Starting from scratch: Digital or Wet Darkroom

This subject has been touched in different ways, but none of the

threads I found dwelled into the basic question I have.

 

I am considering to get started into film (B&W) development and

printing. The question I have is whether I should spend the money on

getting a decent setup, or should I simply get a Digital SLR body and

do everything digitally. The system I have is strictly Nikon, so

$2000 will get me a D100 body today. It almost seems obvious that the

digital road is the way to go given that I am starting from the

drawing board.

 

I have to say that I am a romantic, so the whole idea of developing

film, studying densities, and adjusting the printing process is

extremely appealing to me. Still, my engineering background tells me

that I am sticking to vinyl when CDs are already here.

 

What I am after is your opinions on what you would do if your were in

my position, given the experience you now have.

 

Also, Id like to get an idea of how much I should expect to spend for

an adequate (not too basic, not pro) wet darkroom setup.

 

Thanks a bunch,

 

-Luis

<cite>I am sticking to vinyl when CDs are already here.</cite>

<p>

I'd say it's more like playing acoustic guitar in

the age of digital synthesizers. One doesn't normally

make the choice between the two based on cost consideration

alone.

<p>

If you've got a suitable space, you can set up a wet

darkroom for $500.00 or so. The enlarger and lens are the

most expensive items, and prices vary widely for these.

But you should be able to find a reasonably good, servicable

35mm B&W enlarger with lens for $300 or so, used.

The sky's the limit as far as top price. On the other

hand, you can sometimes

find a usable enlarger at a garage sale for nearly nothing.

You'll also need a safelight, timer, trays, tongs, some jugs

to store chemicals, measuring graduates, etc. For film developing,

you need a tank/reel, thermometer, plus the chemical storage/measuring

things (most of which can serve dual duty for film and paper).

<p>

Other than the enlarger, the accessories should be purchasable

for around $150 without going to a lot of effort hunting for bargains.

Search local classified ads -- you can sometimes find a complete

darkroom at a very reasonable price.

You can certainly get started turning out a higher-quality print

cheaper using wet methods than you can if you have to buy a

bunch of high-end digital gear. And I get the impression that

digital people have more or less continual hardware and

software glitches or at least concerns to deal with. There's

hardly anything to break down in a conventional darkroom. I

think you have to be a bit of a computer wonk to be compatible

with the digital photo world.

I don't think you have to go completely one way or the other. I have taken a compromise position for the time being while I wait until 35mm sensor DSLR's become reasonbly priced (a couple of years?). Until then I'm using film and a scanner.

 

I shoot and develop my own black and white (don't need a darkroom for that part) then scan it. I print with an Epson 1160 and PiezoBW inks. Or sometimes, if I'm pressed for time and want to be able to skip the development and use ICE when I scan, I use C-41 processed B+W such as Ilford XP2.

 

I haven't added up all the costs but I'm sure that I'm in for significantly less money in total than I would be had I built a darkroom in my house.

 

More importantly though, I shoot and print a lot more film than I would if I was relying on a dark room because I can take advantage of 30 minutes here and an hour there to work on printing projects. Furthermore, when I come back the next day I can pick up right where I left off. With a darkroom (and associated time to mix chemicals etc.) I wouldn't be able to make use of these little snatches of time that I can get.

 

Once 35mm DSLR's come down in price a bit (in the range of a conventional body plus a good film scanner at most) I'll be able to speed up the workflow by switching from film to complete digital without introducing a 1.5X lens focal length factor.

 

js

I, for another, am sticking to the traditional approach to photography. My considerations are not financial either. There is that indefinable something that I realize when I take the image from the point of seeing it, to photographing it, to developing the film consistant with my visualization, to printing the image, to matting and framing the print. A lot of work, you bet...but the final result is worth it to me.

 

I work in large format black and white, by the way. I use developers that were used by Edward Weston and were initially discovered 150 years ago. Why?, you may ask. Because there isn't anything better today. I still develop film in the same way as Ansel Adams. Why?, again you may ask. Because it works for me in the same way that it worked for him.

 

I don't foresee myself going digital during the course of my lifetime. I don't foresee the demise of traditional photography anytime soon. Yes, there is digital, and it has a place for some folks. I have no difficulty in their choice. It is theirs and yours, as well, to make. Good luck in what ever direction you choice to travel. Most importantly, have fun.

 

Regards,

 

Donald Miller

I guess I'm confused at how/why you are comparing a digital SLR vs conventional B/W film processing when the final image and process is so dramatically different. The comparison is almost as radical as video vs still photography.

 

One thing I'm totally convinced of is that B/W still photography needs to be treated purely as a fine art pursuit to have any practical benefit over digital. If you like to sweat and toil for hours to get that perfect print to mount and frame, the darkroom is still a perfectly viable workshop as any computer. This provided you have previous darkroom experience and have good processing and printing technique. It's the poor guys who have no darkroom experience and are out enlarger shopping that I think are wasting their time and money.

 

Personally I prefer to scan my film (both color and B/W) and do the fine adjustments in photoshop and output to high quality papers via ink-jet. Simply more flexible from my point of view and allows a far greater degree of control. If you are experienced with fine B/W printing it's merely a matter of personal work habits and not capabilities. With a digital process you get absolute control, while with conventional B/W you have materials like fiber based papers and classic B/W films that are still tough to emulate with digital media. Not better or worse, just different. I look at my 15yr old classic Agfa Portiga fiber based prints and compare them to my recent ink-jet prints on museum paper and I'm no longer convinced either medium is dramatically better than the other. Both are pretty transparent to the final image and idea.

 

The issue of digital camer vs film is a very controversial question that should be answered by what you like to shoot and do with those images, not what we prefer.

 

The CD vs vinyl debate is popular but null comparison to digital photography. CD's and vinyl records are to music what computer monitors and slide projectors are to photography.

"<cite>At home</cite>" I have a large rack of servers, including several Sun servers and a water-cooled multiple processor monster and for desktops toys like Sun 3D True-Colour (calibrated) Workstations and even a very large megapixel LCD connected to some multimedia card... for input a mid-range (as in professional mid-range) DIN A3 True Colour flatbed.. and for output a 1200 dpi color lasersetter.. and all with 100 Mbit switched Ethernet and a 512 KB Internet lease line... Computers are tools of my trade and at my companies main location we have significantly more machines and fibre optic X.25 Internet connectivity... and what have I been doing? Building my dream darkroom with some high-tech and a lot of bakelite and black crinkled paint... Technologies have their places... I'm not a photo journalist working for a daily so I don't need finished images delivered seconds after they are captured.. Photography to me.. is fun.. taking pictures of my kids.. images are to last longer than a chip generation.. I'm drawn to a lot of what can be considered "retro" technologies like MINOX cameras or old rangefinders... That said.. I love the current "<cite>digital wave</cite>" as its allowed me to get some of the best gear I could have ever wanted.... What's that saying "<cite>They just don't make 'em like they used to</cite>"

What do you care about most? Taking or making? If you're

process driven, then I'd say go digital as you'll be able to shoot,

manage, and print more images more quickly with nice results

and a shorter learning curve than with wet process. On the other

hand, if you want to make beautiful prints with great sublety, or

develop a set of variables into you own unique style and have

patience and discipline, then I'd say start with wet process as

digital continues to evolve. It stil has a ways to go to compete

with a well crafted silver gelatin print.

<I>It stil has a ways to go to compete with a well crafted silver gelatin print.</i><P>Are those prints you make, or is this more name dropping like the post above mine? Both my color and B/W digital prints rival fiber in terms of tonality, have far better scalability, and the technology curve is one MY side. One of the big reasons I'm sick of wet lab work is because of the constant drone of these kind of posts that are the result of decades of fine art darkroom geezers patting each other on the back and <b>self elevating</b> their own status in the artistic community for decades. That's why they need big, 72point type next to silver gelatin prints in exhibitions just to inform the viewers it's a "silver gelatin print". I prefer not to be associated with that. <P>some of the positive benefits of digital printing over conventional darkroom work are: <ul><li>You don't seem to get stuck in a bunch of nostalgic photo god worship that interferes and inhibits developing you own style. </li><li>The digital process tends to force you to make your own conclusions based on immediate and objective results rather than constantly trying to mimmick what some dead dude did.<li></li>Digital printing is conceptually FAR less process driven than conventional darkroom work. Seems a common reason many of you still do darkroom works is you simply like it, which is fine with me, but that is clearly a process driven art, so call it what it is.<li></li>A bad conventional B/W print on expensive and highly rated silver gelatin paper suddenly becomes "fine art" when mounted and framed. A crappy digital print is always a crappy digital print, and hence you tend to learn faster from mistakes.</li><li>Problems with digital printing have a more objective and typically more helpfull community than conventional printing. With conventional B/W printing all your quesitons are typically answered with either (a) read "The Print" by AA, (b) Don't use that cheap RC paper © align your enlarger (d) read "The Print" by AA :^)

Luis; Random thoughts; in no order;<BR><BR>Some inkjet printers do not print true "blacks"; but print a black tone which varies in hue depending on the lighting. Some printers are better for B&W inkjet. Darkroom equipment is dirt cheap today. Some people are bothered by darkroom chemicals; if your are not sure be carefull about getting involved in a regular darkroom. Others hate being chained to a monitor; and fooling with software,upgrades, and backing up files. Some people like the hands on feel of developing prints; and the magic involved. Both processes have calibrations and controls to make correct colors and tones. I use both processes and enjoy reading threads like this. Alot of darkroom stuff will last a lifetime. One of my Nikkor tanks is over 35 years old. A darkroom requires a space to work ; a temporary setup in a bathroom may cause a family bottleneck. A small printer takes little space; but ink and paper do cost cash. I spend 2 thousand a year on inkjet ink; and about as much on paper. I also spend alot on film too. <BR><BR>You need to figure out what size prints; and for what purpose......Sams Club here will process a 24exp roll of print film; and print THREE color 5x7 prints of each for 8.5 bucks; I sometimes use this for give away pictures.. There is no way I could print that many 5x7 prints MYSELF for 8.5 dollars; whether using digital or film.......

<i>A crappy digital print is always a crappy digital print</i>

<br>

truer words were never spoken.

<br>

 

;-)

So do both already. DSLR and a partner film body.

Had Mr. Eaton paused to edit his contribution of 06:46 p.m.

before posting it, I suspect he would have modified or corrected

some of his positions (and perhaps spellings). But since he

chose to post it, let me respond by pointing out that

photographers citing the masters of their craft seems only

natural in an art form that is more than 150 years old. I believe

this sort of homage is paid in many fields having a history,

artistic and otherwise. Thus it is possible to simply refer a

question to the existing literature rather than rehashing it on-line.

Had digital photo processes been around more than a decade, I

imagine some masters would have arisen in that area, too, and

that their names and publications would be referred to. And to

claim to have abandoned wet darkrooms because �fine art

geezers� are out there somewhere complimenting one another

seems a bit oversensitive -- sort of like abandoning food

because chefs have egos and wear funny hats. I�ve never much

worried about what other geezers are up to when I work in the

darkroom. And does a bad print really become fine art when it�s

in a frame? And if it does, is there something about digital prints

to make them immune to this misperception? That remains to

be seen. And I guess darkroom work is �process driven,� as is

anything that involves a �process.� For instance, I express

myself here with words, since the process involves typing the

alphabet. If I were painting, I�d have to respect the capabilities

and limitations of brushes and pigments. As far as the digital

community being more supportive of one another than the rest, I

guess they need to be, since so many technical problems seem

to crop up, what with all the hardware and software problems

that abound in any computer-based activity. Maybe it's natural

and even necessary for those devoted to new endeavors to

eschew traditions in order to free themselves to devise a frame

of reference appropriate to the new thing.

CD's replaced vinyl and will soon be replaced by DVD's, ten years down the road, who knows? As it is, ever try playing an 8-track tape lately. Plenty of tapes around (software) but try to find a player (hardware). But the amazing thing is: bands are buying and using old fashioned tube amps. They WANT the feedback! And Eastern Europe still makes tubes! All arts are like that. That's why they still make paints, when it should be obvious to everyone that photographs are so much better! Ha-Ha! If you want to do B&W it's up to you, but digital "prints" don't look like traditional silver prints done the wet way.

8 track tape production stopped about 1 year ago. All the NOAA radio alerts were once on 8 track tape; most all are digital now. The tools and dies were kept active to make small batches of new blank tapes; to keep the public informed on 162.25, and 162.40 Mhz etc. The new digital system's voice is what by buddies who developed it call the "drunk swede" They worked on many variants of the voice..the first versions were really bizarre.

I am very impressed with Ilford MG Fiber Warmtone Semi-matte

paper these days. Is that "silver-gelatin? Because I might want

to get some of those 72 point fonts :-)

 

Anyway, the finished product and the process of a wet darkroom

please me so much that I have managed to get my wife to buy

me an LPL triple condenser for Christmas. I know digital is

better and all, but I love it, so I recommend it to you as well.

 

Digital seems to me to be fundamentally different, in that you

gather massive amounts of data and process it with a computer

to find the pearl within the data and then manipulate it to a

finished product that pleases the artist. Think of the wedding

where every guest has a multi-mega-pixel digital camera with

gobs of memory and shoots hundreds of pictures. Then, all the

images are viewed and the jewels among them are assembled

into a beautiful wedding album. this can work, and is really the

paridigm of modern news gathering. For me, I like phtography

the old fashion way, more contemplative, if you will. But then, I

am certainly behind the curve and don't suggest that film

is/will/was better than digital. But hey, I'm sticking with for the

rest of my life.

These types of religious battles tend to spring up every where don't they? Tastes Great / Less Filling, Digital / Silver Emulsion, ...

 

It reminds me of the UNIX and MVS command line gods who thought the availability of GUI interfaces was (is) the end of the world.

 

There's generally a good reason for it too. If you spend five years learning how to write UNIX shell scripts and some crappy little OS (NT) comes along and makes a lot of what you know unnecessary, it's annoying.

 

But how do we end up with a "right" way to make a print? Genesis 12:23 "And thus God spoke, and he said, 'All photographic prints shall be made with an emulsion of Silver'" Or, can't you just picture the glass plate guys saying, "Jeesh, cellulose film base negatives, what a joke."

 

Bottom line is you can make wonderful, distinctive, works of art in a darkroom or you can do it digitally. Is one more or less "pure" than the other? Don't know, don't care. Keep in mind, 100 years ago artists the world over thought that all photography was total BS. Nothing more than craft and technique at best, "stolen" art at worst (take a picture of beautiful architecture, is it your art or the architect's?).

 

Live and let live, and pick a method that works for you. If you make a print that satisfies you, or, what the heck, you can sell, pat yourself and your enlarger or your computer on the back.

Renting time on a chemical darkroom may be cheaper, and it is certainly more environmentally sound (spent developer and fixer are very toxic chemicals that should be disposed of responsibly).

 

Digital darkrooms are geared towards color more than B&W, and prints made on a color inkjet are not neutral. You can use the Piezography process (need an old cartridge-chip-free Epson printer, prone to clog) or an Epson 2300 (still has some metamerism, gray balancer software not included in the US version). Farming this out to an external pro digital lab might make more sense.

For all the rants you make about digital being better Eaton, you still compare your output to a "silver print". Aren't you a bit too defensive about your work?

This 44 yo "geezer" uses his darkroom every week, makes some fine pt/pd and silver prints and has no need to put down digital. Some of the finest work I have seen are by Daniel Fokos or David J Osborne by by no means can they be confused with a silver print. So it is time you people who want to force the issue wake up and smell the coffe, digital is not like silver print, will never be and you might as well get used to the idea that your process should stand on it's own two feet and get off this rants trying to make the wet work obsolete so everybody goes and buys a printer and makes awuful digital prints. You try to make it sound as if digital is so easy and as soon as you set up you are ready to make master pieces. Nothing further from the truth!

Of course do not even get me started about the "digital platinum gliceé" bs.....

Luis,

 

You might as well start out with digital, it seems hardly anybody gives a f*** about quality anymore, anyway (just look at how sales of consumer-grade digicams and printers have skyrocketed).

My personal view: digital photography is just no fun. The idea generating (read:editing) better than the world images with some software on a screen all day with a mouse may be convenient but, no, thanks.

I like the very slow approach: contemplating half a day about the exposure and composition of the frame. And again in the darkroom till I feel it's right. Cost, as a hobbiest, is only secondary.

Digital image capture and reproduction is <u>NOT</u> the same "<cite>art form</cite>" as salted image photography just as "<cite>photography</cite>" is <u>NOT</u> the same media as paint (itself drawn into many different and rather distinct medias). Cine, so-called "<cite>Motion Pictures</cite>", is not the same media as still photography.. Raster imaging or video (television) is not a modern manifastation of cine--- it, in fact, predates it by more than a decades (compare Nipkow's Electic Telescope with Lumiere's Cinematograph)--- but a distinct media with its own techniques. Broadcast television does not replace radio.. not even the Marconi wireless is really to be considered as "replaced" by AM but as something distinct. Sometimes the "art forms" that sprout from a technology and define it are distinct from the intent during its "high tech" life. A most graphic example in modern culture is clearly the status of vinyl phonographic discs which have been morphed from a mass publishing instrument into a musical instrument, the basis for a wide range of popular music style from Hip-Hop to House to Techo which use within the mass media other technologies such as CDROM or DVD for their mass distribution.

<P>

P.S.: To those that think the CD is history to be replaced by today's DVD they better look better at their technological signposts and place their ear to the ground.. given the installed base it looks well that the CD will outlive comtemporary DVDs as an entertainment market looking for "<cite>the next new thing</cite>" gears up for blue laser technology.

Luis,

 

Forget the bitter yammering of the digital vs traditional debate. It is pointless. Digital can now perform 95% of the functions of traditional photography and can expand into a lot of areas traditional photography never will. Nevertheless, traditional photography offers opportunities to develop skills and produce output, albeit rare, that is extremely gratifying to produce. That is my sense of what ultimately matters to you. Wet photography is tactile, craftsmanlike work different, not better than photoshop manipulation. To me, and a lot of others the darkroom process is deeply satisfying, and frustrating too. Walker Evans considered the darkroom to be "torture." No doubt he would be using digital today. Others love the darkroom. Look at Paula and Micheal Smith who virtually singlehandedly resurrected precision contact printing on chloride paper. It comes down to how you like to work. Now, for the first time in photographic history, we all have a choice to work in a darkroom with chemicals or in front of bright monitor (or some hybrid of both). I for one welcome the choice, and choose the darkroom.

"<cite>Digital can now perform 95% of the functions of traditional photography and can expand into a lot of areas traditional photography never will. </cite>"

<P>

And what are those 95%? Would you have also conjectured that the <cite>Camera Lucida</cite> too performed 95% of the functions of portraiture allowing such images to expand into areas where traditional painting never could? It was more the <cite>Obscura</cite> technology than the <cite>Lucida</cite> that provided the basis for a technological revolution to bring bourgeois portraiture to new markets as salted images. Of the photograph was demanded little talent or less training and the whole process could be industrialized. Yet painting did not become obsolete and photography developed its own art forms. It should be recalled that Richard Beard, Britian's first photographic atelier, was earning before default following the end of Talbot's patents in the mid 1800s in excess of 100 guinea per day.

Yes I have to agree with Jorge and disagree with Eaton. Digital prints have no intrinsic appealing qualities and go nowhere near in rivalling the sheer beauty and dynamism of a silver gelatin print. I get the impression that it is all sour grapes with Eaton-either this or he is completely naive. Digital has its uses, but these uses do not extend to archiving. That is why most organisations are sticking to archiving using traditional wet process.

 

Greg Clements