Darkroom vs Scanning

[earlnash]

It's not about which is "better" - an analogue or digital print - that debate has really died down over the last few years. Rather, it's about what you want to do with the images and how you want to share them with the world. If you have a website, or post on instagram you've got to make a digital image sooner or later.

For me, shooting with film is more deliberate and intentional. There's no instant feedback; you won't know how the images look until you develop them. Through hard experience, your image-capturing process has to evolve to "work like a typewriter" (as Alec Soth said).

Once I have a negative, I prefer a hybrid work flow: scan, photoshop, digital print. It's very economical and convenient in terms of my time and schedule. I can spend as little as 15-20 mins or 5-10 hours; I can stop whenever I want, and pick up later where I left off. Another plus is that the work flow allows you two additional intermediary steps (scan, photoshop) where you can correct your mistakes, and bring the image closer to what you envisaged.

Michael Sobel

http://www.michaelsobel.photo

[Drew Wiley]

Depends, calfmike. Serious collectors can be very medium-conscious; they don't think like the general public, and certainly not like people entering tourist galleries. That's why I abandoned my own website long ago; it attracted a crowd, but the wrong crowd, and didn't make a bit of difference with those who have the real thing in mind. In the words of Hannibal Lecter, One covets what one sees. And there's not much to covet in a web image; you can get all of those you want for free.

[Califmike33]

Depends, calfmike. Serious collectors can be very medium-conscious; they don't think like the general public, and certainly not like people entering tourist galleries. That's why I abandoned my own website long ago; it attracted a crowd, but the wrong crowd, and didn't make a bit of difference with those who have the real thing in mind. In the words of Hannibal Lecter, One covets what one sees. And there's not much to covet in a web image; you can get all of those you want for free.

Good point and yes I know there are people that are willing to pay for silver gelatin darkroom prints collectors more serious art people than just your general public. You know I'm just gathering all of my gear lenses camera tripod everything obviously the next step is going to be how am I going to print and I'm definitely going into the dark room to give it another try for sure just trying to see what most people on here do but it seems to vary a lot.

[Michael R]

In any case, my suggestion to OP is to try to view some high quality inkjet. Off the top of my head one excellent example would be Brian Kosoff, who comes from a darkroom background and still makes some silver prints but mostly does inkjet now (including colour).

There are others of course.

[Drew Wiley]

Up in your frozen northland, where wooly mammoths, polar bears, and zombie walking-dead ice hockey players still roam, Bob Carnie's operation does excellent inkjet printing. I've seen some of those displayed down here.

[Michael R]

What I’d like to do is visit with Cone (Cone Editions, Piezography) in VT. I’ve seen a few beautiful things done by them.

Up in your frozen northland, where wooly mammoths, polar bears, and zombie walking-dead ice hockey players still roam, Bob Carnie's operation does excellent inkjet printing. I've seen some of those displayed down here.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, all of that kind of technology is steadily advancing. But it already seems to be plateauing a bit in a "good enough" sense, just like chromogenic printing somewhat stalled for quite awhile before taking a fresh look around. I'm not exactly thrilled with quite a few hue gamut issues in inkjet options; but monochrome black and white results have dramatically improved, in the right hands, at least. Still, I prefer the highly nuanced and even somewhat unpredictable toning qualities of darkroom papers. There's a certain magic involved, or alchemy perhaps, which mechanical reproduction simply can't mimic very well. When it come to basic black, and tones thereof, well, that's a different story. But direct optical enlargement straight from film, along with contact printing, still has that special something I don't see in even the best inkjet work. Whatever. I appreciate any kind of print if it's well done.

Very high-end industrial cost press work is in a different category, since that has to be specially farmed out at considerable expense to achieve. Some of the best of that is being done right around here. The typical even pro photographer can't afford it, not by a long shot.

[Richard Wasserman]

What I’d like to do is visit with Cone (Cone Editions, Piezography) in VT. I’ve seen a few beautiful things done by them.

Talk to Walker Blackwell at Cone. He was doing beautiful prints using Piezography inks a few years ago when he had a printing studio here in Chicago. I haven't seen his more recent work, but I imagine it has only gotten better.

[Califmike33]

I will have to look at some of those printers you mentioned. Im not real keen on having a lab print my work, unless its a huge print otherwise i prefer to do it myself.

I was at the camera store here in CA and looking around talking to a lady i know who has been there for 23 years and we talked inkjet printing. She brought out some sample portraits on Baraya paper, dont remember if it was epson, red river, but anyway i was acually quiet taken by how good it looked and did look and have darkroom vibe for sure.

[Tin Can]

I had 36X48" printed DIGI and mounted, very reasonably inside USA and delivered

I had the perfect $5 baroque frame from Goodwill

Kinda depends on your goal

Printer got worried and offered a reprint

Not necessary, as it was exactly how and what I wanted and specced