / or" choice as it is often presented is not entirely realistic in today's market. I've seen people who use and sell in both mediums (geared to the specific customer or client), and then, hey, there's always "hybrids - go look at digital negatives and hand made prints from those negatives.

nope, my answer is both, but be fully aware of the costs, issues and limitations of both before you do

joe

[coops]

I have started playing around making digital negatives, using the best of both worlds as it were. When it comes down to evaluating the same file printed on say glossy Ilford RC paper and several inkejet papers (printed on a 3800) in my opinion, there is a big difference. The tonal range on the RC paper is beatiful with deep rich blacks. They look great. Several friends also agree and they have no clue what a silver print is.

[Drew Wiley]

It certainly is a kind of Golden Age of printmaking, with so many options available,
especially when one factors in an almost endless variety of hybrid possibilities.

[Lenny Eiger]

But then I truly never have seen an inkjet
print that struck me with the same awe as some of the platinum prints that Julia
Cameron made in a chicken house well over a century ago, or that Watkins could
pull off in albumen under less than ideal circumstances.

I have.


Lenny

[rdenney]

One thing that I rarely see (but often write) in threads like this: The OP will not be comparing the best possible print made using silver (or other wet chemical process) to the best possible print made using ink.

Likewise, the OP will not be comparing the cost of running a darkroom for a professional photographer with the cost of running an inkjet printing system for a professional photographer.

He, like most of the rest of us, will be comparing the best prints he can make, and his costs will be based on the sum of prints he will make.

I do not look for the artifacts of the medium in my prints. I look for whether the print looks the way I visualized it when standing behind the camera. If the artifacts of the medium are noticeable as such, they are probably undermining my visualization rather than supporting it. The computer certainly makes possible far more than was possible with a wet darkroom, within the context of my time and energies. The prints I achieve on my 3800 are closer to my visualization than they ever were emerging from the darkroom. My inability to make prints that could match my visualization frustrated me, and I actually quit photography--I was tired, as Gem has described, of putting all that effort into so-so photographs, only to discover that the photographs were so-so no matter how hard I tried to print them well.

Anybody can say that I don't spend enough time perfecting my skills. They might say the same thing to the OP. But hinting or suggested such will not lead most amateurs to a reasonable conclusion about what to do for themselves. If Jim Kitchen says he gets excellent results from an inkjet, and Drew Wiley insists that he gets excellent results from silver, then I think any of us should take as settled knowledge that excellent prints are attainable from each, and quit arguing about it except in the context of marginal differences beyond the capabilities of most of us to explore.

Another consideration is film and print size. Printing larger than 16x20 is expensive and complicated no matter what process one uses. In my former darkroom, the largest size I could develop in trays was 11x14. I used a Cibachrome processing tube for 16x20. Larger than that was just not possible in a darkroom which I could fit in a former walk-in closet in my house. And making enlargements from negatives larger than 4x5 is also expensive and complicated--5x7 and larger enlargers are not the free throw-aways that 4x5 enlargers might be. And even if they were, it still takes a good-sized room to accommodate them. But doing 8x10 requires no more space than 4x5 when scanning and printing digitally.

On ink usage and ink type: The Epson Advanced Black and White Printing mode is actually quite excellent to my eyes. There are subtleties to be gained using a dedicated ink system, but they are subtleties. ABW mode in the Epson is at least very good by anyone's standard (except perhaps those who have "Real photographs are born wet" in their signature line). I doubt that most amateurs who are having to balance this obsession with others would have the time required to consistently better what they could get from ABW. And those who make a handful of prints a year won't be buying ink that often. I'm still on my first load of ink on my 3800. But, as with my wet darkroom, I use test strips a lot and rarely do I have to print something full size more than twice to get something that is about the best I can achieve in any case.

Anybody who walks up to one of my prints with a magnifying glass gets what they deserve.

For 4x5, the Epson flatbed scanner (700 or 750) is pretty darn good, and well-matched to the 16x20 output of the 3800. I would get more tonality by wet-mounting the film to be scanned, which is possible with that scanner. And it requires some careful tweaking to get the most out of it. Smaller formats will need a better scanner, though--perhaps a used Nikon (I have an 8000ED that I bought used several years ago).

It will cost around $3000 or so to add the necessary elements to a computer to give you a decent capability for 4x5 and 16x20 prints. That is entry-level for good work at that size, and you can certainly spend more. The next step up might require four times that, and it goes up from there.

Rick "who can't achieve what the best here achieve no matter what the technology" Denney

[Gem Singer]

Rick,

I knew that you and I could agree on something if we really put our minds to it.

Very well said.

[lilmsmaggie]

Although I have personally seen with my own two eyes what Lenny Elger can produce using a quality drum scanner, I have to agree with Rick on this one.

No disrespect intended to other posters but as Rick say's: Anyone walking up to a print with a magnifying glass gets what they deserve.

Looking for halftones, dithers and inspecting a print under a 30x microscope, is the equivalent of "pixel-peeping." Is it really necessary? When was the last time you were in an art gallery and a potential buyer whipped out an eye-loupe, or magnifying glass to look at a print, silver based or otherwise?

Unless you're in the business of producing exhibition quality prints for museums, art galleries, famous photographers or people with very deep pockets -- maybe simply judging a print on its compositional and artistic qualities should more than satisfy the discerning connoisseur ... sans the magnifying glass

I seriously doubt photographers such as Steigletz, Cartier-Bresson, Strand, Weston and others would concern themselves with the level of minutiae that we do today when considering the quality of their own work or the work of others.

After all, it's about art ...

[Drew Wiley]

My standard is my standard. I don't give a damn what Stieglitz or Strand did - that
being said, Stieglitz was a stickler for optimizing quality, and probably would have pushed for the max today too. I simply don't buy any of that "normal viewing distance"
nonsense. But the more relevant aspect of this particular thread is, at what price does
one essentially reach parity? Just what kind of investment does one really need to
approximate a decent darkroom print digitally? And how fast does all this become
obsolete and require upgrading? I think most of us would agree that the average
desktop printer is pretty limited. By cost comparison, a simple darkroom tray or leftover
baking pan is capable of some pretty remarkable things. This whole contentious question is analogous to the disputes over whether digital cameras can equal the image quality of view cameras - maybe at best, but at what kind of staggering price, and how much fuss and maintenance? I'm glad to hear that folks like Lenny are pushing the envelope of inkjet; and my own current darkroom has some pretty fancy stuff in it - but this is not just about ideological one-upmanship. I wish realistic
anwers were more readily available when I first got into the game with a very limited
budget.

[Andre Noble]

Forget inkjet prints.

When printing color images from digital files, upload to WHCC http://www.whcc.com/ or Millers http://www.millerslab.com/ and have a real photograph in your hand in 2 days or less.

[paulr]

Paul - a lot of us can routinely make prints technically better than Strand, AA, or any number of famous honchos could.

Well, some Strand prints are among the most beautifully crafted that I've ever seen—by anyone of any era, regardless of technology. I think he had a great technological advantage in the quality and selection of silver papers available back then. The ink prints in the book were at least the equal of the best of his silver prints that I've seen.

My point is not that the book reproductions have comparable value to the orignal print ... but that they showed how ink, broadly speaking, is a material as capable as any metal-based one. The book showed me that I hadn't seen the last word on the subject of ink.

The first adopter of Piezography I ever knew was my mentor, who is as traditional-minded as they come. His mind was open to inkjet specifically because of his extensive experience making photogravures and carbon prints. He knew first hand the capabilities of ink and other pigments on paper.

And I'm assuming that the original question was referenced within a finite budget, so not just anything can come into play. A few bottles and trays, a pk of Dektol etc, a box of paper, and a spare bathroom is about all one needs to start out.

I think in some cases a wet darkroom is much cheaper than a digital setup ... like if you have space that doesn't require much construction, you don't have a useable computer, and you plan to only make contact prints.

If these aren't your circumstances, then i don't see big differences in spending.

As far as the value of looking at prints with a magnifying glass ... I am guilty of doing this and think it's great fun. Makes me feel like a voyeur. But let's face it—this is fetishism, and it doesn't have anything to do with art, or with how anyone else will see your work. If you're using this as a quality standard, then be aware that it's that it's not likely to relevent to many other people, and might actually lead the people you're arguing with to question your judgment!