Wet vs. Digital dilemna

Hi--

 

For some months I have been hesitating whether it's best to go the

scanner-Photoshop-Epson printer route or the traditional wet route

for my B&W. I shoot medium format only (6x6 and 6x7). I have no pre-

conceived opinions going in, and backwards-compatibility with old

equipment is not an issue for me. I have read that:

 

1) Today's scanners cannot handle B&W negs (except for C-41 type B&W

films).

 

2) There is a lot you can do in the darkroom that you cannot do in

the computer.

 

3) Epson printers force you to use Epson inks, so you cannot use the

third-party B&W ink six-packs, so you end up printing B&W with color

cartridges -- not impossible, but potentially problematic.

 

4) Digital is not really archival quality.

 

5) Shooting color chrome or negs and converting to B&W in Photoshop

after a color scan is NOT a good idea.

 

 

So before I put down my hard-earned dollars, I would like to consult

the shared wisdom of this community. What would you do in my place?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

--Alex Ragen

I think I can answer a few of these apparently urban myths.<p>1) Most scanners have no problem at all with B&W negs.<br>The only drawback is that digital ICE doesn't work with conventional B&W film, but that's really a non-issue. You only have to look after your negs properly, and make sure they're clean before scanning them. A scan gets no more dust on it than a normal enlargement, but digital retouching is far easier than using a spotting pen and a knife.<p>2)True. You can bang your shins on things in the dark, and get bored witless waiting for the various processes to complete. Seriously, this is pretty much a complete reversal of the truth.<p>3) Compatible cartridges are available for all the current Epson printers, even the 'chipped' cartridge types. in fact I've found that 'Jet-Tec' inks actually give me better results than the Epson originals, at about half the price.<br>Unfortunately, the myth about printing B&W with colour inks is true. Printer manufacturers have put little effort into giving good monochrome output, and to get the best results you have to print B&W as colour, or invest in greyscale ink kits from the likes of Piezography.<p>5) Huh? No, not every colour image looks good in B&W, but then not every B&W negative looks good in B&W either.<br>You'll get a better tone conversion from a digital scan than you will from trying to print a colour neg on multigrade paper.

I have seen some beautiful B&W prints from digital scans. However, my reasons for continuing in in silver-based printing for the time being are these:

 

1. I have yet to see a digital image from a slide or negatve I've shot that is as crisp and contrasty as what I can produce in the darkroom. There are a number of digital printing mediums that come really close (and that will eclipse silver-based imaging in time), but as yet, no digital equals.

 

2. The cost of scanning and creating high-end custom digital prints still far exceeds my costs for doing darkroom work.

 

3. I have concerns about digital print stability. Wilhelm Imaging Research provides what I take to be gospel on issues of permanence:

 

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

 

While the company's research on digital photo inks and papers shows them to be generally as good as traditional C or R prints, digital imaging, as yet, cannot touch the permanence of a properly processed B&W fiber-based print, let alone glossy Ciba/Ilfochrome.

The differences are so vast that it is not even fair to compare them.

 

Don't believe everything you read.

 

1) Huh?!

 

2) Like what?

 

3) When was the last time you saw a truly "black & white" print? All b&w papers have tone; with digital you have infinite control over that tone; with chemical processes you don't.

 

4) No one knows for sure what the longevity of digital prints really is. I don't take what anyone says as "gospel" (sic).

 

5) Why not?

 

Finally--sure, an Ilfochrome will last a long time. So what? It looks like crap!

 

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

"When was the last time you saw a truly 'black & white' print? All b&w papers have tone ..."-

 

This morning in my bedroom. The prints I make on Ilford Galerie are neutral black.

 

"No one knows for sure what the longevity of digital prints really is."-

 

Henry Wilhelm and Carol Brower's "Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" is THE seminal authority on imaging permanence. However, the point is well-taken. With silver-based images, estimates as to permanence can be compared to actual life spans of older similar materials. With digital prints, all that can be done is accelerated deterioration tests. Again, with silver-based imaging, you know what you are getting from a standpoint of permanence; with digital prints, you don't.

 

"'gospel' (sic)"-

 

"Gospel" is spelled g-o-s-p-e-l with a capitol or lower-case "g."

 

"Finally--sure, an Ilfochrome will last a long time. So what? It looks like crap!"-

 

I'm sorry if your Cibas look like crap. My 15 and 1/2 inch square glossy Ciba portraits from 120 Kodachrome are exquisite in color and tonality. I guess you need to know how to print Ciba/Ilfochrome and the contrast level of transparencies appropriate for the medium.

Here's at least what I've come to as my working solution. Mind you, I'm a university student with access to a free (if cluttered) darkroom. I'm moving slowly into digital- I prefer to edit in Photoshop than in a small, dark room. Not that my dorm doens't fit that description, but you get the idea. I find digital editing to be more conducive to experimentation as you've always got the history pallate and undo command to facilitate quick trial and error. I can't comment on Epson printing since I don't have one yet- stress on "yet." I plan to purchase one for proofing and final printing where I don't need 16x20 size or absolute critical quality. Lightjet and Iris printing provide phenomenal results- they are pricey, but it's not a service you'll need often. As for BW conversion, most of the BW in my photo.net portfolio are from colour chromes. Use the Photoshop channel mixer in monochrome mode and you can achieve fine BW results. I can't yet afford a quality MF scanner, and so I use traditional methods for all MF work. If/when I can, I will also move into MF digital work- I have some images scanned professionally so I can work with them if need be. Is there a community center darkroom available near to you? I still love darkroom work; there's a romance to it I compare to alchemy. Manually working over a sheet of paper and chemicals lends itself well to the real feeling of creating something, but in the end you're still looking at a picture either way. Digital is more of an expense unless you're a truly wasteful darkroom printer, but I feel the options it allows outweigh the trouble of keeping current. A home darkroom can be easily improvised for a small amount of money, too- keep that in mind for the future.

I put a (sic) after "gospel" because it is an absurd analogy for something truthful. Even the most devout scholars admit that the biblical Gospels are fraudulent documents written a great many years after Jesus of Nazareth supposedly lived.

 

I spent 25 years of my life printing color in some of the top labs in NYC. I am a master of every color printing process, including dye transfer--which I actually did in my home darkroom. And Cibas are crap. (And expensive crap to boot!) One cannot even compare the vibrancy of a digital print to the dull lifelessness of any R print. The closest I have ever come to producing a print with the kind of color I get in digital is dye transfer--and that cost 25 times as much, took days to produce and required a basement full of costly equipment.

 

ALL b&w prints have tone, however subtle it might be.

The real question is what do you want to accomplish with your photography? Are you looking for the higest quality print? Are you looking for the highest level of convenience? Are you looking to do things as cheaply or expensively as possible?

 

There are many contributing factors to making a decision like this. For me, personally, I work on computers to pay the mortgage. For this reason, I thouroughly enjoy doing all my work by hand in a wet darkroom. I find it more creative, more personal, more relaxing and more enjoyable. Sure, I could move to digital, I already have most of the equipment, but I like to stay away from the computer on my own time. So, for me moving to digital is not an option.

BTW, for those of you not versed in writing,"(sic)" is an editorial term which means "yes" in Latin. Oxford Desk Dictionary: "used, spelled, etc., as written." It is inserted after a word or statement that is misspelled, inaccurate or especially controversial in the eyes of the author.

Peter-

 

Setting aside biblical arguements, Wilhelm and Brower have been doing research into the permanence of printing materials for years (decades, if I remember correctly). Their past assessments as to longevity of photographic materials have proven accurate with the passage of time.

 

I've seen the work you've posted and I've been impressed. You clearly know what you are doing. However, to make an expansive statement like calling Ciba/Ilfochrome crap is absurd. Cibas are not a type "R" material as you well know. Cibas contain aniline dyes that allow a vibrancy of color unmatched in any R or C print. Would I rather have a dye transfer print? Of course, but I don't have that kind of money to devote to printing.

 

As Alex, whose post we are using as a wrestling matt, is interested in cost; please briefly describe the computer, scanner, software and printer you use to acheive your results and the ball park cost of the equipment. Your answer might even hasten my conversion to digital printing.

 

"ALL b&w prints have tone, however subtle it might be."-

 

Ilford's Galerie paper comes as close to neutral black as any B&W printing material I've ever seen. Ansel Adams also favored Galerie for that reason, among others.

I've recently begun experimenting with digital for both B&W and color. My experiences address some of your points. My first move was to buy a little Epson 780 printer and a copy of a great, but little-known, image editing program called Picture Window (available for $50 or $90, depending on version, at www.dl-c.com)

 

As a test, I had a scan made locally (on an Imacon Flextight at a modest 1600 ppi resolution)of a 6x6 color transparency version of one of my most successful B&W silver prints. (I had made both color and B&W exposures of the image.) I thought this image would be a good test of the digital system because I had a good traditional print for reference and because the image depended on showing both good detail in some textured areas and a smooth gradation in a cloudless sky of midtone to almost pure white.

 

After about 2 hours of editing, I was able to produce a print that was noticeably superior to the best I'd ever been able to accomplish in the wet darkroom. I've printed this as a high-key image (very few areas below about zone 6) and absolute control over contrast and gradation in the highlights is crucial. I was able to achieve that precisely with the digital print in a way I never had been able to do with traditional materials. In addition, the ability to remove minor distracting elements and to dodge and burn with unheard of control noticeably improved the image. The look of the print (on Epson Heavyweight Matt paper) is different from a traditional silver print, but attractive in its own way. The digital print is quite noticeably sharper than traditional prints of the same size. The gradation in the sky (where I expected I might see "dots" on the digital print) was as smooth to the naked eye (I haven't taken a loupe to the print) as in the silver print. And I was able to tone the digital print any way I wanted. (I ended up with a warm tone that looked very much like a good platinum print.) In short, after years of work in the wet darkroom, in a couple of hours, on my first try, I was able to surpass one of my most successful traditional efforts using digital techniques.

 

I've had similar successes with other images, and am now sold on the potential of digital. Nevertheless there are some caveats at this point in time: (1) Scanning seems to be a "weak link" in the process. Commercial scans are expensive, and so are good home scanners for MF. Although 2400 ppi flatbeds with transparency adapters are available from Canon and HP (and Epson soon) for under $500, the film scans I've seen from them are unacceptably soft. The new Nikon and Polaroid 4000 ppi film scanners seem like a good solution, but are pricey at $2500-3000. (2) Longevity is an issue. I can probably live with the claimed 25 year lifespan of displayed prints, but it would make me feel better if it were 100 years. Pigment-based prints may well have better longevity than traditional silver prints, but suffer from color shift problems that many say make them unsuitable for B&W. (3) Obtaining nuetral tone with color inks is a pain requiring a lot of trial and error and many test prints. I think, however, that all of these problems can or will be overcome--digital is moving incredibly fast. Scanner prices are likely to continue to fall; manufacturers now seem to see longevity as a major issue and have been making great strides; there are rumors that Epson will come out with a quadtone inkset (and there are, of course others available now). Overall, I think it is a great time to start to get into digital.

[OT]

 

Pete Andrews: I´m curious where you have found that "Compatible cartridges are available for all the current Epson printers"? I have an 870 and I haven´t seen any. I looked up Jet-Tec, and they could not deliver.

As an aside, Imacon Flextight scanners (yielding 3200 d.p.i. and up) start at $8,000 (B&H).

Not an answer, but another question. When I shoot 35mm black and white I

shoot for grain - not huge grain, but nice crispy grain (Tri-X in Rodinal, Neopan

1600 in ID-11). I make modest enlargments (8"x10"s) on top-end enlargers

with top-end lenses, and the grain looks great. What quality of scanner

would I need to resolve the grain in a similar way - 2700 dpi, 4000 dpi or a

drum scan? (Scans to be output on an Epson 870)

I'm sorry - I've just realised that this is the medium format forum, and I've

been asking about grain in 35mm. Nevertheless, I'm still interested in the

general question of the resolution of grain. I recently followed a link to a

webpage concerned with grain-aliasing (created by Pete Andrews), and the

conclusion I drew was that if one's priority was the resolution of grain in an

image, then you would be better off scanning a good quality handprint on a

flatbed scanner - rather than scanning the neg in a film scanner (2700 dpi).

I know of no quadtone inks available for 870/1270 Epsons yet. Also as I have very boringly said many times over, scanning black and white negative film is always going to be inferior to darkroom printing in terms of tone gradation as Photoshop can only output 8 bit in grayscale, so it is largely irrelevant how good your scanner is as this is an output issue. More can be done from converting color to grayscale images, but then you loose all the nice advantages of home processing black and white film- you have to rely on lab proceesed C41 or E6.

 

This does not say that digital black and white is awful, but do not expect to get the full range of tones you can see in, say a classic Ansel Adams print, certainly not if you are starting with black and white film.

Hi everyone ...

 

I just picked up the SEP/OCT 2001 issue of "American PHOTO" magazine.

 

Great pics/articles on "Secrets of the Masters" and as an added bonus, an additional magazine by "Popular Photography" called "Digital Imaging Guide".

 

This additional magazine has almost half the contents dedicated to this SAME discussion. Pros and cons of film, pros and cons of digital, comparison charts, new cameras, new technology on the horizon, printers, scanners, etc ... etc ... In my opinion, it is the most comprehensive and exhaustive discussion on the subject that I have read to date.

 

Pick up a copy to day ... and NO, I do not have any shares in the magazine .

 

I was very tempted to scan and post some of the charts ... but I believe that I might have been subject to a law suit!

 

ENJOY !!

 

Ray

<I>However, to make an expansive statement like calling Ciba/Ilfochrome crap is absurd. Cibas are not a type "R" material as you well know. Cibas contain aniline dyes that allow a vibrancy of color unmatched in any R or C print. </i><P>Let me jump on this on this one while it's still alive and kicking. First, Ciabchrome/Ilfochrome **IS** a an R-type process because the "R" stands for reversal image reproduction - the emulsion when processed yields a positive image from a slide. I realize that part of the snob-appeal of the Cibachrome myth is that it's magically different than other R and C-typ papers that we mere peasants use, but it's not the case and it doesn't justify the delusions of the absurd sub-culture that this medium has produced. The fact that Ilford incorporates industrial strength AZO type dyes in their paper has nothing to do with it. I'll agree that the dyes used in Ilfords product provide higher saturation than Kodak and Fuji's C and R-type papers, but the Ilford product lacks the built in dye compensation of the Fuji based media which accounts for why 90% of Ilfo/Cibachromes look like some garish, washed out abstraction that could be improved by using a color laser printer. <P>I've been printing on Fujiflex and Duraflex from years and have been able to fool every Ilfo/Cibachrome addict I've worked with into thinking that these two relatively unknown C-type papers were actually Cibas. You can take the washed out, "57-paint job" look of Cibachrome, be controlled by the paper medium and emphasize to viewers the paper it is printed on (all Ciba/Ilfo addicts have this annoying habit) while the rest of us can take pictures of the things we want. <P>To the main topic at hand, I still think it's very, very difficult to reproduce a "look and feel" of a silver gelatin print with any consumer ink-jet printer, but the law of diminishing returns is not linear in this technology. I've been using coated canvas paper from Office Max to make quick proofs on an HP 932, and when I print monochrome images you'd swear the darn thing were fiber based conventional prints from 2-feet away. If I can do that with a cheezy 932...well..

"... Ciba/Ilfo addicts ..."-

 

Yeah, anyone can make a garrish abstraction using Ciba/Ilfochrome. I see lousy Cibas all the time. Then again, I see lousy digital prints all the time, as well.

 

The trick is understanding the medium and producing a print with proper tonality (as is the trick with any metheod of printing). If you print correctly with Ciba/Ilfochrome, you have an image with almost three demensional depth that can hang on a wall in a bright room for fifty years without fading a bit. The only color medium I'm aware of that can match Cibas for permanence is dye transfer.

Aftermarket cartridges for the 870/1270 are available from several sources including Inkjetart and MIS Supply.

 

Quadtones and pigmented inks are available in bulk for the 870/1270 and can be used with continuous inking systems available from MIS and nomorecarts.com. In the very near future, these inks will be available prefilled in cartridges too.

 

The ink choices for users of "chipped cartridge" Epson printers is growing daily thanks to the recent availability of "chipped" empties. Soon, you'll have the ability to use just about any inkset available.

It's always a treat to read the opinions in this forum! It sounds like Peter Hughes has made the transition to digital! I guess I'm a little surprised, but when I look at some of his work, I really cannot tell any difference between wet or digital process because of my limited viewer resolution etc. I still prefer to read and hold a newspaper vs. reading online. Prints still look better in my hand, in decent light etc. than they do online. Good content vs. bad would seem to be a separate issue, whereas your questions seem to revolve around the process. I am debating the same questions, and there are some very neat threads in photo.net and here that discuss and compare. I am going to make the investment in scanning and printing for B&W/color, but more to learn and explore. My darkroom will stay. Alex, your #2 is correct! I can hide in my darkroom (cave!) and do stuff besides printing & processing. If I sit at my workstation, everyone assumes I am available. For me the darkroom represents my turf! It's mine, darnit! Okay . . .I suppose I could move the workstation into it . . .

Ideology and flame wars aside, look at some real prints and decide what kind of effect you're after. I've seen some great looking digital prints, but they don't look like silver prints to me or platinum/palladium or cyanotypes or albumen or any of various other processes (well, I've seen some inkjets that look a bit like some gum bichromate prints I've seen, but that covers quite a range of visual effects). If inkjet prints are capable of expressing your aesthetic intentions, then go with the medium that works for you. If it's something else, use that.

Interesting discussion, and I am now thinking myself that it is time to get on the band wagon and brush up on my Photoshop. I've had enough hassle with light tight rooms which aren't dedicated to developing, as well as critical temperatures, the water issue, and the ever present dust control problem. Surely something to think about when deciding. Of course...might it not be nice to have both! If I could only afford it.

 

Alex I can't answer the question, only imply the consequences of what that decision will entail, and if you think about it, you might answer that yourself. Beyond the issue of what is the best print, or which is better for your intended use, (you didn't state this), are the issues that pertain to each discipline. I would suppose that you will be doing your own developing of film. From there lies the path of question. Each path has it's own learning curve. Each also requires a specific amount of money to be spent, whether as services or in equipment. As far as I am concerned, I've seen great prints from both avenues, so the real question comes down to what kind of hassles are you willing to put up with and what are you willing to spend over time? If you take a sheet of paper and dsivide it down the middle with the pluses and minuses of each, it might be quite revealing. Don't forget to list your disapperance from your family or wife if you have either. Also remember toxins, ventilation, multiple copies, framing, dedicated rooms, enlarger alignment, sinks, waste disposal (this is a big one), time to go fishing (er, where did that come from?), and a myriad of other questions that don't pertain to which is sharper.

I have produced good results using my flat bed scanner with my light box on top to scan my 6X4.5 slides.

I have not yet printed out any over 10X8 in size but the results are certainly very good.

My printer an HP950c gives a slight blue cast on a B&W print, if I have a very contrasty image I print using only the black cartridge, this is noe possible after downloading the latest driver.

I cannot see why all the discussion about longetivity of prints, surely the advantage of digital is that the prints can easily be re-produced again and again.

Another point to consider is that the wet darkroom is a mature technology with lots of history and documentation and relatively little ongoing innovation. Based on discussions here over the last few years, it would seem that the number of options available to the wet darkroom are diminishing, ie film emulsions and paper types.

 

Digital is an emerging technology with hardware and software improvements occurring at a fast pace. This can be good and bad, you know things will get better but you need to continually invest if you want to stay "state of the art". The heated debate here indicates that digital has reached the point where it can rival traditional printing methods. Given the R&D money and time being expended, it won't be long before digital wins hands down.

 

Paul Roark has done a tremendous amount of work in the digital printing area, and has helped develop toned inks for one of the black and white injet ink producers. His site is definately worth a look:

http://home1.gte.net/res0a2zt/photos.html

 

I tried, but I can't let it go...CIBA's RULE!