How many still wet enlarging ?

"I have...I have...I have...etc." Yes Steve, you have a lot; the envy of many no doubt. You seem to have everything, except charm.

 

For those of us that have neither the space nor the bank balance an enlarger and a small dark room seem to offer many possibilities.

For me, making prints in the darkroom is a therapy. It's my way to improve myself, with minimum automation. It's me alone, in my world, no distraction.

 

It's the time when I can really practice and interact with my photography and my mind is free from everything else. It's the time when I can listen to good music. It's the time when I can really create something special and original, something that has literally my touch, and that can't be send by email because it's phisical and personal, not virtual.

 

It's dealing with the nature of our universe. It's handling the photograph, not pressing buttons. When you touch an original print you're touching its author. And that makes me a big difference.

 

That's the way I feel about wet enlarging and that's why I do it.

 

But feeling changes from individual to individual.

for me A.never produced a print on a computer that has come anywhere near rivaling "wet print" and B. just love the darkroom and making prints the whole putting the final prints on the racks and waiting till next morning to be elated or dissapointined just love it. Trad for me!

For those that knock digital prints I would suggest that you think back to how long it took you to learn how to print in the darkroom. If your experience was anything like mine, it took a quite a while before you were getting prints you were proud of. The same can be said of digital - if you think you are going to learn how to do it in an afternoon you are going to be disappointed.

 

It takes skill and perseverance - the results, just like traditional printing can be excellent. I recently had to produce three copies of an exhibition (3 x 30 prints). I decided it would be more manageable doing them digitally. I would say, that the first set took me about the same time as I would have done wet printing, however the next two sets took much less time. Quality wise, I have had quite a bit of feedback commenting on how much people like the prints. One person even told me at an opening that 'those people shooting digital will never get this quality!'.

 

If you think digital prints are inferior, I would look at your technique.

Bob,

<p>

<i>Again, digital often in the working world is 'good enough'...</i>

<p>

<i>Most working pros still use conventional means (both capture and output) for their 'personal work'</i>

<p>

Bob, it's very clear that you haven't been to any galleries or museums lately.

<p>

<i>...than going that extra mile</i>

<p>

The time to go the extra mile is still there it just happens in PS which offers far greater control over an image than any amount of time standing over an easel.

<p>

ps: it's edmo not elmo, nothing like an eye for detail.

Re Al's comment on making 16x24 prints...

 

My desktop printer does 13 x whatever. I can make a bunch of prints from one file which

has perhaps a dozen or more ps edits (multiple local burning/dodging, contrast tweaks,

etc) - and the last print will be identical to the first. And in color if desired. Can you do

that Al?

 

If I need to go 16x24 I'll ftp the file to WHCC where 1-off prints cost $18.25, metallic a

little extra. No tax and free shipping. If I really wanted to, I could buy an Epson 4000

desktop printer which is good for 17" wide. And all of these options support color. How

do you do large color using wet process at home? At WHCC, I can go to 30x45, again with

multiple prints that are identical. Can you?

 

Printing large - such a silly metric. Edmo's first comment was spot-on.

Ricardo -- eloquent personal statement.

 

Edmo -- "elmo" would give you a red, furry feeling; might want to try it on for size before you you dismiss it?

 

Back to topic: Isn't it clear that "fine art printing" is now done both traditionally and using modern digital equipment (for capture, image adjustment, and/or output)?

 

And does "fine art printing" even have a universally accepted definition today -- by which I mean a definition other than "printing a photograph carefully on quality paper, so that it looks good and lasts a long time?"

this is boreing

It really depends on whether you like PS with lights off or no PS with lights off. I think both have their strengths and weaknesses. Whatever keeps you high I guess..

I prefer looking at the monitor with the lights off.

"And does "fine art printing" even have a universally accepted definition today..."

 

And WTF does "fine art" even mean? I've never understood that designation, sounds like something cooked up by gallery owners. I guess it's got to be good; it is fine art after all...

Add me to the (wet) darkroom diehards... Three years ago I was still doing RA4 color in it but now the scanners and the Epson 2200 have all but replaced the Nova processor; the output of the Epson on Ilford Gallerie Pearl paper is better than any wet color print I could make in 35 years of having learned the craft.

 

On the other hand, wet Black and White printing is a real joy to me. I have a small (2x4m) but well outfitted dedicated darkroom with a 4x5 LPL enlarger with color head that I use now almost exclusively for variable contrast, a Nova Monochrome slot processor that allows me to go into the darkroom for two or three prints if I want, and a sink large enough for 16x20 trays. Usually, I no longer print larger than 11x14, I've found that there's only so much wall space and family and friends tend to appreciate more smaller prints.

 

I can do a wet B&W RC print (usually Ilford MG-IV) faster than I can scan and print in the 2200. I've had for a few years a RH designs variable contrast enlarger meter (a ZoneMaster II) that lets me value a negative in less than two minutes and usually come with a perfect work print on the first try. Since most of my 35mm work now is street photography, I don't need to do extensive dodging and burnig. Thus cranking out a print from the moment I put the negative in the carrier to placing it in the washer is less than ten minutes.

 

Needless to say, this is only for work prints. Doing a real exhibition quality print is what I really enjoy and this is a completely different ball game. As you know fiber prints require lengthy processing, archival washing and toning. However, I truly like going in the DR with a single negative or two and coming out three or four hours later having left three or four prints to dry in the rack.

For those of you who are bragging about the fact that every computer generated print is exactly the same as every other one, keep in mind that in the traditional print making processes used by artists over the years, whether lithographs or one one of the intaglio methods such as etching or engraving, the plate is inked by hand and each print is put in the press one at a time. Some may be rejected. No two are ever exactly alike. Isn't it then strange that the 25 or perhaps 50 "imperfect" prints can then be signed and sold in galleries for hundreds or even thousands of dollars each while an edition of many thousands of "perfect" identical copies made by offset lithography might be called "posters" and bring a few dollars apiece at most?

Excellent points, Al.

 

BTW, is there a forum for nonconformists like us?

<i>...whether lithographs or one one of the intaglio methods such as etching or engraving, ...</i>

<p>

And what does any of that have to do with the topic here?

Jeesh, Al, why the obfuscation? What you mentioned is not strange at all. At least stay on-

topic and address what was posed.

You're too quick Ed...

Jeesh, Brad. What obfuscation? One of the points brought up by the digital mavens was that you could make all those exactly identical copies after just one tweaking in Photoshop. I was merely commenting on the penchant that art collectors have for art work that reflects a bit of the artist's actually having put some effort into that particular piece that they're buying, something "hands on". Or did you have to consult Webster when I mentioned intaglio?

I print in the wet darkroom. Usually I print full frame 8x12 image on 11x14 paper. However, sometimes I print full frame 12x18image on 16x20 paper. I'm talking about 35mm negs. Sometimes a specific image "wants to be printed large. Other images want to be printed small. Right now I have 3 12x18 prints hanging in a great restaurant near my home. Each print fills the wall and can be seen by every customer in the room without getting up from their seat. For the NYC crowd, especially Edmo, why are you so defensive about digital prints. You seem to need to champion their qualty. Why? As for value as in BUCKS spent for prints. Go to AIPAD in NYC in Febuary at the Hilton and see how many digital prints are for sale. There might be, but they won't be selling for 5000.00, average price for print at Aipad, nor will they be selling for 75,000.00 which many of the prints are priced. In fact Edmo, lets go together we will see alot of famous high quality prints and we can shoot during breaks.

To edmo: By the way, my son and I look at your photos all the time. There are 2 abstract images I would like to print in my wet darkroom. They are the " curtain" shot and a wall shot that words can't describe:but it is a real Killer. I would really like the chance to see what I could do with those 2 negs. I'll get in touch via e=mail

I think Tony may have gotten an invite message on his little cell phone to do some acid

and post on the Leica forum, and it looks like his friends showed up high too.

<I>Or did you have to consult Webster when I mentioned intaglio?</I><P>

 

No (thanks for the insult, though), but perhaps you should look up obfuscation. We're

talking about photography, not fine art lithography. Jeez, Al, get off that high horse. A

few extra well-crafted New Years resolutions could really help you going forward...

Digital vs Film: the Thread that wouldn't Die.

 

Just for the record, the field I work in these days, which is documentary photography of violins, has almost completely gone over to digital. Open a new violin picture book, a lot or most of it's probably going to be totally digital. When precise, lifelike color and rendition is what it's all about, digital is the answer. If you can't get there digitally to your satisfaction, it's a poor workman who blames his tools, as they say.

 

I worked in the darkroom professionally from about 1965 on, doing commercial work and professional printing, among other things, on and off, and gladly gave all my wet stuff away to a college photography student in about 2000. Don't miss it a bit. Not even a speck. I've been keeping my Leica stuff in the thought that I'd go back to it sometime, but for the life of me I can't remember why I thought that.

 

I remember the same whining about the end of life as we know it when the original Kodachrome went off the market.

<i><blockquote> A few extra well-crafted New Years resolutions could really help

you going forward... </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Doesn't help. He did the same thing last year, then continued trolling and when

someone pointed it out he said he was waiting for the new year. :-() And then when the

new year rolled around, well, he just broke the resolution.

"I remember the same whining about the end of life as we know it when the original Kodachrome went off the market."

 

Who's whining? Digital photohraphy is a wonderful technology that is immediate and versatile and, particul;arly with color photgraphy, makes excellent prints. However, there is not only a difference from film photography in the methodology, there is a difference in the look as well.

 

Some of us, if you haven't figured it our yet, still prefer the old method. I can't figure out why, particularly on a forum that was originally devoted to the more traditional ways of making pictures, every time anyone posts anything favorable to the old methodology the digital crowd gets so defensive.

 

Digital is the norm now. Digital sales now surpass film photography. Digital is conformity. Film is nonconformity. Are you so uncomfortable with nonconformity that you feel compelled to convert the world?

 

Dennis