Your Opinion on Traditional Color Printing

[ourmodern]

I am wondering what you guys think about color printing. To those who have used color darkrooms. Did you benefit from it when working in a digital environment? Do you think it is worth learning in this day and age?

I currently attend university for photography, and as the whole facility is being renovated to become bigger and better, I heard of the possibility that they may remove color darkroom facilities. Reason being, the major possibility of it's "death". Sort of frustrates me that I may not learn traditional color printing.

[Greg Blank]

I talk to different school instructors several times a week, it's interesting because most state they have enthusiastic students that can't wait to get their hands on analog process and equipment. I've had them also tell me these students are Luke warm on digital photography. If the adminstration looses sight of the fact that a digital lab requires periodic upgrading and is basically obsolete in Five years, perhaps they should made aware. Typically analog equipment requires fixing but if they support it will be around for some time, I think :)

[Nathan Potter]

I think there is no either/or in color printing. You should let your photography carry you to the medium, and make use of the technology that you deem appropriate to your vision and what you want on print. For photography students I believe it is immensely valuable to have at least some exposure to all analog color. I do both now and enjoy the individual attributes of both.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Kirk Gittings]

I believe it is immensely valuable to have at least some exposure to all analog color.

[Brian Ellis]

I did darkroom work for about 15 years off and on, mostly b&w but about 2 years of color. Darkroom experience in general was invaluable when I started printing digitally (initially b&w alone, today color and b&w). I don't know that the color darkroom years alone provided any specific knowledge that I could point to as useful when I switched to digital but certainly all of the years of darkroom work, color and b&w, were very useful. The best single thing about having done color darkroom work probably was that it made me appreciate Photoshop that much more.

IMHO if you've never done any color darkroom work it isn't worth learning now unless you just think it's something you'd enjoy, in which case go for it. But I wouldn't bother with learning how to print color in a darkroom just to gain the experience for when you start printing digitally. If that's your idea I think you'd be better off just learning digital right off the bat and forgetting the color darkroom.

[ic-racer]

B&W is and has always always been about silver (or other metals) and the way they respond to light and cast shadows. The process likely will be around for a long time.

Color has had multiple permutations throught the history of photography. There is no single "color process." Digital is just another permutation and happens to be the most current and popular.

[Greg Miller]

There are many types of traditional color printing, any of which would add at least some value.

If your intent is to primarily utilize a digital workflow, then I think your time is best spent getting a foundation in color theory (including HSL models, and color wheel) along with instruction on digital workflow. I'm sure those things are already part of your curriculum.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Learning RA4 color printing has made my digital color work better. I started with digital for color, and moved to analog. I suspect it wasn't learning analog printing so much as just putting lots of time into it. I think it's worth learning.

[Bill_1856]

I did color printing for over 50 years until switching to digital, working with every commercial process including dye transfer and Ilfochrome.
IMO the best way to develop your color printing technique is to start with digital and learn all you can about layers and curves (as well as the routine color manipulation). Then, if you still want to do conventional color printing, it will be a piece of cake.

[Paul Kierstead]

Do you think it is worth learning in this day and age?

It is worth learning; however, whether it is worth learning at the expense of something else is a good question. Certainly in a commercial environment, I think it is one of the last things you need to learn; particualarly optically enlarged, I think commercial color photography prints are dead. Digtally printed chemical prints will likely be around for a while. For an artistic environment, optical colour photography still has life in it, both for the look of the output, and the conceptual aspect (made by hand, old process, etc).

Like others, I'd say starting out have an extremely solid idea of color, etc. Small scale color printing isn't that hard to learn whenever you want to learn it (the concepts anyway, mastery is, as always, difficult).

[Drew Wiley]

From a commercial standpoint in our eveyone wants everything yesterday mentality,
digital workflow is a given. But does everyone eat only at fastfood restaurants? Yeah,
learn Photoshop. But also learn darkroom. Anyone who tells you that you can do the
same kind of printing digitally as in a color darkroom is full of you know what. These are
two fundamentally different approaches. It is not a matter of one being better than the other, but of very real options. If you're trying to meet deadlines with comps and so forth, do Photoshop. The limitations of a darkroom and real film can slow you down and make you think about what you're doing. An assistant of mine knew how to draw, print darkroom, and do digital photog. That gave him a distinct competitive edge over the thousands of geeks in this area who are Photoshop experts, and he landed a very lucrative career in advertising. Dropping traditonal photog skills from art programs is about as smart as all the high schools dropping shop classes. As far as obsolescence is
concerned, it a risk all around. I can remember when Fortran was a state-of-the-art
computer skill set, and people used punch cards? Does anyone actually believe that
digital photog as we currently know it will be recognizable in twenty years?

[Bruce Watson]

I think there is no either/or in color printing. You should let your photography carry you to the medium, and make use of the technology that you deem appropriate to your vision and what you want on print. For photography students I believe it is immensely valuable to have at least some exposure to all analog color. I do both now and enjoy the individual attributes of both.

+1. Nicely said.

[Riverman]

If you have the opportunity to try RA4 printing have a crack at it. As you noted, traditional colour darkrooms are harder to find so if you're curious try it while you can. If you don't get on with it, sell your unused paper here.

I enjoy colour printing a lot. It forced me to learn colour concepts that I now use in PS for digital work too. The colour darkroom is an excellent environment in which to learn things about colour applicable to both non-digital and digital photography. The reason the darkroom is such a good environment for this - in my experience - is because your errors have a real cost. Trying not to burn through paper really focuses the mind! But paper is never "wasted" as such - because you always learn from your mistakes.

Another thing I like about shooting and printing colour neg - especially in 4x5, is that, with access to a colour darkroom it can be quite a cost-effective way to make high quality colour enlargements (12x16 or 16x20 say) compared with say the cost of scanning a slide and having a lab make a light jet print. Plus, there's a good choice of C-41 material out there in 4x5. So far I've only used Fuji Pro-160 but now have some Portra 400 NC to shoot too and I can't wait to get my hands on Ektar.

I'll admit that holding that sheet of orangey film up to the light isn't as thrilling as viewing a slide but I often shoot quite contrasty scenes where I'd be fighting a losing battle with E6.

[Vaughn]

I enjoy the RA4 process. We have a Iflord processor -- normally a cibachrome machine, it is easily adapted for RA4. No students used it at all last year...all digital.

But it was a great way to learn about color. I printed only medium format negative film (6x6 and 6x7), from either the Rollei or the Calumet 6x7 back on my 4x5. Actually, it has been a couple years since I ran a roll of color thru the Rollei -- just B&W. Must load up some color next time!

But I have some good portraits of my boys in color (mostly out in the landscape), some color images of my in-law's farm in Australia, few odds and ends. The roll back is fun to play with on the 4x5. Medium format with the image control of a view camera.

[Drew Wiley]

Except for inkjet, almost all current digital output like Lightjet and Chromira etc depend on exactly the same kind of paper and RA4 chemistry one can easily use with a conventional colorhead and a simple processing drum. That pretty much shuts
down the argument that a color darkroom per se is at risk of going dead anytime soon. Positive printing papers like Ilfochrome are a little harder to obtain, but don't
seem headed to extinction either just yet. It's actually a great time to begin enlarging in color, since enlargers and so forth are a bargain used, compared to what they once were. And the films and paper are better than ever.

[ourmodern]

Very interesting opinions, thanks for sharing guys.

[Stephen Willard]

There is a very interesting discussion about this topic toward the end of the thread:

www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=59487

[bob carnie]

Good point Drew about the drums and enlarger availabilitys.

I stopped printing colour from an enlarger about the same time I got my Lambda.
One thing I noticed the 10 years before leading up to this point was that the base exposure was getting much faster and by 2002 I could not see the image projected on the easal as before and for me that was a critical issue as I dodge and burn every image that I make.
I believe the make up of the paper has been changed to be able to accept laser exposure and the times just got faster and faster, as well Fuji Crystal Archive has a emulsion blue tint which may be causing some of my problems.


Or I just turned 50 and my eyes did a critical nose dive.

At the time , I thought that I preferred enlarger prints for their smoothness or richness , but I appreciated the ability of photoshop to adjust the look of an image.
I have never gone back to an enlarger print for colour since the laser purchase.
Someday it will be a project of mine to print from same negative both ways and decide once again which way fits my needs.



Except for inkjet, almost all current digital output like Lightjet and Chromira etc depend on exactly the same kind of paper and RA4 chemistry one can easily use with a conventional colorhead and a simple processing drum. That pretty much shuts
down the argument that a color darkroom per se is at risk of going dead anytime soon. Positive printing papers like Ilfochrome are a little harder to obtain, but don't
seem headed to extinction either just yet. It's actually a great time to begin enlarging in color, since enlargers and so forth are a bargain used, compared to what they once were. And the films and paper are better than ever.

[Paul Kierstead]

Except for inkjet, almost all current digital output like Lightjet and Chromira etc depend on exactly the same kind of paper and RA4 chemistry one can easily use with a conventional colorhead and a simple processing drum. That pretty much shuts
down the argument that a color darkroom per se is at risk of going dead anytime soon.

Hmmm ... I would agree that colour chemistry and materials will be around for sometime, but a modern digital output chain using RA4 chemistry is a long way from 'color darkroom'. About the only traditional darkroom skills are keeping your chemistry in in-line, and even that is easier; you can run a test print periodically and profile back for small chemistry changes. This was done traditionally too, of course (you would dial in a filter factor), but the ability to handle much more complex colour issues should allow more slop in chems. OTOH, process control is much better then it ever was...

Anyway, point is, 'color darkroom' usually refers to that wide range of skills employed (contrast masks, dodging, etc); those skill, particularly the actual physical ones, have all by disappeared in the modern process.

[Drew Wiley]

The current Crystal Archive prints just fine optically. I haven't tried it in my
old subtrative colorhead however, but only with my additive enlargers, which operate
on narrow-band RGB much like laser printers. Don't think there would be any problem with an ordinary colorhead. It does print fast. Then new supergloss has had its curve tweaked a bit to improve laser exp, but this could probably be accommodated optically too.

[tgtaylor]

I stopped printing colour from an enlarger about the same time I got my Lambda.
One thing I noticed the 10 years before leading up to this point was that the base exposure was getting much faster and by 2002 I could not see the image projected on the easal as before and for me that was a critical issue as I dodge and burn every image that I make.
I believe the make up of the paper has been changed to be able to accept laser exposure and the times just got faster and faster,...

I'm new to the color darkroom - about 1.5 years now - and have often wondered why I have to stop down on color to get a 'reasonable' exposure time. For example, my last image required just 9-seconds when stopped-down to f32! I imagine that the intensity of the laser beam require the paper manufactures to increase the speed of their papers.

[bob carnie]

I am guessing here, but I remember a time when I was looking for speed on the enlarger but after 2000 , it was all I could do to slow down the speed of the enlargement.
Great for monster murals but for smalller print a real PIA
I do remember clearly being able to compose, decide on dodge and burn but with the newer paper I was not able to do so.
You may want to try putting ND filters**lee filters** in your mixing box that will give you a more appropriate fstop.
Do you have problems seeing the image clearly on your easel??

I'm new to the color darkroom - about 1.5 years now - and have often wondered why I have to stop down on color to get a 'reasonable' exposure time. For example, my last image required just 9-seconds when stopped-down to f32! I imagine that the intensity of the laser beam require the paper manufactures to increase the speed of their papers.

[Vaughn]

Not large format (120 film -- 6x6)
Printed by yours truly -- RA4
scanned 7"x7" print

Oak, Sierra Foothills, Spring

[Drew Wiley]

When I had a color mural enlarger I could print a 30x40 Ciba with a .90 mask in about
15 sec. That would equate to a C-print in about a 1/2 sec, or 1/4 sec with the enlgr
lens I now use! Of course, if you had a neg or chrome in the thing a focussed too much you would fade it! Made a nice instant room heater however.

[mcfactor]

I still love traditional color printing. It is also the cheapest and easiest way for me to print color right now.

[Michael Graves]

The most beautiful color image I ever viewed were dye transfers by Joel Meyerowitz. Most of those images are reproduced in Cape Light, but the book doesn't even remotely come close to conveying what the prints did. Sadly, it seems that the dye transfer is a dead process.

[Gordon Coale]

Speaking of Joel Meyerowitz, Mark Hobson had a chance to chat with Joel at a recent opening. Joel's comments on how he views his chromagenic prints versus his digitally printed prints is very interesting: http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2010/3/4/civilized-ku-408-09-just-one-word-theres-a-great-future-in-i.html

[Greg Miller]

Speaking of Joel Meyerowitz, Mark Hobson had a chance to chat with Joel at a recent opening. Joel's comments on how he views his chromagenic prints versus his digitally printed prints is very interesting: http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2010/3/4/civilized-ku-408-09-just-one-word-theres-a-great-future-in-i.html

Great. Now Joel Meyerowitz will be lumped with David Muench and Jack Dykinga as having no artistic merit by others in this forum. ;)

Besides his take on inkjet printing, it is also interesting to see that he is not a fan of "art speak". I tend to favor people who let their work speak for itself, rather than requiring a pedantic artist's statement to "get it".

The bottom line for me as far as printing (and other tools used in the image creation process) is to use the tools that allow you to realize the visions in your mind. All the technical details don't mean squat if the image does not match your vision. I would much rather view a masterpiece created with an iPhone and a dot matrix printer than piece of cr*p created with a ULF and a traditional color enlarger. By the time artists arrive at a reasonable level of significance, they have already chosen the tools that work best for them.

And I think the vast majority of people would be better served spending time working on their artistic vision vs. worrying about the technical merits of optical vs. inkjet printing.

[Robert Hughes]

Joel Meyerowitz ... having no artistic merit.
Clearly - Art photography has been categorically defined as dependent on silver nitrate; all else is Walmart ads or bird cage liner. Where have you been? :p

he is not a fan of "art speak". ... yet he dares to use the word "indexical". Sounds like he wants his bread buttered both ways...

"the world's plasticity is revealed in a much more compelling and detailed manner".

"... the medium of photography, in all of its plastic glory, is the perfect medium for rendering / capturing the world's plasticity - in this usage, plasticity is defined as marked by artificiality or superficiality. "

Guilty!

[Gary L. Quay]

I have learned a lot about color theory by printing color in the darkroom. I have been drifting more toward the computer for color, but BOTH of my Epson printers are at the reapir shop. The expense of keeping my printers running is starting to grate on my nerves. The darkroom is looking better all the time.

--Gary

[Brian Ellis]

I have learned a lot about color theory by printing color in the darkroom. I have been drifting more toward the computer for color, but BOTH of my Epson printers are at the reapir shop. The expense of keeping my printers running is starting to grate on my nerves. The darkroom is looking better all the time.

--Gary

Which Epson printers? I've owned an 1160, a 1280, a 2200, and now a 3800. The 1160 wore out after about four years of heavy use but no problems before that. I've had the 1280 for about 9 years. It's used by my wife and it's still going strong without ever having been in for repairs. The 2200 sat upside down in a packing crate with inks in it through three months of an Oregon winter (the movers packed it before I could get to it) and worked perfectly when I was finally able to unpack it and plug it in. I never had the first problem with it and sold it only to buy the 3800 which has worked perfectly for going on three years. If you have two that are both in for repairs so often that the expense is a problem you either have had extraordinarily bad luck or you're doing something wrong.

[Chris Strobel]

The 1160 wore out after about four years of heavy use but no problems before that.

My 1160 is still kicking!I only use it for b&w BO prints with MIS eboni.My 4800 has never had a glitch either (aside of a couple power cleans after sitting unused for 9 months), and my 2 R220's have taken a lickin and keep on tickin.Sounds like bad luck to me :confused: