Choosing between wet and digital printing

[Rory_3532]

Recently, I started to do my own B&W processing and contact proofs for 4x5 negatives, using trays and, for the printing, a 7.5 watt frosted lightbulb combined with some elementary dodging and burning. I've come to the conclusion that I want to do my own enlarging and printing. Having watched a very experienced wet printer at work, and having played around with Photoshop, I'm satisfied that both processes involve significant learning curves. Rather than buy equipment for, and try to learn, both, I want to concentrate on one or the other. Hence my question, posed particularly to those who have experience with both processes. If you had to make a choice between the two, for both B&W and Colour, which would you choose, and why? Thanks.

[Ken Lee]

Putting process aside for a moment, perhaps you ought to consider the output of the process: Do you want to make silver prints, platinum prints, inket prints, Lightjet prints, or what ?



Perhaps you ought to find out what advantages and disadavantages of each print type - rather than the processes that get you to them.



Once you know, you can choose the process to get to the goal, rather than the other way around.

[John Cook]

As a student in art school in the 1960's, I almost immediately learned how to make an excellent b&w print. It took about 3/4 box of paper, printing through two or more contrast filters, more burning and dodging than a talkative Navy semaphore signalman, and most of the day in the lab.

Then I opened a business (1970's) when an 8x10 glossy print retailed for less than forty cents.

It was at that point that I came to understand that the “learning curve” for b&w printing involved recognizing or creating decent lighting, understanding how to read an exposure meter, and running a few exposure/development film tests.

Consistency is everything. When you reach the point that all of your negatives are properly exposed and developed images of a well lighted scene, you will be able to turn out twenty to fifty excellent (straight) prints every work day without breaking a sweat.

And all those fancy, secret, time-wasting techniques for saving a crummy negative will become vanity.

Electronic printing will become handy in your golden years when you are in an assisted-living facility where they won’t let you have a wet lab. Or when your walker begins to get in the way. ;0)

[Kevin Quinlan]

Its funny that you say for both, because I was going to suggest doing B&W prints with a traditional wet lab, and doing color printing digitally. Although both can be done digitally, I feel that both look better done chemically. But, printing color 4x5 has a much larger cost in terms of machinery and chemicals(4x5 color head& print processor or normal temperature color chemicals) than b&w does. I would try out b&w traditional darkroom printing first(it can be cheaper to start off than buying photoshop). Then eventually start working with photoshop(we will all need to use it eventually). They will both take practice, but you can teach either one to yourself in a relatively short time (it does take time to get very good at them though). Whichever one you learn first will help you learn the other better. If all of this sounds like too much, find a good lab that you can live with their results (I havn't found one yet).

Kevin Quinlan

[Graeme Wilson]

Another question is what process will you enjoy more ?

Both processes are capable of producing stunning prints.

I spend all day in front of a PC for my job - I'm REALLY looking forward to setting up a wet darkroom when I buy a house - I already do my own B&W processing in a daylight tank - creating the final print is the next step.

After all day managing databases on a PC - mucking around with chemicals sounds like more fun than firing up a PC to load photoshop.

[Bill_1856]

The learning curve for Photoshop 7.0 is daunting. Photoshop Elements, however, is pretty easy. There's probably a cheap course at your local technical school, too.

[Ben Calwell]

John,

You're a hoot. You should write a book. I enjoy reading your posts -- very entertaining.

[Peter Rip]

Ken is certainly correct -- the output drives the process choice.

When I decided to do this (about 3 years ago), I made the choice to shoot film and go digital on the printing. If I only had an interest in B&W, the decision would have been harder. If I had been concerned about the more limited ditial outputs, the decision would have favored darkroom. But the positives in favor of digital were pretty overwhelming, even then:

(1) No set up / chemistry / temperature control, all of which are more of an issue with color. (2) The ability to do my art/craft intermittantly and in a setting more accessible to my family.

The first point is obvious. The second point is less so. The ability to fire up the scanner/PC/Photoshop and "work for a while" and just hit Save, is a great boon for me. Photography is a fairly solitary activity and the darkroom really amplifies that isolation. I like the ability to work on something for a while, get interrupted -- sometimes for hours -- and come back and resume.

On the notion of "learning curve", I think they actually share a lot. There is "what you do" and "how you do it". In many ways the "what you do" is the same -- spotting, burning/dodging, masking of various sorts, filtration, etc. The "how you do it" is specific to the medium. Some of the "how" is in chemistry/light manipulation and some of the "how" is in pixel maniputation.

That all said, in a pure b&w pursuit, I have not yet seen anything from digital rendering that has the tonality of a platinum print. But, when it comes to color, digital has a real edge (IMHO).

[darter]

It is too simplistic to say that the output should drive the choice. As many respondents have made clear, the process can be as meaningful as the final result. Some long-term darkroom workers are overjoyed to switch to digital as they never liked darkroom work. Other individuals get enormous satisfaction from working in the tactile reality of emulsion, paper, and chemistry. I suggest that Peter not rush into the decision, but spend a few weeks making progress in a darkroom. By the end of it, he will know whether he wants to continue on the wet side. I am also not convinced that color digital prints have now, or ever will, surpass the quality of good ilfochrome prints or the newly-revived art of dye-transfer printing.

[Brian Ellis]

While both involve a learning curve, the learning curve for digital is much, much steeper. You can make an acceptable black and white print your first night in a wet darkroom if you've done some stuying beforehand and have even a modicum of talent. Digital is much more difficult. However, IMHO the results are better too in both color and black and white, at least up to the point of maybe 16x20. So I'd suggest digital if there are no other relevant considerations (e.g. cost, what you like to do, what you plan to do with the prints, etc.).

I used a wet darkroom off and on from the time I was about 12 years old. In the last ten years I've taken five darkroom workshops, three from John Sexton, one from Bruce Barnbaum, one from Phil Davis. In other words, I was a very serious, and if I say so myself very good, wet darkroom printer. About two years ago a friend started printing his black and white negatives digitally. The results were stunning. So I switched and now print my black and white negatives (6x7, 4x5, 8x10) digitally almost exclusively. The reason is simple. The results are noticeably better in almost all respects.

Digital is obviously the present and the future of photography. So if you're starting from scratch you might as well start with something that is and will continue to be the basic method of making a photographic print. Wet darkrooms as the mainstream way of printing have disappeared, now they're pretty much an alternative process. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and if you had said you really wanted to learn wet darkroom printing I'd have said go for it. But you indicate no strong personal preference either way and in that case I think digital is the way to go. Just my opinions of course.

[Bruce Watson]

Brian is one of the more articulate of our membership here. As usual, he offers sage advice. I absolutely agree with him.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Where is Jorge?

[Henry Ambrose]

Brian is right on.

That said I really enjoy doing things with my hands so I like wet darkroom work. My darkroom only occaisionally has anything to do with commercial work though. Commercial screams for digital so most of what I do happens in the computer. I cannot imagine not using digital tools for commercial jobs, although there are some who still deliver film as the final product. I deliver only electronic files and have done so almost exclusively since 1992.

If you are not working commercially I can see a strong argument for a wet darkroom if that kind of craft labor interests you. I'm very happy to spend a few hours in the dark sloshing stuff around. It is very different in a spiritual sort of way from sitting at a keyboard.

So my vote is to do both wet and digital. You don't have to start full-bore with both though. How about getting a cheap wet set-up that someone is abandoning for digital to see if you like it? I suspect you could get everything you need for well under $1000, maybe half that. Then perhaps an Epson 3200 scanner which I think comes with Photoshop "lite" (whatever they call it now). I think you'd learn a lot from both and I think they compliment each other. I'm certain I have a much higher appreciation for each method as a result of knowing both.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks Hogarth, I'll send the money tomorrow. : - )

[Andre Noble]

Traditional B&W printing, particulary from a hard won negative of a place or person that/who is special to you is an unmatched experience of creativity photographically. Gotta have a wet darkroom, man.

As far as color goes, I personally plan to hunt/stalk down a nice Durst 2000 8x10 color enlarger one day that some pro lab is relinquishing as they join the digital mainstream , and I also plan on getting pin regstration equipment for contrast control because well-done color is also extrememly rewarding.

Wet darkroon is sexy and forever progresssive.

Digital as we know it will soon evolve into something better, but what it is now is not worth spending too many minutes of your life on, (IMHO as they say).

[Jay DeFehr]

I've never seen a digital print that comes close to the beauty of a really good silver or platinum print. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never seen one. The digital prints I've seen range from okay to horrible, and more horrible than okay. The argument that traditional, darkroom work is disappearing is a little disingenuous. Sure, if you plan to do high volume, commercial work, the darkroom can't compete with digital work, just as large format work couldn't compete with 35mm work. It would be a mistake to assume that that meant that either LF or darkroom work is inferior or relegated to a few odd cranks who refuse to accept the inevitable. The reasons for the decline in darkroom work are commercial and cultural, and have nothing to do with the quality of the results possible by the process. Artists do not represent a large enough market to drive the manufacturing and production of the materials we use, and as consumers migrate to the convenience and economy of digital imaging, manufacturers cut production of some materials and discontinue others. It's fair to say that LF film has become a niche market, but it's also accurate to say that LF photographers currently enjoy a wide selection of film, from a variety of manufacturers. If you're interested in commercial, production work, then you owe it to yourself to learn the digital process, but if you want to produce the highest quality work regardless of the process, then you owe it to yourself to seriously consider traditional darkroom work. Which you eventually prefer will depend on your temperament and many other factors, but to consider darkroom work doomed to extinction, or inferior to digital work would be a mistake. Traditional darkroom work has been continually practiced since it's inception, and there are currently photographers working in every process that has been developed in the history of the medium. There is no more reason to believe that darkroom work will disappear in favor of digital imaging then there was to believe that B&W photography would disappear in favor of color photography. Choose the process that suits you best, and leave predictions of doom to those with more free time.

[Jon_2416]

>I've never seen a digital print that comes close to the beauty of a really good silver or platinum print. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I've never seen one.

I have, one that just came out of my Epson 2200--although I don't see digital b/w as a replacement for silver, it is simply a different process. Silver will become (or already is) an alternative process just like the processes it replaced. Do yourself a favor: try to learn both.

[Jay DeFehr]

I'll have to take your word for the quality of your print, Jon, but I've still never seen one. Wether or not silver is an alternative to something else I leave for you to decide for yourself, but I will continue to work with the material I love. I am not a stranger to digital imaging, and I find it very convenient and economical.

[John Kasaian]

Rory,

My 2 cents: Do what gives you the greatest satisfaction---no one else can tell you what that might be, but they can show you what they find satisfying so take any offers you might find available to play with either processes and pursue the one that best satisfies your all your artistic needs.

[Michael E. Gordon]

I have experience in both b/w and color darkrooms and like to consider myself as fairly accomplished with Photoshop. As Andre says, the darkroom is sexy, and I find something infinitely more romantic and artistic about printing in the darkroom rather than digitally. Yet, as Mr. Ellis points out, I get stunning control digitally that I could not traditionally. How I wish I could print like John Sexton.

Excluding the LED and laser printers, I don't think digital inks and media are there yet. I can make stunning digital prints on my Epson wide format, to be sure, but upon inspection, the lack of an emulsion dulls the buzz of the print for me. Same thing with my b/w prints which are made on Photorag - they look excellent in their own right, but it's still not a traditional fiber print. So I accept them for what they are and recognize that they are entirely different ways to achieve the same goal.

If you can have both, I say do it. If you have to pick one and you're more into the process than the result, than it should be a wet darkroom. If the process is the means to achieve extreme control of your prints (and you are not John Sexton), then make it digital.

www.mgordonphotography.com

[Pete Su]

I would agree with Brian except for two points

1. Inkjet and other digital printing techniques are still new and unstable, especially in black and white. This means that it can be a lot of work and pain to get consistent results. It's not at all clear to me that there is currently a not-so-costly way to get black and white output that is comprable to nice fiber prints.

2. If you are just a hobbiest, the concerns of the larger marketplace are not a very important consideration IMHO. Black and white darkroom materials show no sign of dying in the short term. There's still plently to be found.

OTOH, I work mostly in digital. I have 2 year old, and don't have 4 hour blocks of time to get into a darkroom.

[Ken Lee]

It is too simplistic to say that the output should drive the choice.

You may be right, but perhaps some examples will help:

Let's say that one of your priorities is longevity: you want others to appreciate your work 500 years from now. Unless there is something new that I have overlooked, that rules out Inkjet prints, and probably any kind of color prints. Platinum/Palladium is probably the best bet.

If on the other hand, let's say your dream is to live near a national park, make landscape images, and earn your livelihood from print sales to tourists and nature lovers - who don't care if the images outlive them.. then having your own digital "lab" may make the most sense. The images can be shot on medium format, or with a digital back - since most "consumers" won't notice the difference, and likely don't care.

You may want huge prints where the image quality must be the absolute best: nothing less will do. That probably rules out anything short of ultra-large format contact prints.

The processes we use may vary from one person to another, but it's probably true that most of us use large format primarily because of our interest in the end result.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Digital is obviously the present and the future of photography. So if you're starting from scratch you might as well start with something that is and will continue to be the basic method of making a photographic print. Wet darkrooms as the mainstream way of printing have disappeared, now they're pretty much an alternative process. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and if you had said you really wanted to learn wet darkroom printing I'd have said go for it. But you indicate no strong personal preference either way and in that case I think digital is the way to go. Just my opinions of course.



As much as I respect Brian's opinion I have to take exception to this paragraph. There are more and more people doing alt printing and contact printing in silver now than has ever been before. The digital mantra " The final product is what matters, not the process" and "silver printing is now an alt process" is nothing more than wishful thinking in the hopes that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, and is not the current thinking in the art world.



Rather than asking "what process I should learn?" you should ask yourself "What type of photographs I like best?" Go to galleries and look at all the different types of photographs they have and base your decision on that, not on the output process. The proponents of digital printing have given you some valid reasons to choose digital, but they conveniently fail to address the short comings.



For one, I still have the same enlarger I bought 13 years ago, it never talks back to me or stops working because it cannot "communicate" with the paper. It still works and looks just as good as the first day I unpacked it.
The good inks for B&W, namely MIS and Cone are as expensive as platinum and you use far more than you would in a pt/pd print. Without the same results I might add.
I dont have to recopy my negatives every 2 or 3 years to make sure they have not lost information. Not something to sneer about if you are taking a lot of pictures. Even if you are scanning negatives, the "final" print is still a digital file which has to be recopied every few years if you want to keep it.



I could go on, but these few are just an example that digital is not the bed of roses many would like to have us believe, it has its short comings as all the processes. As such you should not be looking at what makes it "easier", a typical digital response, but you should be looking at what produces the kind of image that satisfies you the most. Photography is like work, if you enjoy what you are doing, then most likely the results will be outstanding, if you dont, no matter how many "controls" PS offers you, most likely your images wont have the "soul" you are looking for.



Bottom line, define what you like and do that! Dont let the silly rumors that "traditional photography is dead" or that "the process does not matter" sway you from doing what you like, believe me they are not true and far from the current reality.



Geoffrey, been taking pictures...something you should be doing..:-)

[james mickelson]

I haven't come close to mastering the digital platform yet (not even close) so this is just my opinion. The digital platform is wonderous in the sense that it is far more capable of so many different styles and such creativity than a wet darkroom, especially in the realm of color work. You have Ilfochrome, and dye transfer if you can afford it. Pretty limited to straight prints. Not much variability in these methods of prodcing a print without great effort, expense, and I must say that I see little difference between a good digital print now and a dye transfer print. To practice dye transfer, you will find it quite expensive, time consuming, and the learning curve is enormous. Yes the digital learning curve is steep (boy don't I know). But it is capapble of rendering any look you can think of without wasting resources and time once you establish the basics. And you can do it for a min, leave and then come back and work on it some more. You can spend all night long working on a print. I print in a darkroom. I love to print in my darkroom. I love the tactile quality of it. I love playing. Masking, dye dodging, bleaching, multiple filter printing, toning. I love it. It's challenging to say the least. And I have yet to see a quality (but it is getting closer) black and white print from digital except by very accomplished digital printers with tons of experience and good inks and drivers(?). Yeah yeah yeah. I've heard all the arguments from you journeymen digital guys. Let's go to Carmel or to LA and compare your work with a decent silver print. But I have to say that I believe digital is so much more rewarding once you get the hang of it. My vote goes wholeheartedly to the digital platform if you are choosing. You may not get the same look as silver (the Pt/Pd look you can do in a heartbeat as well as cyanotype, Van Dyke, Gum Bichromate, ect), the depth and overall quality of a good silver print, but you will have endless choices. I see so much more creativity out there now with the development of the digital platform. I see it in photographers who would never be able to create these works of art were it not for the digital platform. Go digital my son. And don't look back.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

(the Pt/Pd look you can do in a heartbeat as well as cyanotype, Van Dyke, Gum Bichromate, ect),



The "look" is not the same as a true pt/pd print. I have yet to see this "Digital platinum glicèe" or any other ink jet print come close to the real thing. They are not bad, but definitly not the same. But I suppose if you are doing digital close enough is good enough...uh?

[james mickelson]

There were some incredible digital prints at Photo SF last July which I would have sworn were Pt/Pd prints but when talking to the gallery staff found were actually digitally printed. Very nice work in order to fool me and my friends as we are all printers. That is why I feel that for most printing, digital is the platform for those just now getting into printing. It offers so much more than the darkroom. Don't misinterpret what I say. I am a die hard darkroom printer and will remain so. I think digital right now falls well short of a darkroom silver print but for most other work, I think digital is there or so close as to be hard to tell apart. But like most changes to a technology, there are adherents who will go down kicking and screaming. I was one until I saw at the galleries and shows just how far digital has come. But I hope they will still make film and paper till I take my last photographic hike.

[John Kasaian]

James,

Interesting viewpoint. I look at things differently, I guess. Materials and processes(to me) are a part of the experience. I've seen some wonderful marble/resin statues---in fact I just bought one. The only difference that I can see is that I can almost afford a resin statue. It certainly took artistic skill and talent and costly materials(well, marble dust anyway) and technology to produce the "Flight to Egypt" which is now a special part of my holiday decore. But it is not a marble sculpture. That is what I don't understand about making digital prints that look like platinum/palladium or (you name it.) They may be nice prints, even great prints, but they aren't examples of The Process---modern technology, yes, but not the Real Deal. Is there value? Yes. Creativity? Yes. A Real Platinum Print? No, no, no. The illusion that is something "looks like, smells like, feels like, and tastes like_____then it must be_____" slide into the La Brea tar pits along with travel agents and coffee that actually tastes like coffee instead of hazelnuts or something. Will people be satisfied with "virtual unreality?" No doubt, but the real McCoys will undoubtedly be more appreciated and appreciate more as a result.-------Cheers!

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Geoffrey, been taking pictures...something you should be doing..:-)

What makes you think I don’t? That is why I am not on the computer too often. Lucky for some though :-))

[Geoffrey Swenson]

I don’t have to recopy my negatives every 2 or 3 years to make sure they have not lost information. Not something to sneer about if you are taking a lot of pictures. Even if you are scanning negatives, the "final" print is still a digital file which has to be recopied every few years if you want to keep it.

Here my feeling exactly parallels that of Jorge. Hopefully though, they might come up with a good way of drawing completed digital files back to film in order to securely store it. This present frantic shuffle greatly disturbs me, and that is why I am still not for digital capture.

[Jay DeFehr]

Geoffrey, according to Dan Burkholder, they have come up with a good way to make negatives from digital files. What is it about his method that you don't consider good? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm still reading his book, and I'd like to hear from people with more experience.

[Geoffrey Swenson]

Jay, What I was trying to say is that I want to be able write the corrected digital file back onto film so it would be kinda safe. I realize that there are film recorders that do that today, but if I am correct the quality is not the same as an original transparency (very expensive too). At least not yet!

I don’t mean the Burkholder Digital Negatives for printing, I mainly worry about the uncertainty of storing digital data. I basically have the same concern as Jorge mentioned, that you have to be virtual squirrel to save here and there, resave etc. files so that hopefully have a usable one in a few years.

Today, and I don’t care what anyone says, the scanning process is not perfect, because you still have to do a lot of work just to get back what was on the original slide. I look forward to the day when one can rescan the recorded image with all the necessary corrections and without all that mumbo-jumbo that is required now.

That is why I am concerned about the demise of, in my case color film, because I don’t 100% trust digital yet.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What makes you think I don’t? That is why I am not on the computer too often. Lucky for some though :-))

Hey, hey ,hey....dont get your feathers ruffled, you asked where I was...:-))

[Nick_3536]

I want to disagree with the point that wet colour is expensive in terms of equipment. Colour 4x5 enlargers aren't selling for any more money then B&W 4x5 enlargers. If anything the belief that colour is next to impossible seems to be depressing the value of colour enlargers versus B&W only ones. Sure a person can spend all kinds of money on colour equipment but you can do that for B&W to. Almost all my darkroom equipment is used and likely bought for 10-25% of the new cost. Other then the probe on the colour analyser I bought everything works perfectly.

I'm sure spending more money on some colour toys would make me more productive but I'm not in a production enviroment. Some how I guess Rory isn't either. My colour enlarger cost no more then a scanner would have. How much more would I have to spend to get a colour printer that could handle the 20x24 or so my enlarger can?

[Geoffrey Swenson]

“dont get your feathers ruffled”

No, I’m easy :-)) Merry Christmas!!

G.

[Sergio Caetano]

"...one that just came out of my Epson 2200..."

Jon

Sincere congratulations. You've done something very hard to get.

[Rory_3532]

Thanks to everyone who commented. The replies identify a number of considerations that are going to take some thinking about. Have a good holiday season and New Year.