Omega Enlarger or Digital Printer

[Walter Foscari]

I pursued photography (35mm and MF) as a serious hobby for about a decade before studies and family obligations forced me to put it aside for a few years. I have resumed about a year ago and now I do exclusively 4x5. I do mostly B&W with the occasional chrome here and there. So far I have been following the common film-scan-digital print process: I develop my own B&W and scan it via an Epson 3200, I get the occasional print done by a professional lab. I said “occasional” because 16x20 prints of good quality are not cheap.

Then a few days ago I was offered the option to get 4X5 omega enlarger for a real bargain and since then I have been toying with the idea of setting up a full B&W darkroom.



The reasons why this appeals to me are the following:

1) I would have full control over the entire process (which now I don’t have unless I buy a large size printer)

2) I wouldn’t have to shell out a small fortune for each print I make.

3) A traditional print has a kind of “presence” or “status” that a digital does not have (this is my perception, I am sure a lot would disagree)



On the other hand, there are perfectly good reasons for sticking with the original route:

1) I would have to learn all about the printing process (I did a little of that in the old days but I wouldn’t qualify it as valuable experience) whereas I am already handy with photoshop and the other digital tools.

2) In the long run, once I buy all the other stuff needed for making large prints I would end up paying the same for each print anyway.

3) The choice of materials for traditional printing keeps shrinking and in a few years may disappear altogether.



So what’s your opinion? Should I get the Omega or should I save the money towards a professional printer down the road?



Thanks All

[Larry Gebhardt]

Buy the enlarger if black and white is your thing. I doubt that digital printers will equal the look of a nice fiber based print in the next few years. If color is a big part of your work I think digital is a good option. The newest Epson printer looks nice if you print a lot of larger color prints. I am not impressed with black and white on my Epson 2200 however.

[dan nguyen]

I would suggest that you get the enlarger and keep doing digital as needed... you have all the time to do digital as long as you want (if you have the $$$)... nobody can tell you the satisfaction of a print from darkroom by yourself except you... and you know it...

[Gene M]

Get the enlarger. Doing b&w without an enlarger is nuts. You'll love it.

[Pete Caluori]

Greetings,

By all means get the enlarger, but don't pay a lot for it. If you check places like e-Bay you will see Omega 4x5 enlargers come up all the time and most go for reasonable amounts. Get one with a color head and yo will not only be able to do B&W, but the occasional color print as well. Digital is great, but it is not a replacement. The two mediums will coexist and each will find their niche. Good luck!

Regards, Pete

[John Kasaian]

Walter,

In response to the cons---

1) Its fun, Its not rocket science, and learning new things keeps the grey matter sparking.

2) The "stuff" is cheap. Its a buyers market for second hand darkroom equiptment. You'll probably save money on your prints.

3) Not really. Some things have dissapeared but new materials have become available as well. I have learned to live without Brovira, you can too. There is lots of neat stuff from eastern europe, plus you've got all sorts of alternative processes to play with.

Get the Omega! Have FUN!

[Sergio Caetano]

Buy the Omega. Very very very much satisfaction AND QUALITY. "3)... in a few years may disappear" : That won't happen.

[Walter Foscari]

Thanks for all the answers so far. Anybody from the digital camp?

[Don Wallace]

I plan to do both. Currently, I do my own b&w developing and printing (I also have an Omega) and have no plans to switch to digital for b&w. I have also just started investigating Victorian processes such as salt, albumen, and platinum printing. However, I also use colour and do not want to invest in what is required to do that in my own darkroom. I will be getting a scanner and printer although I will still use a lab for extremely high quality prints (probably digital), when required.

[Andrew Ito]

I've printed in the darkroom and am now printing quadtone with the Piezography software. Your decision really depends on how you like to work. For me, working on the computer is second nature since it's what I do on a daily basis. I feel like I have more control on the computer and can repeat my results more consistently. That being said, when I look back at my old drymounted fiber prints the results seem somewhat more satisfying. I feel prouder of the work that I went through to achieve the fine print versus a somewhat simpler yet still quality print on the Epson.

With color work it seems that having a good scan made and printing with a LightJet or even the Epson is a no-brainer for me. While I enjoy a good Ilfochrome print as much as the next guy my LightJet prints are much more satisfying to my eye. Now if Christopher Burkett was making my prints I might have another opinion, but for me it seems more practical to print digitally.

Both processes are valid. I think you should print however you're comfortable printing. If printing with an enlarger is more your bag then do it! If digital is more your style then go that direction.

[Øyvind Dahle]

Do both. I also scan my 4x5" to do digital competition in my camera club or to do a 10 foot enlargment on PVC (on the planning stage on using it under clear material instead of tyles in our bathroom).

But not much can beat a good 16x20" silver print, properly toned, matted and framed.

Working in front of a computer at daytime make me also want to avoid it at nighttime.

[Brian Ellis]

Stick with your present system. It's very good now and is only going to get better, whereas traditional darkrooms are fine for those who already have them but not something on which to bet the future.

As someone who did both until a year or so ago, and who now does digital exclusively, I can tell you that my digital prints look better than my fiber base prints ever did and I was an excellent traditional printer. I can also guarantee you that the lack of control over the print in a traditional darkroom compared to what you're used to with your digital system iwill drive you crazy. With every print you make in your traditional darkroom you're doing to see ten different ways it could be made better in Photoshop (and I'm not talking about tricks like moving a moon into the picture) but you won't have enough control to make the improvements in a traditional darkroom. This doesn't bother the people who are telling you to buy the enlarger because they haven't experienced it and it's not something you can fully appreciate until you've done both. But you know how much control you have over the print when you work on the computer and the lack of that same degree of control is going to bug you no end if you start working in a traditional darkroom.

The fact that you will be learning darkroom work from the ground up is a legitimate concern I think. There are very few really good printers around and the few there are didn't become that way overnight. In fact when I get involved in print exchanges with some serious photographers I'm always surprised at how technically poor most of the prints are. To get really proficient at it you should spend a lot of time reading, experimenting, and most of all attending one or two darkroom workshops put on by someone like John Sexton. Even then there's a talent to it just like there is to everything else and you might remain a mediocre printer no matter how much effort you put into it.

All of this is, of course, just my opinion and I hope others who have responded differently don't take offense. I'll add one last thought. Last May I attended a workshop put on by John Sexton and Ray McSavaney. One of the students didn't have a digital system or a traditional darkroom, his prints had been made by a lab. He wanted to start making his own and he asked Ray which he should get, digital system or traditional. To my surprise, Ray said that he should go with digital if he had neither. His thinking was basically that digital is only going to keep getting better and better, more and more material, more and more choices, less and less expense, whereas traditional darkrooms have gone as far as they're going to go and will only decline from here in terms of material choices, no further research to improve existing products, etc. etc. I thought that was interesting coming from someone who is close to 70 years old and who still works in a traditional darkroom himself.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Brian, no offense taken. I am curious what type of printer, inks, and paper you are using with digital black and white. One of the things I like about fiber based prints is the surface of the paper, and the depth the image seems to have on it. I haven't found the same look with a digital output yet - the matt papers are nice, but not the same, and the glossy papers look like RC (because they are RC). Same, I imagine, with a Lightjet print, though I have never tried that route.

I agree with you that there is a lot of control in the digital path, but I have not found an acceptable output method for black and white.

[Richard Urmonas]

I would suggest giving some serious consideration to going digital. I have not used digital myself, mainly due to the investment required. However a friend who sells prints from old negatives has gone almost entirely digital. He showed me a few examples of side by side conventional prints and digital prints (he is a very experienced, and proficient conventional printer). In all cases the digital prints were superior to the conventional prints. Plus he can do things which are very laborious with conventional techniques, such as 20 or more dodge/burns on a print, fiddling local contrast, selectively improving sharpness, controlling flare, etc. If I had the money, I would go digital.

[Ken Lee]

I really like the ability to shoot film, scan, and make corrections in Photoshop. If I want, I can output a negative for contact printing via silver, platinum, etc. Or, I can print directly on a good printer.

I'm not talking about superimposing cows in the clouds, removing blemishes from a model's face - or even removing the words "Lone Pine Airport" as Ansel Adams did in one of his more famous images, one print at a time, with Spot Tone. I'm talking about basic improvements to tonality and color balance. Even in B&W, it's astounding what can be done.



For example, see this article on Contrast Masking (http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/photoshop_corner/essay_06/essay.html" target = "_blank). This is a rather extreme example, but it gives a sense.

[Brian Ellis]

Larry - I use MIS variable mix quadtone inks with the curves that MIS supplies on its web site and print with an Epson 1280 printer. I scan with a Linoscan 1400 scanner (though today I'd probably get the Epson 3200) and print mostly on Epson Enhanced Matte paper (formerly known as Epson Archival Matte). I agree with you, the glossy papers for ink jet are as unattractive as darkroom RC paper, certainly not as nice as fibre base glossy paper. If you really dislike matte papers then you'd probably have difficult time with digital B&W printing. As far as I know all the quadtone ink systems require matte paper. I'm no digital whiz kid by any means and it took quite a lot of time and effort to get even to the point I'm at and I'm still learning. The single biggest help to me was attending George DeWolfe's digital black and white printing workshop at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops last year.

The only thing I miss about a traditional darkroom is the "hands on" feeling, the idea that you're doing everything yourself, with your own hands. The computer is similar to having an assistant in the darkroom, you decide what needs to be done but then rather than doing it yourself you have the assistnat do it for you. OTOH, I never realized how much darkroom time was taken up with purely mechanical drudge work like mixing chemicals, pouring chemicals, jiggling trays, cleaning up, etc. With the computer there's almost no drudge, you're spending full time actually making creative decisions and improving the print. So I like it but I don't try to convert anyone to digital, unless you make your living at photography it's all just a matter of what you like.