Do your best BW inkjets matched or surpass your best BW wet prints?

[mdarnton]

I went to an exhibit at the Chicago Art Institute last year where halfway through I realized that half the prints were half digital, half silver. The ONLY difference was a slight color difference. Both types were wonderful. The artist was http://www.abelardomorell.net/about-abelardo-morell/

In my own work, I was a pretty good silver printer 35 years ago, but much prefer my current digital prints. The whole workflow is a zillion times better, and after I found a paper that I liked, that part worked, too.

Both types of printing have their own quirks, and I wasn't happy with my prints in either for quite a while. Its a poor workman who blames his tools.

[Lenny Eiger]

I don't know which type is sharper. When I flatbed scan my negs they don't seem as sharp as the same neg printed as a wet print. But I don't have the special neg carriers or wet carriers for the scanner.

Or even a good scanner. If you want to compare sharpness, you need to use a drum scanner. We all know that consumer flatbeds have plastic lenses. It's not fair to compare the best of one medium with the least of another. There are scenarios, where people with some expertise can get a flatbed scanner to work for them. This usually includes a large format negative, adjusting the height of the glass, wet mounting and creative sharpening. They do not include 35mm film.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

The big exhibit of William Clift's last year in Phoenix and Santa Fe had a few ink jets. Having heard this many photographers who visited the exhibit speculated on how many and which ones. Some swore up and down that they all were but everyone had an opinion. One photographer I knew wrote the whole exhibit off as all inkjet. He definitely said this with a degree of distain. The fact was that only three were out of some 80, or so. And the printing in all cases was extraordinary. Clift is known as a great silver printer and this show did not disappoint. Like this photographer there are a lot of traditional printers who are so biased that they can't look at inkjet objectively and in fact do often base their arguments on the worst inkjet vs. the best silver. In some cases their outlook is so prejudiced that (like the guy I knew above) can't even appreciate a high quality exhibit that is overwhelmingly traditional because it was tainted by a couple of inkjet prints. Online one gallery owner in CA was bragging that her collection of his prints were all silver unlike the inkjets that were now in the show. In fact the ones she owns were silver in the exhibit and have never been printed in ink. This kind of bias is humorous at this point.

Yes there are a lot of crappy inkjets out there. There are also a lot of crappy silver and alt prints out there. Look at how much buzz there is about wetplate when so much of it is inept being made by people who don't even know how to properly pour a plate?

I went to an exhibit at the Chicago Art Institute last year where halfway through I realized that half the prints were half digital, half silver. The ONLY difference was a slight color difference. Both types were wonderful. The artist was http://www.abelardomorell.net/about-abelardo-morell/

In my own work, I was a pretty good silver printer 35 years ago, but much prefer my current digital prints. The whole workflow is a zillion times better, and after I found a paper that I liked, that part worked, too.

Both types of printing have their own quirks, and I wasn't happy with my prints in either for quite a while. Its a poor workman who blames his tools.

[paulr]

There are scenarios, where people with some expertise can get a flatbed scanner to work for them. This usually includes a large format negative, adjusting the height of the glass, wet mounting and creative sharpening. They do not include 35mm film.

I'll second this. I have a consumer desktop scanner and am able to get good scans from b+w 4x5. I wet mount to glass, use shims to find the focal plane, etc. etc... Each scan takes about 45 minutes. Results are better than what I can get with an enlarger. You'd probably start to see the advantages of a high end scanner at print sizes over 24".

With 120 film I can get decent prints, but not great. A really good darkroom print would probably be better. With 35mm results are mostly limited to the web or to prints smaller than 8x10.

[tgtaylor]

Well one thing about optical printing is that, believe it or not, it is a more healthy activity than sitting behind the computer. Of course this is assuming that you have proper ventilation on the wet side and you are using “friendly” chemicals like citric acid for a stop, an odor free fix like TF-5, and disposable gloves to keep your fingers out of the chemicals.

I do most of my printing after supper when it is easy to completely block all outside light in the bedroom where I have the enlarger set-up in what would be an otherwise unoccupied corner. The wet-side is the bathroom across the hall where I have the trays and a Thomas safe light set-up. The procedure is to expose the sheet place it in a paper safe and walk it to the bathroom where I process it, onto the living room for a close examination of the results, and then back to the enlarger where the process repeats itself. So instead of sitting behind the computer, I'm up on my feet walking around all the time. I've noticed this activity aids the digestion and I drink a great deal of water during the first hour or two which I wouldn't ordinarily do if I was just sitting. I imagine that is because the activity speed-ed-up the metabolism and the system needed water - which is good because water is good for you. And each trip to the living room requires that you give a careful and close consideration of the result, where you want to go from there, and the best way to proceed. In other words optical printing forces you to use your mind at each step in the process and not just push buttons and move sliders to see what happens. In short, you are forced to think.

But there's also the drudgery of optical printing: measuring out the chemistry, blocking out the window and cleaning up after a session. The other night I got the prints in the washer at 12:20am, sat down to watch the TV and fell asleep waking up at 1:50am to remove the prints from the washer. They were on fiber paper and I ran them through HC before placing them in the washer so they ended-up being over-washed.

Thomas

[Gary Tarbert]

With me yes they are just as good if not better, But that says more about my wet darkroom skills than anything else i guess . Cheers Gary

[paulr]

Well one thing about optical printing is that, believe it or not, it is a more healthy activity than sitting behind the computer.

I think this is really hard to say, because the activities are so different. Darkroom printing is much more physical for me, in both good and bad ways. I'm on my feet, jumping around to music, etc, which is all good. But the sessions tend to be marathon, into the night, and cut deep into my sleep schedule, which is maybe not the best.

Working at the computer, while basically a couch-potato activity, is more time efficient, so I don't need to do such long sessions. But the biggest difference is that you can get up and go do something else anytime you like. You can hit save and make a sandwich, walk around the block, etc.. Stop at any time and pick up again later.

[sanking]

"Well one thing about optical printing is that, believe it or not, it is a more healthy activity than sitting behind the computer. Of course this is assuming that you have proper ventilation on the wet side and you are using “friendly” chemicals like citric acid for a stop, an odor free fix like TF-5, and disposable gloves to keep your fingers out of the chemicals."

You don't have to sit at the computer. Put your monitor on a high table and stand as you do your editing. While files are being processed you can do 8-10 low squats to strengthen your leg and butt muscles, and a wide variety of stretching exercises, yoga poses, and butt tightening routines.

Also, when you print don't just walk away and let the printer do its job. Stand about two feet in front of the printer follow the head of the printer with your own head as it moves back and forth across the platen. To get even more neck stretching, stand at a right angle to the printer and rotate your head with the head of the printer. Enhance the degree of stretching by investing in a wide format printer of 48" or more and you can really get a good stretch from your neck.

Employees all over the world are using innovative strategies to stay on their feet and exercise while doing work at the computer. No reason digital printers have to just sit there and grow their butts.



Sandy

[djdister]

As Sandy said, either process can be unhealthy, and there are plenty of ways traditional darkroom processing can hurt you if you aren't careful. So the "more healthy" angle is a dubious discriminator.

[tgtaylor]

"Employees all over the world are using innovative strategies to stay on their feet and exercise while doing work at the computer. No reason digital printers have to just sit there and grow their butts." But isn't the latter what the typical office worker and digital printer ends up doing? Optical printing doesn't require innovative strategies to thwart the couch potato syndrome since you are up and moving the whole time. Well, most of the time because I, for example, do take a break, sometimes for several minutes, while examining the print to determine the next course of action with it. Anyway, doing squats, sit-up, push-ups, etc while your files are being processing would appear to break your train of thought. When you print you want to stay focused.

Another health benefit of optical printing that I didn't think of is that it is better on your eyes than staring at a computer screen a foot away most of the time and if a desk job is your day job that is exactly what you do all day long. It is a well documented fact that staring for long periods at a computer screen is bad for the eyes. With optical printing to are not staring at a near fixed object as you are with digital printing but constantly switching from near to far which is recommended.

BTW, I recently read in a medical recommendation that adding Lutein and Zeaxanthin to ones diet would result in a significant reduction in age-related macular degeneration and cataracts. Apparently the eye stops producing those two nutrients in middle-age. After I read the article I stopped at the drugstore and bought a bottle of the Bausch + Lomb product and after a month of daily usage I believe that I can tell a difference. Driving down that dark 20+ mile stretch of 120 between Oakdale and the Yosemite turnoff I truly though that I could see much better than before I started taking the vitamin.

Thomas