Darkroom vs Scanning

[Califmike33]

Yes I would say time and convenience do play into it. I don't see a significant cost difference between the two formats one takes obviously more initial investment but in the long run they don't seem that different cost wise.

I would say my end result is to sell fine art prints. I think since I just gathered all my gear and I'm going to start shooting in the next few days obviously how I'm going to process those images is the next big step or decision I have to make I think I want to try both dark room and a jet and see what works for me.

[Ironage]

Probably a potential trap is to do some of both. Double accumulation of gear $. Trying to master both will waist time in problem solving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jnantz]

I think since I just gathered all my gear and I'm going to start shooting in the next few days obviously how I'm going to process those images is the next big step or decision I have to make I think I want to try both dark room and a jet and see what works for me.

do you have a way to process the film at home? you have no darkroom, and you were trying to get into hybrid work because the darkroom you would rent is inconvenient.

[Pieter]

You might want to perform a little experiment. Make the best print you can of a negative, then scan the negative and see if you can match the darkroom print with an inkjet one. Not as easy as you might think, but possible. An acquaintance did that exact test and it worked out well for him. It can depend on your style, preferences and the subject matter, too.

[Califmike33]

do you have a way to process the film at home? you have no darkroom, and you were trying to get into hybrid work because the darkroom you would rent is inconvenient.

Yes I have a way to process film at home I have a Patterson tank and a six sheet film holder so I can process six sheets of film at a time just don't have the room for a complete dark room.

[Califmike33]

Probably a potential trap is to do some of both. Double accumulation of gear $. Trying to master both will waist time in problem solving.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I will not be buying dark room supplies and inkjet supplies I will be going to the dark room and doing some printing by buying a pack of paper they supply all the chemicals. I will have somebody make me some inkjet prints to look at that's how I'll do my side by side comparison.

[bmikiten]

Hmmm another Michael R? That can’t be good for this forum LOL

At this point in the progression of digital camera technology, I have to say I don’t really understand why one would shoot film anymore if the intention is for the rest of the workflow and output to be digital. Unless one enjoys the film process, which is a perfectly valid reason. I guess the idea (generally speaking) is that this “hybrid” approach is that you retain some of the traditional material/chemistry in your workflow but aren’t stuck with relative hassle of darkroom printing, which requires space etc. Kind of the best of both worlds maybe. This is especially likely to be the case where colour work is involved. Making high quality colour prints in a darkroom was always a somewhat niche activity even in the pre-digital era. Relatively few colour photographers ever printed their own negatives/chromes, whereas now with inkjet printing a colour film shooter can do the whole thing A to Z, which is nice.

The other nice thing about inkjet for B&W film shooters (in addition to digital shooters of course) is they can make enlarged inkjet negatives, which opens the world of alt processes up to people using smaller film formats than were ever practical for contact printing.

One of the reasons I’d like to start down the digital rabbit hole is the possibility of making inkjet masks for darkroom printing. So many possibilities.

Your comment about why we shoot analog and inject digital into the workflow is something of a lesson I've learned over the years. I purchased a big Hassy system with a 50mb back on it years ago when I decided that film was dead. I used it in lieu of 4x5 for about a year when there was a big change in available backs and other technology. I quickly found that seeing the pixels on the screen made me nuts especially when cropping. No, in most normal sized prints you could not see it but there was an odd lack of character, depth and edge effects in the prints. I ended up realizing that the analog medium of film would provide the highest quality starting point regardless of the next step. It is basically future proof. I got a very high end scanner and if something better comes along, I'll get that. I can archive, make copy negatives, masks and negatives now letting my process have greater variety. I have several really good images shot on the Hassy that I wish I had done with film. Lesson learned.

[jnantz]

You might want to perform a little experiment. Make the best print you can of a negative, then scan the negative and see if you can match the darkroom print with an inkjet one. Not as easy as you might think, but possible. An acquaintance did that exact test and it worked out well for him. It can depend on your style, preferences and the subject matter, too.

this is great advice ...

I need to go somewhere and look first hand at some high quality inkjet prints and see for myself.

rather than looking at random people's work as high quality ink jet prints, look at how your own work translates into that end product...

[Pieter]

I know it takes some of the fun out of it, but outsourcing to high-end suppliers can be the best solution, both for wet prints and inkjet. Since you state the end results are fine art prints (you don't say for sale and exhibition or just for your own pleasure) this might be the way to go. It can be expensive, but really not that much more when you compare it to the cost of equipment and supplies for either digital or analog. If you can find a printer (a person, that is) that you like and build a good relationship and communication about expectations, you can get results that might be beyond what you could do yourself.

[Califmike33]

Your comment about why we shoot analog and inject digital into the workflow is something of a lesson I've learned over the years. I purchased a big Hassy system with a 50MB back on it years ago when I decided that film was dead. I used it instead of 4x5 for about a year when there was a big change in available backs and other technology. I quickly found that seeing the pixels on the screen made me nuts especially when cropping. No, in most normal-sized prints you could not see it but there was an odd lack of character, depth, and edge effects in the prints. I ended up realizing that the analog medium of film would provide the highest quality starting point regardless of the next step. It is future-proof. I got a very high-end scanner and if something better comes along, I'll get that. I can archive, and make copy negatives, masks, and negatives now letting my process have a greater variety. I have several really good images shot on the Hassy that I wish I had done with film. Lesson learned.

I like your explanation sounds like you have learned a lot in the process. One advantage is you can print the same print every time very easily with Inkjet.