survey digital vs traditional darkroom

[paulr]

I can be quoted saying I'll never give up film, traditional forever... until, I started scanning my 4x5 and MF film, learned a bit of Photoshop and was turning out black and white prints arguably better than my best darkroom attempts even with 40 years of experience.

That's been my experience as well. I have a body of work that's been printed both traditionally and digitally, so I can see the results side by side. Ten years ago I never would have imagined this.

[Chris Strobel]

I can be quoted saying I'll never give up film, traditional forever... until, I started scanning my 4x5 and MF film, learned a bit of Photoshop and was turning out black and white prints arguably better than my best darkroom attempts even with 40 years of experience.

I figured that the "hybrid" approach was "in" with cars and photography...until I bought my D700. Since then, I have, sadly, rarely used my beloved view camera. I've been working with 4x5 for almost thirty years. I don't consider myself lazy, but given the quality, and ease of use of digital imaging, I'm struggling with my previous commitment to film. This was not helped by Fuji's recent discontinuation of Acros Quickloads.

For me, the print is the point of photography. I sell and exhibit infrequently, so my work is done mostly for myself. Simply put, I'm having a blast with the D700, making lots of images and I actually like my prints. I may have another epiphany and return to film completely but I rather doubt it. Oh well.

Eric

Eric, what print sizes do you typically make with your D700?

[sanking]

I have a hybrid work flow. Most of my capture is with MF and LF film, which I scan and then correct and manipulate files in Photoshop. I then print digital negative for contact printing and use these negatives to make carbon transfer prints.

The use of Photoshop to correct and manipulate the image gives vastly more control than would be possible when printing directly from in-camera negatives. This part of the work flow is very important for me because it is where I craft the image to allow printing what I "saw" when the negative was exposed.

I also do some image capture with digital and also make digital negatives from these files. However, even at the relatively small size I print (no larger than 17X24") the prints from 6X7 cm and 5X7" film scans are clearly better in terms of overall image quality than the ones made from 12-22mp DSLR capture. For the record I scan with fairly high level professional quality scanners.

Sandy

[John Bowen]

100% Analog. 7x17, 8x10 & 5x7 contact printed on Azo/Lodima in Amidol. 35mm Tri-x for portraits of kids enlarged to 5x7.

Oh yeah, my point and shoot is a Nikon D200 :-)

[Eric Brody]

Chris,

I typically print 11x14 from the D700 files. I have not yet made a 16x20 but that was a rare size for me even from film, even 4x5 film. I expect to keep using my beloved Arca but probably less often than I had planned when I got it. I still enjoy the process of the 4x5 in the field, but the D700 is quite tempting. When used carefully, as carefully as I use the MF and LF cameras, the results are nothing short of amazing.

Eric

[sepiareverb]

My personal work is about the same, 2/3 film:1/3 digital, but I'm in the midst of scanning a lot of old film for a project, so I'm stuck in front of this screen way more than usual, or I want to be. "Normal" would be about half and half wet darkroom:PS/LR.

I haven't shot film for work in ages.

[rdenney]

In reading big parts of this long-term thread for the first time, I note several categories of respondents.

1. The "analog, by God!" folks, who hate the intrusion of computer technology into their activity.

2. Those who revere the traditional process, and for whom the process is as important or more important than the product.

3. Those who use digital for when convenience is necessary and film for when it's not.

4. Those who find that digital processes give them power beyond what they could achieve using traditional methods. For these folks, the product is more important than the process.

5. Those who are agnostic on the topic of digital but who believe that larger formats are better.

6. The "digital, by God!" folks, who think everyone above is a Luddite, or wacko, or both.

These overlap, of course, and I put myself groups 3 through 5, and mostly 5.

Before digital, I used 35mm for plain documentary work (family pictures, etc.) and for the occasional vacation when larger equipment was impractical. I used medium-format for commercial work and for serious work. I used large format when I had a darkroom and wanted to work in black and white.

I was an early digital adopter, at least for scanning pictures. I built my first digital darkroom about 10 years ago, and it has allowed me to control the last half of the image-making process, even in color. When I bought my first digital camera (a Canon 10D), 35mm film stopped being used in our house. I may have shot two rolls since then. I use digital for all documentary work and for a lot of travel, especially if I have to go through an airport, and particularly if the trip is not a photography vacation. For those, I'll do what it takes to having something bigger, because for me size matters. I am sometimes disappointed when I make an image that satisfies me on a small-format camera (digital or film), because I know I'll be limited in what I can do with it.

I'm getting back into large-format work primarily because of the quality inherent in the large format. If there was a practical and affordable digital capture for 4x5 (and not some tiny piece of it), I'd be all over it. I use film because that's the path to large format for the present.

I'm excited when I sit at the computer in my digital darkroom, and efficiently and directly achieve my visualization in ways that would have been insanely difficult for me to achieve in a traditional darkroom. Maybe my visualizations are too extreme, maybe my traditional skills weren't up to the task, maybe both. It doesn't matter to me.

But that doesn't mean I don't respect those who still revere the traditional processes for their own sake.

So, for me, any photography for others (including family pics, work pics, commercial work, etc.) is mostly digital, unless the required quality demands a larger format. For fun, I'm about 50-50 for field work. But I'm 100% digital in the darkroom, except for sending my film out for processing.

Rick "judging photography by the photographs" Denney

[Blumine]

My BW workflow is 100 percent analouge. From capture to final output on either FB paper or alt process. For color I am doing more and more in the darkroom, but for something things I scan it and then use photoshop. In time, I hope to be 100 percent analouge for both BW & Color.

My day job has me spending way to much time behind a computer. I prefer to spend my off time away from the things as much as possible. Using a digital camera is sometimes a little bit too much like work, so though I have one I never use it anymore.

Blumine

[PenGun]

Just getting back into it with a Chamonix, beautiful camera, instead of my old FM2s and wet darkroom. I did all my own work and processing with B&W, E6 and C41. Printed all my own stuff and even did colour prints in trays, don't ask.

I do like my Chamonix and it's starting to produce some things I like. I enjoy darkroom work but the prints I'm staring to get from my Epson 3800 are quite exceptional. I guess I may have started to use it properly. This from an Epson V700. The prints on 8.5x11, about 7x9 ish are wonderful. I have not done anything quite so rewarding in photography for a long time.

[Chris Strobel]

Pablo Batt

Now tell us how you really feel