Why wouldnt I sell my darkroom ?

I need some objective thoughts on the printing side of darkroom work

for LF B & W. I have spent much time over the holiday period playing

with a new 2450 scanner and photoshop and am really impressed with

what can be achieved. I am printing on a non photo HP printer at the

moment and very impressed by the quality of A4 B & W and colour

prints that can be produced, they have a lovely 'feel' to them. The

ability to get a clean print by de-dusting/marks etc is great and

basic darkroom manipulation is straight forward. I am inspired enough

to rush out and get a Canon S9000. Print throughput is lower with the

scanner route and certainly no cheaper.

With the plethora of papers / finishes available and the relative

ease of producing high quality work - what are the factors I should

consider in keeping the printing side of my darkroom going ? I need a

sense check ! Has anyone been down this route, sold their enlarger,

lenses and all the paraphenalia and really regretted it ?

 

Many thanks

 

Dave

I don't have a 2450 but for my 35mm work I use a Nikon 4000ED. I also have a black and white darkroom, and access to a color room with an RA4 processor.

 

I get terrific scans and prints from color chromes onto an Epson 1290 with this setup. Better in some ways than optical prints from color print films. But without a doubt, and believe me I've tried EVERYTHING, the wet prints from black and white print film look a whole lot better than anything I've seen come out of my printer yet.

 

I don't know if my experience is applicable to what you want to do, but the only black and white digital output I've ever seen that looks any good to me was from drum scanners and a Lightjet or Lambda printer. Also, ink jet prints have archival issues that wet prints don't.

 

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary. Some people love cheap scanners and ink jet prints, and a lot of them sell their darkrooms (which is how I got mine so cheap - I built and equipped the whole thing for less than the cost of my scanner!).

David, Two reasons: 1) Darkrooms sound nicer than computers and printers(my versalab washer sounds rather like the happy little bullfrog in "Tubby the Tuba," while the computer sounds vaguely like the x-ray machine at my Dentist's office and the printer makes noises like some kind of hospital post-op apparatus. Stressful to say the least!) 2) When I go into the Darkroom the World is kept at bay. No one dares to enter my cave of darkness. There is...Peace! When I sit down at my computer I am so very vulnerable to every possible distraction my little family can muster. They know where I am...and they will get me. To each his own---------Cheers!

This is all very subjective and personal -- if you want to go all digital then by all means do so. Some people believe that digital printing is the One True Answer to their photographic problems. Others feel otherwise. Not knowing your objectives or motives I doubt this will be much help, but I'm sure we'll all try... :)

 

The fine art market still appears to view digital prints (inkjet) with suspician: traditional silver prints are still the standard and command the higher prices. Don't know if you care about this or not, but it's true. On the other hand, the poster and greeting card segments are moving rapidly to digital, just as the rest of the printing industry is.

 

Of course, there are still questions about the longevity of inkjet prints. Accelerated testing by the manufacturer is no substitute for 150 years of real world experience, so this one isn't going to be settled for many years to come. Again, there's no way of know whether this is an issue that matters to you.

 

Digital is certainly convenient, there's no doubt about that. Sitting in a well-lit room in a comfy chair, suitable beverage at your side: certainly easier than a stuffy, smelly old darkroom. Of course, it usually takes about as long to get a good proof from digital as it does to get one from a wet darkroom, but reproducing that image is sure easier: click, 'print', "I wonder if there's any more lager in the fridge?"

 

On the other hand, whenever I handle a digital print I just have to hold it at an acute angle to the light and look at the print surface in strong side-light. I like to remind myself that the image is sprayed on top of plasticized paper. I think of these kinds of things as images, while stuff that comes from a darkroom I think of as photographs. No big deal really, I just like to keep my terms straight. Always been rather anal about that. To me there's nothing inherently less interesting or 'real' about a digital image, it's just that I prefer photographs. I've never seen an inkjet image that satisified me the way a black & white photograph does. Of course, I don't like plastic resin-coated photographic paper either, and I suppose that means something but if it does it only does so to me, not to you. What's important to you? Can you get that from a digital image? If so then why aren't you doing that? If not, why are you asking? :) Best of luck to you.

 

mjs

Dave,

I just went through the same process and after few iterations eventually decided to go all digital. Few things helped me decide:

 

- no more chemistry to dilute, maintain, and care for

- with digital, I can work on a print at anytime and for as long as I want, could be 15 minutes, could be 2 hours. With darkroom, I never started any work if I didn't have at least a couple of hours available

- digitally cleaning films is so great compared to retouching!

- with digital, I'm 100% sure I can duplicate the exact same print

- last but not least, quality of the outcome: have you seen a print made with the last generation of printers, e.g. Epson 2000 or 2100 ? quality is simply amazing, and quite frankly comparable to any silver print; not as romantic I admit, but trully comparable, not to mention that colors are guaranteed stable for 80 years!

 

My two cents.

Joel

John, Very nice analogy!

David, this is a personal thing. Some people don't like getting "their hands

wet" and others are regressing. I am dabbling with Kallitypes and Pt/Pd. Yes

call me a dinosaur, so what! It is the feeling that you get. If you feel the magic

more with digital, so be it. I will not sell my darkroom until my wife pry's the

print tongs out of my dead rigamorticed hands but I do enjoy the digital side

and do it for work everyday. My personal B/W will always be hand done. Just

in case it "goes by the way side", I have mixed my own developers ect. from

raw stock for a long time and enjoy this part of it also. What I'm saying is that

it's your decision...

<p>Dave, I didn't sold my darkroom stuff, I just had to cleanup room when I got a baby. I went

digital too. And I did regretted it.</p>

<p>Now, I'm happy to have a good fellows photographers who joined me in building new

darkroom. We put our enlargers together (from 35mm to 8"x10"), we bought old process

machine so are able to easily develop huge prints... Yes, I'm back to lab, AND I'm still working

digital.</p>

<p>I started playing with Photoshop 12 years ago, but until 2001 I was really disappointed with

results (pictures did sold well, but I hated all that dots and pixels). Than I discovered Durst color

printers (Epsilon and Lambda) and b&w paper for prepress imegeseters - now I can produce

huge crystal clear prints at low portion of cost (I work in prepress house so expensive drum

scanners are at my hand), but nothing, and I really mean nothing can replace my own peace in

darkroom, or happy beer with friend waiting for test to fix... :))</p>

<p>

try to keep both worlds.</p>

<p>(and sorry on clumsy english)</p>

<p></p>

<p></p>

When the print in behind glass and up on a wall nobody really gives a damn where it came from, and rightly so. Those of you who think galleries and shops still do are having serious delusions of granduer. A better topic for this thread would be 'what lame excuse are you using to not board up your darkroom'.

 

You call darkroom work 'craft' while I simply call it crud. It's simply an excuse to hide from your significant other while putting emphasis on process that likely is for lacking something in your images. Real photographers don't care. Spend a Friday afternoon dodging and burning 1,000 8x10's of a box of laundry soap for a client and the magic goes away real fast.

 

I've never had an out of focus ink-jet or LightJet print, but I sure have fought long battles with lab managers trying to explain that the lack of grain in the conventional 20x24 they did for me was because they need to learn how to use a grain magnifier.

 

For color you coulnd't force me to use a conventional darkroom. You can't make ANY conventional color print look as classy as my ink-jet prints on fine art paper. Color of course is considered a second class art next to fine art B/W mainly because those who practice the later usually can't figure out the former.

 

This leaves conventional B/W darkroom work, which I'll honestly admit has some advantages over monochrome ink-jet work. Mono ink-jet work is still half luck and voodo while the wet lab side is an established process.

Thanks to you all for your input. My objective is simply to produce the photographs that I see when I stand behind my camera in the simplest and most comfortable way. I have no plans to sell my work although I do have plans (dreams !) to mount an exhibition and perhaps produce a book. I consider myself to be a traditionalist and something of a 'craftsman' and to use the best tools available at the time. I moved up to 5X4 primarily to get that wonderful quality you can get in the easiest way. I hate trying to get 35mm or even MF negatives clean enough and then only to discover some minute spot has blown up and is devils own to retouch. I dont print beyond 16X12. The digital retouching is just magic by comparison - also try putting an even black line around your prints traditionally - possible but hard.<p> I currently do all my work on Fibre based paper and never foresaw a day when a hand produced, split toned print could compare with something out of an inkjet. The work I have done this holiday has made me question hard that assumption. The one specific that has troubled me to date is longeivity. Longeivity is an issue for me - I still enjoy prints I made 20yrs ago, I would hate to find all my work has faded and disappeared within my lifetime (hopefully another 40 yrs). This seems to be a non issue with the latest round of inks/papers/printers. I think I will try A3 prints with a selection of the new traditional papers that hopefully will give me something close to the texture and feel of a double weight matt/semi matt finish paper. If this works out then the time will have come to move on from the darkroom. Sample photo added - hope it is OK.<div></div>

Dave, unless you must have the space for some other purpose - keep your darkroom. If you are worried about print life please be aware that by using different combinations of papers and inks you are introducing variables that will affect the length of time that your prints may last. You are plowing off into the unknown in nearly every instance of new combinations. Some of the ink/paper matches have been tested throughly, but even that testing is accelerated testing. And that testing is usually paid for by the people who make and sell the ink and paper. They do have a financial interest in the outcomes of the tests. No one has really proved the longevity. That proof is years away in my opinion. I've been using Epson printers for photographs since 1995, well before the time they were as accepted as they are today. What I have found is that each new generation is heralded as the final answer UNTIL the next model comes down the road. This is not an indictment of injet as not suitable for photo reproduction - I use 2 injets now and have owned 6 or 8 different models and I plan on buying another soon. What I am saying is that inkjet printing is not proven over the long haul, not quite yet. And its not the answer to every printing need. Scott's 1000 8X10s for advertising would be a good use for digital! How long would they need to last before they're discarded? Beyond that a wet darkroom print is a different thing from an inkjet. Just as a lithograph is different from a painting, is different from a woodblock, is different from a conventinal photo print. So keep your darkroom for a while yet. You may find the magic of digital printing wears thin after a while.

David,

 

If you are using both methods to produce prints, which is producing the best results for YOU? I would suggest that you discount or disrgard anyone that attempts to be little you or the process you use. The process can be important as your attitude to what your are doing or how you approach it can and does have a significant effect on the end product. If you just can't stand using computers and it is not your strength, then forget about that route, regardless of the marginally better results. If you are comfortable with dark room work, and you enjoy it, then there is no reason to stop doing it. You have to capitalize on your strengths in order to get the best end product. Which are you strongest at, and which do you enjoy?

Dave,

 

I went the digital route two years ago. My skin was starting to break out from close to 30 years of sitting in a room full of chemicals. The look of the prints I made on an Epson 1270 on fiber paper was nice enough that none of the folks who saw or bought my work questioned it. I currently scan 35mm with a Polaroid 4000, and 6x7 to 4x5 on an Epson 1600 flatbed scanner. I plan to upgrade my flatbed scanner to the Epson 3200 once they are released in the US.

 

The advantages I found: 1) the only chemicals I deal with is when developing B&W film, 2) spotting / burning / dodging is a dream, 3) once I get a good print I can reproduce it perfectly, 4) I can take a bathroom break in the middle of a "print" session without loosing anything, 5) I can remove skin blemishes or stray branches in minutes, 6) I can create color prints from slides without having to make contrast masks! 7) if I screw up any of the editing process, I can reverse the command instantly, 8) thru combining multiple scans I have been able to print over a dozen images that were beyond my ability to print in a wet darkroom.

 

As to the concern of longevity, when I make a good scan I store the file on my computer and on a CD Rom, after each editing session, while perfecting the image, I again make copies to my hard drive and the CD Rom, when I am happy with a finished piece, I burn two CD Roms and also record a small text file on the CD Rom with the info about the picture and the parameters I've used to print it.

 

I have given a "No Fade" warrenty with the prints I have sold to date. If someone has a problem, I can pull out the CD Rom, reload the image into Photoshop and make an identical new print in less then 1/2 hour.

 

The current state of scanning is not simple plug and play. The learning curve for both making good scans and editing them in Photoshop was pretty steep, I have learned to HATE MS Windows, and I still am upgrading equipment every couple of years, but the results more then make up for the work.

 

Hope this helps,

Go ahead & do the digital darkroom if it is the way you enjoy working. Sitting at the screen for long times isn't much fun for some of us. Be aware that digital printing for now is the equivalent of trying to print fine B&W on RC paper... you just don't know what bug will show up next.

Lets see, 25 year life expectancy & then prints start fading in some homes within 24 hours.

Some prints don't dry for weeks & when framed outgas & coat and even etch the glass in a frame.

Some don't dry for weeks & when stacked transfer inks from one to another.

What is next? Only time will tell and your guess is as good as mine. Heck, even Wilhelm testing said the Epson papers would last 25 years only to have Ozone show up & give a big surprise!

B&W fibre isn't necessarily 'superior' but is time tested. Go digital but keep the darkroom for work you want to print & process properly so you know it will last.

If you were just getting started with your own printing, and were debating the relative merits of digital vs. traditional, I could see asking a question along the lines of which you should choose and then we'd have another of those endless discussions about the relative merits of digital vs. traditional printing. But you apparently already have a darkroom and you ask about the factors you should consider "in keeping the printing side of my darkroom going."

 

I don't know exactly what you mean by that. Do you mean "I could use the money so why shouldn't I sell my darkroom equipment?" Do you mean "why should I continue letting my darkroom take up space I need for something else?" Do you mean "why should I continue offering traditional prints to my customers?" In other words, since you already have a darkroom, what bothers you about keeping it? Money tied up in it? Space taken up by it? Wife thinks it's ugly? Cat's are peeing in it? You're moving and wondering whether it's worth paying the mover to move it? What are the downsides to "keeping the printing side going?" Already having something and deciding whether to get rid of it seems a lot different to me than not having something and deciding whether to buy it.

 

I've been very excited about digital printing and probably haven't been in my darkroom except to develop film in about six months now. I would say to anyone who thinks digital prints aren't at least the equal of traditional prints in terms of aesthetics "you must not have yet seen a digital print made with good equipment by someone who really knows what he or she is doing." But I don't plan to get rid of my darkroom either. It's in an area of my house that wouldn't be used for anything else, I still might want to make contact prints the traditional way, maybe digital is just exciting to me because it's the "new thing," maybe I'll get tired of it down the road, maybe I'll start seeing my prints fade in a few years and won't be able to reprint because of changes in the technology, etc. etc. Since there's no compelling reason to get rid of the darkroom, I'm keeping it. But if for some reason I had to make a choice between my digital equipment and my traditional equipment, it would be sad in a nostalgic sort of way but the decsion would be easy, the darkroom would go. Fortunately I don't have to make that choice. Do you?

"As to the concern of longetivity, when making a good scan I store the file on my computer and a CD Rom..."

 

Has anyone heard the report that says that CD Roms are not considered archival. There is a deterioration factor there as well. Perhaps the convenience factor of digital has not reached anywhere near the point where it has any certifiable archival quality. Perhaps it is still a product for the instant gratification generation and being marketed by corporations that only care about making money. Just a thought.

Thanks again - where I am at right now is summed up in Harry's paragraph :-<p>

The advantages I found: 1) the only chemicals I deal with is when developing B&W film, 2) spotting / burning / dodging is a dream, 3) once I get a good print I can reproduce it perfectly, 4) I can take a bathroom break in the middle of a "print" session without loosing anything, 5) I can remove skin blemishes or stray branches in minutes, 6) I can create color prints from slides without having to make contrast masks! 7) if I screw up any of the editing process, I can reverse the command instantly, 8) thru combining multiple scans I have been able to print over a dozen images that were beyond my ability to print in a wet darkroom. <p>I will keep my darkroom for 5X4 for now - I have a whole pile of chemicals and paper that I wouldnt want to bin. It is using up space and could free up some cash if required.<p>Best regards and a happy new year to you all

David,

 

One big reason,

B/W digital prints Fade!

 

Over the past 3 years I made hundreds of large b/w prints on top quality 100%

cotton rag papers with Cone piezo inks, MIS inks, etc. I recently got an

exhibition back that was printed 20x24 in size. I was blown away when I

compared one of the exhibition prints made 1 year ago to a recent print. The

older print had faded and turned a warm shade of brown.

 

On the upside, I have never had a platinum or silver print (FB paper) fade or

degrade on me.

 

Digital is wonderful and I would guess that when the dust settles it will take

over the commercial and consumer ends of photography. But for investment, I

think that traditionally made prints will continue to be the collectors choice.

 

Mike

David, this almost seems like a troll. Why did you ask the question when it appears that you already had made up your mind? If you abhor the use of chemicals and need bathroom breaks in the middle of a session, then by all means use a digital platform. No need to come here espousing your need for absolution. Those who want to go the digital route, by all means, go. It's a great platform to creat that which you see. No need to try and get converts. You have my blessing. But make the decision and then go with it. You won't make any more adherents to your crusade by coming here and telling us what you feel is "the" way. You don't need anyones blessing and we don't need any proof that digital is the only way of the future.

And on another note concerning digital printing in black and white. I look at 1000's of prints during the year in galleries and museums from San Diego to Oregon. Out of those prints there are increasing numbers of digital prints. Couple hundred this year alone. I see very few prints that equal a finely crafted black and white silver print. Ulsman, Fokos, and a few others who have worked in the medium for many years now are the few that look good. There are lots of reportage and street looking prints but these are a different genre so I don't include them here. But for truly fine art black and white silver prints, I see very few. The digital platform along with the inexperience of the operator/printer isn't up to the task. Sorry David, but that image even on my calibrated screen isn't much of a print compared to what could have been done in a wet darkroom. And I see many such prints that the printer/artist tries to tell me what a great platform digital is for printing black and white. Hogwash. But I do think the digital platform for color is unsurpassed in this day and age due to the cost/complications inherent in ilfochrome and the demise of good color separation printers and materials. For color there is no better platform than digital. But for black and white........the wet darkroom will be around for at least a few more generations of digital printers and inks. If you come to PhotoLA this year, I hope we can meet and you will bring some of your best work and let's compare what is being displayed and sold and what you feel is your best work. And this isn't about the vision of an image but about how that vision is reproduced. Not about your subject but about how you reproduce the subject and the look of the subject.

with all the responses mine is really not needed but its early and I have not finished my coffee: for me using a 4 x 5 camera, PMK and my darkroom, digital means: a few digital contact negatives (4 or 5), a few color drum scans outputted to everything from my 1270 (and I do mean damn few) and commercial devices. I have also done some panoramas using 3 transparencies to make 36 x 13 prints (see http://home.att.net/~shipale/pitts.html). digital is primarily salvage only, for me. a $20000-$30000 digital back ain't going to happen, not to mention the conversion to pixel optimized lenses. To boot the printers that rival the conventional fiber print are expensive also. For the professional I can see it, for the enthusiast, no way. For you digital folks with cameras with no movements: its a large format thing, and you would not understand (and lets not even talk about the zone system!).

Interestingly I took a selection of my A4 inkjet prints to my Dad today for our festive family lunch with some recent fibre prints and colour ilfochromes that he hadnt seen. Guess what..... the inkjets I was so pleased with 48 hrs ago got panned as complete rubbish by comparison to the real thing. I suppose that is what is called a reality check ! Back to the darkroom tonight :-)

 

Best regards

 

Dave

Great posts by Michale Kravit and JAMES. I think the novelty of digital in the B&W world is starting to wear off and people are starting to see the real diferences. A year ago the comments by Michael or JAMES would have started a flame war, now seems the silence is a form of agreement. Of course I dont expect Eaton to agree but then methinks he is the only one that thinks his prints are indistinguishable from a silver print. IMO not even Fokos who does beautiful work claims this.

I am specially happy to see the comment by Michael about his piezo inks fading. 2 years ago these inks had been heralded as the end of photogrpahy since they would have the same archival qualities. Well I guess rumors of the demise were premature...

I have nothing against digital, know Burkolder personally and have a few of his prints, but I am glad people is starting to realize it is a different media with a different feeling to it. All them other silly arguments about the chemical odor (I have extractors in my DR, dont smell a thing) etc, etc can be counter equally with arguments against digital. For example, my timer never sends me a message " I cannot find your enlarger" or my enlarger lens never gets "clogged" with light... So when I find these types of arguemnts presented I know they are made by someone who was lacking in the B&W DR and has used digital to hide his lack of skills. WHen they state, "well my digital prints are just like or even better than my silver prints" I usually think, well maybe because they are both crappy.

Yesterday I spent many hours printing a scanned 6x7 trans. Scanned with 2450/Silverfast and viewed on a calibrated (Photo-Cal) monitor. It looked great. With slight adjustments with PS.I tried printing a "perfect" reproduction on my Epson 1280- Impossible. I print to 4x6 size as test prints and when I get close, print to whatever larger size I want. Try as I may they're close but no prize. In my Dark room I can get my BW work to fulfill my expectations with MUCH less exertion and cost. I wonder, never having done wet color printing, if, like my BW experience, it would be more exact??

George Nedleman

I must qualify my post to a certain extent.

 

Over the past 4 years I spent a lot of money on computer gear. Bought a

Howtek D4000 drum scanner, an Epson 1280, Epson 7000, and an Epson

10000. I bought calibration software and spilled more ink on my studio carpet

than I care to remember or remind my wife.

 

My digital prints were lovely. I have exhibited them in a number of venues and

they ge rave reviews.

 

IF and I say IF, the longevity of the ink problem could be solved, I think that

digital b/w printing would be a very viable alternative. However, remember

that a machine made print is still just a print. A hand made photograph is truly

a piece of art.

 

Mike

Of course, if your darkroom is also the bathroom, those bathroom breaks are hardly an issue! Just don't use the toilet for the presoak! I whole heartedly agree with the Poster who asked you which method works best for your vision. Often, the easiest way isn't THE way, but that is your call.--Cheers!