enlarging / printing - am I missing out?

[LotusEsp]

my process is currently digital after developing; I process my 120 & 4x5 film (C41 and B&W) with a CPP2 system and then wet scan with a V800
From then on it's Capture One and Photoshop and then output to a photo printer.

I really enjoy the darkroom portion (if only loading/unloading film is actually done in the dark) but wonder if I am missing a trick by not doing my own printing of the negs rather than scanning?
The reason I never bothered in the past, was mainly down to space, with an enlarger seeming to take up a lot of counter space. but that restriction has gone now I have a large dedicated darkroom and I'm wondering if I should pickup a cheap enlarger and give the thing a shot.

What are the major benefits to printing from negs over my current digital process? Obviously there is the extra chemicals and paper developing to take into account, and I'm going to be limited to the size of prints I can process in my JOBO tanks

any words of wisdom on the subject? or some helpful pointers to information regarding the printing process I should read up on?

thanks

[Jim Jones]

I printed B&W in a wet darkroom for 50 years before moving to digital editing and printing, and am glad for the move. Digital editing can be faster and certainly more extensive. Once a file is edited, printing takes only a few minutes anytime without setting up the darkroom. The digital file can be resized and distributed all over the World. On the other hand, for collectors a traditional print may have much more value.

[BetterSense]

I pretty ​much only use cameras in order to generate negatives for printing in the darkroom​. there is no way I would bother with film cameras if I wanted digital output. that's just silly to me; digital cameras are so good nowadays.

[LotusEsp]

until I sell one of the kids so I can afford a Phase One 100mp digital back, I'm stuck with my trusty 4x5 ;)

[Peter Collins]

My observation/opinion: A silver print glows; it is so beautiful. Inkjet prints do not. A silver print can be processed to archival standards and become nearly permanent. Can the same be said of the inkjet printing process?

[Huub]

For me it is the tactility of working with sheets of FB-paper, watching the image coming up in the glow of the red lights. I can't imagine sitting behind a computer screen ever replacing that.

[Ironage]

I'm with Huub. I like the process. It feels more real.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[Ted R]

There is something special for me about the process of making a black and white print from a negative by hand in the darkroom, I like the craft involved.

On the other hand my color images are made with digital cameras and printed commercially, I think digital and color are a great combination.

[locutus]

I just started doing contact prints and i'm having a big case of 'oh my what have i been missing out on' :-D

The process is a lot fun and the results are beautiful as real physical objects.

[adelorenzo]

I do it for the feeling of creating the print by hand in the darkroom. Every single time the image comes up in the developer it's magical to me.

[Peter Lewin]

As a number have posted, it is a question of whether you would enjoy the process of making darkroom prints. It is very similar to the debates we occasionally get as to why we use large format cameras when you can do much the same thing with today's digital cameras. The answer usually ends up that the choice isn't image quality, it is whether one enjoys the process of working with a large format camera. Same thing with a darkroom.

[koraks]

Yeah, it's about how and if you enjoy the 'wet' process. Really, both digital and 'wet' output can be glorious, archival and whathaveyou. All the technical arguments for the superiority of one over another have so far failed to convince me. But like Huub, I feel there's something unique to seeing a fresh print emerge from the water - and to every step preceding that point. For me, that was the reason the move from digital (in which I 'grew up') to the darkroom. For me, digital is convenient and beautiful in all its versatility and technical perfection. Wet printing is fun and beautiful for its tactile nature. Neither is better than the other. I'd rather not sell the inkjet printer or the enlarger.

[Leigh]

It boils down to the question:

"Who made the image, you or the computer?"

In the darkroom it's your eyes and your mind working with the film and paper and chemistry.
The final result is totally yours.

On the computer you can only manipulate the image in the manner the software author provides.
You're not creating the image... he is.

- Leigh

[Jac@stafford.net]

It boils down to the question:

"Who made the image, you or the computer?"

In the darkroom it's your eyes and your mind working with the film and paper and chemistry.
The final result is totally yours.

On the computer you can only manipulate the image in the manner the software author provides.
You're not creating the image... he is.

- Leigh

Thanks for that. I'm going to let your observation sink-in for a while. A close approximate I dare to make is that of a retired old-world machinist friend who retired at seventy years-old because he became weary of the 'machinist' jobs becoming 'machine operators' of CAD/CAM. He continues to do old school machining in his basement, and I am so appreciative because he looks at my problematic projects from experience, and makes solutions or corrects my direction. Today I know several guys who claim to be machinists who reply to a challenge with, "Make me a CAD file." I'm turning into a grouchy old man at only seventy-one. :(

[Leigh]

Thanks for that. I'm going to let your observation sink-in for a while. A close approximate I dare to make is that of a retired old-world machinist friend who retired at seventy years-old because he became weary of the 'machinist' jobs becoming 'machine operators' of CAD/CAM. He continues to do old school machining in his basement, and I am so appreciative because he looks at my problematic projects from experience, and makes solutions or corrects my direction. Today I know several guys who claim to be machinists who reply to a challenge with, "Make me a CAD file." I'm turning into a grouchy old man at only seventy-one. :(
Funny that you should relate that story. And I'm also 71 years old.

I too am a machinist, and own a traditional machine shop. No CNC. Strictly manual machines.
I can generally turn out onesies cheaper and faster than a CNC shop can, but not multiple copies thereof.

It's all a question of what, and how, you learned. Same as making prints.

- Leigh

[faberryman]

Well, you can listen to other people's opinions, but you will never know unless you try it for yourself. You really have nothing to lose. The cost of entry isn't high. You may find it's not for you, but I am certain the experience will benefit you in your digital work. Either way, I think you will develop a deeper appreciation for the masters of the craft.

[Pere Casals]

My observation/opinion: A silver print glows; it is so beautiful. Inkjet prints do not. A silver print can be processed to archival standards and become nearly permanent. Can the same be said of the inkjet printing process?

> Inkjets can use mineral inks that are permament, with no known practical limit.

> You can make Silver digital prints, exposing RC or FB paper with a Lightjet or a Lambda laser machine. Perfect prints, later can also be selenium toned. Image can be sourced by a DSLR or by a film scanner.


Today we have a nice technology crossover. You can also print a digital negative from a DSLR to make a Pt/Pd print.


But...

An optical silver print from a negative is a unique craft where the artist hand can be seen, And this has an inmense value !!!

[bob carnie]

> Inkjets can use mineral inks that are permament, with no known practical limit.

> You can make Silver digital prints, exposing RC or FB paper with a Lightjet or a Lambda laser machine. Perfect prints, later can also be selenium toned. Image can be sourced by a DSLR or by a film scanner.


Today we have a nice technology crossover. You can also print a digital negative from a DSLR to make a Pt/Pd print.


But...

An optical silver print from a negative is a unique craft where the artist hand can be seen, And this has an inmense value !!!

Pere - Mineral inks that are permanent could you please elaborate how this is possible going through current state of art ink jet nossel systems..?

[Tin Can]

My argument has been, traditional film and SG paper with modern chemistry are environmentally cleaner when all aspects of both methods of producing prints are considered.

I relate this to the false claims of battery cars being 'clean energy'. And why are we using E85 to achieve less gas mileage?

I gave away my last ink cartridge eater and don't miss it.

I agree with DeLorenzo that each print appearing in water is quick, magical and silent.

[Pere Casals]

Pere - Mineral inks that are permanent could you please elaborate how this is possible going through current state of art ink jet nossel systems..?

Hello Bob,

You sure know that there are two ways to make a tint opaque/coloured. One is with diluted dyes (organic in general), the other is making pigment dispersions, technically a suspension of solid particles. Pigments can be very stables during centuries. Organic dyes can be way more unstable.

The best pigment inks I know are from Fuji http://es.fujifilmusa.com/products/imaging_colorants/pro-jet-aqueous-pigment-dispersions/index.html#innovation-technology

They make contract manufacturing for others http://es.fujifilmusa.com/products/imaging_colorants/contract-manufacturing-of-colorants/index.html

A pigmented ink I know is this one http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/7603-Pro-Jet_Black_APD1000.pdf


Still I'd prefer your Lambda or Lightjet FB prints by a wide margin ! No doubt !

Anyway the principal thing I was saying is that one can digitally make perdurable prints with RC/FB silver paper and LightJet/Lambda/Frontier.

Regards

[Luis-F-S]

Have never moved to digital scanning, still enlarge my negatives, have no desire to change!

[Pere Casals]

My argument has been, traditional film and SG paper with modern chemistry are environmentally cleaner when all aspects of both methods of producing prints are considered.

I relate this to the false claims of battery cars being 'clean energy'. And why are we using E85 to achieve less gas mileage?

I gave away my last ink cartridge eater and don't miss it.

I agree with DeLorenzo that each print appearing in water is quick, magical and silent.


And if it comes from an 8x10 (or 11x14) contact print... a damn sharp thing

[jp]

I do a bit of both. Sometimes I make a way better silver print than inkjet and I'm thinking either I'm a bad inkjet printer, or silver printing is really that awesome. Sometimes what I have in mind for an end product/object works better inkjet printed. Sometimes alt-process is better than either.

The downside for darkroom printing is dust is better prevented than corrected. Keeping the darkroom clean prevents that issue for me. Silver printing takes longer, at least for someone who is good at inkjet printing. If you are super fussy, you may spend an hour printing/processing/drying test strips to get the exposure and contrast absolutely perfect before making a certain print. I figure costs are pretty similar. Photo paper is a bit more expensive than inkjet paper, but chemicals are much cheaper than ink.

To start, get a contact frame for contact printing, trays & chemicals. Be a rebel and skip the Gralab 300 timer and go for a used 451 timer.
An enlarger is a very good light source for contact prints, though anything will do. I use a color enlarger so that I may adjust contrast at the light source. If a photo looks nice in silver gelatin output, a contact print is unmatched.

I am very comfortable with computers and feel archival pigment inkjet has proven itself. But sometimes after dealing with computers all day, I go home and talk to my Epson printer and say, "are you going to print tonight or just make whirring noises for an eternity and ask for the paper to be reloaded?" while thinking about a scene from Office Space. There are certainly frustrations in the darkroom too, but it's more relaxing and magical.

[Robert Brazile]

But sometimes after dealing with computers all day, I go home and talk to my Epson printer and say, "are you going to print tonight or just make whirring noises for an eternity and ask for the paper to be reloaded?"

Oh my goodness, am I bored with that. Do the engineers at Epson not use their creations? Sheesh.

So as to not drag this thread off-topic. Sometimes I wet-print. Sometimes I digi-print. Sometimes I alt-print (salt this last weekend, mean to get back to carbon one of these days). Seems to me it's just a matter of selecting the right tool for the desired outcome, and a question of whether you enjoy a particular process or not...

Robert

[Pere Casals]

Oh my goodness, am I bored with that. Do the engineers at Epson not use their creations? Sheesh.

So as to not drag this thread off-topic. Sometimes I wet-print. Sometimes I digi-print. Sometimes I alt-print (salt this last weekend, mean to get back to carbon one of these days). Seems to me it's just a matter of selecting the right tool for the desired outcome, and a question of whether you enjoy a particular process or not...

Robert

Yeah ! I've seen your salt in Flickr... great !!!

[Robert Brazile]

Yeah ! I've seen your salt in Flickr... great !!!

Long way to go, Pere, but...thanks. :-)

Robert

[Pere Casals]

Well, I've to say that hybrid process is very straight, what is done with few mouse clicks may need a lot of work and an skilled printer in the darkroom.

To print optical copies one must know very well how to obtain a suitable negative, this is part of the big game.

If not... dodging, burning, SCIM+CRM is often needed. It's a lot of work and paper waste. Also it happens that the final result is very rewarding.

[Leigh]

Well, I've to say that hybrid process is very straight, what is done with few mouse clicks may need a lot of work and an skilled printer in the darkroom.
And that's precisely the point.

Any first grader can make computer prints.

- Leigh

[Pere Casals]

And that's precisely the point.

Any first grader can make computer prints.

- Leigh

Yes... but for an skilled photographer or artist hybrid also offers a great degree of control, he can bring the image to the point he wants with little effort and try more things, but he still needs a criterion for that.

But Ansel Adams did not need those modern tools to be the great one. What I mean is that tools have only relative importance, IMHO.


Lately I've been exploring Alan Ross (and others) way to use a laser printer to print SCIM/CRM maks. Well, at the end we can perform a pure analog workflow or some technology crossover...

I think it's a personal choice.

[EdSawyer]

Even the best digital prints are limited by the technology (scanner in your case). I have never seen an inkjet print that is better than the best wet print, either b&w or color, and that includes many high level digital prints, gallery shows, etc.

[Peter Lewin]

And that's precisely the point.

Any first grader can make computer prints.

- Leigh
Actually, even a beginner darkroom printer can make a print come up in the developer tray too. To make a good, or maybe I should say wonderful, print in either medium takes skill. Paul Caponigro, a wonderful silver printer, seems to get along well with his son Jean Paul, who is an excellent digital printer. And I just read an interview in Black &White magazine by a professional printer who worked for Eisenstadt, Kertesz, Duane Michaels, and a bunch of other famous photographers, and when asked what he thought about digital prints, his response was "they're better." Different mediums, but both require expertise to go beyond the basics. At the end of this month I will go to the annual AIPAD show in NYC, where most of the photo galleries display work, and I know from past experience that I will find prints to love in both mediums.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] I just read an interview in Black &White magazine by a professional printer who worked for Eisenstadt, Kertesz, Duane Michaels, and a bunch of other famous photographers [...]

I don't think I'm alone to want that professional printer's name. Thank you.
.

[faberryman]

Why all the antipathy?

[Pere Casals]

Even the best digital prints are limited by the technology (scanner in your case). I have never seen an inkjet print that is better than the best wet print, either b&w or color, and that includes many high level digital prints, gallery shows, etc.

Lambda, LightJet and Frontier machines print digital wet prints, that use RC/FB paper, and are developed. Scanner may not be a limitation, and sometimes there is no way to say by eye if the print comes from an enlarger or a Lambda. Normally the single way to know is to see it with a magnifier.

About inkjets there are different qualities... from pretty bad to very acceptable.

[Pere Casals]

Also there is a fact: collectors want optical prints. Inkjets and even LightJets are quality Reprography items.

A handcrafted fine print is a unique object where artist's hand can be seen.

A Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico is $600,000 if it was made by Ansel. And $15 if not.

[faberryman]

A Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico is $600,000 if it was made by Ansel. And $15 if not.
And someone will buy your silver gelatin prints for $600,000 too.

[Jim Jones]

. . . Any first grader can make computer prints.

- Leigh

. . . and it might look like the work of a first grader. Hour for hour, the mastery of a fine darkroom printer applied to a digital image can produce a print that looks just as good to most people. One of my best-selling darkroom photos required half an hour of spotting for each print. I might have spent twice that long spotting the digital image, and done a much better job. Subsequent digital prints were a snap. There are no galleries within 70 miles that care if a print is digital or analog. In 40 years I don't remember a buyer asking which my prints are. I've just (reluctantly) raised the price of 10x14 images with archival mounting and matting in 16x20 aluminum frames to $50. You folks that sell archival darkroom prints framed behind UV blocking AR glass might not sell anything in my market without some very powerful salesmanship. Few of my buyers can afford your prints. Let each of us do what is best in our area.

[Liquid Artist]

Funny that you should relate that story. And I'm also 71 years old.

I too am a machinist, and own a traditional machine shop. No CNC. Strictly manual machines.
I can generally turn out onesies cheaper and faster than a CNC shop can, but not multiple copies thereof.

It's all a question of what, and how, you learned. Same as making prints.

- Leigh
For me the darkroom is the same. If I wanted hundreds of identical photos it's digital all the way. However I prefer only doing a handful of prints, and would rather see little differences in every one.

[Leigh]

For me the darkroom is the same. If I wanted hundreds of identical photos it's digital all the way. However I prefer only doing a handful of prints, and would rather see little differences in every one.
Exactly.

I'm not a machine, and my work is not the product of a machine. For better or worse, it's all mine.

- Leigh

[jose angel]

I too love traditional darkroom printing, but also much like digital results. I have read many good "intangible" reasons above, I mostly feel the same, but...

I have to admit that:

Results are much easier and faster to achieve with digital processing. Wet printing is quite difficult, sometimes too much difficult to make it worth the print. Image wise, I find the average digital print much better than the average wet print.
There are a much wider offer in printing materials, some way more subtle and delicate, or interesting, than traditional papers. Wet printing materials are so limited these times.


But in the other side,

Digital printing ask for proper calibration and standardization of the process, either at home or with the printing shop. I find it to be highly problematic in real life.
Materials, good equipment and services are extremely expensive. Way more than traditional printing at home.
Shop delivery/printing times, displacements, etc. also take time. Loads of time.



So at the end, I find way more satisfying and immediate that traditional home processing. Although I initially embraced the digital revolution, buying all kind of equipment (now obsolete and some even useless, despite of the huge amount of money I have spent -and also wasted- on it), I keep printing at home (since the seventies). Not for practical reasons, I guess, but maybe for something similar to my grandma`s love for her hand made crochet work.

[Pere Casals]

And someone will buy your silver gelatin prints for $600,000 too.

My work has no commercial value, I'm just a simple amateur, a pretty bad one.

But... Would you like owning an original Moonrise ???? sure you would prefer a dye inkjet of it. :) (No doubt)

Artists selling prints have very different prices for handmade wet prints than for inkjet reprography.

Also money paid by collectors is also very different: Something vs near zero. (few exceptions)

Also a photographer may sell much more inkjet stuff that wet handcraft. This is decorative artistic object market vs unique handcrafted art market.

Want to debate on that?

[Peter Lewin]

I don't think I'm alone to want that professional printer's name. Thank you.
.
From the April 2017 issue of "Black & White;" "Igor Bakhtamian ... known as Igor Bakht ... prestigious clients included Andre Kertesz, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Henri Carier-Bresson, David Douglas Duncan and Cornell Capa, among many others ..." "Toward the end of our conversations I asked [him] what he thought about digital photography and printing, expecting an impassioned defense of film's unmatched warmth and tonal values. But he surprised me, saying simply, 'Digital is better.'"

But please don't shoot the messenger (me). I had never heard of Mr. Bakhtamian, and had just read the article, but it seemed relevant to this discussion, and especially to "absolutist" claims that one medium (darkroom vs. digital) was absolutely superior to the other.

[jose angel]

I once had the chance of looking at some original A. Adam`s prints. Some of them were ugly! Like faded, yellowed, I was surprised. Looks like the images I have always seen printed on books etc. had modified levels.
But they certainly have a very special value... even ugly (let`s put the "image meaning" aside), they were supposedly hand made by one the masters. It doesn`t matter how good or bad they look.

[Pere Casals]

I once had the chance of looking at some original A. Adam`s prints. Some of them were ugly! Like faded, yellowed, I was surprised. Looks like the images I have seen printed on books etc. had modified levels.
But they certainly have a very special value... even ugly (lets put the image "meaning" aside), they were supposedly hand made by one the masters. It doesn`t matter how good or bad they look.

Once I saw an absolutely pristine Moonrise a collector I know has. It was (still is) magnificient. We where looking at the thing with a loupe to see if the names in the headstones could be read !!! :)

We concluded that we needed an stronger loupe to say it !!! :)

The 580 mm cell of the Cooke triple performed nice...

It was an exciting experience I'll remember for ever.

[Peter Lewin]

...

Also money paid by collectors is also very different: Something vs near zero. (few exceptions)

Also a photographer may sell much more inkjet stuff that wet handcraft. This is decorative artistic object market vs unique handcrafted art market.

Want to debate on that?
While I certainly don't want a debate, I wish you could attend the AIPAD show (Association of International Photography Art Dealers). The vast majority of contemporary work sold by galleries is digital, and the prices paid by collectors are substantial, often in the 5-figure range. Yes, some (and I emphasize "some") vintage prints sell for even more, but without meaning to be sarcastic or cynical, that is largely because the photographers are both famous and dead. In fact, some of the highest prices at AIPAD are usually for museum-grade prints from the dawn of photography, again due to rarity and historical significance.

(As an aside, I go almost every year, and I think that every year I have seen at least 5 "Moonrise" prints for sale by different galleries, for far less than $600K, and one gallery had an interesting matrix of maybe 10 (?) copies with different degrees of manipulation, showing AA's progress in deciding how he wanted the final print to look.)

[jose angel]

... film's unmatched warmth and tonal values...
I really hate to join or heat-up digital vs. film debates (specially because I`m mostly a film lover), but I tend to think it is becoming another highly groped myth... :D

[Pere Casals]

While I certainly don't want a debate, I wish you could attend the AIPAD show (Association of International Photography Art Dealers). The vast majority of contemporary work sold by galleries is digital, and the prices paid by collectors are substantial, often in the 5-figure range. Yes, some (and I emphasize "some") vintage prints sell for even more, but without meaning to be sarcastic or cynical, that is largely because the photographers are both famous and dead. In fact, some of the highest prices at AIPAD are usually for museum-grade prints from the dawn of photography, again due to rarity and historical significance.

(As an aside, I go almost every year, and I think that every year I have seen at least 5 "Moonrise" prints for sale by different galleries, for far less than $600K, and one gallery had an interesting matrix of maybe 10 (?) copies with different degrees of manipulation, showing AA's progress in deciding how he wanted the final print to look.)


$609,600 where paid for a Moonrise On October 17, 2006, Sotheby's auctioned that print. I don't know about the price of what remains of the 1300 handmade. I guess that some have to be way cheaper.

Let me say that one thing is what Art Dealers have to sell and what collectors want: optical prints. Collectors don't spend a single buck in industrial new reprography (yes, there are few exceptions).

An inkjet is a reprography product. You can make one or one million. Even in case of limited series one day somebody that has one can print more of it. A machine makes it, not the artist.

Well, little remains from what was pure analog photography, so there is little production and little market, still some like Sexton and Ross in the front line. Today best chance for a digital photographer (or even analog) that wants to sell prints is to sell as many as he can at low price and with low effort. This is bad for Art Dealers, they have no role in this game.

Some 5 months ago I was in a meeting (I've just accompanied the artist) with a gallery owner and a photographer. Gallery owner said him: this market is burnt, one can buy what he wants from web stores that make money with the printer and not with the art, and that's not our business. To me this is the general trend with few exceptions.

So the general situation is that photographers make the art with PS and post the file in an automatic site. If somebody likes it for the dinning room and pays some bucks with credit card then he receives that, the expensive thing can be framing and shipping.

So today the overhelming share of that market is decorative artistic reprography objects, and almost no master print. Will some artists sell expensive inkjets ? Few, rare... and perhaps they probably have a reputation forged in other artistic fields.


A different approach is this one:

http://unlimitedgrain.com/
https://www.artupfront.com/
http://limitedunlimited.nl/featured-2010/mike-stacey/

It exploits what remains of that market.

[Tin Can]

and everybody copies everything with their cell phone or DSLR.

Art Institute of Chicago allows us to photograph nearly everything.

A careful amateur can print a reproduction for peanuts, that most will think is good enough.

High-end Art is all about speculation.

or not

[Pere Casals]

and everybody copies everything with their cell phone or DSLR.


Something like what happened with music. Youth even don't download it, just streaming. In Flickr one has a couple of billions of images. Take what you want.

[Randy]

I grew up processing my own B&W film and making darkroom prints. I think my parents got me a little darkroom kit for processing and making contact prints around 1970, when I was 12. The next year they got me a small plastic horizontal enlarger (I think it would do up to 3 1/2 X 5 inch prints). In my mid teens I purchased a Bogan 22a enlarger. I made hundreds of 8X10's from 35mm negs.
I joined the USAF at 19 and spent the next 10 years as a photographer, doing it all, shooting, processing, and printing, both studio and location.
In the early 90's I started my own photography business and shot quite a few portraits on 4X5 B&W film, doing my own processing and darkroom printing. When digital came along I resisted at first but by the late 90's I jumped in.
It didn't take me long to get very frustrated with the reliability of both the digital cameras and the inkjet printers. I managed to make some prints that I was very pleased with, but just a couple years after spending $400-$500 on a printer (and who knows how much on ink) it pretty much crapped out. And it was a constant struggle to achieve and keep a consistently good print.
My last large inkjet printer died a few years ago and I just gave up.

Last year, after not making a darkroom print for at least 15 years, I decided to make a contact print from an old 8X10 neg on paper that was at least 20 years old, and even used some Dektol that I had mixed up 15 years ago. In a matter of minutes, leaning over the bathroom sink, I was looking at a wet print...and I almost wept.

I don't want to minimize digital - I have seen some incredible images printed from a computer. I still play with my old Nikon D200 and my Canon Elph, but I seldom make digital prints. I just enjoy how the process of making a print by hand makes me feel.

[ac12]

I find working in a wet darkroom relaxing. So it is not that the quality of wet is or is not better than digital, it is the environment and how I feel in the darkroom.

Looking at a monitor is stressful on the eyes for me, like looking at a light bulb. And that is with the brightness turned down from what the calibration tool specifies it should be. And even when I don't feel stressed out, I do not feel relaxed.

Yes it is a LOT more difficult or impossible to do certain stuff that I can easily do in Photoshop, but so what. If I want to do that, I scan the film and do my editing in Photoshop. To me it is a case of use the right tool for the right job.

So, bottom line, use BOTH. And use whichever one works best for the task. Sometimes the task is not technical (digital), but subjective (film and wet darkroom).

[Pere Casals]

So, bottom line, use BOTH. And use whichever one works best for the task. Sometimes the task is not technical (digital), but subjective (film and wet darkroom).

There is a lot of enjoyment one can get in darkroom.

I think wet darkroom was once relegated. I feel that there is a new trend and more people will engage or return to wet in the future. I hope this happens.

[Pere Casals]

So, bottom line, use BOTH. And use whichever one works best for the task. Sometimes the task is not technical (digital), but subjective (film and wet darkroom).

There is a lot of enjoyment one can get in darkroom.

I think wet darkroom was once relegated. I feel that there is a new trend and more people will engage or return to wet in the future. I hope this happens.




Yes it is a LOT more difficult or impossible to do certain stuff that I can easily do in Photoshop, but so what.

Nothing impossible.

Note that you can make contrast masks with a laser printer and then make a sandwitch with negative. Alan Ross explains that in his site.

http://www.alanrossphotography.com/category/tech/darkroom/
http://www.alanrossphotography.com/variable-contrast-articles-reprints-now-on-cd-rom/

Not pure analog but a good hybrid.

[Toyon]

The difference for me is that a digital print is a reproduction of an image captured by pixels and translated by software to ink. Whereas a darkroom print is the actual product of a photochemical reaction, not of the original image- but of the image cast through a negative. So to me, it feels like a photograph ("painted by light"). I suppose a direct positive, like a daguerreotype, is even better, since it is the direct product of the light rays cast by the original scene.

[Pere Casals]

The difference for me is that a digital print is a reproduction of an image captured by pixels and translated by software to ink. Whereas a darkroom print is the actual product of a photochemical reaction, not of the original image- but of the image cast through a negative. So to me, it feels like a photograph ("painted by light"). I suppose a direct positive, like a daguerreotype, is even better, since it is the direct product of the light rays cast by the original scene.

Or you can make an slide (color or BW), this is also directly "painted" by the original photons, in terms of conceptual purity.

[Leigh]

Or you can make an slide (color or BW), this is also directly "painted" by the original photons, in terms of conceptual purity.
I have to agree, in that you're viewing the results of light from the subject impinging on the emulsion.

With any printing process, you're looking at a secondary image, created by light on an image creating a new image.

- Leigh

[Tim Meisburger]

I don't care about any of the quality issues, or have any sentimental attachments. If I was a professional, I would use the professional tools that would make me the most money. I'm not. I'm an amateur doing this for fun. I use a computer all day at work, and when I get home I want to work with my hands, not stare at a screen.

I have no idea how to use photoshop, and typically post a scan of a negative I have tweaked in Microsoft Office, so my best image is usually the one I have manipulated in the darkroom.

I like that I cannot crank out prints. Makes the few I make more special. If I was using digital I would definitely print more images, but their average quality would be less. Right now, with the large format process I only shoot something if I think it might be really good, so instead of 200 digital images, or 72 35mm negatives, I might come back with 6 4x5 to scan from a day shooting. Most of those are okay for posting online, but after digital review I might only print 1 in 25, and of those, I might only re-print 1 in 100 or 200. Those negatives I keep in a special binder, and the rest either go in the trash, or are sorted by year and wrapped in brown paper (there if I need them, even though I'm sure I never will).

Long way of saying, I guess, that I print because I enjoy it.

[Pere Casals]

I have to agree, in that you're viewing the results of light from the subject impinging on the emulsion.

With any printing process, you're looking at a secondary image, created by light on an image creating a new image.

- Leigh

And beyond conceptual purity... slides are great !!! one can see 1:4000 static contrast, while a monitor can deliver perhaps 1:100. This x40 times the dynamic range. I steals the show !!

(Note that TV manufacturers were talking about 1:30000000000000000 dynamic contrast :) that has no meaning)

[JMO]

I won't try to add to the debate about process and artistic merits of the scan/digital vs wet chemistry paths, but would recommend to the OP to not even assume that you'll need to spend money to obtain a good enlarger in good using condition. My experience has been that there is essentially ZERO market for used enlargers so if you network with many LF photographers in your area and put the word out you're interested in a decent enlarger, you'll have offers to take some for free. I have two nice Beselars I use that I was given for free, one for 4x5, and one for MF. ...

[Pere Casals]

I won't try to add to the debate about process and artistic merits of the scan/digital vs wet chemistry paths, but would recommend to the OP to not even assume that you'll need to spend money to obtain a good enlarger in good using condition. My experience has been that there is essentially ZERO market for used enlargers so if you network with many LF photographers in your area and put the word out you're interested in a decent enlarger, you'll have offers to take some for free. I have two nice Beselars I use that I was given for free, one for 4x5, and one for MF. ...

Not absolute Zero: I've recently bought 2 enlargers, as a newcomer to darkroom printing. I feel that in the near future wet printing may have some revival. Just IMHO.

[Toyon]

I have to agree, in that you're viewing the results of light from the subject impinging on the emulsion.

With any printing process, you're looking at a secondary image, created by light on an image creating a new image.

- Leigh

Not quite what I meant Leigh. The image I create with a negative in my darkroom is not a secondary image. It is a primary image made from the subject - which is the negative. I do not see it as a reproduction of the original scene. This is akin to the human brain that creates an image using the eye and neural processing. That is the original, not the atomic resonances and frequencies that we use as raw material for vision.

[bob carnie]

The darkroom is where I want to be, I love the mixture of digital , and wet processes . I still find time to do straight enlarging from negatives but for me its all good and really what I need to be doing for the rest of my life.

Those of us who print regularly have the best pastime possible, Hard to keep a big darkroom in Large City , that is why I like the contact from digital negative idea as it opens up many doors for us.

[Steve Sherman]

162763

Progressively and specifically designed film negatives for modern Multi-Contrast papers which have been processed in PyroCat via minimal agitation really have little rival whether it be digital scan to ink output regardless of resolution or even original slide film where three layers of emulsion must come to focus in one plane.

one man's opinion

[Tin Can]

Not absolute Zero: I've recently bought 2 enlargers, as a newcomer to darkroom printing. I feel that in the near future wet printing may have some revival. Just IMHO.

I will test that theory.

Shortly.

[Pere Casals]

I will test that theory.

Shortly.

Wet, wet, wet... yeah !!!

[esearing]

For me the darkroom gets me off the computer except maybe to scan the final image and post it to my blog. I spend 40-50 hours coding per week for my day job plus an hour or two a day doing "research" in forums like these. As I age too, I feel I have less time to split my interests and want to focus on my creative side and pursue something worth remembering before I go.

I still feel magic of the print coming up in the tray (just like a day at Disney World). So you have to ask yourself how you want to spend your time, energy, and money and how it makes you feel at the end of the day.
Project 5-10 years out and ask yourself will I be a great computer printer, or a great darkroom printer? or Both?

I also did the math. To keep up with digital technology and printing is more costly than a wet darkroom and supplies.

[Thalmees]

... So it is not that the quality of wet is or is not better than digital, ...
Hello ac12,
For me, it is the quality of the photographic print. Quality not necessarily be sharpness and randomness of grain, it's beyond that. But, to finish a job, digital is the way.
For a photo that represent itself(artistic), photography is unsurpassed.
For a photo that represent subject(functional), digital photography is unsurpassed. That's the reason why many professionals adopting digital for their living, but when it comes to their own self work, they use film.

[Pere Casals]

The darkroom is where I want to be, I love the mixture of digital , and wet processes . I still find time to do straight enlarging from negatives but for me its all good and really what I need to be doing for the rest of my life.

Those of us who print regularly have the best pastime possible, Hard to keep a big darkroom in Large City , that is why I like the contact from digital negative idea as it opens up many doors for us.

Bob,

I think you are pretty right. Today we are privileged because we can make perfect prints from Lambda, we can enjoy the extremly valuable darkroom handcrafting, and also we have the poferful technology crossover.

So we are very fortunate to have those 3 possibilities. Well, some pepople like you are more fortunate because mastering and practizing all that...

Just I want to point that classic darkroom printing deserves an strong revival, and not only because the fun one can get with it. There is a big cultural asset in wet printing, so knowing how masters of photography got those formidable prints with basic tools is an incredible skill.

I think that by mastering classic printing is when one also can later take full advantage of Lambdas and tech crossover, IMHO.

[Pere Casals]

.

I agree with you, use both if possible, just let me add some thoughts:



So it is not that the quality of wet is or is not better than digital, it is the environment and how I feel in the darkroom.



Quality will depend on careful process in both cases. So this is, the choice it's not about qualiy

Technically classic Contact Printing can deliver even final 30 Lp/mm resolving power while digital printing delivers a little fraction of that, anyway in practice you may need a magnifier to see the difference.

Digital delivers an easy image control and then make reprographic series, while in darkroom you can obtain a master print that shows the artist hand (also you can obtain a nasty print... not difficult)






Yes it is a LOT more difficult or impossible to do certain stuff that I can easily do in Photoshop, but so what.

CRM/SCIM opens a new world in darkroom. Also there is the Alan Ross aproach, just use Hybrid. You can print a mask with a common laser printer (on transparent sheet) and control imabe as you want by making a sandwitch with negative, that will also deliver a sharper look (unsharp masking). You can make the mask control all or leave some manual burning/dodging for you.




Sometimes the task is not technical (digital), but subjective (film and wet darkroom).

I completely agree

[jim10219]

What I find most interesting about this thread, is how the argument of darkroom vs. digital parallels the old argument of painter vs. photographer. Those arguing that digital is something that anyone can do and takes no skill reminds me of the same accusations painters hurled at photographers back in the days of its infancy. Oddly enough, the painters reaction to photography was the modern art movement so one could argue that the introduction of a new technology that threatened to make their trade obsolete actually reinvigorated it and made it even more necessary. I believe digital process is now doing that for the darkroom. I know it has for me.

I am witnessing the begging of the resurgence of the darkroom and believe we have Instagram and it's siblings to thank for it. With smartphones, everyone's a photographer, but not everyone's a great photographer. This accessibility has heightened consciousness and fostered appreciation for that skill. More and more young people (read hipsters) are becoming intrigued by that collaboration of science and art that is darkroom photography. Film in general has been making a comeback for years now precisely because of it's flaws and limitation. After all, limitation breeds creativity and flaws define the individual, which are two things our society is struggling to maintain in this modern, fast paced, technological era. So I think we're getting ready to see some new life breathed into this old beast. But don't expect them to give up THEIR old habits just to embrace YOUR old habits. Make no mistake about it, they will bring digital technologies along with them. And I think that's a good thing. Which brings me to the theme of my post:

Why argue the two against each other? The screwdriver does not replace the hammer, does it? Just because something is created through a computer, does not mean it was created by a computer. In the future lies in the past, and the past says everything is always changing, always evolving, seized by perpetual motion. I own several different cameras of several different formats (digital and film) and use several different methods of creating the final print. I don't approach photography as a craft, I approach it as an art. And that means my final product isn't meant as a display of technical achievement, but rather as a realization of a vision. Now if you're more concerned purely with the craft side, that's respectable. The two approaches don't have to oppose one another and can even coexist symbiotically. But I'm chasing a vision, not a specification. And sometimes my vision requires Adobe Photoshop. Sometimes my vision requires potassium dichromate. Sometimes it requires both. They're all just tools, and I most value the right tool for the job. I'm new to this field of photography and have probably made more paintings than prints at this point. But coming from the painting world, I can tell you that the whole argument seems rather pedantic and myopic. All of the mediums require an immense amount of skill to master and none should be shrugged off as inferior. In the hands of a master, any tool looks easy to wield to the untrained eye.

So yes, if all you ever do is digital prints, then you are missing out on a great experience! If all you ever do is wet prints, then you are missing out on an equally great experience! If you've never put down the camera and picked up a brush when moved by the urge to capture a moment, then I suggest you try it, for it too is a great experience!

[Pere Casals]

What I find most interesting about this thread, is how the argument of darkroom vs. digital parallels the old argument of painter vs. photographer.

Yes, of course ! a lot of times I also think in that analogy.

Photography cannot replace painting. Not in the pictorialism era and not in 2017.

I feel analog vs digital has a bit that paralleism, but painter vs. photographer are more distant concepts. All plays with images, true.


At the end analog photography is a subculture, so it cannot "obsolete" until we decide it.

Thanks for the suggestion... I'll try with a brush.

[Leigh]

I think the painting v. photography and photography v. digital imaging arguments have strong parallels.

Both question how much of the final work is a direct result of human activity v. machine activity.

With painting the machine is the brush.
With photography the machine is the camera.
With digital imaging the machine is the computer.

All are connected to the subject through the brain of the artist.

- Leigh

[Pere Casals]

I think the painting v. photography and photography v. digital imaging arguments have strong parallels.

Both question how much of the final work is a direct result of human activity v. machine activity.

With photography the machine is the camera.
With digital imaging the machine is the computer.

Both are separate from the subject and the brain of the artist.

- Leigh


Yes, this is clear. Anyway there is something common: creating images. The surprising thing is that with the simplest tools best results can be obtained.

Here there is a list of "most expensive paintings" (perhaps not best paintings, this is very subjective, of course, even a cheap painting can be the "best" one... )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

Also I like to remember that Michelangello made the pietà with a hammer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo

This is useful when one complains about gear he has :)

[barnacle]

I see very similar arguments on a car forum I moderate.

This car is better than that; that engine is better than this; turbos are better than normally aspirated, except when they're not.

All I observe, there and here, is that 'better' is in so many ways such a subjective term that for almost any subject it comes down to a person's preferences, biases, and prejudices. Those who agree will agree, and those who don't won't, and no amount of argument will change anyone's mind...

Here's a solution: try it. You might like it. And then you can do it again.

Neil

[koraks]

In fact, although some seem to hint (in one or two cases explicitly) at the argument for or against one option at the cost of the other, what strikes me is that most posters seem to leave ample room for both concepts to coexist and for the individual to follow their preference.

Why must something that isn't an analog vs digital debate made into one - again?

[Maris Rusis]

Digital picture-making, insofar as it delivers hardcopy, is a mechanisation of realist painting or drawing. The parallels between paintings and digi-graphs are remarkable.

Both start with an illuminated subject being imaged by a lens onto a megapixel sensor. The sensor can be in the back of a camera or in the back of a human eye. The eye sensor is called a retina and it runs to about 100 megapixels though not all pixels are equal. Some are rods and some are cones.

The camera sensor and the retina are both transducers and they transform the real optical image that falls on them into a stream of electrical pulses that is sent up a cable. The camera cable is a wire. The eye cable is the optic nerve.

The pattern of pulses is stored in a memory. It could be a computer memory made of doped silicon. Or it could be a biological memory made of neurones, axons, and dendrites.

A brain then edits the picture memory. Some things may be deleted, some added, or some rearranged. Several picture memories could be stitched together. Old and new memories could be used in entirely optional ways. The final picture memory formed as a result of processing is only arbitrarily related to the original real optical image that fell on the sensor.

Output is via a device that puts visible spots of paint on a substrate. The device could be an ink-jet printer controlled by a "printer-driver". Or the device could be a painter's hand with a paint loaded brush in it. The "painter-driver" is a set of skills that may take a few years of art-school to acquire.

Photography belongs to an entirely different class of picture making and is not a version of painting, drawing, or digi-graphy. The small class of methods that includes photography is based on direct physical interaction between subject and picture: no pixels, no transducers, no data, no brain processing. Some other members of this class are death masks, life casts, brass rubbings, wax impressions, coal peels, and foot prints.

And, to put possible woolly thinking aside, subject matter falls into a hierarchy. The illuminated objects out in front of the lens are the subject matter for the real optical image that floats in darkness at the back of a camera. This real optical image is the subject matter for the primary photograph. The primary photograph, often a negative, can become subject matter for a secondary photograph, often a positive; and so on. Photography, like footprints or wax impressions, offers an very powerful indexical relationship between subject and picture. Here are a few (of many) consequences of indexicality:

The photograph is an existence proof of the subject.
There is a one to one correspondence between points in a photograph and points in the subject.
Photograph and subject must have been in each other's presence at the same time.
Photographs can't depict imaginary things.

If one wants pictures in a medium that guarantees indexical qualities then photography is a good way to go about it. And that includes making photographs on paper in a darkroom. Painting, drawing, or digi-graphy won't get you there.

[jp]

Maris, you have great photos and experience to share here, but your thinking is a little too rigid on this topic.

If we must be rigid, silver photography uses electrons as a transducer to save the effect of photons on silver memory particles.

In any B&W photo there is not 1-1 correspondence in that what is a color in a scene gets translated to a tone, which can never be recorded as a color, translated back to a color, etc.. It's more of a transformation than a correspondence.

At some point I got tired of making perfect snapshots on film of scenes and started making photos where the subject is a mood or an abstract relationship. There are many media one could use to do this, but I mostly use photographic film, which sometimes leads to a darkroom printed result and sometimes to an inkjet printed result.

[Duolab123]

Digital picture-making, insofar as it delivers hardcopy, is a mechanisation of realist painting or drawing. The parallels between paintings and digi-graphs are remarkable.

Both start with an illuminated subject being imaged by a lens onto a megapixel sensor. The sensor can be in the back of a camera or in the back of a human eye. The eye sensor is called a retina and it runs to about 100 megapixels though not all pixels are equal. Some are rods and some are cones.

The camera sensor and the retina are both transducers and they transform the real optical image that falls on them into a stream of electrical pulses that is sent up a cable. The camera cable is a wire. The eye cable is the optic nerve.

The pattern of pulses is stored in a memory. It could be a computer memory made of doped silicon. Or it could be a biological memory made of neurones, axons, and dendrites.

A brain then edits the picture memory. Some things may be deleted, some added, or some rearranged. Several picture memories could be stitched together. Old and new memories could be used in entirely optional ways. The final picture memory formed as a result of processing is only arbitrarily related to the original real optical image that fell on the sensor.

Output is via a device that puts visible spots of paint on a substrate. The device could be an ink-jet printer controlled by a "printer-driver". Or the device could be a painter's hand with a paint loaded brush in it. The "painter-driver" is a set of skills that may take a few years of art-school to acquire.

Photography belongs to an entirely different class of picture making and is not a version of painting, drawing, or digi-graphy. The small class of methods that includes photography is based on direct physical interaction between subject and picture: no pixels, no transducers, no data, no brain processing. Some other members of this class are death masks, life casts, brass rubbings, wax impressions, coal peels, and foot prints.

And, to put possible woolly thinking aside, subject matter falls into a hierarchy. The illuminated objects out in front of the lens are the subject matter for the real optical image that floats in darkness at the back of a camera. This real optical image is the subject matter for the primary photograph. The primary photograph, often a negative, can become subject matter for a secondary photograph, often a positive; and so on. Photography, like footprints or wax impressions, offers an very powerful indexical relationship between subject and picture. Here are a few (of many) consequences of indexicality:

The photograph is an existence proof of the subject.
There is a one to one correspondence between points in a photograph and points in the subject.
Photograph and subject must have been in each other's presence at the same time.
Photographs can't depict imaginary things.

If one wants pictures in a medium that guarantees indexical qualities then photography is a good way to go about it. And that includes making photographs on paper in a darkroom. Painting, drawing, or digi-graphy won't get you there.

Hell Yes! I was going to say I always liked real photos in part, by what was visible in the print, or film, that may not have been the camera operator's main subject. I look at my Father's old Kodachrome slides of me as a kid. I see 1950's and 60's vehicles in the background. I've noticed most are 4 door cars. When I see a modern film, set in this time period, seems like almost every vehicle shown is a 2 door, or a delivery truck. I suppose that the sportier looking vehicles have been preserved. The human brain editing out reality.
I am making color slides for many family photos, sure I have a D800, my God what an amazing tool. But like most I go into lightroom and adjust the color temperature, crop, change contrast etc. Then make a ink jet 5x7 . Eventually it gets wet and runs, or fades....
In the future the slides will show the whole picture.
Best Regards Mike

[xkaes]

until I sell one of the kids so I can afford a Phase One 100mp digital back, I'm stuck with my trusty 4x5 ;)

I think this should be placed in the FOR SALE section, not here!:)

[John Layton]

Maris makes a strong case. A good illustration for this would be my good friend Paul Wainwright's "Pendulum Series" - stunningly beautiful photographs accomplished by aiming his (4x5 camera) lens directly upwards in a tall darkened room (in a barn) - with the subject being a small, bright, led light which is swinging as a pendulum on the end of a long line. Go to Paul's website: paulwainwrightphotography.com...you'll see a link for this series.

Now, its entirely possible that Paul's Pendulum Series could be rendered with extreme accuracy by simply inputing some data into a computer...but I would not trust those images, as they would be simply data (which can be tweaked/altered)...whereas Paul's images are a direct "footprint" of a very real and beautiful phenomena which results as a combination of a specific movement/momentum, originating from a single (fixed) point to a single (unfixed) point, as originally induced by Paul
himself, the earth's gravity, and the earth's rotation.

A significant factor to note, especially for those who might read this and surmise that, well, Paul himself is doing the "tweaking and altering" here - is that once Paul releases the pendulum from a given point in space...the forces of the earth take over to help create a very exact and specific pattern, completely beyond Paul's control. And yet...there is Paul, to witness and faithfully record that which the earth tells us, and then share it with us. How lucky we are to have folks like Paul Wainwright...who so fully respect something so much larger and significant...and who take the time and effort to record and communicate this so honestly, faithfully, and effectively so the rest of us can also bear witness.

When I go out with my view camera, considering with it something...say the incoming surf from a high, rocky ledge...I'm responding to a process which is not of my own creation - and yet to the extent that am there as both witness to and conduit in service to the expressiveness of that process, and indeed to the extent that I also have direct ancestry, and therefore agency, to and with that process, how impossible (and...inappropriate/disrespectful/dishonest?) it would be for me to trust the expression of this to anything other than a medium which presents so directly, honestly, and faithfully...through two generations of a transit of light...visible, palpable, and real, which originate from the subject itself?

[jnantz]

OP

making darkroom prints is fun, time consuming ( sometimes ), confounding ( sometimes )and well worth the effort !
there really is nothing like making something by hand ...
not to say hybrid isn't fun too .. it can be equally as time consuming, confounding and worth the effort ...
don't let the anti hybrid/anti digital people get you down, its all about enjoying yourself.

john

[Pere Casals]

OP

making darkroom prints is fun, time consuming ( sometimes ), confounding ( sometimes )and well worth the effort !
there really is nothing like making something by hand ...
not to say hybrid isn't fun too .. it can be equally as time consuming, confounding and worth the effort ...
don't let the anti hybrid/anti digital people get you down, its all about enjoying yourself.

john


To obtain a sound optical wet print an skilled printer must be there. One can obtain it by chance or following some recipe, but really controlling the image requires practice and skills, if not one wastes a lot of paper to not get what one wants.

With Hybrid it's easy and straight, great control, easy sharpen, WYSWYG burning/dodging, curve shape it, do/undo, no paper wasted, just have good calibration monitor/print, and with lambda/lightjet you can also print FB.

It is impresive how Hybrid simplifies and and how powerful is.


But what I'm doing is learning darkroom printing...


>> Easier, modern and powerful vs handcraft


It's not only the result, it's also the way you obtain it and what you learn/realize in the process.

So, IMHO, yes: hybrid is much easier and powerful, but optical handcrafting has an immense value for those able to master it. Instead delivering a reprographic result you have a unique handcrafted object where artist hand is seen.

In both cases one can obtain magnific art or pure trash. (in my case no magnific art at all :) )

So what I say is that even Hybrid is easier, convenient and more powerful still darkroom is a very powerful choice. So all it's about the personal choice, to get joy and create.

[nikonf]

I just started doing contact prints and i'm having a big case of 'oh my what have i been missing out on' :-D

The process is a lot fun and the results are beautiful as real physical objects.

I am with the traditional print folks. I stopped doing darkroom work in 1989 and I am now building a darkroom. I really missed it and can't wait to start printing my 4x5 black and white negatives again!

[nikonf]

Excellent point - Leigh. I just have to find good sources for photo chemicals, since I haven't done any processing in 28 years!
Best,
Mike