Black and White without a darkroom is it worth it

<p>I would like to get into large format photography, specifically black and white. I also want to shoot color but mostly I would like to use black and white. I do not have a darkroom any more. I read about daylight film tanks and the consensus seems to be that they are not the preffered method of processing as it is hard to control the developing times and therefor negative density. If I am going to use a commercial outside developing service and then scan and print digitally is large format worth the extra effort, or will the results, sharpness, depth of field and everything that makes the prints from large format equipment be lost or diminished ? Of course the equipment doesn't make the photograph "art" but large format equipment helps you get there and I am attracted to the slower more contemplative process of exposing sheet film with larger format gear as opposed to 35mm digital slr gear. <br>

I hope the answer is a resounding yes but I want to hear from some experienced photographers before I go and buy the 4 x 5 equipment. I sure miss my darkroom but these days I just can't make room for it. Thanks for your honest opinions. Al Rudolph </p>

<p>allen,</p>

<p>what are your goals with using large format? you didn't mention camera movements or preferred angles of view. both of these become prohibitive to replicate with digital backs and wide angle lenses. besides, a good lab should be able to handle plus or minus one or two stops of development (the lab i use can). if you are indeed after camera movements and a digital back the closest comparison (in price) would be something like a 5d and 24mm TS. but your print size will be nothing close to what a 4x5 will get you. but why not develop at home? it's so fun and for film requires very little investment, storage space, and time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I do B&W on the kitchen table covered with newspapers. I have to wait until night to work in the darkroom (living room and kitchen) because it isn't really dark enough. This is the most crowded place anyone has seen. But I have worked in negative sizes up to 16x20 in here. So you can probably make room for 4x5 if you really want to do it. Yes it is better if you do it yourself, however there are successful film photographers who never go in the darkroom.</p>

<p>More and more I'm using a split approach. I develop my own film, then scan and print from the digital form. I find that the micro-dodging and burning I can do in PhotoShop is far superior than even my best printing. This approach has been very successful for me. I can still do silver gelatin prints, but I find myself spending less time in front of an enlarger.</p>

<p>Here's a resounding "Yes" for you.</p>

<p>My only camera any more is a 5x4. My B&W work is done on TMY-2 (400Tmax). You can do your own processing without a darkroom. All you need is a changing bag and a daylight tank. I develop my film in a Jobo 3010 tank which gives me excellent results. Jobo even makes a cheap manual roller base for it if you want to hand roll. Else there are used CPP-2s out there. They take up some counter space when in use, but not much really and you can store it off the counter when done. And you can still find pro labs that process B&W. You may loose a bit of control, but it's still a very viable process.</p>

<p>I drum scan the film I want to print, then print with inkjet printers. I'm using the Cone PiezoTone inks (still haven't made the change over to K7s, I don't know why). The resulting prints are outstanding, surpassing what I could do in the darkroom, except for Dmax. Just know that inkjet printing is its own media. It's not wanna-be silver gelatin. It's a different process with its own look and feel, and its own stregths and weaknesses. So it's going to be different than what you are used to from your darkroom.</p>

<p>The real benefit here is the view camera though. The workflow differs from smaller formats in a similar way as trumpet differs from saxophone playing. That is, similar but really different. Use of movements is what makes it go IMHO, and the slow and contemplative way you work because of the movements. It is a *much* more satisfying way to make photographs IMHO.</p>

<p>Some websites for you. My personal websites are <a href="http://www.achromaticarts.com/">AchromaticArts.com</a> , and <a href="http://www.largeformatpro.com/">LargeFormatPro.com</a> for drum scanning. Another interesting website is for Jon Cone's K7s:</p>

<p>http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/.f</p>

<p><a href="http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/it.I/id.1/.f?sc=15&category=-115"> </a> Finally, one for <a href="http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRoverview.html">QTR</a> , the shareware RIP that is often used to drive the K7s.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you all for your helpful comments. In answer to Robert Jackson, the reason I want to move up to large format is the ability to manipulate the image with camera movements....I don't expect to be able to do this in photoshop, now would I really want to. I want to learn how to do that in the field. So I guess I will take the plunge and perhaps figure out a way to use the Community College's darkroom if I get an image worthy of silver gelatin printing....of course I need to learn the intricacies of silver gelatin printing. One thing I have learned form taking advice form forums is not to put to much weight on any one persons entry, I was convinced that daylight developing tanks were worthless. going back I think I formed this opinion from just one or two forum entries....pretty dumb conclusion. Now I learn from Bruce that he is doing fine with a changing bag and daylight tanks which is what I will be doing. I met a guy online who, due to money considerations, has done all of his work with an old and cosmetically beat up Crown Graphic with a Wollensack lens, the guy does beautiful work.....It really isn't about the equipment....but I have to admit I do love the equipment aspect of our hobby. <br>

The other problem is how to get the equipment purchases and package delivery past my wife. If she sees me going after a new set of photo equipment I am dead meat. Over the years I have been able to lie my way out of the new (used) medium format lenses with the "what this old thing, had it for years" approach but a Field camera is going to be hard to hide and the same old methods just won't fly.....she won't see the money, I have that part covered, it is just the shear size of this equipment that will draw the unfriendly fire....she will smell the deception immediately....That is what I get for marrying a smart woman. How about some practical discussion and advice on that part of the hobby, "spousal deception and the art of misdirection", that would probably justify an entire separate Forum.<br>

Thanks again for the help with my decisions </p>

<p>My advice on the "spousal deception" part is... don't. I don't lie to my wife, and I don't hide any of the equipment either. Makes life so much more pleasant for both of us ;-)</p>

<p>if you are patient and persistent i think you could get started with good gear for around 600 bucks, including one normal lens and developing equipment (i assume you have a good tripod). this pales in comparison to anything you are considering for getting movemets with digital gear, short of a lensbaby or something :). perhaps you could compromise and sell some old gear if it's not needed? plan a budget? btw, i develop my odd sized negatives (x-ray film in pinhole cameras) in my paper developing tanks in the dark one at a time with used chemicals. perhaps not the most consistent results, but it works. the printing workflow is something to consider more seriously, as bruce and others will point out. on the cheap, you could make contact prints. 4x5 looks really neat in its real size. when you're ready, spring for a drum scan. if you have access, find a flatbed. handprinting 4x5 would require a much more significant commitment to space and resources. as for digital prints from film... i won't weigh in on this debate, but just say that for me it's not ideal.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would second the response about Jobo 4x5 tanks. I have successfully developed 5000+ sheets of 4x5 Tri-X and HP 5 in a Jobo two reel 4x5 tank using a Unicolor agitator. </p>

<p>Allen,<br>

I've been doing B&W film work for about 2 years. I develop the film myself (both 120 but mostly 4x5) in the kitchen using an HP Combi tank. I use a tent to load the tank. I do not have the space for a darkroom. To be honest, it's pretty darn easy and depending on the developer you choose, can be really inexpensive. But I do scan the negatives on my own scanner so I print digitally. A happy medium for me - for now. I use the 120 film in my panoramic back that attaches to my 4x5.<br>

The Combi tank I have had its issues in the beginning. Leaked a bit. But its actually at the point where it doesn;t leak at all and I believe this is because the top(rubber) is "broken in". Another issue with the Combi which is widely reported by many is the time it takes to pour in developer. In the beginning it was taking 45 seconds which is obscene. The issue is that as liquid is poured in it displaces air which must escape and it wasnt. With a little thumb pressure on the top, the air escapes just fine and you can quickly pour in developer.<br>

All this being said, I am happy with my development using the combi tank in a darkroomless apartment in the sink. Oh, and a water purifier on the faucet really helped with the particles in the water here in CT.</p>

 

<p>I really appreciate all the help and I am going to take the plunge. thanks again, Al Rudolph</p>

<p>All I can tell you is try it, because I know once you see that 4x5 neg or transparency, you <em>will </em> be hooked. I do all my own B&W processing, loading daylight tanks in my bathroom and then processing in my kitchen or garage. I then scan my negs where, like Michael Axel said, I can do dodging/burning/spot retouches to my heart's content, and then output using quad inks. I also shoot 4x5 and 8x10 Provia and send it out for processing, about $2.25/sheet and $9.00/sheet respectively. Once you see your image on the film, you'll ever wonder why you shot anything else.</p>

<p>Brian</p>