Jump to content

Convince a purist to switch to B&W digital printing!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Chris, My big reason for doing this is that I am not a good enough at consistent dodging and burning (at least like I used to be). It is also more difficult to D&B small prints. I can do dozens of D&B's on an image that I simply wouldn't have time or accuracy enough to do in the darkroom. That's really it for me.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've done B&W prints in the Darkroom many years ago and I enjoyed this work a lot, but mixing and manipulating the chemicals was not really my cup of tea.<br>

With the digital darkroom, you can convert color pictures to B&W (yes, you have both worlds here) using sophisticated digital tools and get fantastic results because you have total control over tonality, you can also add some tinting or do nice duotones, ... But of course, there is a learning curve and good tutorials are needed. <br>

The first print I made in my Darkroom was quite bad and the first print I did using Photoshop tools was quite bad too...but once you know how to use these tools, you know you will never go back to the old way...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Chris,<br>

Do you know anyone with a pro style printer? Do you know anyone proficient in photoshop? You can listen to a bunch of blah blah blah on both sides of the fence, but you really need to see the finished product. It would be great if you could scan the negative of one of your favorite prints, have your photoshop friend take you through the digital darkroom(no you can't learn everything in one session but at least it is a start), print it off on some of the high quality baryta papers that are out there and then compare to your traditional print. At the end of the day, if you don't like the finished product it really doesn't matter what the other advantages are. I think you can get tremendous quality prints using the right printer and paper but you need to judge for yourself by looking and feeling the print. Best of luck with your choice.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Chris,</p>

<p>Why would anyone try to convince you to stop doing something you love and do something else? If you have a question about how to improve digital (or darkroom) printing in B&W, you need to phrase it as a question. Suffice to say those of us in the business longer than 10 years or so know a thing or two about conventional printing. You can get excellent results (IMO, better results) printing digitally.</p>

<p>Now, do you have a question?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find digital printing gives me better results now than any wet lab printing ever did. Printers, inks and papers caught up with and surpassed what was possible in the darkroom about four years ago, editabiilty and such passed the wet lab ages before that. </p>

<p>But if you <em>love</em> printing in the darkroom and are satisfied with your results, why change? </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you like doing the darkroom thing, do it and enjoy :)</p>

<p>If you don't.. digital has caught up and arguably surpassed what is possible in traditional formats. The inks, papers, and black and white software packages out there have started doing spectacular things. Add to that the ability to edit to your heart's content and to have both a color and black and white from the same image, and you can't go wrong.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you like doing the darkroom thing, do it and enjoy :)</p>

<p>If you don't.. digital has caught up and arguably surpassed what is possible in traditional formats. The inks, papers, and black and white software packages out there have started doing spectacular things. Add to that the ability to edit to your heart's content and to have both a color and black and white from the same image, and you can't go wrong.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Chris,</p>

 

<p>If you seriously want advice, you’re gonna have to give us a bit more to work on.</p>

 

<p>What is it that makes you think you need convincing? Do you already know the answer and are

just looking for confirmation? Do you think you know the answer, but there are a couple remaining

facets you’re not sure about and would like some clarification? Have you been in the dark

until now and are just starting to wonder what all the fuss is about? Or are you just looking to stir up

the old “Film <i>v</i> Digital” death match?</p>

 

<p>It would also help to know what it is (if anything) you find lacking in the darkroom, and what you

think might attract you to digital.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Doesn't have to be a switch, it is another whole set of tools. Printing digitally runs from straight out of the box solutions from epson and hp that can equal wet prints in resolution, tone, and probably longevity. Varying levels of sophistication can be added from commercial 3rd party inks such as Piezography to do it yourself inksets that can open up whatever your personal vision is. Matte papers are extremely advanced, F type papers can still be a bit problematic but advancing rapidly, if you want RC types I'd probably stay with wet prints for now.</p>

<p>Digital processing can get you an image that can print identically every single time whether on a digital printer or with a digital negative and a wet contact print.</p>

<p>Digital capture is good but in my book expensive. I'm actually going back to some film capture with 135 film and scanning and looking to dig up a MF film camera to see how that fits in, mostly for dynamic range reasons.</p>

<p>Good resources here:</p>

<p>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages?o=1&yguid=253793878</p>

<p>http://www.piezography.com/</p>

<p>http://paulroark.com/</p>

<p>Piezography is equal parts professional printer and inkset manufacturer, they can print an image for you from a digital file or a negative on one of their inksets, though not particularly cheap, for evaluation.</p>

<p>For evaluating a negative to a print with varying inksets/printers there are a large number of professional printers, in addition to Piezography, who are involved in the DB&WthePrint forum who could do everything from scanning to printing. There is a non commercial policy to the group but a website is allowed in the signature so it is easy enough to track down a commercial shop there.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>1_faster</p>

<p>2_easier</p>

<p>3_constent result, day after day, week after week</p>

<p>4_good for the environement ; )</p>

<p>Be prepare to invest some $; a epson 2880 minimum, a epson 3880 if you can aford it, a good NEC 2690wuxi monitor, a eye1 d2 to calibrated it... not talking yet about computer, ink, paper... cost around 3000$.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree, as I often do, with Edward Ingold. Unless you earn your living doing photography and must do what clients ask, eg if you're a hobbyist like most of us, do what you enjoy. I printed in the darkroom for over 40 years, loved it, and now print digitally, and love it.<br>

If you're looking to see what's available, find a colleague whose prints you admire, who can demonstrate the process, do some reading, take a course. I'd avoid using words like "purist." It sounds elitist and implies that there's something "holy" about darkroom printing and "unholy" about digital printing. Both have a long learning curve, neither, done well, is easy. Both require a significant investment in time and money. There are no shortcuts to good prints. Initially I liked the idea that digitally I could work on an image for an hour and then do something else if necessary without committing to gallons of chemistry and the time to set up the darkroom (and clean up the darkroom). Now, I honestly believe my digital prints are better than MY darkroom prints were. YMMV This may say more about my darkroom skills than I'd like to admit.<br>

Good luck.<br>

Eric</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If I had space etc I'd keep a wet darkroom for the pleasure of the workflow... (still have Durst and Leica enlargers, trays etc)...</p>

<p>Several inkjet papers equal the Portriga Rapid I used to treasure:...eg Ilford Gold Fiber Silk. My wet darkroom prints were satisfying, but my Nikon scan/inkjet and dslr/inkjet prints are better. </p>

<p>The most exciting prints I've seen in galleries have been inkjet from scanned negs. Some vintage 35mm, some large format shot on film intentionally for inkjet. My own best (fwiw) DSLR work now rivals my film, but B&W film still appeals (love those SS reels with Rodinal, so treasure my scanner) :-) </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If you have an opportunity to see some digital b&w prints by someone who really knows what they're doing you won't have to ask this question. For me it was seeing a couple prints by George deWolfe about 8 years ago that made me realize better prints can be made digitally than in the darkroom. And I was a very dedicated, and very good, darkroom printer.<br>

That's really the only significant advantage for me. I enjoyed darkroom work very much, I had invested a lot of time (about 15 years) and money (e.g. I attended four weeks of darkroom workshops offered by John Sexton at a total cost of at least $10,000 with travel, motel, meals, etc.), in it, and would still be doing it if I could make better prints that way but I can't. The only downside is the learning curve. It's much steeper than traditional darkroom, at least it has been for me, plus there's always new things to learn.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ask someone to allow you to hand hold gallery/museum quality digital b/w prints on either Epson Exhibtion Fiber or Harman Gloss FB warmtone. Or read what Lensork has to say about Harman paper. Or, order one of the Lenswork folios ($95.00 for 6-12 digital prints) <br>

I still shoot film and make silver prints but that's only because I love my Leica M7 and working in the darkroom. They technical and aesthetic qualities of the best digital papers are not as good as Ilford silver paper; they are superior.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another option might be "digital fiber" prints (forgive me if somebody's already mentioned this) - that is, digitally exposed silver gelatin B&W paper. I haven't tried it, and the prices are not cheap, but it seems like it could offer a very close approximation of the "look" of traditional prints with the extra control and repeatability of digital manipulation. <br>

One lab I've found who does them: http://www.dalmatianlab.com/digital/true-bw-digital-fiber-prints-pricing/</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Starting in the early 60's as a photojournalist, and through the 70's doing industrial and advertising work, I spent thousands of hours in the darkroom, making both B&W and color prints.</p>

<p>I still shoot some film, but when I do I scan it and work from there in the digital domain. I just did my first black and white prints on a new HP z3200 printer. Brilliant!</p>

<p>I tear up when I think of how much better all of the work I did thirty years ago could have been if I'd had the digital tools available now for both editing and printing.</p>

<p>And I don't have that hypo stink on my clothing.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>As someone else said, take a look at some good b&w digital prints to see what can be done. As with most things,there is a substantial learning curve and the proper equipment is required. If you like what you see, then move ahead;if you enjoy the darkroom process, keep doing that also.<br>

I dismantled my darkroom when I realized that I had not used it for several years and probably would not use it again because of the direct time commitment involved and the discomfort associated with it. I enjoyed the process but was no longer willing to take the time to set up/clean up and was unwilling to stand for long periods (bad back) and deal with the fumes. The first printer that I got (Epson 2200) was fine for color as I worked my way up the learning curve, but ng for b&w until I started using a RIP. The next/current printer (Epson 3800) is great for b&w; I've now gone back and reprinted some of the pictures that I couldn't get quite right using the first printer and am quite pleased with the results. I also think they are better than my wet prints, which may be due to one skill level versus the other.<br>

That said, it is far more pleasant to work for as long as I want, when I want, sitting in a comfortable chair, in a comfortable room. It's also nice to be able to replicate your results without any additional effort. My problem now, is developing (no pun intended) a hybrid work flow (I don't enjoy scanning), as I have started to shoot some film again.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This whole "purist" thing really bugs me. Sorry to go a little tangent, but how can a real "purist" reconcile the fact that his camera is capturing a life size, 3-dimensional, full-color, living scene as a tiny, flat, B+W static image anyway? Or maybe it's nat about photography at all - maybe a "purist" is a purist because he doesn't use a computer. But even without that particular technology, doesn't the purist rely on optics, mechanics, maybe even some electronics - like a camera with a <em>battery</em> in it... And what purist still uses an enlarger that burns whale oil for it's light source? I'm guessing most purists don't harvest their own pulp and coat their handmade paper with an emulsion of their own making from raw materials using handmade flasks and spoons.... And again, maybe it's not about technology. Maybe the purist is rationalizing a superiority for having suffered an inferior means to the end instead of having done it "the easy way".</p>

<p>Anyway, sorry to rant......</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Remeber you are asking this in the digital darkroom forum. Tell some of the masters that digital prints are better. For hacks like me digital is far easier to learn. Superb darkroom prints are hard which is why folks folks say digital is better in the first place. No matter what they look like in the end I would far more treasure a handcrafted silver print over a computer generated facsimile any day.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Chris, my suggestion is - take some of your best wet prints, find their negatives, get them professionally scanned and ask a well skilled person to help with the digital printing. Then hang all the photos on a wall for a month or so and look at them every day for a while. Then you should be able to realize which way to go. For objectivity show them to all the people you know whos opinion could matter to you.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...