Why have a darkroom?

<p>In this day & age why would anyone have a darkroom? You don't need one to develop film (except maybe sheet film) so it's really only for prints, right? Why make traditional silver prints when inkjet prints using carbon pigment inks are equal and possibly more archival? http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.362672/sc.15/category.22224/.f What works for me is a combination of film and digital. When I shoot film my Epson V700 makes excellent scans that I print on my Epson 1400 or upload to a print shop. And the cost using bulk ink is lower.</p>

<p>I have an Ansel Adams silver gelatin print (Moon over Half Dome) hanging in my living room. It is my reference standard for B&W prints. I have never seen an inkjet print come close to quality of this print.</p>

<p>I have a darkroom for film jobs I want done a particular way. YMMV.</p>

<p>George, if you haven't had the experience in a darkroom and enough time there to hone your practice you cannot understand the value of silver halide emulsions and the resulting prints. Part of it is the craft satisfaction of making the image (rather than PS manipulations you use light as your creative tool, adding or subtracting it from various parts of the black and white image). The feel and texture and greyscale of the final print are also quite beautiful and as good or often better than digital print. Developing film is dull work and generally uncreative but not so the printing.</p>

<p>I'm not sure that all your photos are scanned from film but your site shows some very interesting images, content-wise, and some well-balanced tones, but other images with lots of burned out whites which promise but contain little texture. This is not a criticism, but I think that if you took the time to print on silver based photographic paper you might soon find that balancing whites, greys and blacks via the darkroom process may be more adaptable to obtaining wider dynamic range from your negatives. </p>

"Why make traditional silver prints when inkjet prints using carbon pigment inks are equal and possibly more archival?"

 

Because you enjoy the process and the results of making traditional silver prints.

<p>Wow, seriously, because some of us enjoy working in the darkroom instead of being a troll</p>

 

<p>I believe that for many people it isn't just the final image that matters but also the journey required to get there. Nothing wrong with that. </p>

<p>Why? You know why George...because in 2013 it is unique, not what every digital toting hack would ever dream of taking on. I'll hang my self by my family jewels before I ever resort to selling my customers a compu-print, it's hand crafted in a darkroom or nothing man.<br>

I'm spending the rest of my career shooting film and making darkroom prints, if not, I will find another career. </p>

<p>I like being in the darkroom! :)</p>

 

<p>For black and white, the silver prints look better on the wall than the pigment or dye prints. And I can make a good black and white print faster in the darkroom than on the computer. And it's more enjoyable. Color is a different story. Digital works better for color - not a lot you can do to vary and improve a color print in the darkroom, compared to digital. And it's less fun -- the safelight is too dark to see much.</p>

<p>Andrew, You just said what I was going to add. An inkjet image on the right paper, in-hand, can look pretty good, but it doesn't have the depth or character that a silver print has, especially hanging on the wall.</p>

<p>I think printing an ink print is more about science, and printing a silver print is more about art.</p>

<p>Beyond that, I have lost numerous digital images over the years, but never a film.</p>

@Chris, great response.

<p>"possibly more archival?"<br>

I'll believe that when you show me an inkjet print from the 1860s. </p>

I was liberated from darkrooms when I bought my first Retina and started using Kodachrome.

<p>Because for me a darkroom is the other half of the fun with photography, which is <br>

painting with light, not pixels.<br>

/Clay</p>

<p><strong>Opinion (based on 60 years of experience):</strong><br>

I had, or taught in, a darkroom for 60 years. I got pretty damn good as a printer. Loads of electronic equipment, dust free environment, temperature controlled chemicals and water. I made, and sold, hundreds if not thousands of prints over the years.<br>

The fact of the matter is that <strong>now</strong>, using <strong>PS CS6</strong>, <strong>Epson printers</strong>, and <strong>specific papers</strong> I can make a better 16" x 24" print than I <strong>ever</strong> could in my many darkrooms (by the way, 16 x 24 paper didn't exist then, but 16 x 20 did). <strong>Ever</strong>. Do I miss the toxic and smelly chemicals? Sometimes, mostly not (also smelly hands and clothes). Do I miss the tedious HOURS, and sometimes days, that it would take to produce the "perfect print" (no such thing, by the way) in my darkroom. NOPE.<br>

Using modern digital techniques I can get better tonal range, deeper dMax, and longer archival properties. I switched, slowly, to digital with Adobe Photoshop 1 some 25 years ago.<br>

Remember, just as their were HUGE differences in the quality of darkroom prints, so are there with digital prints. <strong>Huge differences</strong>.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Steve Bingham. However, I also find Epson pigment printers extremely frustrating. They are poorly suited for infrequent runs, due to nozzle clogging issues. My dream setup would be a laser enlarger that would expose silver halide paper. </p>

<p>Unlike Steve, I do miss my darkroom and may yet set up another. However, it will mostly be for the fun of it. (That would be my answer to the OP.) I do feel my best results are digital, using archival pigment printing.</p>

<blockquote>

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=503083">Andrew Kleinfeld</a> -- <em>For black and white, the silver prints look better on the wall than the pigment or dye prints</em>.

</blockquote>

<p>I do not have a dark room and have never worked in one. But on some level I think I can understand the pleasure and pride that some people derive from it. There's a lot to be said for pride of craftsmanship. As for black and white prints, I would have to agree with Andrew. Although I shoot only digital, I often have silver gelatin prints made from the digital files. Processed to my taste (using LR & Silver Efex Pro), the resulting print looks better to me than even a high end inkjet print. But that's my opinion and my eyes only. </p>

<p>Results are not everything. Some people enjoy the process. I could have a great dinner at a local Thai restaurant for $8. I tried making the same thing and probably spent $40 on ingredients, it took me 2 hours, and it didn't taste nearly as good but it was still fun to make.</p>

<p>I can absolutely understand why a person would want to have a darkroom - and it's not without parallel in other areas of interest. I love working on old cars - because I can. That means I need a garage that's big enough, with all the tools necessary to do stuff that I could alternatively handle by taking my new car down to the dealer and picking it up in an hour or two. Not a perfect parallel, but it works in that it's about the process, and the tactile feel of doing it myself.</p>

<p>Having said that, I have no personal interest in a darkroom, but again, I understand why someone else would be intrigued, and perhaps obsessed with it.</p>

<p>I am a hobbyist. There is absolutely no reason for me to have a darkroom except that I want one so I go to the trouble to set it up. It's a hobby. There is no logic to it. I'm also an inveterate photographic tinkerer.Lots of plastic bins full of photographic equipment labeled "too good to toss out" or "I might need this some day".</p>

<p>Is that a good enough reason? </p>

<p>Why do post exposure on a computer and print digitally?<br>

Why have a darkroom and traditional post exposure output of a print?<br>

Why shoot film or gather light on a digital sensor and then send everything out to a custom lab for a print?<br>

Each of these questions is valid. The answer to each is a subjective one and much related to the photographer's preferred approach and desired quality/type of result.<br>

If the result of any of these makes you sing, it is indeed perfect for you.</p>

<p>A darkroom is an essential work environment if one is going to make pictures out of light-sensitive substances.<br>

It is possible to mount a case that manufacture out of light-sensitive substances is the unique identifying feature of a photograph that separates it from all other forms of picture-making.</p>

<p>The OPs question is as silly as asking why anyone would do anything they love to do. Why play basketball when you can play video games?</p>

<p>People have darkrooms because they love it, if they don't like it they don't have them. The magic of seeing an image slowly appear in the dev is something everyone should experience at least once, I think. My darkroom years are behind me, but I fully understand why people are entranced with it. It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, it's actually entirely possible to shoot film and digital and enjoy both. Shocking concept I know.</p>

<p>It's all part of the creative process, there is no right and wrong. If it makes you happy, do it. If you have customers, and it makes them happy too, well that's even better. </p>