Darkroom vs Scanning

[jnantz]

Somebody gets famous and rich exploiting the rich and famous, becomes an art institution by poking fun at art as an institution, and then is off limits themselves? I don't think so. All kinds of people have baldness issues, but not all go around with a scarecrow wig, and do that deliberately as a conversation piece, part of their "gig". An exploiter of celebrity seeking celebrity, and successfully. Avedon was worse. There, two sacred cows at once, from the same era. I'm sick of seeing the work of either of them. Xerox machines on steroids. Nuf' said. I'm chiming out.

Wow. you really wrote that?
Really sad.

[djdister]

Wow, this one has gone astray. But to get back to the original issue, I have shot the same scene on digital and film, scanned the film and then made inkjet prints from both at the same enlargement and there is a certain quality to the film-scan-inkjet print versus the digital-inkjet print that is often but not always more pleasing. So although I am stuck doing inkjet prints for now, if I can shoot film instead of digital, I do, because the final inkjet print from a scanned negative carries with it certain film qualities that I like to see in the print. So, not scientific by any means, but that's my observation and I'm sticking with it.

[SergeyT]

...wondering where conversations like this would be heading if digital sensors were invented before photographic film...
There is nothing wrong with any given method of producing prints. Just choose what is available, acceptable, affordable, suits your needs and then perfect your skills at it.
There is no unconditionally best method
There is no "one suits all" method
Browse through the "post alternative techniques" thread on this site for examples
Darkroom printing is a no guarantee for superior results
The "digital" technology is reality, it is not going away and it is not the one to blame for mediocre results. Film and paper are highly technological products that are produced on a high-precision digitally-driven equipment. Many photographers are using digital light meters, timers, processors and all other "digital" goodies in the process of producing "analog" photographic prints
Speaking of "uniqueness" of each darkroom print that's a false valuation as nothing prevents a "digital" photographer from deleting all the traces of a digital file after a single print is made from it. On the other hand, one can keep endlessly "perfecting" their "digital" image and making only one print from each iteration of same digital file

[Alan Klein]

It's not like printing chemically is the only sacred film cow. There's a whole other aspect of film called slides and projection that was extremely popular before. I shot about half my pictures and projected them only. If I wanted a photo album then I shoot negative film. The end results are quite different.

[wclark5179]

Just wondering, which will last longer, an ink jet print or a ag gel darkroom made print? With the Same conditions of showing. At my age maybe I shouldn’t care!

I find, that with digital, I look on my iMac, then that’s it.

I also have rolls of film to develop. Maybe make a few prints. Don’t use large format any more.

Interesting discussion.

Thanks.

[Drew Wiley]

Long-term archival implications are a complex topic. Aardenburg had studied that relative to these newer media like inkjet. But let me just imply how real results take the actual test of time under a variety of display and storage conditions to soberly evaluate; and so much of this is still adolescent. Anytime someone goes around claiming this or that new technology will produce a prints lasting hundreds of years, well, let them wait a few hundred years and then give an evaluation. Accelerated aging tests are better than nothing, but can't begin to take into account all the potential variables. By contrast, things like silver gelatin prints, PT/Pd prints, carbon prints, and quite a number of other kinds we could mention have been around for well over a hundred years, and some, nearly double that.

That ongoing debate is more in the realm of color photographic printing rather than black and white. I just do the best I can with what I can. I have reason to believe most of my Cibachromes in storage at least will still look good long after I'm thrown under some lawn. The newer RA4 media, perhaps too, but I certainly won't be the one to say, But older RA4 chromogenic papers, are already showing signs of fading and yellowing.

[Michael R]

Who cares. Photographers worry way too much about it.

"Beauty is transitory"

Long-term archival implications are a complex topic. Aardenburg had studied that relative to these newer media like inkjet. But let me just imply how real results take the actual test of time under a variety of display and storage conditions to soberly evaluate; and so much of this is still adolescent. Anytime someone goes around claiming this or that new technology will produce a prints lasting hundreds of years, well, let them wait a few hundred years and then give an evaluation. Accelerated aging tests are better than nothing, but can't begin to take into account all the potential variables. By contrast, things like silver gelatin prints, PT/Pd prints, carbon prints, and quite a number of other kinds we could mention have been around for well over a hundred years, and some, nearly double that, and conservators understand some of the basics of preservation.

[Drew Wiley]

Are you looking in a mirror when stating that, Michael? Alas, none of us came with a warranty against fading.

[Sal Santamaura]

...things like silver gelatin prints...have been around for well over a hundred years, and some, nearly double that...

Not the silver gelatin prints being made today. Things like paper base, optical brightening agents and coatings in current commercial products weren't used until recent decades. For those who do care about print life expectancy, the data about contemporary silver gelatin prints aren't any more solid than those about inkjet prints.

[Michael R]

It's just something Spock once said. It's universal, so in the end who cares. A well made inkjet print is "archival" enough if it is taken care of, just like any other ink work on paper. With time, eventually everything falls apart, as you know. Also, "archival" is a word photographers like to use, but most workers are generally sloppy. People spend a hell of a lot more money on paintings than photo prints, and are they archival? People bought Mondrian's work even though he prepared his oils in such a way they were doomed to crack and fall apart relatively quickly. Etc.

Are you looking in a mirror when stating that, Michael? Alas, none of us came with a warranty against fading.