Optical Printing??

[Jon Middleton]

Long story, I'll try to be brief. I have a small room in my basement reserved for a darkroom, not built out for ages. Almost 30 years ago I bought a bunch of darkroom equipment from a pro who was getting out of the business, including a 6' Arkay sink, a Super Chromega II enlarger, plus trays, timer, etc. I've gone digital in recent years and have a lot of high quality gear. But, I'm wanting to go back to LF for landscape photography. I have a Zone VI 4x5 I bought new in the early 90's, Serial #2830, along with a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N and a 90mm Nikon f/8 SW. From my reading, the Nikon is supposed to be very sharp. The Rodenstock not so much, though I have been quite impressed with prints up to 20x24.

So, debating whether to install the sink and do optical printing or not. For color I'm shooting Provia, but I'm thinking that I could shoot B&W and develop it in my recently purchased Stearman 445. Easy. I've scanned transparencies on my Epson V700 with excellent results and have several technically excellent 20x24 color prints utilizing this workflow. So, my options are either scanning my B&W negatives, editing them in PS, then having prints made vs traditional printing techniques. Would like to hear from those here more eperienced than I about which approach they prefer and why, especially if you've done both. I will add that I am retired and have no time or financial constraints. Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

Is there anything OTHER than real optical printing? What is a scanner? Never heard of that. Well, there is an old dusty one laying around here somewhere, unused for many years. I have better ways,
and am headed there in about ten minutes, in fact, once I'm done with the coffee. Optical printing, either b&w or color, is just so much more nuanced in terms of tonality, detail, hue control in the case of color, or convincing toning with respect to black and white silver papers. It's relaxing and hands-on. No need to keep constantly looking over your shoulder whether your software or hardware is suddenly going to be obsolete. Printing papers are generally better than ever, though at the moment I am having difficulty acquiring my preferred color paper due to all these covid mfg and shipping complications.

Well, turning Provia sheet film into high-end optical color prints, via an enlarger, is a bit involved; I've done a fair amount of that over the past few years. Printing directly from color neg film instead is relatively straightforward and affordable. Optical enlarging of black and white film is as easy or as difficult as ever; just depends how far you want to take it. You can learn the basics in half an hour, and then go from there in terms of fine-tuning your film exposure and development to match your print expectations. Hopefully, you have a true glass carrier for your Chromega. Futzing around trying to find the "best" camera lenses means nothing if the film isn't kept flat in the enlarger carrier, and it doesn't have a good lens too. You've got the enlarger already; so add some decent ventilation and the sink with its drainage, and why not? Why imitate using software when you're already so close to having the real thing?

[Alan9940]

For color (not that I do much of that), I scan and post-process / print on the desktop. For B&W, I do both scan/print and print in a darkroom. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with either approach though I will say that a finely crafted B&W silver gelatin print just seems to have a quality that no inkjet print can match. Neither method of working is easy. To craft a fine B&W print in the darkroom requires years of experience. To generate a good B&W print from the desktop requires a knowledgeable worker and is SO much more than simply clicking print. For example, many years ago I was involved with a small group of photographers where we crafted our own gray inks and printed via a piece of software that allowed user control of each channel in the print head. B&W desktop printing has come a long way since then, but you still have to possess the necessary knowledge to produce a beautiful print.

[Jon Middleton]

I'm not going to try to deal with color at home. I'll continue shooting and scanning transparencies, cleaning up the digital files and having prints made outside. Regarding B&W, I already have most of the equipment to optically print and have a tiny bit of experience developing film and optically printing on an old Omega 67 condenser enlarger. So I won't be starting completely from scratch. Just almost. I think I'll proceed with the darkroom, as the resale value of most of this stuff is nil. I contacted my local high school about maybe donating the sink, but they're all digital now. Plus, the room is already painted about a Zone IV gray, ceiling included. I can always go the route of scanning my negatives, getting rid of the sink, enlargers and repainting and repurposing the room.

[Alan Klein]

Good luck on whatever you do. Curious who you use for outside printing? Would you recommend them for color? BW?

[jnantz]

Long story, I'll try to be brief. I have a small room in my basement reserved for a darkroom, not built out for ages. Almost 30 years ago I bought a bunch of darkroom equipment from a pro who was getting out of the business, including a 6' Arkay sink, a Super Chromega II enlarger, plus trays, timer, etc. I've gone digital in recent years and have a lot of high quality gear. But, I'm wanting to go back to LF for landscape photography. I have a Zone VI 4x5 I bought new in the early 90's, Serial #2830, along with a 210mm Rodenstock Sironar N and a 90mm Nikon f/8 SW. From my reading, the Nikon is supposed to be very sharp. The Rodenstock not so much, though I have been quite impressed with prints up to 20x24.

So, debating whether to install the sink and do optical printing or not. For color I'm shooting Provia, but I'm thinking that I could shoot B&W and develop it in my recently purchased Stearman 445. Easy. I've scanned transparencies on my Epson V700 with excellent results and have several technically excellent 20x24 color prints utilizing this workflow. So, my options are either scanning my B&W negatives, editing them in PS, then having prints made vs traditional printing techniques. Would like to hear from those here more eperienced than I about which approach they prefer and why, especially if you've done both. I will add that I am retired and have no time or financial constraints. Thanks.

might as well enjoy yourself! if that has to do with scanning and having an outside printer make your prints that's not a bad choice unless you really have your heart set on doing everything in-house. There's a learning curve and if you don't mind spending the time and money on something that will be fun, might as well have fun, you only life once from what I've read. FWIW I've seen digital/pigment prints and digital C-Prints that looked absolutely beautiful, at least as stunning as any "traditional optical print" I have seen. you're probably right about re-sale value. we're lucky we have a communal art thing that took over the nearby city and I've donated a lot of things to them over the years ( entire silk screen studio, TV quality video gear &c ). not sure if that stuff exists near you but if you decide to outsource your printing it might be a great thing to look into. A lot of places operate on a shoe string budget and love donations. and you can turn your former darkroom now freed up basement into a gallery

best of luck deciding on the next step!
John

[Ari]

I'm with John. Enjoy yourself.
Both methods can produce beautiful results, the only question is how do you want to spend your time?
I agree about not doing color printing at home. I process color film here with the Unicolor C-41 press kit, but everything goes through the scanner eventually.

If it were me, I'd use the empty room as a dedicated scanning area, and keep a large format inkjet close by.
Once you calibrate everything, printing will be pretty quick, post-scan, and you'll spend more time shooting.

[Jon Middleton]

All the prints in my home theater were done by a local lab here in SLC called Master Lab. They matted and framed them, too. I have a few other prints done by my old college roommate at his home on an Epson. These photos don't do the prints justice:

[Drew Wiley]

John - NO current digital medium that I'm aware of can be correctly labeled as pigment printing. Digital negatives might be involved in making pigment prints, and certain people on this forum do that. And I know people who go from scans to laser etching of all kinds of printing plates. But Inkjet is NOT pigment printing. That's a common error in describing them, with misleading permanence connotations. Those inks are complex blends of finely ground pigments, lakes (dyed inert particles), and rather ordinary photographic dyes. It would be impossible to get a full selection of actual pigments to pass through those tiny nozzles, which is one of the inherent priorities of that technology. It's no skin off my back; but real pigment printers might be sensitive over the misnomer. And galleries certainly exploit the misunderstanding.

[Alan Klein]

All the prints in my home theater were done by a local lab here in SLC called Master Lab. They matted and framed them, too. I have a few other prints done by my old college roommate at his home on an Epson. These photos don't do the prints justice:
...

That's a great entertainment room. What kind of projector? Who gets the middle chair?