at a crossroad

[el pescador]

Getting back in to photography now I have a bit more time on my hands and aiming to concentrate on the 6 x 17 format. Years ago I did a lot of conventional dark room work and always greatly enjoyed that part of photography. I realise things have moved on and I,m wondering whether to set up a conventional dark room or to scan the negatives I produce and print them digitally. Cost wise I don,t think there will be much difference between the two options. Going digital will mean learning a whole new raft of skills but I,m OK with that. End product wise I think either option will produce good results.
Rather than starting a debate on film v digital I,m just wondering wether others have been in this situation and which way they went and what ultimately influenced there decision?

[vinny]

a 5x7 or 8x10 enlarger can be had for free these days. Same goes for much of the other darkroom supplies that are needed.
Scanners, computers, the upgrades they require, inkjet printers, and the ink they drink all are far from cheap or free. I also do NOT like staring at a computer screen for hours, it makes my eyes hurt.

[djdister]

I've been there. For me, it wasn't so much the cost of a darkroom, it was the difficulty of setting up (allocating permanent space, ventilation, running water, large sink) and operating (chemistry and environmental concerns) a darkroom that shifted me to a digital darkroom. It also helped that extremely good quality photographic inkjet printers, inks and papers came about (I have the Epson 3880 and the Epson V750 scanner). So I shoot film - 2 1/4 up to 5x7, but scan it in and go digital from that point forward. I recently took a workshop on Platinum/Palladium printing, and it was nice to have my 5x7 negatives to use, but I also created large digital negatives from digital shots too.

[Mark Sawyer]

...I'm just wondering whether others have been in this situation and which way they went and what ultimately influenced there decision?

My theory is that if you're not doing it professionally, you're probably doing it because it's what you want to do. And if you're doing it because it's what you want to do, you should probably do it the way you want to do it.

[ScottPhotoCo]

My theory is that if you're not doing it professionally, you're probably doing it because it's what you want to do. And if you're doing it because it's what you want to do, you should probably do it the way you want to do it.

Amen.

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

[Mark Woods]

Well stated Mark.

[Nathan Potter]

I've always done darkroom work ( 1950 to present). Started digitizing images a few years ago mostly for images that had resisted optical printing to my satisfaction. Now I do both types of work depending on the end result I'm after. I like the increase in flexibility available from my traditional darkroom and the gizmos related to digital prints.

No preference for either.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Tim k]

Very good question. I am also pondering the same thing. I have no answers for you but perhaps your question may help me sort out my thoughts.

A year ago we sold the house, and spent a year traveling with digital. I sold most of my film stuff, except one 4x5 and the darkroom that I left in storage. Now, I can either start up the darkroom again, or just ditch it all.

I still have a scanner, but printing film with an electric ink squirting machine just seems wrong to me. Now, there are people who can do some very nice stuff with ink. To me the biggest drawback to printing with ink, is clogging. You get everything setup and running, and then it just clogs up and quits working. Of course, you could always send your stuff out, and let someone else worry about keeping it running. But then you loose some control of the process.

There are probably only a handful of people in the world, that can do in the darkroom what you could do with photoshop/lightroom after a year or two of practice.

I guess its the process or perhaps the challenge, that keeps me from getting rid of the darkroom stuff.

Oh crap, it sounds like I'm leaning towards digital.

[Will Frostmill]

My theory is that if you're not doing it professionally, you're probably doing it because it's what you want to do. And if you're doing it because it's what you want to do, you should probably do it the way you want to do it.

Geez, I'm going to print that out and put that next to my bed.

[ataim]

In my case I do 90% b&w in a traditional darkroom. I also shoot LF color and that is scanned and printed with inkjet. I agree with Vinny. I sit behind a computer 8-10 hours a day and the last thing I want to do is sit behind the computer more. LF for me is kind of like therapy.

[Robert Skeoch]

I ended up going the darkroom route. I just find it more enjoyable and spend too much time behind the computer already.
Plus who wants to be just another guy printing digital prints.
-Rob Skeoch

[Bill Burk]

There are probably only a handful of people in the world, that can do in the darkroom what you could do with photoshop/lightroom after a year or two of practice.

Or put another way, after a year or two of practice in the darkroom... You could be one of the handful of people who can do in the darkroom what can be done with lightroom... I think the biggest problem for the lightroom user is knowing what the print should look like. So I'll create some proofs in the darkroom, and if anyone can make prints similar to or surpassing mine, I'll be happy for them.

[Maris Rusis]

Or put another way, after a year or two of practice in the darkroom... You could be one of the handful of people who can do in the darkroom what can be done with lightroom... I think the biggest problem for the lightroom user is knowing what the print should look like. So I'll create some proofs in the darkroom, and if anyone can make prints similar to or surpassing mine, I'll be happy for them.

Too true. An electronic picture file has no native appearance. It could look like anything depending on how it is recalculated and what display or mark-making "engine" is used to make it visible. In practice most electronic files are output so they look like some really good picture the lightroom user saw and remembered; usually a fine photograph...or so it seems!

[Jac@stafford.net]

There is a quality of the process of making an image through film and chemistry and enlarging - for lack of a better word(s) I call it Latency which stresses our attention to precise intention, not luck.

Welcome

[ROL]

I,m just wondering wether others have been in this situation and which way they went and what ultimately influenced there decision?

I was exactly at the place, and it was very lonely there, in the early Century when I was faced with building my latest DR. At that time, it was becoming undeniably clear that digital was the forward thinking way to go. But, I had to ask myself, (Self, said I) what exactly are you good at and what do you enjoy? I hadn't had much experience with professional D printing, so… the obvious choice. Mark(s) said it perfectly.

Fast forward though the last decade, and I still have reservations. There are two ways to look at it. Either you are keeping the candle burning and becoming ever more "rare" – whether that translates into "worth", as my wife (Pollyanna) believes, is another matter, or you will become increasingly marginalized, a stubborn Luddite of no value to any of a new generation of appreciators of photography, as I believe. Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer.