Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 267

Thread: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

  1. #11
    Octogenarian
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Frisco, Texas
    Posts
    3,532

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    There are people on this planet who prefer to travel unpaved country roads in an open buggy being pulled by a horse. They ignore the heat, dust, and bumps in the road. They have learned to tolerate the slow pace, the smell of horse manure, and the clip-clopping sound of the horse's hoofs.

    Personally, I prefer to travel faster on a smooth paved expressway in a comfortable air conditioned automobile listening to my favorite music.

    I no longer enjoy spending hours in an uncomfortable darkroom while attempting to produce an outstanding wet print of an uninteresting subject.

  2. #12
    Joel Edmondson
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Yatesville, Georgia
    Posts
    294

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    I usually stay out of discussions of this type because of the "subjective" nature of of the topic and because there is indeed a need for both approaches but... in this instance I will throw in my "two-cents." Bear in mind that I printed in the traditional darkroom for fifty+ years and I am sure that colors my response. FOR ME - the digital/inkjet approach just doesn't equal the "traditional" results. I would be hard pressed to try to quantify or even accurately describe the difference but the photographs I produce from my Epson 3880 (and 750 scanner) just can't compare to the prints from the darkroom! I decided a couple of years ago that I would "go digital" since - upon retirement - everything was "just for fun." I actually regret the decision and am glad I kept my 4x5 cameras and enlarger. I realize that everyone doesn't share this opinion, and that is fine. It may well be that others don't see the same degree of distinction.

  3. #13
    Octogenarian
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Frisco, Texas
    Posts
    3,532

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Ken,

    The OP stated that he lives in Oakland, CA.

    I have seen inkjet prints hanging on gallery walls next to wet prints (not from the same negative, however).

    After questioning a few gallery owners, I learned that their average photo buyer doesn't care whether a print is an inkjet print or a darkroom wet print.

    The client's main concern is that the print accurately depicts interesting subject matter.

  4. #14
    Peter De Smidt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Fond du Lac, WI, USA
    Posts
    8,954

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Be careful in making comparisons. In my community, the only public gallery space is in the public library. It's a pretty nice space. That said, I've never seen first rate work there. Jpeg artifacts, poor color correction, sloppy sharpening... With a standard negative, it's easier to get a good darkroom print, a print that doesn't have any obvious technical flaws, than an inkjet print. With people with good skills, though, the quality is comparable.
    “You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
    ― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    1,692

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Regardless of the ultimate potential "quality" of either medium, it will really boil down to your own skills. Each medium has a very different process involved with making a print (and making a really good print). Which medium will suit your attributes and temperament better? Perhaps you can already tell based on if your really love/hate being in a darkrooom or sitting in front of a computer. Going with a medium/process that you will actually enjoy and spend time improving your skills at will ultimately be the medium that yields the best quality prints for YOU.

  6. #16
    Steve Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Central Connecticut
    Posts
    795

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Quote Originally Posted by AJ Edmondson View Post
    I usually stay out of discussions of this type because of the "subjective" nature of of the topic and because there is indeed a need for both approaches but... in this instance I will throw in my "two-cents." Bear in mind that I printed in the traditional darkroom for fifty+ years and I am sure that colors my response. FOR ME - the digital/inkjet approach just doesn't equal the "traditional" results. I would be hard pressed to try to quantify or even accurately describe the difference but the photographs I produce from my Epson 3880 (and 750 scanner) just can't compare to the prints from the darkroom! I decided a couple of years ago that I would "go digital" since - upon retirement - everything was "just for fun." I actually regret the decision and am glad I kept my 4x5 cameras and enlarger. I realize that everyone doesn't share this opinion, and that is fine. It may well be that others don't see the same degree of distinction.
    Have to agree about the subjective part, so that immediately eliminates that anyone of us will be right or wrong with our respective spin.

    Here's mine, when one has the talent / skill to consistently produce prints of the highest technical standard whether it be with the traditional wet process or the digital generated media currently available, why would one abandoned their area of expertise only to climb a new mountain which will certainly take years when the mountain you've already conquered merely provides a means to display and share your thoughts and interests, in short the art you make which is in the end all that matters!

    Certainly the road we all started out on was quite bumpy with numerous pot holes and likely seemed like a ride in a horse drawn buggy, in fact that sounds exactly how I feel when I open Photoshop. Conversely, my ride through the wet process is quite streamline with hardly a desire for a new car and most of all is still rewarding.

    2 cents


    Real photographs are born wet !

    www.PowerOfProcessTips.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Stevens Point, WI
    Posts
    1,553

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    I think most of us have pondered the same issue. If I were starting from scratch and had no love affair with darkroom work I would go the digital route, not expecting better quality, just a more user friendly process in line with the trends of the times. If you don't enjoy darkroom work, I doubt you would become a good printer anyway. I consider myself a decent printer so I bought some digital prints from the Lenswork portfolios to see what I was missing. They were very nice but the prints looked like they were snipped out of a magazine. Nothing wrong with that but not what I was after. I did not find it compelling. Another time, I went to a local exhibit that featured Clyde Butcher prints (wet darkroom) in one area and some color, digital, panorama photos in another area. The digital stuff was very good, but the prints looked like third world postage stamps compared with the Butcher prints.

    I am an amateur and don't try to make any money doing this. If I were a pro, I would go digital because everyone else is and it is faster most of the time. And I would probably not do large format work either. So for me, I like darkroom work, I like the aesthetics of a wet print, I don't mind the expense or the time, so I choose the darkroom.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pacifica, CA
    Posts
    1,710

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    As a printer I picked up the habit of judging every print I see by how close I can get to it before I see the halftone dots. For the average decor poster, it only takes a few seconds for me to see the halftones. With good inkjets I have to get pretty close to see the dithers. I understand there are some very nice multi-black inkjets out there that I haven't had the pleasure to see yet.
    Now I judge prints by eyeball to paper, and if its in my possession under a 30x microscope. My own best prints fall short of my ideal because they are enlargements from 4x5 to 11x14. I see the detail breaking apart under microscope, though I cannot see it breaking up with the naked eye. To this standard, the 8x10 contact print is the quality to beat.
    This is not a practical measure of quality. In the real world, a print might be expected to stand up to judgment at a normal viewing distance, followed by a casual step forward for momentary close examination. An average inkjet will reveal its true nature, but based on the comments on this forum I believe the best inkjets today will pass that exam.
    I'll still make enlargements photographically, but I won't disparage inkjets - except those that I can tell by naked eye.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,102

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Dear Brent,

    I can tell you that I gave up the darkroom a few years ago, to produce images that are digitally produced with my scanned 8X10 black and white negatives, after I have my images scanned with a drum scanner and, or the simple Epson 750, and I have never looked back at all to the wet darkroom.

    That said, I use Cone inks printed by Jon Cone directly for clients that prefer a muted but excellent black and white matte image, Epson K3 inks from a local quality master printer combined with the quality ImagePrint RIP for clients that not adverse to this coloured ink set, and I will always use Elevator Digital exclusively going forward for my silver halide images produced from my digital negatives, while Bob uses his Durst digital enlarger. Bob Carnie emphatically proved to me that he is more than capable of producing an outstanding quality silver print with my digital negative, and although he seems to be more critical than I am when it comes to my finished images, he happens to share the same passion that I do, whereto I am glad that I have found someone like him that can produce a quality image for my clients.

    If you are like I am, the hardest thing I ever did was give up my darkroom because of my son's allergies, and let someone else print my finished image. I cry every time I cannot be in the darkroom, because it seems like I lose a limb in an horrific accident for each image that I cannot touch in the Dektol or the Selectol Soft. You have many quality options at your disposal, and if you need help with any digital silver halide imaging question, I would discuss this with Bob Carnie directly. His finesse, his knowledge, and his silver printing equipment are superlative.

    My 24X30 inch images have too much detail...

    jim k

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: wet darkroom vs. inkjet

    Tonality, dynamic range, image color, paper color, paper surface can all be matched or exceeded by inkjet printing. That's old news.

    Detail and resolution are a function of enlargement. As Jim said, his 3x enlargements from 8x10 are plenty sharp. Even a modest scanner can handle that. Most of us can say the same about 3x enlargements from 4x5 and 2x from 5x7. In fact, they appear sharper than darkroom enlargements, because of digital sharpening. The number of people who will examine a photograph with a loupe, is very small. For viewing purposes, inkjet artifacts are invisible, especially on paper with a discernable texture.

    To me, the main issue is longevity: fading and archival permanence. For permanence, it's best to avoid Silver paper in the first place, and go with the so-called "alternative" processes, like Platinum, Palladium, Carbon: those prints will last as long as the paper holds together. Given the current levels of investment, inkjet print longevity will only increase.
    Last edited by Ken Lee; 28-Aug-2010 at 06:11.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 2-Aug-2009, 21:05
  2. Darkroom Black Out
    By bob carnie in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19-Jul-2009, 14:10
  3. darkroom fans/vents
    By richard l. stack in forum Darkroom: Equipment
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18-Feb-2009, 23:21
  4. Getting back to the darkroom
    By John Chayka in forum Feedback
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-Feb-2006, 09:58
  5. Wet Darkroom not Dead?
    By Jim Rhoades in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 16-Dec-2005, 05:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •