Darkroom vs Scanning

[Califmike33]

Hey guys just getting back into 4X5 Shooting. What is your workflow ? do you scan and print inkjet ? or do you print in a darkroom ?. Can you achieve a darkroom looking print from Lightroom and good inkjet printer with good paper ?. I do love printing in the darkroom, but having to travel back and forth to the darkroom, (15 miles each way) the cost of renting the time at the darkroom, having to make contact sheets just to see your negatives. Can you get the same results at home in lightroom and lets say a Canon Pro 1000 printer and good paper. I know the out of pocket cost is higher for inkjet printer and scanner vs just needing some good darkroom paper, but in the long run lighroom and inkjet and scanner have to win for cost and time.

Looking for someone who has done both and seen the side by side look. I guy i respect very much with many years of photo and printing darkroom and inkjet told me he can get better looking BW prints at home on lightroom and Canon Pro 1000, whats your opinion ?

[mdarnton]

All other questions aside, a few years ago I saw an exhibition at the Art Institute of Chicago of a photographer who made large prints (20x24 or larger?) using both inkjet and traditional methods. His photos were of similar subject matter, and I could not tell a bit of difference between digital and non. So regardless of what the people who can't do it are going to say, I say that it's possible to make a darkroom-looking print digitally.

For myself, I actually prefer digital. I can do much more, easier, than I could in the darkroom, the results are repeatable, and the prints satisfy me.

[bmikiten]

Shoot film (4x5, 617 and 8x10) -> Develop -> Scan using a Creo Sitex scanner at very high resolution -> clean up in PhotoShop, make minor edits -> Produce a digital negative -> Contact print in the darkroom or print on an Epson P900. I resisted this for years but have found it to allow me the greatest flexibility and long-term process stability as I also archive the negative. I'm using it for prints up to (almost) 16" x 20". I get repeatable prints and enjoy the process more without the variabilities in dodging and burning especially in fine detail areas. I still contact print 8x10 negatives at times and yes, it took me a long time to give up 100% darkroom work!

[Alan9940]

I do both and IMO the choice doesn't come down to "what's better." I love a finely crafted B&W analog print...with good fiber-based paper and decent skills, you can create a print that simply glows. I have seen from other photographers' prints and, occasionally, I'm able to produce this in my own work. All I can say (and it sounds a bit trite) is that light seems to emanate from the paper! It's a truly beautiful thing when you see it.

On the other hand, I shoot quite a lot of 8x10 film and, though I do contact print these negatives in the darkroom, if I want to enlarge one, I have to scan and print via the desktop. Again, a skilled worker with good digital editing skills, good baryta-based paper, and a decent printer can produce a very nice B&W (or color) print. That's actually another point (for me) ...I only do color (not that I do that much of it) on the desktop. I tried analog color printing many years ago and I made a few decent prints, but I never really mastered it.

The bottom line for me is that analog prints are simply different from digital prints, both have their place. And, either workflow can produce some really fine work.

[Michael R]

I’m speaking here as an exacting darkroom worker - you can get results at least as good with inkjet, which is why some similarly exacting people I know (and some superb photographers) moved over to inkjet printing over the past several years. Digital has matured to the point the quality of the output comes down to the skill and vision of the operator - just as in the darkroom. Once you have a good printer/inkset (which doesn’t need to break the bank anymore) it’s about knowing how to scan, and then how to edit in Photoshop or whatever software.

Of course just as in the darkroom this can get as complex as you want, depending on how critical you are - for example creating custom printer profiles, using a specialized and/or calibrated monitor, etc. etc.


Hey guys just getting back into 4X5 Shooting. What is your workflow ? do you scan and print inkjet ? or do you print in a darkroom ?. Can you achieve a darkroom looking print from Lightroom and good inkjet printer with good paper ?. I do love printing in the darkroom, but having to travel back and forth to the darkroom, (15 miles each way) the cost of renting the time at the darkroom, having to make contact sheets just to see your negatives. Can you get the same results at home in lightroom and lets say a Canon Pro 1000 printer and good paper. I know the out of pocket cost is higher for inkjet printer and scanner vs just needing some good darkroom paper, but in the long run lighroom and inkjet and scanner have to win for cost and time.

Looking for someone who has done both and seen the side by side look. I guy i respect very much with many years of photo and printing darkroom and inkjet told me he can get better looking BW prints at home on lightroom and Canon Pro 1000, whats your opinion ?

[Califmike33]

To me, a darkroom print has more depth, and a different feel, i have not seen in person an inkjet print on a good paper good printer that has that same feel, but I'm sure they exist. I think i will go to the darkroom and start printing after many many years away and see what i can do and do some comparison. Very hard to tell online i want to see the prints side by side, i would love see them without knowing which is which and see if i can pick them out.

I guess my real concern was does scanning negatives into LR or PS does it retain that film look or is there a cross of digital and film look, i have never scanned or seen a scan on my screen.

[Michael R]

I thought that was the case until I saw how good inkjets could look when they were made by people who were really good at it. They have all the “depth” of anything that can be done in a darkroom. Not only that but you have more flexibility. One of the least enjoyable (to me) things about the current state of the darkroom is the lack of paper choice. There’s relatively little to choose from and if you don’t like the surface quality etc. you’re SOL.


To me, a darkroom print has more depth, and a different feel, i have not seen in person an inkjet print on a good paper good printer that has that same feel, but I'm sure they exist. I think i will go to the darkroom and start printing after many many years away and see what i can do and do some comparison. Very hard to tell online i want to see the prints side by side, i would love see them without knowing which is which and see if i can pick them out.

[Califmike33]

I thought that was the case until I saw how good inkjets could look when they were made by people who were really good at it. They have all the “depth” of anything that can be done in a darkroom. Not only that but you have more flexibility. One of the least enjoyable (to me) things about the current state of the darkroom is the lack of paper choice. There’s relatively little to choose from and if you don’t like the surface quality etc. you’re SOL.

Hey Michael R, im also a Michael R, how funny. Ok im hearing good arguments for Inkjet more and more , i watched some interesting youtube videos. So im guessing shooting film and scanning is about still shooting film and getting the benifit of being able to PS or LR it and still print it on a inkjet and achieve good results. I agree there are not many darkroom papers left to choose from. There really isnt much color film or slide film left to choose and its so over the top exspensive.

[Bernice Loui]

The GOOD black & white fiber papers died about later 1980's, it's essentially down hill since..

Bernice

[Michael R]

Hmmm another Michael R? That can’t be good for this forum LOL :)

At this point in the progression of digital camera technology, I have to say I don’t really understand why one would shoot film anymore if the intention is for the rest of the workflow and output to be digital. Unless one enjoys the film process, which is a perfectly valid reason. I guess the idea (generally speaking) is that this “hybrid” approach is that you retain some of the traditional material/chemistry in your workflow but aren’t stuck with relative hassle of darkroom printing, which requires space etc. Kind of the best of both worlds maybe. This is especially likely to be the case where colour work is involved. Making high quality colour prints in a darkroom was always a somewhat niche activity even in the pre-digital era. Relatively few colour photographers ever printed their own negatives/chromes, whereas now with inkjet printing a colour film shooter can do the whole thing A to Z, which is nice.

The other nice thing about inkjet for B&W film shooters (in addition to digital shooters of course) is they can make enlarged inkjet negatives, which opens the world of alt processes up to people using smaller film formats than were ever practical for contact printing.

One of the reasons I’d like to start down the digital rabbit hole is the possibility of making inkjet masks for darkroom printing. So many possibilities.


Hey Michael R, im also a Michael R, how funny. Ok im hearing good arguments for Inkjet more and more , i watched some interesting youtube videos. So im guessing shooting film and scanning is about still shooting film and getting the benifit of being able to PS or LR it and still print it on a inkjet and achieve good results. I agree there are not many darkroom papers left to choose from. There really isnt much color film or slide film left to choose and its so over the top exspensive.

[Michael R]

No.


The GOOD black & white fiber papers died about later 1980's, it's essentially down hill since..

Bernice

[Califmike33]

The good point is why would one shoot a film to only print and scan and go digital, the process of shooting the film sure is a huge draw. I thought to myself also why would you shoot a film to only scan it and print it thru an inkjet, i think there are many benefits to being a hybrid shooter i think. It has to be more than just the process of shooting the film and developing it yourself, it has to give a look and feel that digital cant create and may never create. I could go down the scan inkjet route as long as i can keep that film look, the process alone is not enough for me, i need to keep the film look also, and I'm happy.

I just don't get much satisfaction shooting a sony a7r iii, it's just easy to rip shot off after shot, i like being slowed down with film, and having to think more.

On the other hand, there is a part of me that's not liking the hybrid thing, going to be an interesting journey.

[Tin Can]

I shoot DIGI every few minutes

Just now to document an enlarger, online, maybe even on a giant TV

I vastly prefer actual film to ANY DIGI paper and DIGI printer

I also print RC, FB and ALT

I like it all

I was deprived as child

really

[Drew Wiley]

I'm 100% real darkroom workflow, both black and white color printing. There is a certain level of nuance I get that way which I never see in digital prints. But it's also just a matter of personal preference for hands-on tactility to the craft versus excessive sitting on the butt punching buttons like I'm doing right now, at least till my wife picks up more salt at the store so we can get the turkey going. Plus I already have a nice darkroom setup with lots of good equipment I'm accustomed to. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Sorry if I offend a few people - we all have our opinions and reasons for them - but other than democratizing convenient color printing, I regard inkjet as a step backwards, qualitatively. Kinda like soy-based imitation ice milk versus real ice cream.

[Pieter]

I enjoy printing in the darkroom, the hands-on work of dodging and burning, getting a great final print that may be one of a kind. High-quality digital printing will necessitate a hefty investment: a fast computer, a good monitor and a calibration system. Decent photo editing software. A lot of detail work is best done with a digital tablet. And a proper room or area with subdued light. Then, a good photo printer that can handle large sizes and has multiple black inks to get a rich black and white output. Good inkjet paper costs about the same as photo paper, and ink can be quite expensive, especially when the printer can have more than 6 cartridges. The best black-and-white inkjet prints I have seen have been produced using Piezography inks, where all the cartridges are different shades of black. Cone Editions is a great source for materials and they make fabulous prints. Oh, yeah, inkjet printer heads clog and need cleaning and alignment, plus service is hard to find. They're basically disposable if something goes wrong that is more than a minor problem.

I don't shoot color film, all my color work is digital. All my black and white is totally analog today.

[Michael R]

but other than democratizing convenient color printing, I regard inkjet as a step backwards, qualitatively. Kinda like soy-based imitation ice milk versus real ice cream.

Ya but Drew that’s because you’re always hanging around the Bay Area where the inkjet prints aren’t very good and everyone likes the soy cream. Also there was that time you saw a Lik print, which traumatized you and permanently distorted your psychophysical response to inkjet prints.

[Drew Wiley]

Some of the best inkjet printers alive are here in the Bay Area, including certain key consultants. But the only reason they're so good is that they know what they want, having mastered color darkroom printing first in several different specific media. But yeah, despite earning much of their income by promoting digital innovations, their result still doesn't look as good to me as their own earlier darkroom versions. I talking about people with taste, not about those unmentionable persons you dare mention who use Photoshop like a sledgehammer. Don't suppose you remember those old TV Sledge-O-Matic skits by a comedian who recently died? - sledgehammer taken to a watermelon in front of a live audience. Yeah, that would leave an impression quite like that of the work you just mentioned. But PS is just another big toolbox of its own, capable of either intelligent use or reckless abuse; it doesn't itself feel or think anything.

[Bernice Loui]

Judgement of print quality is based on.... Personal Points of Reference.. Yes or No_?_

Given the Personal Points of Reference (applies to a whole lot more than just prints) is often extremely variable for any given print maker and audience..
That "NO" from Michael R is a set up for Vast Violent Verbage...

How many "rounds" of Verbage Wars will follow _?_


No thanks,
Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I'll risk my opinion. Having just sorted through about three hundred black and white prints still deserving to be drymounted, but realizing that only a third or less of them is going to get done, while even more are still being made... it's pretty obvious to me that, yes, the days of outstanding graded papers are long gone ... but the era of really good VC papers has solidly arrived. I adapt, always have.

Same with color media. When my beloved Cibachrome was on life-support, taking its last gasps, I started concentrating on chromogenic papers and color neg films, and that learning curve paid off as those products steadily evolved into the very high quality options available today. Fujiflex is even better than Cibachrome in certain respects, and certainly it's never going to be mistaken for an inkjet print! - though it can be alternately laser-exposed using scanned digital files if one prefers that route.

The main thing is that one masters their preferred workflow and tools. Garbage-in / garbage-out applies equally in both realms. Lots of mediocre darkroom work was once done; lots of mediocre digital printing occurs now. But it doesn't have to be that way.

[Califmike33]

But it's also just a matter of personal preference for hands-on tactility to the craft versus excessive sitting on the butt punching buttons, I LOVE THAT.

There is a guy on youtube who sells prints, he has a very nice laid-out website and does pretty nice work on different types of photography. He said in one of his videos he offers darkroom prints and offers high-quality inkjet prints, he said 10% of his sales are darkroom prints. That to me says the general public isn't willing to pay more for darkroom prints vs inkjet prints. I think some people will but in general, that tells me they don't look all that different and it's not worth the extra money to most people. I can't wait to do some side-by-side comparisons.

[earlnash]

It's not about which is "better" - an analogue or digital print - that debate has really died down over the last few years. Rather, it's about what you want to do with the images and how you want to share them with the world. If you have a website, or post on instagram you've got to make a digital image sooner or later.

For me, shooting with film is more deliberate and intentional. There's no instant feedback; you won't know how the images look until you develop them. Through hard experience, your image-capturing process has to evolve to "work like a typewriter" (as Alec Soth said).

Once I have a negative, I prefer a hybrid work flow: scan, photoshop, digital print. It's very economical and convenient in terms of my time and schedule. I can spend as little as 15-20 mins or 5-10 hours; I can stop whenever I want, and pick up later where I left off. Another plus is that the work flow allows you two additional intermediary steps (scan, photoshop) where you can correct your mistakes, and bring the image closer to what you envisaged.

Michael Sobel

http://www.michaelsobel.photo

232857

[Drew Wiley]

Depends, calfmike. Serious collectors can be very medium-conscious; they don't think like the general public, and certainly not like people entering tourist galleries. That's why I abandoned my own website long ago; it attracted a crowd, but the wrong crowd, and didn't make a bit of difference with those who have the real thing in mind. In the words of Hannibal Lecter, One covets what one sees. And there's not much to covet in a web image; you can get all of those you want for free.

[Califmike33]

Depends, calfmike. Serious collectors can be very medium-conscious; they don't think like the general public, and certainly not like people entering tourist galleries. That's why I abandoned my own website long ago; it attracted a crowd, but the wrong crowd, and didn't make a bit of difference with those who have the real thing in mind. In the words of Hannibal Lecter, One covets what one sees. And there's not much to covet in a web image; you can get all of those you want for free.
Good point and yes I know there are people that are willing to pay for silver gelatin darkroom prints collectors more serious art people than just your general public. You know I'm just gathering all of my gear lenses camera tripod everything obviously the next step is going to be how am I going to print and I'm definitely going into the dark room to give it another try for sure just trying to see what most people on here do but it seems to vary a lot.

[Michael R]

In any case, my suggestion to OP is to try to view some high quality inkjet. Off the top of my head one excellent example would be Brian Kosoff, who comes from a darkroom background and still makes some silver prints but mostly does inkjet now (including colour).

There are others of course.

[Drew Wiley]

Up in your frozen northland, where wooly mammoths, polar bears, and zombie walking-dead ice hockey players still roam, Bob Carnie's operation does excellent inkjet printing. I've seen some of those displayed down here.

[Michael R]

What I’d like to do is visit with Cone (Cone Editions, Piezography) in VT. I’ve seen a few beautiful things done by them.


Up in your frozen northland, where wooly mammoths, polar bears, and zombie walking-dead ice hockey players still roam, Bob Carnie's operation does excellent inkjet printing. I've seen some of those displayed down here.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, all of that kind of technology is steadily advancing. But it already seems to be plateauing a bit in a "good enough" sense, just like chromogenic printing somewhat stalled for quite awhile before taking a fresh look around. I'm not exactly thrilled with quite a few hue gamut issues in inkjet options; but monochrome black and white results have dramatically improved, in the right hands, at least. Still, I prefer the highly nuanced and even somewhat unpredictable toning qualities of darkroom papers. There's a certain magic involved, or alchemy perhaps, which mechanical reproduction simply can't mimic very well. When it come to basic black, and tones thereof, well, that's a different story. But direct optical enlargement straight from film, along with contact printing, still has that special something I don't see in even the best inkjet work. Whatever. I appreciate any kind of print if it's well done.

Very high-end industrial cost press work is in a different category, since that has to be specially farmed out at considerable expense to achieve. Some of the best of that is being done right around here. The typical even pro photographer can't afford it, not by a long shot.

[Richard Wasserman]

What I’d like to do is visit with Cone (Cone Editions, Piezography) in VT. I’ve seen a few beautiful things done by them.

Talk to Walker Blackwell at Cone. He was doing beautiful prints using Piezography inks a few years ago when he had a printing studio here in Chicago. I haven't seen his more recent work, but I imagine it has only gotten better.

[Califmike33]

I will have to look at some of those printers you mentioned. Im not real keen on having a lab print my work, unless its a huge print otherwise i prefer to do it myself.

I was at the camera store here in CA and looking around talking to a lady i know who has been there for 23 years and we talked inkjet printing. She brought out some sample portraits on Baraya paper, dont remember if it was epson, red river, but anyway i was acually quiet taken by how good it looked and did look and have darkroom vibe for sure.

[Tin Can]

I had 36X48" printed DIGI and mounted, very reasonably inside USA and delivered

I had the perfect $5 baroque frame from Goodwill

Kinda depends on your goal

Printer got worried and offered a reprint

Not necessary, as it was exactly how and what I wanted and specced

[Califmike33]

I had 36X48" printed DIGI and mounted, very reasonably inside USA and delivered

I had the perfect $5 baroque frame from Goodwill

Kinda depends on your goal


Printer got worried and offered a reprint

Not necessary, as it was exactly how and what I wanted and specced

How much does a print that size cost ?

[Michael R]

Too bad Ken Lee doesn’t seem to be around here anymore. He was making high quality inkjet prints from scanned B&W film and knew a lot about it. As of a few years ago he was using a Piezography/Epson setup, which we discussed at length here. Things may have evolved since then though. Depending on who you ask, you might do just as well with off the shelf Epson or Canon.

[Califmike33]

I have seen some very very nice prints come out of Canon Prograf 1000, $1000 printer, but the inks are crazy pricey.

[Lachlan 717]

Since I had a 7x17” scan printed on metallic, I won’t go back to wet.

Love the glow the paper gives to the B&W midtones.

Mind you, carbon printing is on the to-do list. Nothing digital matches these and no “traditional” DR print does either. One day….

[jnantz]

Hi Califmike33
People who know what they are doing always make things look super easy like they are doing nothing special, like darkroom work digital print making isn't something you just learn in a weekend, there is a learning curve. that said, darkroom work is fun ( I expose bigger than 22x28 paper negatives, enlarge upto 5x7 film and do alt process work), hybrid can be very flexible, allowing for sizes I can not print myself ( I can print up to 20x24). I've had hybrid things printed 6foot by8foot for clients, and they look spectacular... in the end, it all depends on what you do and what. like with everything these days, some folks might poo poo the whole process and say it's lifeless or not nuanced, galleries and museums don't want them &c but digital prints can look pretty amazing out of the hands of an expert, just like prints out of an expert darkroom printer. ... it's not 2001, galleries and museums are well aware of conservation issues regarding pigment on paper. I don't have a grand format printer, and at least for me it makes more sense to do the processing, scanning and leave the printing with someone I trust and I appreciate.
good luck !

[Alan Klein]

In any case, my suggestion to OP is to try to view some high quality inkjet. Off the top of my head one excellent example would be Brian Kosoff, who comes from a darkroom background and still makes some silver prints but mostly does inkjet now (including colour).

There are others of course.

Clyde Butcher in Florida. Because of age he's switched to digital cameras from ULF and LF and uses digital printers and still traditional chemical printing. He charges differently but the pictures of both types I saw are all beautiful.
https://clydebutcher.com/

[Califmike33]

Hi Califmike33
People who know what they are doing always make things look super easy like they are doing nothing special, like darkroom work digital print making isn't something you just learn in a weekend, there is a learning curve. that said, darkroom work is fun ( I expose bigger than 22x28 paper negatives, enlarge upto 5x7 film and do alt process work), hybrid can be very flexible, allowing for sizes I can not print myself ( I can print up to 20x24). I've had hybrid things printed 6foot by8foot for clients, and they look spectacular... in the end, it all depends on what you do and what. like with everything these days, some folks might poo poo the whole process and say it's lifeless or not nuanced, galleries and museums don't want them &c but digital prints can look pretty amazing out of the hands of an expert, just like prints out of an expert darkroom printer. ... it's not 2001, galleries and museums are well aware of conservation issues regarding pigment on paper. I don't have a grand format printer, and at least for me it makes more sense to do the processing, scanning and leave the printing with someone I trust and I appreciate.
good luck !

Thank you for your input on the subject. I would sayi have a few thousand hours at least in the darkroom, but like i said was many many years ago. I need to go somewhere and look first hand at some high quality inkjet prints and see for myself.

I have several digital cameras over the past 10 years and sold them off, just never thrilled me to shoot digital.

[jnantz]

Thank you for your input on the subject. I would sayi have a few thousand hours at least in the darkroom, but like i said was many many years ago. I need to go somewhere and look first hand at some high quality inkjet prints and see for myself.

I have several digital cameras over the past 10 years and sold them off, just never thrilled me to shoot digital.

have fun!
I've never had problem with digital ( been using it since the 90s ) but my interests might be different from most people.

[Califmike33]

have fun!
I've never had problem with digital ( been using it since the 90s ) but my interests might be different from most people.

I will have fun, cant wait to get started.

[Merg Ross]

Your question appears partly driven by cost, convenience and time. What is the desired end use of your prints? Personal pleasure, fine art sales, fame?

The comparisons of process have been a topic for discussion since 1989. What is best can only be answered by you. These are two very different processes.

Let us know your chosen route. Indeed, have fun!

[Califmike33]

Yes I would say time and convenience do play into it. I don't see a significant cost difference between the two formats one takes obviously more initial investment but in the long run they don't seem that different cost wise.

I would say my end result is to sell fine art prints. I think since I just gathered all my gear and I'm going to start shooting in the next few days obviously how I'm going to process those images is the next big step or decision I have to make I think I want to try both dark room and a jet and see what works for me.

[Ironage]

Probably a potential trap is to do some of both. Double accumulation of gear $. Trying to master both will waist time in problem solving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jnantz]

I think since I just gathered all my gear and I'm going to start shooting in the next few days obviously how I'm going to process those images is the next big step or decision I have to make I think I want to try both dark room and a jet and see what works for me.

do you have a way to process the film at home? you have no darkroom, and you were trying to get into hybrid work because the darkroom you would rent is inconvenient.

[Pieter]

You might want to perform a little experiment. Make the best print you can of a negative, then scan the negative and see if you can match the darkroom print with an inkjet one. Not as easy as you might think, but possible. An acquaintance did that exact test and it worked out well for him. It can depend on your style, preferences and the subject matter, too.

[Califmike33]

do you have a way to process the film at home? you have no darkroom, and you were trying to get into hybrid work because the darkroom you would rent is inconvenient.
Yes I have a way to process film at home I have a Patterson tank and a six sheet film holder so I can process six sheets of film at a time just don't have the room for a complete dark room.

[Califmike33]

Probably a potential trap is to do some of both. Double accumulation of gear $. Trying to master both will waist time in problem solving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I will not be buying dark room supplies and inkjet supplies I will be going to the dark room and doing some printing by buying a pack of paper they supply all the chemicals. I will have somebody make me some inkjet prints to look at that's how I'll do my side by side comparison.

[bmikiten]

Hmmm another Michael R? That can’t be good for this forum LOL :)

At this point in the progression of digital camera technology, I have to say I don’t really understand why one would shoot film anymore if the intention is for the rest of the workflow and output to be digital. Unless one enjoys the film process, which is a perfectly valid reason. I guess the idea (generally speaking) is that this “hybrid” approach is that you retain some of the traditional material/chemistry in your workflow but aren’t stuck with relative hassle of darkroom printing, which requires space etc. Kind of the best of both worlds maybe. This is especially likely to be the case where colour work is involved. Making high quality colour prints in a darkroom was always a somewhat niche activity even in the pre-digital era. Relatively few colour photographers ever printed their own negatives/chromes, whereas now with inkjet printing a colour film shooter can do the whole thing A to Z, which is nice.

The other nice thing about inkjet for B&W film shooters (in addition to digital shooters of course) is they can make enlarged inkjet negatives, which opens the world of alt processes up to people using smaller film formats than were ever practical for contact printing.

One of the reasons I’d like to start down the digital rabbit hole is the possibility of making inkjet masks for darkroom printing. So many possibilities.

Your comment about why we shoot analog and inject digital into the workflow is something of a lesson I've learned over the years. I purchased a big Hassy system with a 50mb back on it years ago when I decided that film was dead. I used it in lieu of 4x5 for about a year when there was a big change in available backs and other technology. I quickly found that seeing the pixels on the screen made me nuts especially when cropping. No, in most normal sized prints you could not see it but there was an odd lack of character, depth and edge effects in the prints. I ended up realizing that the analog medium of film would provide the highest quality starting point regardless of the next step. It is basically future proof. I got a very high end scanner and if something better comes along, I'll get that. I can archive, make copy negatives, masks and negatives now letting my process have greater variety. I have several really good images shot on the Hassy that I wish I had done with film. Lesson learned.

[jnantz]

You might want to perform a little experiment. Make the best print you can of a negative, then scan the negative and see if you can match the darkroom print with an inkjet one. Not as easy as you might think, but possible. An acquaintance did that exact test and it worked out well for him. It can depend on your style, preferences and the subject matter, too.

this is great advice ...

I need to go somewhere and look first hand at some high quality inkjet prints and see for myself.


rather than looking at random people's work as high quality ink jet prints, look at how your own work translates into that end product...

[Pieter]

I know it takes some of the fun out of it, but outsourcing to high-end suppliers can be the best solution, both for wet prints and inkjet. Since you state the end results are fine art prints (you don't say for sale and exhibition or just for your own pleasure) this might be the way to go. It can be expensive, but really not that much more when you compare it to the cost of equipment and supplies for either digital or analog. If you can find a printer (a person, that is) that you like and build a good relationship and communication about expectations, you can get results that might be beyond what you could do yourself.

[Califmike33]

Your comment about why we shoot analog and inject digital into the workflow is something of a lesson I've learned over the years. I purchased a big Hassy system with a 50MB back on it years ago when I decided that film was dead. I used it instead of 4x5 for about a year when there was a big change in available backs and other technology. I quickly found that seeing the pixels on the screen made me nuts especially when cropping. No, in most normal-sized prints you could not see it but there was an odd lack of character, depth, and edge effects in the prints. I ended up realizing that the analog medium of film would provide the highest quality starting point regardless of the next step. It is future-proof. I got a very high-end scanner and if something better comes along, I'll get that. I can archive, and make copy negatives, masks, and negatives now letting my process have a greater variety. I have several really good images shot on the Hassy that I wish I had done with film. Lesson learned.


I like your explanation sounds like you have learned a lot in the process. One advantage is you can print the same print every time very easily with Inkjet.

[jnantz]

I like your explanation sounds like you have learned a lot in the process. One advantage is you can print the same print every time very easily with Inkjet.

Be careful, manufacturers, workshop hosts, company reps and people eager to get you hooked will give you a taste.. and and you'll be hooked.. ;) that's why I'll have someone else print some things for me, I'll feed the monkey on their back I'm already addicted to go-juice... ... ;)

[PRJ]

I've been using inkjet since the late 90s. Used to consult and all that jazz. I still print black and white in the darkroom though. For me it comes down to the dark tones. i just think they look better in a silver print. If your work is higher key though there won't be much difference. You'll get more control over the final image with inkjet but it is a big hole to crawl down. Every small increase in quality will require a lot of learning and testing. For color I use an inkjet. Just makes sense. I'd prefer to print that in the darkroom too just to simplify things but I'm too lazy to process the prints in drums. Inkjet is just simpler, but then again I've been doing it for 25 years now. Everything gets simpler after that much time. Whatever you choose to do just have fun with it.

[Drew Wiley]

Part of the beauty of all-darkroom printing is that you CAN'T just crank out multiples like a xerox machine. At least a certain amount of loving hands-on is required for each print, and the fact that there can be slight differences one from another might very well make each special, yet in a slightly different way.

[Bernice Loui]

Based on making a pile-O-prints over a lotta years, each B&W wet silver gelatin print is different in it's own way. Not just variations in print material from nano to maxi, chemistry changes, futzing with the printing process varies as does a very long list of items along the print process list.. This can be valued and viewed as positive or negative depending on the image creator and audience..

Digital data based prints can have some variability, but the bent data image file often remains mostly constant leaving the digital file output device being the variable.


Bernice


Part of the beauty of all-darkroom printing is that you CAN'T just crank out multiples like a xerox machine. At least a certain amount of loving hands-on is required for each print, and the fact that there can be slight differences one from another might very well make each special, yet in a slightly different way.

[Pieter]

Part of the beauty of all-darkroom printing is that you CAN'T just crank out multiples like a xerox machine. At least a certain amount of loving hands-on is required for each print, and the fact that there can be slight differences one from another might very well make each special, yet in a slightly different way.

Yes!

[bmikiten]

I get this. Years ago and after collecting photographs for many years, I decided I wanted to purchase my favorite Ansel Adams print in a 16x20 size. I went to three galleries in California only to find that each available print was different. Not better. Different. Shadows were darker or lighter, highlights were more defined or separated. As a photographer and darkroom printer for 20+ years, I could see it, others could see it but most could not. The interesting thing here is that the prints were priced differently based on those specific attributes. More control would have made my choice much easier!

[Califmike33]

Yes!

Thats a great point you made, done with hands of love.

[Merg Ross]

In 1924 Stieglitz began printing with silver while stating:

"The quality of touch in its deepest living sense is inherent in my photographs. When that sense of touch is lost the heartbeat of the
photograph is extinct. In the reproduction it would become extinct --- dead. My interest is in the living."

[John Layton]

Merg that is perfect...thank you! (and a big "thank you" to Mr. Stieglitz!)

[Tin Can]

Perhaps we hobbyist get lucky

The 2 actual real Print exchanges I organized was excellent in the 'sameness' of all submitted prints

I was the only one with the 100's of prints, spread out on big folding tables

I know mine were very exact as I made 8X10 contact prints in a very stable Contact Printer with new lamps and a timer

So many LF experts wax ecstatic online, some never post any useful image

I write this in anger, as this group misleads far too often

There is a song The Mamas & The Papas - California Dreamin' (Official HD Video) (https://youtu.be/KOok1WzZbOY)

I love that song!

[jnantz]

Perhaps we hobbyist get lucky

The 2 actual real Print exchanges I organized was excellent in the 'sameness' of all submitted prints

I was the only one with the 100's of prints, spread out on big folding tables

I know mine were very exact as I made 8X10 contact prints in a very stable Contact Printer with new lamps and a timer

So many LF experts wax ecstatic online, some never post any useful image

I write this in anger, as this group misleads far too often

There is a song The Mamas & The Papas - California Dreamin' (Official HD Video) (https://youtu.be/KOok1WzZbOY)

I love that song!

Thanks TC, it's always the elephant in the room, and I couldn't agree with you more!

But unfortunately, this is the uncurated internet, we're supposed to believe everything we read, mediocre is TOPS! what's the fun in anything else?
I was once trash talked by someone who was a 4 month doing-it, self proclaimed expert. the ignore function works great!
John

[Michael R]

Everyone is different on the technical front. Some truly embrace the inherent slop in non-digital processes. Some pretend to. Some seek consistency, precision etc. The same applies to other artforms and their respective tools.

[Michael R]

You must be smarter than me is. Couldn’t follow except that all the leaves are brown, which makes sense. What experts?

Couldn’t make heads or tails of the Stieglitz bla bla either. Basically, it’s dead if he says so. Ok.


Thanks TC, it's always the elephant in the room, and I couldn't agree with you more!

But unfortunately, this is the uncurated internet, we're supposed to believe everything we read, mediocre is TOPS! what's the fun in anything else?
I was once trash talked by someone who was a 4 month doing-it, self proclaimed expert. the ignore function works great!
John

[jnantz]

You must be smarter than me is. Couldn’t follow except that all the leaves are brown, which makes sense. What experts?

Couldn’t make heads or tails of the Stieglitz bla bla either. Basically, it’s dead if he says so. Ok.

all I gotta say is yabba-dabba-do

[Alan Klein]

I get this. Years ago and after collecting photographs for many years, I decided I wanted to purchase my favorite Ansel Adams print in a 16x20 size. I went to three galleries in California only to find that each available print was different. Not better. Different. Shadows were darker or lighter, highlights were more defined or separated. As a photographer and darkroom printer for 20+ years, I could see it, others could see it but most could not. The interesting thing here is that the prints were priced differently based on those specific attributes. More control would have made my choice much easier!

Your experience raises an interesting point. You have to see the actual print you want to buy before buying it. If you order over the web, the version you get might not be to your liking.

[Merg Ross]

Merg that is perfect...thank you! (and a big "thank you" to Mr. Stieglitz!)

Most welcome John. Profound and simply stated by Stieglitz 100 years ago.

[bmikiten]

Funny side note - If I had just been shown one print, I would have purchased it. Having three available provided the opportunity to compare and contrast!

[Bernice Loui]

Goes back to many previous post regarding points and metrics of reference..

Unless the print maker and viewer/audience has or gains the awareness of what the definition of a "good (ala "fine)" print is, how it is created, what the image offers to their humanity and the human condition the "fine" print will be at it's very best of extremely limited value to those with limited to no appreciation or values to the "fine" print.

In today's world of digital data centric images, the majority of viewers and audiences are flooded by the sheer volume of these images. This often becomes the points of reference and metric applied to all images viewed by viewers and the broader audience..


Over the course of LFF, there have been countless exchanges of vigorous verbiage over projection and perception of these points of references and metrics..
Are there absolutes to these points of reference and metrics or are they completely subject to the emotional impulses (ego) of the image creator?


Bernice



I get this. Years ago and after collecting photographs for many years, I decided I wanted to purchase my favorite Ansel Adams print in a 16x20 size. I went to three galleries in California only to find that each available print was different. Not better. Different. Shadows were darker or lighter, highlights were more defined or separated. As a photographer and darkroom printer for 20+ years, I could see it, others could see it but most could not. The interesting thing here is that the prints were priced differently based on those specific attributes. More control would have made my choice much easier!

[SergeyT]

Part of the beauty of all-darkroom printing is that you CAN'T just crank out multiples like a xerox machine. At least a certain amount of loving hands-on is required for each print, and the fact that there can be slight differences one from another might very well make each special, yet in a slightly different way.

The favorite artist of yours just proven this as being not correct on more than one count. Thats an example: https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/103157

[SergeyT]

Funny side note - If I had just been shown one print, I would have purchased it. Having three available provided the opportunity to compare and contrast!
I have had the opportunity to see some of Ansel's prints up-close. While they were very beautiful from an artistic standpoint , to my eye, they were not quite "perfect" technically. It was obvious that even by applying all his famous craftsmanship there were compromises made. So what? There is much more to a great photograph than how it was made. And each photographer, viewer, owner, etc find their own reasons to like and appreciate or dislike certain photographs( or any other things in this world). There is nothing absolute or unconditional it seems...
At the end of the day it might not be as important how a print was made , as why.

[Tin Can]

Well, I did have my prints DONE last after all other were in

I spent months getting them just so

As usual I was prescient

with Art




sad

[Drew Wiley]

Stieglitz was obsessive about technique, and quite advanced for his era, even if just his personal little contact prints were involved. But he claimed there was only one "best print" of any of his images. I once attended an exhibition of that very set, his alleged best. And yes, there was something ever so unexplainably special about those.

[John Layton]

...Drew you do realize that is a slight to spiders - who truly rise above this fray

[Tin Can]

Agree, their webs are wonderful

[Drew Wiley]

I will admit my conservational ability with spiders is rather limited. I did want to acquire a new microscope at least, but my wife wasn't thrilled with the idea. The house cats sure like them, to catch and eat, that is. One of the most interesting webs isn't a web at all. Up in the Wind River Range there are spiders who will leap out into a gust of wind, and leave a single long line behind them, maybe 20 feet or more across. It almost like running into a length of fishing monofilament, it's so strong. For really beautiful webs, I have big yellow garden spiders in the back yard.

[Pieter]

233022

(A friend of mine is an entomologist)

[Lachlan 717]

I love 1950s/1960s sports/exotic cars. Ferrari 250s, D-types, Maseratis, Morgans et al. There is something that they have that modern exotics don’t. I suspect that it is their raw/imperfect build and relatively low level technology. You have to work with their limitations to get the best from them.

Move forward to today’s exotics. They wipe the floor with the old ones. They’re quicker, more comfortable, start each time, stop each time, get you to your destination each time. Even most of today’s semi-sports cars outperform yesteryear’s exotics.

Some would argue they’re impersonal… soulless. Some like their reliability.

Guess it’s what you’re after.

But for either camp to claim superiority is folly. They both have their pros and cons.

In a perfect world, you’d own and drive both and be happy.

It sure why traditional vs digital has to be so binary…

[jnantz]

Stieglitz was obsessive about technique, and quite advanced for his era, even if just his personal little contact prints were involved. But he claimed there was only one "best print" of any of his images. I once attended an exhibition of that very set, his alleged best. And yes, there was something ever so unexplainably special about those.

But why drag vulgar Warhol into this conversation?; he's the antithesis of that whole distinction - made for the masses. Now the standard of is even worse, and is the lowest common denominator of web imagery. Might as well be a cobweb imagery.

LOL no one brought Warhol or "website" images into this conversation but you and the axe you love to grind, if you don't like these things, maybe you shouldn't bring them up?
but now that you did mention them ...
Nothing wrong with Warhol and what he did, he brought what people took for granted and turned it into something special. People with cameras do that all the time, it's called "photography" and since the "brownie" was sold to regular people that's what photography IS, and web-imagery... not every library or every bookstore has everything worth looking at, and some images on the internet by not so well known somebodies are very wonderful. who cares about the not so good ones, it's nice to be able to appreciate and be inspired by things without any say of the "gate keepers".... and if that means sifting through the sand to find the gold, I really don't mind. I mean I'm guessing everyone has sat through "slide shows" projected by friends and family that weren't edited to one's liking ... even Charles Emerson Winchester III was happy when he received his toboggan cap, and that mean spirited food critic, in the motion picture "ratatouille" (Mr. Anton Ego) liked. ... ratatouille, and after he got off his high horse, he actually smiled
... I hate to say it but what people consider to be "high art" can be kind of ... "meh"

[jnantz]

If Warhol was really so great and successful, and had any taste, why did he need to buy his wigs at the same scarecrow shop as an unpopular Brit Prime Minister?

What a terrible thing to say.
Having a medical condition has nothing to do with creativity, artfulness, skill, business acumen &c.

[jnantz]

Sacred cows, sacred cows .... But I expect the Mod's axe to fall any second now. Nobody needs a wig after the guillotine.

Are you really that kind a person you will make fun of people, anyone .. because they have had an illness that has deformed them so they have to wear a wig?
I hope you remain in good health and never have to go through chemo, or radiation or get any sort of illness that causes you to become a deformed person.
really sad to read such hate.

[jnantz]

Somebody gets famous and rich exploiting the rich and famous, becomes an art institution by poking fun at art as an institution, and then is off limits themselves? I don't think so. All kinds of people have baldness issues, but not all go around with a scarecrow wig, and do that deliberately as a conversation piece, part of their "gig". An exploiter of celebrity seeking celebrity, and successfully. Avedon was worse. There, two sacred cows at once, from the same era. I'm sick of seeing the work of either of them. Xerox machines on steroids. Nuf' said. I'm chiming out.

Wow. you really wrote that?
Really sad.

[djdister]

Wow, this one has gone astray. But to get back to the original issue, I have shot the same scene on digital and film, scanned the film and then made inkjet prints from both at the same enlargement and there is a certain quality to the film-scan-inkjet print versus the digital-inkjet print that is often but not always more pleasing. So although I am stuck doing inkjet prints for now, if I can shoot film instead of digital, I do, because the final inkjet print from a scanned negative carries with it certain film qualities that I like to see in the print. So, not scientific by any means, but that's my observation and I'm sticking with it.

[SergeyT]

...wondering where conversations like this would be heading if digital sensors were invented before photographic film...
There is nothing wrong with any given method of producing prints. Just choose what is available, acceptable, affordable, suits your needs and then perfect your skills at it.
There is no unconditionally best method
There is no "one suits all" method
Browse through the "post alternative techniques" thread on this site for examples
Darkroom printing is a no guarantee for superior results
The "digital" technology is reality, it is not going away and it is not the one to blame for mediocre results. Film and paper are highly technological products that are produced on a high-precision digitally-driven equipment. Many photographers are using digital light meters, timers, processors and all other "digital" goodies in the process of producing "analog" photographic prints
Speaking of "uniqueness" of each darkroom print that's a false valuation as nothing prevents a "digital" photographer from deleting all the traces of a digital file after a single print is made from it. On the other hand, one can keep endlessly "perfecting" their "digital" image and making only one print from each iteration of same digital file

[Alan Klein]

It's not like printing chemically is the only sacred film cow. There's a whole other aspect of film called slides and projection that was extremely popular before. I shot about half my pictures and projected them only. If I wanted a photo album then I shoot negative film. The end results are quite different.

[wclark5179]

Just wondering, which will last longer, an ink jet print or a ag gel darkroom made print? With the Same conditions of showing. At my age maybe I shouldn’t care!

I find, that with digital, I look on my iMac, then that’s it.

I also have rolls of film to develop. Maybe make a few prints. Don’t use large format any more.

Interesting discussion.

Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

Long-term archival implications are a complex topic. Aardenburg had studied that relative to these newer media like inkjet. But let me just imply how real results take the actual test of time under a variety of display and storage conditions to soberly evaluate; and so much of this is still adolescent. Anytime someone goes around claiming this or that new technology will produce a prints lasting hundreds of years, well, let them wait a few hundred years and then give an evaluation. Accelerated aging tests are better than nothing, but can't begin to take into account all the potential variables. By contrast, things like silver gelatin prints, PT/Pd prints, carbon prints, and quite a number of other kinds we could mention have been around for well over a hundred years, and some, nearly double that.

That ongoing debate is more in the realm of color photographic printing rather than black and white. I just do the best I can with what I can. I have reason to believe most of my Cibachromes in storage at least will still look good long after I'm thrown under some lawn. The newer RA4 media, perhaps too, but I certainly won't be the one to say, But older RA4 chromogenic papers, are already showing signs of fading and yellowing.

[Michael R]

Who cares. Photographers worry way too much about it.

"Beauty is transitory"


Long-term archival implications are a complex topic. Aardenburg had studied that relative to these newer media like inkjet. But let me just imply how real results take the actual test of time under a variety of display and storage conditions to soberly evaluate; and so much of this is still adolescent. Anytime someone goes around claiming this or that new technology will produce a prints lasting hundreds of years, well, let them wait a few hundred years and then give an evaluation. Accelerated aging tests are better than nothing, but can't begin to take into account all the potential variables. By contrast, things like silver gelatin prints, PT/Pd prints, carbon prints, and quite a number of other kinds we could mention have been around for well over a hundred years, and some, nearly double that, and conservators understand some of the basics of preservation.

[Drew Wiley]

Are you looking in a mirror when stating that, Michael? Alas, none of us came with a warranty against fading.

[Sal Santamaura]

...things like silver gelatin prints...have been around for well over a hundred years, and some, nearly double that...

Not the silver gelatin prints being made today. Things like paper base, optical brightening agents and coatings in current commercial products weren't used until recent decades. For those who do care about print life expectancy, the data about contemporary silver gelatin prints aren't any more solid than those about inkjet prints.

[Michael R]

It's just something Spock once said. It's universal, so in the end who cares. A well made inkjet print is "archival" enough if it is taken care of, just like any other ink work on paper. With time, eventually everything falls apart, as you know. Also, "archival" is a word photographers like to use, but most workers are generally sloppy. People spend a hell of a lot more money on paintings than photo prints, and are they archival? People bought Mondrian's work even though he prepared his oils in such a way they were doomed to crack and fall apart relatively quickly. Etc.


Are you looking in a mirror when stating that, Michael? Alas, none of us came with a warranty against fading.

[jnantz]

Who cares. Photographers worry way too much about it.

"Beauty is transitory"

I couldn't agree with you more.

[wclark5179]

I’ve got prints I made over 50 years ago and they still look fine. Some I made when I was in the military, I believe it was 1971 as one of the schools I attended (San Diego) had a darkroom on base free to use. I only made black and white prints. After that it was Vietnam. Made photos, mostly color slides. I need to scan a few of them. Haven’t showed them to anyone, even my wife.

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on the painter. If you were Michelangelo instead of Michael, your patron would be Leo X, looting most of Germany and deeply in debt himself - a second mortgage on the Vatican, so to speak - but that's how those remarkable pigments can be afforded. Just find yourself another notable art patron who also happens to be the Pope. Easy enough if you're patient. But folks like Rothko, even the cardboard collages of Matisse and Picasso - it often takes highly-equipped experts to figure out what exact colors were originally involved; and that's all 20th C stuff!

There was a local PBS segment on TV recently based on an archaeological dig of an Indian encampment at the southern end of the Bay, and flutes made of hollow bones were turning up decorated with a deep rich red quite distinct from ordinary red oxide. And the logical guess was cinnabar; and in fact, the cinnabar mine for the "quicksilver"mercury used by the gold miners of the famous 1849 Calif Gold Rush was just 15 miles away from the Indian village site itself. A mass spectrophotometer confirmed it. But that means mercury in the mouth of the flute player. Not such a good idea after all. Nor was that healthy to Michelangelo's assistants grinding the same kind of powder, along with toxic mineral blues and greens. And so it seems, the more permanent you want your paintings to be, the less permanent you'll be yourself !

[Pieter]

Depends on the painter. If you were Michelangelo instead of Michael, your patron would be Leo X, looting most of Germany and deeply in debt himself - a second mortgage on the Vatican, so to speak - but that's how those remarkable pigments can be afforded. Just find yourself another notable art patron who also happens to be the Pope. Easy enough if you're patient. But folks like Rothko, even the cardboard collages of Matisse and Picasso - it often takes highly-equipped experts to figure out what exact colors were originally involved; and that's all 20th C stuff!

There was a local PBS segment on TV recently based on an archaeological dig of an Indian encampment at the southern end of the Bay, and flutes made of hollow bones were turning up decorated with a deep rich red quite distinct from ordinary red oxide. And the logical guess was cinnabar; and in fact, the cinnabar mine for the "quicksilver"mercury used by the gold miners of the famous 1849 Calif Gold Rush was just 15 miles away from the Indian village site itself. A mass spectrophotometer confirmed it. But that means mercury in the mouth of the flute player. Not such a good idea after all. Nor was that healthy to Michelangelo's assistants grinding the same kind of powder, along with toxic mineral blues and greens. And so it seems, the more permanent you want your paintings to be, the less permanent you'll be yourself !

Now that we're sifficiently away from the original topic, most of the varnishes usedby the Old Masters have yellowed greatly, totally altering the paintings appearance. They can be cleaned and restored, a painstakingly tedious process. Especially since there is no certainty of what the original really looked like. And if further restoration is needed, water-based gouache paints are used so the work can be reversable if neded.

[Larry Gebhardt]

For me a lot of it comes down to the paper. For color I’ll take an inkjet print over any of the current RA4 papers. That’s due to a plastic surface and too much contrast in RA4. For black and white I do both. There are some nice inkjet papers that have a lot of what I like about air dried glossy fiber. Even if I make a darkroom print I will probably scan the negative and work on it digitally first. That lets me experiment without going through a lot of paper. I make more black and white inkjet prints these days. I think I can get equally good results in either medium from good negatives, but for anything tricky the scan and print process is easier. If I could only pick one I’d go scan and inkjet print.

[Drew Wiley]

Too much contrast in RA4 ??????? Heck, I often apply contrast increase masks to it, even with the most contrasty of all their papers - Fujiflex. But you are Larry, and I have heard this kind of thing from you before. Don't worry - I have all kinds of very delicately nuance high-key color prints myself, even in Ciba medium. But you've probably already reported me to the Anti-plastic Inquisition for just mentioning both Fujiflex and Ciba on the same post. That's just part of my inventory, however. Plenty of the kind you probably would gravitate toward as well. There's just that opacity thing about inks, stuck on the paper surface - not the transparent depth of actual dyes. I'll probably still be sayin' that till I dye.

[Alan Klein]

For me a lot of it comes down to the paper. For color I’ll take an inkjet print over any of the current RA4 papers. That’s due to a plastic surface and too much contrast in RA4. For black and white I do both. There are some nice inkjet papers that have a lot of what I like about air dried glossy fiber. Even if I make a darkroom print I will probably scan the negative and work on it digitally first. That lets me experiment without going through a lot of paper. I make more black and white inkjet prints these days. I think I can get equally good results in either medium from good negatives, but for anything tricky the scan and print process is easier. If I could only pick one I’d go scan and inkjet print.

What printer and paper?

[Sal Santamaura]

...the transparent depth of actual dyes...

Yeah, that's why my favorite contemporary printing method is non-pigmented dye ink (Canon PRO-100 or PRO-200) on Hahnemuhle FineArt Baryta Satin. :)

[Larry Gebhardt]

Drew, you do you. If you love a paper or look I have no reason to tell you that you're wrong. I even like some plastic papers like Ciba and Fujiflex for some images. RC papers don't excite me, but behind glass they look ok. My contrast issue is the lack of different grades, and usually I feel the pain when I'm trying to decrease contrast. Maybe that's a skill deficiency as well. All that combines to make me not like printing color in the darkroom.

Alan, I have a few Epson printers, a 3880 with Cone piezography inks, and a 7880 and P800 with Epson inks. My papers of choice are what seem to marketed as baryta. I've had good luck with a few like Epson and Red River over the years and I suspect they probably come from the same mill. For a while Ilford offered a warm tone base baryta which is my all time favorite inkjet paper for black and white.

[jtomasella]

I suppose if I shot color I would do the hybrid method, Ben Horne comes to mind. Since most of my photography is black and white and my scanner really doesn't scan 4x5, I like the darkroom. There's something special about watching the print come to life in the tray.

[Bill Poole]

Yikes! I take 10 days away from this very valuable online community and the longest thread on my return is about . . . digital v. analog. It's like I left in 2022 and returned on 2010. I suppose all image makers are preoccupied with technique and process, but photographers may lead that parade. Last week I found in my own collection a print I made as a newby in 1971 from a 6x7 negative printed with a Graphlarger back and processed (probably inferiorly) on Agfa Brovira photo paper in a tiny, blacked-out kitchen. And yes, the print did have a glow that I do not usually get in my digitally printed images--so much so that I immediately decided to cut off the paper's yellowing edges and stick the print in a matte. I am still without a real darkroom, but have recently been working in my blacked-out bathroom to contact print 4x5 and 5x7 negatives, the pull of analog being strong. That said, I can regularly turn out on my inkjet printer images that satisfy me greatly, using software from the printer's manufacturer. I get immense pleasure out of gifting these or pasting them only thank-you or greeting cards. It's all good. We should be thankful we have so many wonderful choices.

[Califmike33]

Yeah I'm guessing from reading this and following my thread it just basically comes down to what satisfies you one particularly isn't better than the other whatever is good to your I and if you can get acceptable prints out of an inkjet more power to you if you like the dark room process more power to you.

Been doing some more reading outside of this thread and there are definitely some damn good inkjet papers on the market Red River Epson ilford all make really good inkjet papers. I think after following this and reading most of the pages it seems like a coin flip one doesn't seem to be too preferred over the other. I've just been out of film photography too long and need to do my side by side comparison which I can't wait to do that between the inkjet print and a good dark room print.

[Pieter]

Yeah I'm guessing from reading this and following my thread it just basically comes down to what satisfies you one particularly isn't better than the other whatever is good to your I and if you can get acceptable prints out of an inkjet more power to you if you like the dark room process more power to you.

Been doing some more reading outside of this thread and there are definitely some damn good inkjet papers on the market Red River Epson ilford all make really good inkjet papers. I think after following this and reading most of the pages it seems like a coin flip one doesn't seem to be too preferred over the other. I've just been out of film photography too long and need to do my side by side comparison which I can't wait to do that between the inkjet print and a good dark room print.
Don't forget Canson and Hahnemuhle. Most papers can be purchased in small quantities and even sampler packs, so give them all a try with your preferred image. Remember, though that each manufacturer will have a specific printer profile that should be used to get the best print.

[jnantz]

Don't forget Canson and Hahnemuhle. Most papers can be purchased in small quantities and even sampler packs, so give them all a try with your preferred image. Remember, though that each manufacturer will have a specific printer profile that should be used to get the best print.

Hahnemule makes some absolutely beautiful ink jet papers. I was gifted some from a professor a few years ago and it was as beautiful as the papers they sell for alt process printing.

[Jim Noel]

Everything is done in the darkroom. The good ones all end up as real platinum/palladium prints.

[Califmike33]

I have to say i got a changing bag i have no darkroom. I can't stand working inside of a changing bag, loading film holders sucked, the top of the bag kept coming down and there is no room vertically in those bags. Changing bag at home is not going to work for me, i could get a changing tent, but for that price i could black out my windows in my bedroom and have a place to load and develop film. What do you guys do with no dark room ?

[Tin Can]

Real freaks like me

Cover all windows permanently

First blackout white so the neighbors don't notice, then tinfoil, then blackout black plastic

Then plywood or strips of wood

This was the second to last, that wall was all windows, no other windows

double steel door with black out seals

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52431775105_e5cfd266a7_c.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/ye7q8v346P)Darkroom 3 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/ye7q8v346P) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Bill Poole]

I have to say i got a changing bag i have no darkroom. I can't stand working inside of a changing bag, loading film holders sucked, the top of the bag kept coming down and there is no room vertically in those bags. Changing bag at home is not going to work for me, i could get a changing tent, but for that price i could black out my windows in my bedroom and have a place to load and develop film. What do you guys do with no dark room ?

I have blacked out the windows of our small bathroom (thank-you, patient wife) for loading holders and tanks and making small contact prints. I process tanks in daylight in my larger kitchen.

[Califmike33]

Thanks guys im going to do the bathroom and its got one window should be easy.

[jnantz]

be advised darkroom chemistry sometimes stains porcelain sinks, bathtubs &c, and in some places it is illegal to dump it down the drain.

[Alan Klein]

I have to say i got a changing bag i have no darkroom. I can't stand working inside of a changing bag, loading film holders sucked, the top of the bag kept coming down and there is no room vertically in those bags. Changing bag at home is not going to work for me, i could get a changing tent, but for that price i could black out my windows in my bedroom and have a place to load and develop film. What do you guys do with no dark room ?

I use a changing tent for my 4x5 film holders which is convenient as well if you travel. (Harrison Original Film Changing Tent - Standard 35mm (36" x 27" x 14"). It's pricey but works well and you can fold and store it in a box of about a foot square. Or lay it out flatter in your luggage.

[ic-racer]

Hey guys just getting back into 4X5 Shooting. What is your workflow ? do you scan and print inkjet ? or do you print in a darkroom ?.

Scanning make no sense now that you can get a digital camera which does not require film and go straight from camera to computer with a cable or blue tooth.

In that case, the negatives are made for printing with a makeshift film scanner attached to the computer.

Thought, I usually shoot film from the start and avoid anything to do with a computer.

[Califmike33]

Scanning make no sense now that you can get a digital camera which does not require film and go straight from camera to computer with a cable or blue tooth.

In that case, the negatives are made for printing with a makeshift film scanner attached to the computer.

Thought, I usually shoot film from the start and avoid anything to do with a computer.
I completely understand your point of view that's what I thought in the beginning if you shoot film why scan it. But if you read through this thread some people swear by it because it retains the film look everybody's different that's what I've gathered from reading all this everybody's got their own way no way is right or wrong.

[jnantz]

I like the tangibility and objects

[Califmike33]

There is something to be said about working in the darkroom with the safelight and chemicals and seeing that print emerge.

[Pieter]

Making a darkroom print just feels more personal to me, my hands are involved in the process from cleaning the negative through dodging and burning and processing the print. Even if I don't know the exact chemical reactions entailed, I have a rough understanding. There is just a distance inserted when you use a digital process, using software algorithms that someone has determined for the process. I just don't know enough about computer programming to really understand what the program is doing to get the effect, kind of making Adobe a silent partner in my image. Plus, when something unexpected happens in an inkjet printer, it can be quite frustrating to troubleshoot.

[Alan Klein]

Making a darkroom print just feels more personal to me, my hands are involved in the process from cleaning the negative through dodging and burning and processing the print. Even if I don't know the exact chemical reactions entailed, I have a rough understanding. There is just a distance inserted when you use a digital process, using software algorithms that someone has determined for the process. I just don't know enough about computer programming to really understand what the program is doing to get the effect, kind of making Adobe a silent partner in my image. Plus, when something unexpected happens in an inkjet printer, it can be quite frustrating to troubleshoot.

I enjoy film photography. But I used to have a digital photo printer as well. I have to report that I was amazed when the first print came out in seconds showing a beautiful photo I had taken. It seemed like magic just as a chemical print seems like that as well.

As far as program editing, the program just allows you to apply different changes to it such as increasing or decreasing exposure, lightening and darkening certain areas (like dodging and burning), vignetting, making color chnages like changing emulsion types of film, etc. Not much different than the tools provided with film photography.

[Pieter]

I enjoy film photography. But I used to have a digital photo printer as well. I have to report that I was amazed when the first print came out in seconds showing a beautiful photo I had taken. It seemed like magic just as a chemical print seems like that as well.

As far as program editing, the program just allows you to apply different changes to it such as increasing or decreasing exposure, lightening and darkening certain areas (like dodging and burning), vignetting, making color chnages like changing emulsion types of film, etc. Not much different than the tools provided with film photography.
But there is so much more available to toy around with, and people do and there's nothing wrong with it. Like removing sensor dust spots, annoying wires, replacing the only face in the group shot with eyes closed or a bad expression. And then the filters like Silver EFX Pro where you can convert to black and white, try out different color filters and strength, simulate a long-gone film's response curve, add grain, etc. Way beyond anything you could do in the darkroom without tremendous skill and talent. All of which I gladly give up for tactile approach of the black and white darkroom.

[ASA1000]

Two different animals. Pixels are square grain is round. It's Digital IMAGERY vs PHOTOGRAPHY. If anything, photography has moved to now actually be ART (done by artists) where (to me) Digital Imagery is FOLK ART (done by 'folks') ;-)

[ASA1000]

In photography you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlites. In Digital you expose for the highlites and then open up the shadows. It's much easier, for sure, but it's a different animal. It's like 'stock' vs 'modified' in car racing! different class all together.

[Pieter]

In photography you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlites. In Digital you expose for the highlites and then open up the shadows. It's much easier, for sure, but it's a different animal. It's like 'stock' vs 'modified' in car racing! different class all together.

When shooting reversal film, you need to expose for the highlights. Unlike digital it isn’t very forgiving.

[Drew Wiley]

There are different strategies for chromes. But with any color film, you've got to keep in mind how specific hues are going to saturate chroma-wise along that scale, and which ones take priority if something has to be sacrificed due to the scene range being too long for the film to handle, which is often the case. You aren't dealing with an abstract gray scale like with b& w film. Mainly, I simply got accustomed to seeking out scenes with a contrast range ideal for the film itself. But in a studio, the contrast range can be artificially controlled.

[jnantz]

Two different animals. Pixels are square grain is round. It's Digital IMAGERY vs PHOTOGRAPHY. If anything, photography has moved to now actually be ART (done by artists) where (to me) Digital Imagery is FOLK ART (done by 'folks') ;-)

tabular grain is not round, I don't think ...
photography is "art"? I don't think so, I think photography is just photography
is using a pencil or pen to write a grocery list art instead of phone notes or word processing ?

[otto.f]

Two different animals. Pixels are square grain is round. It's Digital IMAGERY vs PHOTOGRAPHY. If anything, photography has moved to now actually be ART (done by artists) where (to me) Digital Imagery is FOLK ART (done by 'folks') ;-)

Nooo, photography has always been a folk art and analogue photography is becoming one again. The demand for film and film camera’s has exploded the last months. That their are artists that use and practice film and digital photography doesn’t bother that. Whether something is art depends upon the work, not on the medium used.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Whether something is art depends upon the work, not on the medium used.

Nooo, whether something is "art" depends upon the viewer, since "art" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, and is therefore a meaningless word. When human waste and its associated appliances are called "art" by some


https://news.artnet.com/art-world/human-waste-art-duchamp-cattelan-484562

anything can be "art." Time for aspiring photographic "artists" to stop hiding behind their BS and admit that, like everyone else making photographs with a camera (film or digital), they're actually "photographers." :)

[Alan Klein]

Nooo, whether something is "art" depends upon the viewer, since "art" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, and is therefore a meaningless word. When human waste and its associated appliances are called "art" by some


https://news.artnet.com/art-world/human-waste-art-duchamp-cattelan-484562

anything can be "art." Time for aspiring photographic "artists" to stop hiding behind their BS and admit that, like everyone else making photographs with a camera (film or digital), they're actually "photographers." :)

Artographer?

[jnantz]

Nooo, whether something is "art" depends upon the viewer, since "art" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, and is therefore a meaningless word. When human waste and its associated appliances are called "art" by some


https://news.artnet.com/art-world/human-waste-art-duchamp-cattelan-484562

anything can be "art." Time for aspiring photographic "artists" to stop hiding behind their BS and admit that, like everyone else making photographs with a camera (film or digital), they're actually "photographers." :)

the article didn't show the elephant dung that was on the wall of Le Centre Pompidou ...
not sure if it is BS. but it got people to look at dung a different way.

[Bernice Loui]

Film grains are not round, they are random. This is only one of the many differences between a solid state image sensor -vs- film..
http://www2.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/jidong/

https://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf

Solid state image sensors with essentially uniform pixels have a different set of problems like Aliasing and Moiré Patterns and more..


Bernice



Two different animals. Pixels are square grain is round. It's Digital IMAGERY vs PHOTOGRAPHY. If anything, photography has moved to now actually be ART (done by artists) where (to me) Digital Imagery is FOLK ART (done by 'folks') ;-)

[Pieter]

Nooo, photography has always been a folk art and analogue photography is becoming one again. The demand for film and film camera’s has exploded the last months. That their are artists that use and practice film and digital photography doesn’t bother that. Whether something is art depends upon the work, not on the medium used.

Sorry, but you're going to have to define why you see all photography as folk art. It does not conform to the dictionary definition of art as "the traditional decorative or utilitarian art of the people that is often an expression of community life and is distinguished from academic or self-conscious or cosmopolitan expression." A lot of photography goes beyond that.

[Sal Santamaura]

Nooo, whether something is "art" depends upon the viewer, since "art" can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, and is therefore a meaningless word. When human waste and its associated appliances are called "art" by some


https://news.artnet.com/art-world/human-waste-art-duchamp-cattelan-484562

anything can be "art." Time for aspiring photographic "artists" to stop hiding behind their BS and admit that, like everyone else making photographs with a camera (film or digital), they're actually "photographers." :)


Artographer?

No, just plain photographer. Exactly the same as just plain painter. Or just plain violinist.

"Art" is a meaningless BS word used by those who seek to elevate themselves. It works, because humans embrace BS, but the word still doesn't have real meaning.

[jnantz]

the word is not empty, except for people that want it to be, it has nothing to do with elevation or ego but making things that have no use other than existing ...
the emperor isn't wearing no clothes it just ended up being Rrose Sélavy wearing a hat, and people are still upset about that. L.H.O.O.Q. and all that. this isn't 1700 when there
were no museums and no such thing as art ( which is a new concept / reality born out of the "Age of Enlightenment" ). but" fine art photographer" that might be something different, im
still not sure what that even means. I was hoping to take a workshop or "you tube master class" for a few thousand dollars from one and have him explain to me what the name meant,
but I haven't found one whose artistic vision and world view I agree with yet ... it might all have to do with jerry, bob1, bob2 and mark and that there is a truth about de-evolution.

[Tin Can]

Art is Art

Not Stanley

Why the Hell do you all think I used NOT ART for so long

I used that handel for at least 27 years now

before my Internet awakening

art is for snobs only

best art is invisible and namelass

[jnantz]

Art is Art

Not Stanley

Why the Hell do you all think I used NOT ART for so long

I used that handel for at least 27 years now

before my Internet awakening

art is for snobs only

best art is invisible and namelass

it that snob will pay me for an NFT of it, im all over it like stink on a monkey !
the trick is to convert the crypto to gold, and there's an app for that.
I'm cashing out for a grill soon.

art is not a dirty word.

[Sal Santamaura]

..." fine art photographer" that might be something different, im still not sure what that even means....

The same thing "art" means, i.e. anything anyone wants it to mean, i.e. nothing. :)


...Why the Hell do you all think I used NOT ART for so long...

Because you're Randy, not Art, of course. :)


it that snob will pay me for an NFT of it, im all over it like stink on a monkey...

No different than all "art." Find someone who'll buy into the BS and take their money. :D

[jnantz]

The same thing "art" means, i.e. anything anyone wants it to mean, i.e. nothing. :)

No different than all "art." Find someone who'll buy into the BS and take their money. :D

maybe? not sure if it means nothing, it means something otherwise photographers who populate websites/ forums wouldn't be arguing for years
whether something is or isn't art, whether art can be made with a digital camera, whether editions are a sham, whether they make art or fine art.
the problem with photography is things can be made indefinitely, people should sell the negatives, not the prints.
maybe the art is selling the stuff, not the stuff?

[Michael R]

“Fine” art is basically the dead giveaway the guy sucks.


maybe? not sure if it means nothing, it means something otherwise photographers who populate websites/ forums wouldn't be arguing for years
whether something is or isn't art, whether art can be made with a digital camera, whether editions are a sham, whether they make art or fine art.
the problem with photography is things can be made indefinitely, people should sell the negatives, not the prints.
maybe the art is selling the stuff, not the stuff?

[otto.f]

No, just plain photographer. Exactly the same as just plain painter. Or just plain violinist.

"Art" is a meaningless BS word used by those who seek to elevate themselves. It works, because humans embrace BS, but the word still doesn't have real meaning.

Yes, these are endless discussions running around in circles indeed. Has been done on all the photography forums, always with an open end. Everyone has a point and there are no conclusions

[jnantz]

“Fine” art is basically the dead giveaway the guy sucks.

sometimes ... I guess for some folks it's talking the talk not walking the walk . ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ..
keeps them from running amok, so fine by me .. the more art ( or whatever it is ) the better.

[ASA1000]

tabular grain is not round, I don't think ...
photography is "art"? I don't think so, I think photography is just photography
is using a pencil or pen to write a grocery list art instead of phone notes or word processing ?

Picky, picky, picky....Maybe I should have said 'irregular' or 'rounded' ... either way you get the idea. ;-)

[ASA1000]

Depends on the meaning of 'it' ..... oh wait, Bill Clinton said that already

[jnantz]

Picky, picky, picky....Maybe I should have said 'irregular' or 'rounded' ... either way you get the idea. ;-)

not really picky, but IDK if one makes an argument that digital is one specific type of shaped "grain" and all film is another different, better type, I'd hope the descriptors would be right :)
none of this stuff really matter to me, large or small format, doesn't matter to me, digital or film or glass negative, D76 or "urinol" developer, doesn't matter to me either, im more interested in other things
... unfortunately a lot of people who use chemical based photography for whatever reasons put all sorts of barriers up for themselves to "other" everyone else, instead of just realizing
it's just photography and it really doesn't matter what shaped grain it is, or if a computer helped develop the image.

That's just me, I'd rather just make things.

you got the quote wrong, asa1000, "it depends on what the meaning of IS is". not it :). LOL. ;)

[Bill Poole]

"Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words" - Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady.

But then again: "Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." - What Google says

It is not at all clear to me why that definition should not apply to the photographers and photographs I most admire.

[Pieter]

Just because the term and definition of art comes up so much on forums, here’s some fodder:

“ Leo Tolstoy’s What is Art? (1896) is a treatise concerning the nature and purpose of art, describing how art can express moral values. Tolstoy does not define art in terms of its ability to express form and beauty, but instead defines art in terms of its ability to communicate concepts of morality. For Tolstoy, aesthetic values are defined by moral values.

According to Tolstoy, art cannot be defined as an activity which produces beauty. Beauty cannot be defined objectively, and therefore cannot be used as a criterion to define what is, or is not, art. The aim of art is not merely to produce beauty, or to provide pleasure, enjoyment, or entertainment. Art is a means of communication, and is an important means of expression of any experience, or of any aspect of the human condition.

Tolstoy defines art as an expression of a feeling or experience in such a way that the audience to whom the art is directed can share that feeling or experience. Art does not belong to any particular class of society. To limit the subject matter of art to the experiences of a particular class of society is to deny that art can be important for all of society. Tolstoy criticizes the belief that art is only relevant to a particular class of society, saying that this is a misconception which can lead to obscurity and decadence in art.”

[Tin Can]

Really like Tolstoy

[jnantz]

"Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words" - Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady.


to quote tina and her sisters

<...>
Words of wisdom, words of strife
Words that write the book I like
Words won't find no right solution
To the planet earth's pollution
Say the right word, make a million
Words are like a certain person
Who can't say what they mean
Don't mean what they say
<...>

art's just art, it's nebulous.

[Califmike33]

My reply to all this ART talk is , ART is beautiful, life is boring without ART..

[Bernice Loui]

"The arts are not simply skills: their concern is the intellectual, ethical, and spiritual maturity of human life. And in a time when religious and political institutions are so busy engraving images of marketable gods and candidates that they lose their vision of human dignity, the arts have become the custodians of those values which most worthily define humanity, which most sensitively define Divinity."

“In these days of political, personal and economic disintegration, music is not a luxury, it's a necessity; not simply because it is therapeutic, nor because it is the universal language, but because it is the persistent focus of our intelligence, aspiration and goodwill.”


~Robert Shaw



My reply to all this ART talk is , ART is beautiful, life is boring without ART..

[ASA1000]

not really picky, but IDK if one makes an argument that digital is one specific type of shaped "grain" and all film is another different, better type, I'd hope the descriptors would be right :)
none of this stuff really matter to me, large or small format, doesn't matter to me, digital or film or glass negative, D76 or "urinol" developer, doesn't matter to me either, im more interested in other things
... unfortunately a lot of people who use chemical based photography for whatever reasons put all sorts of barriers up for themselves to "other" everyone else, instead of just realizing
it's just photography and it really doesn't matter what shaped grain it is, or if a computer helped develop the image.

That's just me, I'd rather just make things.

you got the quote wrong, asa1000, "it depends on what the meaning of IS is". not it :). LOL. ;)


LOL! thanks for the clarification! ... and your 'barriers' comment was right on.
This thread itself is 'art'... just look at all the critics!!

[jnantz]

LOL! thanks for the clarification! ... and your 'barriers' comment was right on.
This thread itself is 'art'... just look at all the critics!!


LOL exactly, definitely art :)

[ASA1000]

"The arts are not simply skills: their concern is the intellectual, ethical, and spiritual maturity of human life. And in a time when religious and political institutions are so busy engraving images of marketable gods and candidates that they lose their vision of human dignity, the arts have become the custodians of those values which most worthily define humanity, which most sensitively define Divinity."

“In these days of political, personal and economic disintegration, music is not a luxury, it's a necessity; not simply because it is therapeutic, nor because it is the universal language, but because it is the persistent focus of our intelligence, aspiration and goodwill.”


~Robert Shaw

"Truth is What Gets the Most Applauds"

Buffalo Bill Cody

[Califmike33]

Here you go all you hardcore darkroom guys, this i found very inspiring.

https://youtu.be/eovDkph3w7U

[Tin Can]

I have learned to dislike all DIGI printers

Peace, quiet in MY Darkroom was all I wanted since 1958

I wasted nearly 2 decades with DIGI

I use DIGI everyday, but never for printing

[Pieter]

Here you go all you hardcore darkroom guys, this i found very inspiring.

https://youtu.be/eovDkph3w7U

Notice it is produced and sponsored by Epson and never makes any comparison between darkroom prints and digital prints. Just makes the point that you should print your work—assuming it is digital and for most people just stays on a computer hard drive.

[Drew Wiley]

People promote what they're paid to promote. That's called a contract, or at least an inside track when it comes to free publicity and free toys. I could mention several well-known photographers who now go around preaching inkjet, but who actually did better work back in their own darkroom days. One was a major Epson consultant and advocate in his own season, back when I was receiving all kinds of fancy free toys in my own category of expertise due to tooting the horn for certain manufacturers.

I really don't care either way. Whatever works, works. I just personally prefer the tactility and hands-on nuance control of real darkroom workflow, and am accordingly well-equipped. No sense changing now. But I won't hesitate to poke fun at all the "gotta have the latest and greatest" mentality. I'll stick with a definition of "digital" which refers to my own ten fingers.

[Califmike33]

Yes promoted by Epson, but John never said a word about digital or inkjets, he talked about images, printing his passion but never said digital, and he is all about darkroom printing, interesting video.

[Pieter]

Yes promoted by Epson, but John never said a word about digital or inkjets, he talked about images, printing his passion but never said digital, and he is all about darkroom printing, interesting video.
I agree, the video stresses printing, never has a preference. But since it is sponsored by Epson, I understand that he is somehow using their products. Otherwise, why would they sponsor him and why would he accept the sponsorship? If you look at his workshop brochure (from 2011), he lists a slew of sponsors and states that he uses their products and services.

[Califmike33]

I agree, the video stresses printing, never has a preference. But since it is sponsored by Epson, I understand that he is somehow using their products. Otherwise, why would they sponsor him and why would he accept the sponsorship? If you look at his workshop brochure (from 2011), he lists a slew of sponsors and states that he uses their products and services.

Very interesting, he uses there products to print christmas cards and thats it, but good enough, haaa.

[Drew Wiley]

People have to make a living, and if you're in a position to endorse this or that, and it's a reputable product, that doesn't mean you're forced to use it for your personal work.
Heck, I used black and white RC papers for sake of commercial offset reproduction, and have recommended them for that application, but would never use anything but FB for my personal b&w output.

There's an elderly photographer across the Bay who has long made his living on black and white prints only, and has barely eked out a living, but has to be admired for doing that. He didn't make enough to buy a house, and when he was informed that the house he had long rented was being sold, and he would be evicted in a few months, and his darkroom space lost, he wisely invested in drum scans of his favorite negatives and learned inkjet printing. His ongoing work looks wonderful.... BUT all along, it's been very very black and white, period. No special toning or subtle hues interjected. Wouldn't work for me, because that's not my own style of black and white printing. But I'm glad it worked for him; otherwise, his career would have ended.

[Pieter]

Very interesting, he uses there products to print christmas cards and thats it, but good enough, haaa.

I doubt he would risk his reputation like that. He would want any future sponsors to take him seriously and that he would take their products seriously. Otherwise, what is a sponsorship worth to either party?

[jnantz]

the problem is that for many many people a print made from an epson printer or canon printer with pigments is every good as one pulled out of a darkroom and many people who love darkroom work will never admit or acknowledge this. They just keep flogging the dead horse as if it was 2001.

[Tin Can]

I prefer magic in all things

Watching a print appear in basically water is magic I understand and love

[FotoD]

the problem is that for many many people a print made from an epson printer or canon printer with pigments is every good as one pulled out of a darkroom and many people who love darkroom work will never admit or acknowledge this. They just keep flogging the dead horse as if it was 2001.

Why do you keep picking on people who love darkroom work?

[Tin Can]

Here we go

Which one, DIGI or TRAD pollutes more

I know I 'recycled LOL' many DIGI printers

Discuss

[jnantz]

Why do you keep picking on people who love darkroom work?

FotoD
I am not picking on anyone, I am making a statement about some traditional workers who pick on digital workers, who are relentless, claim they are frauds &c. I am someone who loves darkroom work, I make my own photo emulsion from scratch, I have been at it (dr work ) for 40+ years, been coating dry plates for almost 40 years as well, but I don't go around insulting people who don't do as I like. there was only 1 person, a guy name Jorge who was kind of famous for being relentless about his dislike for digital and claiming that all printer based photographs were utter sh*te ( yada yada yada ), until Christopher Jordan met up with him and showed him some beautiful prints, and the next posts Jorge made on web fora said he was very wrong, and he'd never insult digital workers again ( and he didn't ). as I said most people will never admit great stuff can be made via printer, and it's weird if you ask me.

[Pieter]

I have seen more crappy darkroom prints than bad inkjet prints. And about as many mediocre ones from both techniques. A good print depends on the printer (the person) with a good eye and the ability to work the medium.

[Michael R]

That is it, of course. Digital technology has progressed to the point (or past the point) where there is objectively anything superior about the darkroom printing process. The limitations are at the operator level, and that’s the way the arts always end up. Most inkjet prints are throwaway - and most darkroom prints are throwaway. Always has been that way.

Now can you guys get back to the entertaining stuff about what is art?

[Califmike33]

Lets see some inkjet prints ? and lets see some darkroom prints ? show us what u got ?

[wclark5179]

All digital for prints I send out to be printed. Color is 100% digital.

I still have my analog darkroom but process only black and white. Not as much as I used to.

Going on vacation soon thinking of taking one of my Rolleiflex cameras using black and white film. Gives me something to do when I return homebin my darkroom during the winter.

[Drew Wiley]

Calfmike - show em where? Over the web???? All that's gonna do is tell people what a miserable visual medium the web itself is, or how good the scanning was or wasn't. And we already know all that.

[Califmike33]

Yes i agree, but its something, its better than nothing ?

[Califmike33]

Does this forum have a classified section ? for sale ? i dont see one.

[Oren Grad]

Does this forum have a classified section ? for sale ? i dont see one.

As stated in the Forum guidelines, you will have access to it after you have been registered for 30 days.

[Drew Wiley]

Something suitable for general subject content, or general compositional strength, perhaps, but potentially quite misleading where exacting qualitative questions are in play.

[Pieter]

Yes i agree, but its something, its better than nothing ?

First of all, my prints, either inkjet or silver gelatin, are too large to scan and I really don't feel like splicing a bunch of scans. Or I could set up a copy stand and shoot some digital pics. Either way, in order to be able to see a difference, it's going to have to be a large file that would have to be sent via ftp. And third, I have no idea of whether your monitor is calibrated and under what viewing conditions you will be looking at those files, maybe even on a smartphone. Lastly, I'm not going to go to all that effort. You really need to see good prints, both inkjet and silver gelation, in person in proper lighting.

[Califmike33]

As stated in the Forum guidelines, you will have access to it after you have been registered for 30 days.

Oh ok thanks.

[jnantz]

Calfmike - show em where? Over the web???? All that's gonna do is tell people what a miserable visual medium the web itself is, or how good the scanning was or wasn't. And we already know all that.

if the web was such a miserable visual medium I think that most heavy hitters as well as museums and galleries wouldn't have work on the web. it's only a miserable viewing medium for people who are not able to scan or present their work, just like viewing a darkroom print in person, is a miserable viewing experience. just going to show who well the printing was or wasn't. or the presenter is just going to talk about how nice the bad image is matted. at least viewing online one doesn't have to hear somebody going on and on about "8 ply ultra white satin snow mat board and linen hinges.

[Pieter]

if the web was such a miserable visual medium I think that most heavy hitters as well as museums and galleries wouldn't have work on the web. it's only a miserable viewing medium for people who are not able to scan or present their work, just like viewing a darkroom print in person, is a miserable viewing experience. just going to show who well the printing was or wasn't. or the presenter is just going to talk about how nice the bad image is matted. at least viewing online one doesn't have to hear somebody going on and on about "8 ply ultra white satin snow mat board and linen hinges.
There is no real alternative to seeing the actual piece in person. When you go to a museum or gallery, no one is there going on about the presentation. A galleries t or docent can give you the information placing the piece in context, maybe materials if it adds to the understanding. Artwork on the internet is just to give you a taste of the actual art, maybe giving you an incentive to see more or to visit the institution. Like art and photos in a book, they just pale in comparison to being in front of the real thing.

[jnantz]

There is no real alternative to seeing the actual piece in person. When you go to a museum or gallery, no one is there going on about the presentation. A galleries t or docent can give you the information placing the piece in context, maybe materials if it adds to the understanding. Artwork on the internet is just to give you a taste of the actual art, maybe giving you an incentive to see more or to visit the institution. Like art and photos in a book, they just pale in comparison to being in front of the real thing.

sorry but I have to disagree with you. I saw an exhibit of about 60 photographs that were supposedly "iconic" photographs form the last 60 years. they were hung on the wall of a world renown museum with an extensive collection and capable collections people and were probably some of the worst photographs I have ever seen. maybe the basement viewing area with bad ceiling lights were so you wouldn't notice the images were bad, you'd just focus on the names of well known people. I would have rather seen them on the internet. a couple of years ago again went to a photo exhibit of IDK 200<?> images from a collection of a private individual, different room ( at least that was better it wasn't in the basement ) some, like the images from the previous exhibit, were just terrible. I would have rather seen the "pale" version because these images were pretty bad, and I thought it was kind of embarrassing that they were considered some of the "iconic" photographs from the last 60 years and an overwhelming impressive collection. printing was terrible and the whole situation/s were kind of underwhelming. I wasn't talking about a galleries or museum going on about the presentation im talking about individuals who might be presenting their work to another individual/s. the prints are lacking / oh hum so they talk about how impressive the window mount is.
sorry sometimes, the Internet is just as good or better than in person.

[Alan Klein]

I think the issue is that there are other ways to present photos besides in a single print. Don't get me wrong. Prints are beautiful. I have some on the walls of my home and also in photo albums. I'm working on a photo book. I used to shoot chromes and showed them with a projector on a screen. Now I scan them and show them on a 75" HD 4K TV, or monitor, or cellphone, or download them to Youtube or Flickr so others can see them as well.

Each of these methods has its advantages and disadvantages. It's like arguing which is better: color or BW film or digital or film?

[Pieter]

sorry but I have to disagree with you. I saw an exhibit of about 60 photographs that were supposedly "iconic" photographs form the last 60 years. they were hung on the wall of a world renown museum with an extensive collection and capable collections people and were probably some of the worst photographs I have ever seen. maybe the basement viewing area with bad ceiling lights were so you wouldn't notice the images were bad, you'd just focus on the names of well known people. I would have rather seen them on the internet. a couple of years ago again went to a photo exhibit of IDK 200<?> images from a collection of a private individual, different room ( at least that was better it wasn't in the basement ) some, like the images from the previous exhibit, were just terrible. I would have rather seen the "pale" version because these images were pretty bad, and I thought it was kind of embarrassing that they were considered some of the "iconic" photographs from the last 60 years and an overwhelming impressive collection. printing was terrible and the whole situation/s were kind of underwhelming. I wasn't talking about a galleries or museum going on about the presentation im talking about individuals who might be presenting their work to another individual/s. the prints are lacking / oh hum so they talk about how impressive the window mount is.
sorry sometimes, the Internet is just as good or better than in person.
A poor print is just that. But a great one really shines in person. Henry Wessel liked his prints on the flat side. His vision, not for others to judge.

[Merg Ross]

I would say my end result is to sell fine art prints.

So, that means that you will need a method for marketing your prints. If you use the Internet for that purpose, ink or silver gelatin, you will not be showing the actual item. At best, the Internet provides a facsimile of the original item. In this case, it makes no difference whether you print in ink or silver gelatin. However, if you were to present the item for personal viewing, it might make a difference to the prospective buyer. At least it would be an honest representation.

It is for this reason that I have never offered my prints for sale on the Internet. It's apples to oranges, and a concept that has no appeal to me in presenting my work; I am only comfortable with on the wall or in the hand purchases.

Your approach may be different and work well for you. Much will depend on your audience.

[jnantz]

A poor print is just that. But a great one really shines in person. Henry Wessel liked his prints on the flat side. His vision, not for others to judge.

that's what I said. ... poor print is a poor print, and just because it's on photo paper doesn't give it a free pass.
what I also said was if the online presentation was "so bad" why would museums, galleries & al. all be presenting images online.

Pieter If you are looking for someone to photograph your large scale prints for presentation, a friend has been photographing other people's art (painting sculpture .. everything ) for museums collections departments, other artists &c for 30ish years. I'd be happy to give you his name
I have no idea who Henry Wessel is, and I wasn't talking about flat, I was talking about bad, like if I had shown prints like that at a critique I would have been toast.

[Michael R]

Wessel was great.

I think this got sidetracked a little. I totally agree with you images online can look terrific and be good representations, which is why everyone’s work is online. However on the original topic of inkjet or darkroom prints, in that case I think one needs to see some live examples of top notch inkjet prints to get a better idea of whether or not it is for them.


that's what I said. ... poor print is a poor print, and just because it's on photo paper doesn't give it a free pass.
what I also said was if the online presentation was "so bad" why would museums, galleries & al. all be presenting images online.

Pieter If you are looking for someone to photograph your large scale prints for presentation, a friend has been photographing other people's art (painting sculpture .. everything ) for museums collections departments, other artists &c for 30ish years. I'd be happy to give you his name
I have no idea who Henry Wessel is, and I wasn't talking about flat, I was talking about bad, like if I had shown prints like that at a critique I would have been toast.

[bmikiten]

Quick note on this subject - I have purchased/collected prints over the last 30 years and in the last 5-10 all dealers will send me a VERY high resolution image of the print itself photographed under controlled conditions. I've never found the received image to differ from the actual print by any significant amount. Note that all were B/W.

[Drew Wiley]

A print is a print. The web is the web. They do different things and aren't interchangeable. It's like paintings. A masterpiece might look intriguing over the web, and maybe or maybe not more impressive in a printed book, depending on the quality of the printing. But it can be a whole different level of experience seeing the real deal in person.

Trying to present nuanced eloquent images over the web is kinda like expecting a proficient novelist to only select vocabulary found in the Reader's Digest Condensed Dictionary. Something is missing.

[Pieter]

that's what I said. ... poor print is a poor print, and just because it's on photo paper doesn't give it a free pass.
what I also said was if the online presentation was "so bad" why would museums, galleries & al. all be presenting images online.

Pieter If you are looking for someone to photograph your large scale prints for presentation, a friend has been photographing other people's art (painting sculpture .. everything ) for museums collections departments, other artists &c for 30ish years. I'd be happy to give you his name
I have no idea who Henry Wessel is, and I wasn't talking about flat, I was talking about bad, like if I had shown prints like that at a critique I would have been toast.
For more than 20 years, I photographed the large-scale paintings (12 ft long) of an artist friend of mine, at first in 8x10 and 4x5, later in 35mm and most lately digital. I don't really feel the need to document my own work digitally although I could if I chose to. But thanks for the offer.

From Wikipedia: "Henry Wessel (July 28, 1942 – September 20, 2018) was an American photographer and educator. He made "obdurately spare and often wry black-and-white pictures of vernacular scenes in the American West".[1]

Wessel produced a number of books of photography. He was the recipient of two Guggenheim Fellowships and three National Endowment for the Arts grants and his work is included in the permanent collections of major American, European, and Asian museums.

His first solo exhibition was curated by John Szarkowski at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1972 and he was one of ten photographers included in the influential New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape exhibition at George Eastman House in 1975. His work has since been exhibited in solo exhibitions at Tate Modern in London, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

Wessel was emeritus professor of art at San Francisco Art Institute, where he taught from 1973 to 2014."

https://www.sfmoma.org/artist/Henry_Wessel/

[jnantz]

Wessel was great.

I think this got sidetracked a little. I totally agree with you images online can look terrific and be good representations, which is why everyone’s work is online. However on the original topic of inkjet or darkroom prints, in that case I think one needs to see some live examples of top notch inkjet prints to get a better idea of whether or not it is for them.

maybe. ... or maybe the point is to just be a physical object even if it is a poorly made silver or ink jet print. it really doesn't matter anyways because what you think might be "great" might actually not be so great, like the "great" stuff I saw at the museum.


For more than 20 years, I photographed the large-scale paintings (12 ft long) of an artist friend of mine, at first in 8x10 and 4x5, later in 35mm and most lately digital. I don't really feel the need to document my own work digitally although I could if I chose to. But thanks for the offer.


https://www.sfmoma.org/artist/Henry_Wessel/

sounds good Pieter, you suggested you didn't want to deal with splicing so I figured you might not have an alternative way .
and thanks for the info on Henry Wessel,
still never heard of him. LOL

[ASA1000]

A print is a print. The web is the web. They do different things and aren't interchangeable. It's like paintings. A masterpiece might look intriguing over the web, and maybe or maybe not more impressive in a printed book, depending on the quality of the printing. But it can be a whole different level of experience seeing the real deal in person.

Trying to present nuanced eloquent images over the web is kinda like expecting a proficient novelist to only select vocabulary found in the Reader's Digest Condensed Dictionary. Something is missing.


No one is talking 'value' or 'price'
Who thinks ink-jet images are equal in value to well made prints? Raise your hands:
Next question: Who has a 100 year old ink-jet image?
Merry Christmas!

[jnantz]

No one is talking 'value' or 'price'
Who thinks ink-jet images are equal in value to well made prints? Raise your hands:
Next question: Who has a 100 year old ink-jet image?
Merry Christmas!

I think some pigment based prints are very well made and worth every bit as much as ( or even more than ) darkroom prints,
... whether doesn't matter if a print is 100 years old or not, it's an object objects don't last for ever.
I don't think many color photographs ( except for dye transfers ) will live 100 years either.


better off pigment printing them so when they do the deep 6 one can just print another with more life than the last.

[Pieter]

A vast number of the prints by today's photographers sold in reputable galleries are inkjet prints. And they are not sold a bargain basement prices, either. A good print is a good print.

[Alan Klein]

No one is talking 'value' or 'price'
Who thinks ink-jet images are equal in value to well made prints? Raise your hands:
Next question: Who has a 100 year old ink-jet image?
Merry Christmas!

Of course, chemical prints are done one at a time and are limited in supply. Ink-jet prints can be run off by the hundreds each looking the same as the others. So of course, supply and demand raise the price of chemical prints.

However, that doens't make one look aesthetically better than the other, necessarily.

[jnantz]

Of course, chemical prints are done one at a time and are limited in supply. Ink-jet prints can be run off by the hundreds each looking the same as the others. So of course, supply and demand raise the price of chemical prints.

However, that doens't make one look aesthetically better than the other, necessarily.

Hi Alan

there really is no difference between a pigment print and a chemical SILVER print .. an experienced printer can make way more than 1 print at a time, it's not hard to print 500 or 1000 prints from the same negative that look identical. .. unless you are talking about hand coated materials then there are obviously differences..
the only time there is scarcity of a photograph is when the person with the negative or file dies.

[Pieter]

Of course, chemical prints are done one at a time and are limited in supply. Ink-jet prints can be run off by the hundreds each looking the same as the others. So of course, supply and demand raise the price of chemical prints.

However, that doens't make one look aesthetically better than the other, necessarily.

There used to be a lab in Hollywood called Quantity Photo who would churn out 100s of identical silver print head shots for actors and models. And pretty inexpensive--out-of-work actors had to be able to afford the service.

[Drew Wiley]

It ALL DEPENDS - the equipment and specific skills of the printer, and the nature of the original shot itself. I have a lovely inkjet print on my walls from an old half-faded color negative. i also have a lovely antique albumen contact print framed nearby, and a set of old blue iron prints. Then there's a classic serigraph. I don't work in any of those media. I strictly do an all-optical workflow with darkroom printing, both silver black and white, and color chromogenic and formerly a lot of Cibachrome. That's what I enjoy doing, know how to do best, and am well equipped to do.

Five minutes ago I was looking at the digital camera shots a hiking companion took on a long backpacking trip just before the pandemic. I had to inform him I had no means to print any of them, but could arrange to do that if he wanted something inkjet printed. But I gave him a mounted and framed 16X20 MGWT print of a 6X9 shot taken on that same trip. He was having great fun and bagging memories. I was also having fun and bagging memories, but in a manner that might have serious value to someone else after my own time. And nobody with normal eyesight would confuse that with an inkjet print. If you want a great inkjet, learn to optimize what it especially offers rather than trying to mimic what it can't do as well as darkroom technique. If you like apples, pick the best ones; if you prefer oranges instead, don't try picking ones that look like apples, or they won't be ripe!

[Alan Klein]

There is no real alternative to seeing the actual piece in person. When you go to a museum or gallery, no one is there going on about the presentation. A galleries t or docent can give you the information placing the piece in context, maybe materials if it adds to the understanding. Artwork on the internet is just to give you a taste of the actual art, maybe giving you an incentive to see more or to visit the institution. Like art and photos in a book, they just pale in comparison to being in front of the real thing.

There's a difference. An oil painting or a sculpture is the final art object. So seeing it in real life is the point.

However, a photograph doesn't have to be in print form. That's only one possible final objective. After all, we project slides from chrome film or display them on screens. Or on the internet. You're creating a false narrative that prints are the only way to present an image.

[Alan Klein]

So, that means that you will need a method for marketing your prints. If you use the Internet for that purpose, ink or silver gelatin, you will not be showing the actual item. At best, the Internet provides a facsimile of the original item. In this case, it makes no difference whether you print in ink or silver gelatin. However, if you were to present the item for personal viewing, it might make a difference to the prospective buyer. At least it would be an honest representation.

It is for this reason that I have never offered my prints for sale on the Internet. It's apples to oranges, and a concept that has no appeal to me in presenting my work; I am only comfortable with on the wall or in the hand purchases.

Your approach may be different and work well for you. Much will depend on your audience.

But Merg, you sell your photo books on the internet. I bought one.

So the internet is not entirely without value both to you and your customers. If it wasn't for the internet, I would not have ever seen your work, even if it's not in it's "final" form.

It's like conversation. Better if done in person, but over the phone or zoom is better than nothing.

[Alan Klein]

Wessel was great.

I think this got sidetracked a little. I totally agree with you images online can look terrific and be good representations, which is why everyone’s work is online. However on the original topic of inkjet or darkroom prints, in that case I think one needs to see some live examples of top notch inkjet prints to get a better idea of whether or not it is for them.

I saw Clyde Butcher's BW chemical and ink prints, five feet wide, in his gallery in Florida. I couldn't tell the difference. They all were great although the pricing was different of course.

[Pieter]

There's a difference. An oil painting or a sculpture is the final art object. So seeing it in real life is the point.

However, a photograph doesn't have to be in print form. That's only one possible final objective. After all, we project slides from chrome film or display them on screens. Or on the internet. You're creating a false narrative that prints are the only way to present an image.

But a slide is the final product. Projecting it introduces many variables from the surface it is projected on to the lens and bulb in the projector, the amount of ambient light in the room, how the slide is mounted and whether it has been cleaned. Scanning introduces its own set of variables.

[Merg Ross]

But Merg, you sell your photo books on the internet. I bought one.

So the internet is not entirely without value both to you and your customers. If it wasn't for the internet, I would not have ever seen your work, even if it's not in it's "final" form.

It's like conversation. Better if done in person, but over the phone or zoom is better than nothing.

Yes Alan, I did sell my book on the internet; I remember your purchase, and thank you. However, I do not sell prints that are only viewed on the internet by LED backlighting. A book, assuming that it is well printed, might be a different matter as it would be viewed by direct or reflected light, closer matching an original print.

True, the internet has value, as I would not have made the friendships from forums such as this one.

Better done in person, agreed.

[jnantz]

But a slide is the final product. Projecting it introduces many variables from the surface it is projected on to the lens and bulb in the projector, the amount of ambient light in the room, how the slide is mounted and whether it has been cleaned. Scanning introduces its own set of variables.


thanks for bringing this up Pieter
everything has a set of variables. Silver prints have to be viewed in a certain light from a certain distance, pigment, same thing, alt process is a different thing altogether, computer screens, slide show screens, nice or not so nice tv's, in print &c .. in essence an image is just that a thing. No one can control how something is viewed unless they monitor how everyone who is looking at it/them..
there's a famous story about a couple who bought a home made by Frank Lloyd Wright, he had a vase of some sort on the fireplace mantel and when he showed up after the home was purchased, lived in &c, he was angered because the owners moved the vase from where he thought it should be placed. I don't think people making photographs have any way to do what FLW did with his clients. For the most part 99% of the people making photographs today, 12/12/22 i don't really think it matters ( sorry if anyone reading this believes they are a 1%er it was a generalization not a slight). society (people /tastemakers who declare someone is an artist) don't really care how something is made. I think people like how they make what they like to make, what gives them enjoyment and that really is the only thing that matters. art, not art, pigment, silver, whatever. .. im not really going to change how I make (or buy) what I like because someone tells me "it's just a Xerox, or crappy reproduction" but that's just me.
as for the OP ...
califmike33, probably you should crank out a bunch of prints for a few months, don't bother giving yourself any sort of deadline because it might take a while to get used to all the moving parts of what you want to do. make some images in the dark, make some in the light, you make them, have your friend who is experienced make them, have a professional darkroom printer make them, take a class at a community college to get your skills ( in the dark and light up to speed ) and see what floats your boat, I have found over the years from hearing advice and criticism from anonymous people on the internet is that what works for them don't work for me. a lot of people just repeat things they read or heard from someone else and so on, and really don't have experience, skills or interest in what I might be interest in, or the same eyesight, needs, desperation, or death-grip of the situations that seem to make me do what I do. no one's walked a mile in my shoes, if they did they'd realize I need to visit a cobbler cause my shoes have holes in them.
good luck with your making prints!

[ASA1000]

Maybe I'm just not as skilled a printer as the rest of you, but if there is any complicated dodging and burning involved, every print is not the same. They may look the same to you, but not to me!

[Merg Ross]

Maybe I'm just not as skilled a printer as the rest of you, but if there is any complicated dodging and burning involved, every print is not the same. They may look the same to you, but not to me!

This is where the Selective Masking technique of Alan Ross can be helpful.

[Bernice Loui]

Decades ago, sharing a few prints with Tim, we discussed B&W printing methods. The topic of mask making came up.. Two part video on mask making by Tim:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPhGROR9U8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzZ_NqY0OPI


IMO, part of the novelty with individually made prints that are burn/dodged/and much more are their individuality. There was a time again decades ago during the learning how to "print" process burning an entire box of graded Oriental Sea Gull FB glossy or similar paper trying to achieve a print that "feels" correct was common. Many boxes of print paper later, the number of sheets going into the circular file was significantly reduced.
How one feels about a specific image often changes and how that print would be made also changes.. It is all part of the expressive print making process..

What masking and more so with digital_software altered images then mechanized printed is a reduction in this variability. Neither good or bad, it is just another method of expressive print making..

Question is, how does any specific image make you feel, does that emotional response endure the test of time each time that image is viewed?


Bernice





Maybe I'm just not as skilled a printer as the rest of you, but if there is any complicated dodging and burning involved, every print is not the same. They may look the same to you, but not to me!






This is where the Selective Masking technique of Alan Ross can be helpful.

[Tin Can]

No person in studio 3 years

Sails set, long run

Solo




Spring Will

[Drew Wiley]

Masking isn't a tool; it's a huge toolbox full of various tools. Even the digitalized term was adopted from routine graphics film practice. I prefer the real film route; but once it gets too complex, requiring multiple sheets of film, that can get expensive, especially with 8x10 and larger film. You also have to work extremely clean in the darkroom, every single step. Solo mask applications aren't quite as nerve-wracking to do, and are generally sufficient for black and white applications. Color printing is more apt to tempt you to experiment with extra steps.

Well worth learning if you can get ahold of the correct punch and register gear. Allows you to make an enlargement as nuanced as a contact print, maybe even more so. Alan's method was more on the built-in dodging/burning potential of generalized masks, perhaps a nice place to start, but well short of all the numerous possibilities masking offers.

Digital mimicry of this is not necessarily faster or easier. Just depends. You have to spend the time and fuss for an intermediate scan, and then are forced into digitally printing the result too. Pick your own poison. Throw hybrid applications into the same pot of stew, and there are all kinds of printing possibilities these days, like generating enlarged and corrected negatives for sake of UV contact printing processes.

[jnantz]

Maybe I'm just not as skilled a printer as the rest of you, but if there is any complicated dodging and burning involved, every print is not the same. They may look the same to you, but not to me!

you just have to learn how to contort your hands like you are doing puppet theatre and get a foot switch. no masks needed. I regularly did large runs during political campaigns, if they were 500, 200, 100 prints needed I'd make an extra 10%. rc prints are easy. there never were problems of things not looking identical (you have to stick to the plan and think of Mr. T saying "I pity the fool who don't stick to the plan"), it always looked (will look) like a machine pumped out the prints, practice will make you a machine too (practice meaning printing 50 hours a week). The best way to learn how to print black and white photographs is to make really bad negatives and fine anything you can stick in your enlarger (trash, found objects whatever), and translate these things into photographs. tricks, workshops, masks, &c won't really substitute for exposing lots of paper.

[Pieter]

you just have to learn how to contort your hands like you are doing puppet theatre and get a foot switch. no masks needed. I regularly did large runs during political campaigns, if they were 500, 200, 100 prints needed I'd make an extra 10%. rc prints are easy. there never were problems of things not looking identical (you have to stick to the plan and think of Mr. T saying "I pity the fool who don't stick to the plan"), it always looked (will look) like a machine pumped out the prints, practice will make you a machine too (practice meaning printing 50 hours a week). The best way to learn how to print black and white photographs is to make really bad negatives and fine anything you can stick in your enlarger (trash, found objects whatever), and translate these things into photographs. tricks, workshops, masks, &c won't really substitute for exposing lots of paper.

Iff I had to churn out prints in those quantities, I would either scan a final print and print it digitally or copy the final print and make subsequent ones from that negative.

[jnantz]

Iff I had to churn out prints in those quantities, I would either scan a final print and print it digitally or copy the final print and make subsequent ones from that negative.

Didn’t exist tween 1988 and 1995

[Merg Ross]

Didn’t exist tween 1988 and 1995

Exactly. But good copy film did. I used to make a copy negative from a master print; not "fine art" quality, but acceptable for commercial use. Sometimes hotels used my photographs, one-time rights and copy negative went to them if they wanted a large number of prints. Most worked with good labs, I didn't want to print in quantity.

[Pieter]

Didn’t exist tween 1988 and 1995

A copy negative certainly did.

[prado333]

Personally , for me the big trouble in digital version is the scanner. Knowing how extremely good is a Heidelberg drum scanner , i hate to have to do this part with a Epson or similar budget one.

[jnantz]

Exactly. But good copy film did.

Merg. sounds like you had a good plan! ...
You're right, I could have made copy negatives and subbed them out to one of the 5 or so local commercial labs that used to be around and said rush, but there really was no point — extra time, extra expense extra headaches ... I mean when the Governor's Office calls and says we want 500 of those prints ... besides, in the end I would have had to do the exact same thing (if I didn't sub it out) ... print hundreds of prints — it made very little sense to waste time and effort to reinvent the wheel. It's not like making a large run of prints is / was hard, once the first print done, made the map, listened to my little man talking like Mr T, ... it was just making prints, and I was already making prints every day for 6 hours. This was a portrait studio that had been in business for 60 years, great 5x7 tri-x negatives, souped in DK50, hand retouched, not much burning and dodging but there always is some. No point in a copy negative would have still required a little burning, dodging, and matching prints, im not someone who believes there is any such thing as a perfect negative (easier to print, sure, perfect nope) ... It is a great experience to make a large production run of prints, but I can see how someone who doesn't have the experience, time or want that experience &c can think it would be a waste of time / effort ...

[ASA1000]

Exactly. But good copy film did. I used to make a copy negative from a master print; not "fine art" quality, but acceptable for commercial use. Sometimes hotels used my photographs, one-time rights and copy negative went to them if they wanted a large number of prints. Most worked with good labs, I didn't want to print in quantity.

I know what you mean, but 'not fine art quality' is another whole different thing. Like newspaper reproduction where the whitest white depends on the paper roll in the press. But we're talking about the best- of-the-best of ink vs silver.

[ASA1000]

I made a lot of digital prints by duplicating layers, adjusting the bottom layer and erasing through the top layer to get to it. No two digital images made like that are the same, just like no two hand dogde/burn prints are the same. But from that point on Digital lets you make 'clones' and so that's why, to me, digital is less valuable.
I have a photographer friend in Florida, David Susman, he creates beautiful images, but he uses so many layers I used to kid him about being a single-frame cinematographer!

[Bernice Loui]

Nothing enforces making a proper negative to print from when limited to (one) grade of paper with a pile-O-prints to be made that must look good, with "good" being very well defined and referenced.


Back in a time when digital images and mass printing via inkjet and similar was not a possibility,
Bernice

[Alan Klein]

Digital printing reduces costs and makes nice photo prints in larger sizes available to people who can't afford darkroom-produced prints. Of course, that may lower profit margins for the photographers. But it should increase the quantity of sales.

[Michael R]

Digital negative printing also puts all the "alt" processes within easy reach of people who don't want to mess with large format cameras.

[jnantz]

Digital printing reduces costs and makes nice photo prints in larger sizes available to people who can't afford darkroom-produced prints. Of course, that may lower profit margins for the photographers. But it should increase the quantity of sales.

Hi Alan
I am not sure if you have priced "digital prints" in galleries &c, there is no low profit margin, if the work is "good" and people want it, it sells for $$$$$$$, even images sold through
print on demand companies like "image kind" where I sell some of my work. Their quality can't be beat, their framing and production staff is top notch &c. Sure there are people who sell their work
for very little, and unfortunately they tend to lower the potential values all around, like the lady I know who does weddings and 'mitzvahs" for 100 bucks ...


Digital negative printing also puts all the "alt" processes within easy reach of people who don't want to mess with large format cameras.
Michael:
exactly!! I've made beautiful gum prints, cyanotypes, gum over cyanotypes, platinum prints, ziatypes, albumen prints &c from images made on my cellphone and printed with a 65$ inkjet printer (my classmates who were using ink printers that cost thousands were kind of cranky), I also got a 17-18year old interested in making tangible archival hand made cyanotypes from cellphone images as well. there isn't a better time to be making photographs ( if one has an open mind ) than right now ...

[Califmike33]

I'm sure a lot of you guys shoot digital alongside your film. Is it possible to get a film-look final result on a print with a digital camera and an inkjet printer?

I was told by a guy at Sammy's camera here in California, he has over 40 years of exp, in film, 4x5, printing, and digital, and he teaches. So I'm really curious if this is possible to get a BW image shot on digital and make it look so much like a film you can't tell the difference?

[bdkphoto]

I'm sure a lot of you guys shoot digital alongside your film. Is it possible to get a film-look final result on a print with a digital camera and an inkjet printer?

I was told by a guy at Sammy's camera here in California, he has over 40 years of exp, in film, 4x5, printing, and digital, and he teaches. So I'm really curious if this is possible to get a BW image shot on digital and make it look so much like a film you can't tell the difference?

Yes.

[Califmike33]

Thanks you for your reply.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah, if you think imitation ice milk tastes the same as real ice cream. It doesn't. A highly skilled person can make an excellent print either way, but it takes a lot more than that to fool someone experienced. More wishful thinking than anything else. But you are more likely to get away with it in black and white than color, provided you're not trying to mimic something highly nuanced like split toning. That starts looking awfully, whaaat th?, in inkjet. Maybe a high end industrial press outfit could do it well, at substantial cost.

[Califmike33]

Yeah, if you think imitation ice milk tastes the same as real ice cream. It doesn't. A highly skilled person can make an excellent print either way, but it takes a lot more than that to fool someone experienced. More wishful thinking than anything else. But you are more likely to get away with it in black and white than color, provided you're not trying to mimic something highly nuanced like split toning. That starts looking awfully, whaaat th? in inkjet. Maybe a high-end industrial press outfit could do it well, at a substantial cost.


Ok, i like almond milk, it don't taste like real milk but is still tasty and much better for me. I'm going to find out if this is just people defending their format film vs digital. I will find out for myself and pay a pro printer in both realms and get to the bottom of it. Being out of photography for so long I'm unsure, but i will see if it's possible with my own eyes from a neutral point of view. I believe people on here are stuck on film come hell or high water. I'm for what gets me to my goal and looks the easiest and most efficent and cost-effective. I'm not doubting film, I'm just having too many people tell me you can achieve the same result with digital, this i have to see.

[bdkphoto]

Yeah, if you think imitation ice milk tastes the same as real ice cream. It doesn't. A highly skilled person can make an excellent print either way, but it takes a lot more than that to fool someone experienced. More wishful thinking than anything else. But you are more likely to get away with it in black and white than color, provided you're not trying to mimic something highly nuanced like split toning. That starts looking awfully, whaaat th?, in inkjet. Maybe a high end industrial press outfit could do it well, at substantial cost.

Your constant snark is unwelcome, and your analogy is incorrect - rather than looking at it like imitation ice milk vs real ice cream - it is the difference between chocolate and vanilla and which flavor is better. It is not about fooling anyone, rather whether you can make an unapologeticly expressive print, and the answer to that is yes. There is a world of talented photographers and printers doing this every day.

[Drew Wiley]

You can't afford a master printmaker to determine the "facts"; and even if you could, it would be their taste making the call and not yours. I know people who charge 40K to set up a press image; and yeah, it will be expertly done. But the greatest guitarist in the world might be miserable at a cello, and visa versa. Even if one was highly proficient at both, they still wouldn't sound the same. So don't expect that. Just seek out what realistically does the most justice for your own photos. And that itself might take a fair amount of effort, finding someone not only skilled, but who you can personally communicate your own esthetic needs efficiently.
And no, there will be nothing "neutral" about your own eyes. Doesn't matter. Just choose what workflow is most appropriate to yourself. It's not about which shoe brand is better than another, but more about what simply fits your own foot comfortably. Go beyond that, and the technology is constantly changing anyway - a moving target.

[Califmike33]

Your constant snark is unwelcome, and your analogy is incorrect - rather than looking at it like imitation ice milk vs real ice cream - it is the difference between chocolate and vanilla and which flavor is better. It is not about fooling anyone, rather whether you can make an unapologeticly expressive print, and the answer to that is yes. There is a world of talented photographers and printers doing this every day.

Well said.

[Drew Wiley]

It's a darn good analogy if imitation is the name of the game to begin with, which it sure is for many. It doesn't have to be that way. So yeah, seek out chocolate for its own sake. But there are certainly qualities grades of difference in chocolate too. Regardless, there is a real learning curve to either. Otherwise, you're just choosing between two different wastebaskets. Commit to your process, or find someone who is already committed who understands what you want in a print.

[bdkphoto]

Ok, i like almond milk, it don't taste like real milk but is still tasty and much better for me. I'm going to find out if this is just people defending their format film vs digital. I will find out for myself and pay a pro printer in both realms and get to the bottom of it. Being out of photography for so long I'm unsure, but i will see if it's possible with my own eyes from a neutral point of view. I believe people on here are stuck on film come hell or high water. I'm for what gets me to my goal and looks the easiest and most efficent and cost-effective. I'm not doubting film, I'm just having too many people tell me you can achieve the same result with digital, this i have to see.

There's a few avenues to explore - go to Mike Johnston's The OnlinePhotographer and spend some time reading there, particularly Mike and Ctein's thoughts (Mike is an old friend who is a great printer) and the print sales he has there- David Turnley's work etc... There is Cone editions at inkjetmall, and for quick and easy way of evaluating prints if your not going out to major gallery or museum shows is to simply check out paper samples at any major photo supplier - If you are interested in learning process, than go to Luminous Landscape for all the skinny on process.

[Califmike33]

Drew you seem bent on film no matter the taste. No, i don't have the budget to pay an over-the-top price to find out. Do i need to pay that much, send the negative to a company in NY i know of that does superb BW printing of film, then send the digital image to a good well-respected lab i think will suffice?

I loved the film process 20 years ago and i think it's still inside me waiting to wake up. I have shot digital in the past years and it was not giving me what i wanted, was that cause i didn't know how to process and print well? or was it just pushing the button and taking 20 shots of the same thing and most likely getting a keeper? I think the whole slowing down process of 4x5 and film is what i have missed. The other side of me is do want to carry this shit all over the woods and pay highway robbery prices for film, deal with chemicals, to scan or not to scan. I don't have the answers yet but i hope to real soon. I guess maybe i don't know what i want and am trying out things till it clicks.

[Califmike33]

There's a few avenues to explore - go to Mike Johnston's The OnlinePhotographer and spend some time reading there, particularly Mike and Ctein's thoughts (Mike is an old friend who is a great printer) and the print sales he has there- David Turnley's work etc... There is Cone editions at inkjetmall, and for quick and easy way of evaluating prints if your not going out to major gallery or museum shows is to simply check out paper samples at any major photo supplier - If you are interested in learning process, than go to Luminous Landscape for all the skinny on process.

Thanks bdkphoto. Question for you BDK are those portraits on your website the BW ones film or digital ?

[Alan Klein]

Ok, i like almond milk, it don't taste like real milk but is still tasty and much better for me. I'm going to find out if this is just people defending their format film vs digital. I will find out for myself and pay a pro printer in both realms and get to the bottom of it. Being out of photography for so long I'm unsure, but i will see if it's possible with my own eyes from a neutral point of view. I believe people on here are stuck on film come hell or high water. I'm for what gets me to my goal and looks the easiest and most efficent and cost-effective. I'm not doubting film, I'm just having too many people tell me you can achieve the same result with digital, this i have to see.

I shoot both but a lot of the processes are different and have a different feel when you're out shooting. Film slows me down and allows me to concentrate on one shot. It's not just the results.

[bdkphoto]

Thanks bdkphoto. Question for you BDK are those portraits on your website the BW ones film or digital ?

Thanks for visiting-- both represented in the portrait portfolio - if your interest is B&W check out the New York, and City Limits portfolios and see if you can figure out what's what there...

[Pieter]

I read a book not long ago by Guillaume Geneste, a well-known printer in Paris who did work for many famous photographers (including HCB). He writes how he would make an initial print and then discuss with the photographer about where to take it from there. He did this for both darkroom and later digital prints, and seemed satisfied with both processes.

[Califmike33]

Thanks for visiting-- both are represented in the portrait portfolio - if your interest is B&W check out the New York, and City Limits portfolios and see if you can figure out what's there...

Hard to tell, i think some of them seem obvious but i could be wrong.

[Bill Poole]

Every photographer needs to decide for themselves how to produce the work that pleases them based on the tools they have available. In my case, current available tools include a decent 4x5 field camera, several quality medium format and 35 mm cameras with an assortment of lenses, a decent 21 mp mirrorless digital camera with 4 prime lenses, some skill using Lightroom and Photoshop, a quality and reasonably new Canon photo printer, and a bathroom that converts to a very small temporary darkroom as needed. Using that gear, I am currently best able to produce the work that pleases me shooting and scanning film and printing digitally. I hope that my goals, skills, and my available tools continue to grow. I may be using a different set to tools next year--or maybe even next week In the meantime, the film-digital debate feels like the kind of family argument that produces more heat than light.

[Califmike33]

Every photographer needs to decide for themselves how to produce the work that pleases them based on the tools they have available. In my case, currently available tools include a decent 4x5 field camera, several quality medium formats and 35 mm cameras with an assortment of lenses, a decent 21 mp mirrorless digital camera with 4 prime lenses, some skill using Lightroom and Photoshop, a quality and reasonably new Canon photo printer, and a bathroom that converts to a very small temporary darkroom as needed. Using that gear, I am currently best able to produce the work that pleases me shooting and scanning film and printing digitally. I hope that my goals, skills, and my available tools continue to grow. I may be using a different set of tools next year--or maybe even next week In the meantime, the film-digital debate feels like the kind of family argument that produces more heat than light.

Thanks for your reply Bill, this is no digital vs film debate, this is an honest question can the two different formats/ processes have the same outcome in a print, can both parties arrive at a print that is extremely hard to tell the difference, not what is better?

[bdkphoto]

Hard to tell, i think some of them seem obvious but i could be wrong.

The "Hard to tell" comment is the correct answer, or more aptly, it doesn't really matter. Choose tools you like, or need to use - if you can't do an analog darkroom do digital. The there is no limitation to doing work this way.

[jnantz]

the "hard to tell" comment is the correct answer, or more aptly, it doesn't really matter. Choose tools you like, or need to use - if you can't do an analog darkroom do digital. The there is no limitation to doing work this way.

"like"

[Califmike33]

The "Hard to tell" comment is the correct answer, or more aptly, it doesn't really matter. Choose tools you like, or need to use - if you can't do an analog darkroom do digital. The there is no limitation to doing work this way.

It was really hard to tell, i could have guessed got lucky a few times.

[Tin Can]

Time for me to repeat myself

I believe, but have no Data

Wet DR is better for our devastated Mother Earth

with LESS pollution than DIGI

I know MY DIGI waste was far greater

DIGI Printer failure, tiny bottles of ink, ruined prints

[Califmike33]

Inkjet or darkroom print irrelevant whatever gets you to your end goal and makes you happy that's all that matters end of story.

[brucetaylor]

It took 25 pages, but you came to the correct conclusion! Enjoy however you choose to make and display your images.

[Califmike33]

I guess better late than never I guess 25 pages isn't too bad.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I guess 25 pages isn't too bad.

Go to your settings and select more posts per page. I have only five pages in this thread.

[Califmike33]

Can you guys tell me if this is a digital photograph or if it's film.233737

[Tin Can]

Obviously DIGI as it is on my computer





Can you guys tell me if this is a digital photograph or if it's film.233737

[Califmike33]

Ha ha

[Michael R]

Can you guys tell me if this is a digital photograph or if it's film.233737

Obviously film. You can tell right away because of the continuous tonality function, lack of clinicalisticality which also means this was a film without conspiratorial tabular grains, and the expressiveness of the eyes. It also was obviously developed in pyro. You can tell right away from the gloriousitudinals in the rendering of the shirt.

[Alan Klein]

Can you guys tell me if this is a digital photograph or if it's film.233737

It's oversharpened whatever the materials. I could drive a tractor through the furrows on his forehead.

[Drew Wiley]

Calfmike - I can't tell if that was made by a digital printer, was made in the darkroom, or represents a rubber stamp and inkpad. Trying to evaluate such distinctions in a teeny tiny fuzzy web presence makes about as much sense as trying to saw down an oak tree with a fingernail file. Even the scanning and sharpening method for sake of the web might obscure much of what preceded that. Such approaches to objective comparison are worthless. There is simply no substitute for looking at real prints.