fp1 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 I have recently acquired a Hasselblad 503cxi, PME 51 prism, and 80mm T* lens. After developing a roll of Tmax 100, I have come to realize that the hype regarding hasselblad picture quality is...well...not just hype. I have been pleased with the results, to put it mildly. I have been so pleased, in fact, that any second guesses about the prudence of trading/selling my 645 and D100 have been put soundly to sleep. Now then, for the consumation of this image making undertaking.... I have not used a dedicated film scanner. I have had mixed results using Epson flatbeds; some 645 scans from a 3200 prompted me to explore 6x6 and the Blad. Now that I have the capture device issue settled, I have yet another dilemma. Namely, I am unsure wheter to purchase a medium format scanner, or an enlarger (for the Blad negs as well as negs from my 4x5). I am considering a Microtek 120. This is due to the fact that the item specs indicate an ability to use Digital Ice with black and white negs. I have read of questionable results with the Minolta Multipro, with respect to scanning negative (especially black and white) film. I am somewhat computer savvy; I am on my fourth Mac (dual 867) and have Photoshop 7. I have never used an enlarger, but, being self taught, am not afraid of tackling the learning curve involved in using one. By the way, I am interested in producing exhibition quality, fine arts prints only. Responses from anyone with relevant experience with regard to this issue would be greatly appreciated. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_taylor2 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 If you have not ever used a darkroom, there is a whole world out there for you that will be opened to possibilites that are vast and virtually limitless. BUT, the bottom line comes down to the practicality of building a darkroom and buying the gear and then learning it, or continuing to grow in the digital realm. There is an ongoing war going on between the "wet darkroom" and "digital printing" forces, and it seems a very few are sitting in the middle. It is probably not outrageous to say that the future of the wet print may go the way of stained glass and lead glazes, but there is a great deal to understand in the printing process that will make your digital world seem more logical. Afterall, even Photoshop uses "Dodge and Burn" controls! But realistically, the color printing of a traditional negative is expensive, time consuming, bank breaking, and chemically hazardous (other than that, no problems...)b/w is less costly but still hazardous to your health. More and more you will find that color fine art prints are being done digitally (b/w is not quite there yet, but close), but on very high quality printers that are costly. You can send stuff to service bureaus of course, but that can hurt too. A really good printer will cost you about $700, a medium format scanner of quality will be near $2000, but there are cheaper flatbeds that can work quite well, including for your 4x5's. Your ongoing expense will be in paper, and ink (I have a theory that Epson gives away their printers and that the ink costs about $3000 per gallon...)and the time you spend getting everything "tweaked" to your desire...consider getting a calibrating "spider" device... I have had a few friends that have had Microtek products that have had some mechanical problems with their devices though, just an after thought...and it is nice to see another Mac user, when will the rest of the world ever learn huh? Good Luck, Tim T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp1 Posted January 12, 2004 Author Share Posted January 12, 2004 Thanks, Tim. Uh.... how hazardous is hazardous? And in what way? I am primarily interested in black and white, and develop my own film. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom film holders for fl Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='tab-interval:.5in'> <p class=MsoNormal>I would seriously consider investigating the new Nikon 9000 too if you are going to invest the big $$ and move up from your 3200.</p> <p class=MsoNormal>Doug</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~dougfisher/holder/mfholderintro.html">Doug�s �MF Film Holder� for batch scanning "strips" of 120/220 medium format film with flatbeds</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><o:p></o:p></p> </body> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._hillebrand Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Get an enlarger. It takes some practice and it will take some time, but I can't see the point in using a fully mechanical 6x6 film camera and then doing the prints digitally. Even color prints are MUCH less difficult than they seem at first glance. The only thing it takes is - lots of time. But scanning and digital dark room work on your Mac will take lots of time as well. People tend to forget that. I wouldn't want to spend my time in front of a computer screen - where I spend too much time anyway. ;-) I have to admit though that for prints from transparencies it is quite nice to use a scanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per_volquartz1 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Get the best enlarger chassis you can afford (Durst)! Get the best enlarging lens you can afford ! Get the best light source for your enlarger (perhaps a variable contrast cold light head)! Shoot Efke 25 or FP4! Process in Pyro! Make B/W enlarged prints on fiber based paper (Kodak Polymax Fine Art Paper) - or make contact prints on AZO paper! Process everything to archival standards! Use an Amidol based print developer for Max. blacks! Tone all prints in Selenium! Mount and matte your prints using Bainbridge Alpha Rag! Sign your prints with a number 4 pencil or a thin silver rod (the signature will oxidize and turn darker over time)! That will give you a head start in making exhibition quality prints - and be a solid way to get the most out of your Hasselblad lenses. (Finally, most well known galleries will not want digital prints - regardless what the digital sales people will tell you!) Per Volquartz http://www.volquartz.com/pervolquartz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_brody Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Be not afraid of black & white chemistry. Common sense cleanliness will suffice, eg do not eat from darkroom surfaces and do not drink chemicals, and wash your hands. In my opinion, well made fiber based, archivally processed silver prints cannot be surpassed for simple beauty. Do not expect to proceed quickly. Learning fine art printing is a slow process, whether with photoshop or in the darkroom. The learning curve is not necessarily steep but it is long. There is no right or wrong between digital and traditional methods, each have their strengths. You are wise in your choice of equipment. The Hasselblad system is of high quality, and is extensive. I have used the same body and lenses for over twenty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lachaine Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 My view, after a year of giving this considerable thought, is that if you're primarily going to be scanning your negatives, you may as well go the direct to digital route, with a digital camera. The end result will be digital anyway, either way. Let's face it. If you'r scanning, your doing digital. But if you enjoy the mechanical way, with fine mechanical cameras, and you like the characteristics of film, a darkroom may ultimately provide more pleasure and more possibilities. You never really have to upgrade a darkroom. Once you have it, it's good for life, as are the procedures and techniques you learn while doing it. The same can't be said of either film scanners or printers. Printers in particular are very high maintenance, high cost of operation pieces of equipment, with a high frustration factor. Film scanners are failure-prone, and whatever model you buy today at considerable cost is worthless 6 months later (a bit of an exaggeration maybe, but you get the idea). To help yourself decide, you really must get just one 6x6 negative properly printed in a darkroom. Well, maybe two negatives: a colour one and a black & white one. It's worth the cost. My guess is you will stop thinking about the digital darkroom except maybe for your snapshots. I've done digital, owned a film scanner, owned a nice digicam. Boring, after a while. There's nothing like the satisfaction of doing something with your hands and brain, and without a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Why not find a local pro lab and let them do what they have the expertise and expensive pro equipment to handle? That leaves you the time to go out and breathe fresh air and explore and enhance your mastery of capturing the image. The time and tedium involved in either a wet or digital home darkroom is disporportionate to the frustrating mediocre results you're likely to get for a long, long time. If you find a good pro lab in your area that listens and responds to your needs it's well worth paying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_dewberry Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 A friend of mine, a pro photographer for many years, from whom I was taught darkroom, has not been in a darkroom in 2 years. He is absolutely the last person I thought would go digital, but he says the results are better. He shoots film, scans it, and prints it. I think it comes down to this; if you're a pro and make your living delivering product to buyers, digital it is. If this is a hobby, go with what makes you fullfilled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brushmeister Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Don't go the darkroom route...unless you are unmarried and plan to remain single, do not want or need friends (fellow photo-recluse colleagues excepted, of course) or are masochistic. After going MF and putting together my Hassy kit I thought about opening up the large box in my basement containing my darkroom stuff, and unwrapping my good old Bessler enlarger, Nikon enlarging lenses, etc, etc. Then I remembered about needing convenient running water, temperature control, creating a light-proof room, hypo spilling out of trays, spending half the night printing and re-printing, and washing prints, stacking and drying 'em, and the cost of enlarging paper, chemicals, cleaning up, plus that tingling sensation in your fingertips from acetic acid, and becoming familiar with all-night radio talk show hosts. I remembered all that and said, "...what, am I nuts?" Get a good scanner and printer, and Photoshop. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp1 Posted January 14, 2004 Author Share Posted January 14, 2004 First of all, let say thanks to all the respondents thusfar. You are incredibly helpful and collegial with your responses. Now then...to the meat of the matter. I have a relatively sophistacated printer (Epson 2200), a Mac, as you know, and Photoshop. I have compromised the learning curve with respect to these, and am quite comfortable using them. A scanner would put me on the road to production. As to the issue of using a pro lab...well...I thought about that. Remember, I am primarily and artist, not a photographer, per se (what exactly DOES "per se" mean, anyway?). I might have a little problem with exhibiting work that SOMEBODY ELSE printed. I know that Andy Warhol is reputed to have had several others involved in the manufacture of his work. An architect doen't acutally BUILD the edifices he designs. But for some unidentifiable reason, I am wont to relinquish ANY creative control over the work I produce. Am I being anal? F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brushmeister Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I say yes, you are. Who found the image? Who composed it, exposed it, interpreted it? That's you, the artist at work. Bam! The bulk of the creative process is done. Now, what remains is how to display it. If you have a technician do the printing you don't relinquish control of the results. After all, if the print does not match your original vision you have it done over. Rubens didn't paint every square inch of his canvases, and he certainly didn't do the framing. He had people (technicians) for that, and maintained control of the results. Don't fall into that romantic trap of thinking you are more important than the work itself. You ain't. Your success as an artist depends upon the success of your production. Bad artists (Leroy Neiman comes to mind) succeed by substituting self-promotional marketing gimicks for talent. The romantic view of a lone, struggling artist stubbornly remaining true to an idealistic purity is purple crap; a very appealing fantasy but it tests out impractical, even silly. What really counts is the body of work itself. What counts is sales! If the work is beautiful, instructive, evocative, etc., it will sell regardless of who did the actual printing because no one will care, or even ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_kuzenski Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I did fiber-based 11x14" prints for years; nothing is more lovely than a good traditional print, IMO. However, I've just ordered a digital printer to play with, after bringing some scans from home to print on a photo printer at work. Truth is, printing the traditional way takes lots of time and it's somewhat messy. (The dangers are minimal IMO.) I'm ready to give digital printing a try! I bet you'll have fun whichever one you decide to try first. :-) --Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_hicks1 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I wouldn't worry about the lab printing your negatives. Many artists do this, especially when it comes to color. You control the exposure before the picture is taken and have the tools to dodge and burn after your film is developed. Whether you choose darkroom or digital is a personal choice. Being a working professional, I like working with photoshop which allows me to work in small two hour blocks after work etc. If I have a Saturday afternoon or 4-6 hour stretch of time I will use the darkroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per_volquartz1 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 To add to my statement above: I have been using Photoshop professionally since Version 3. To date, I am sure the images I have scanned, corrected, resized, and printed number in the thousands. At the moment I am working on a high end Mac with an Epson 7600 printer. But I only do this for commercial work related to graphic design. Not to fine art photography! There is no comparizon to the tactile quality that a fiber based print exhibits compared to the best digital print. Nothing worthwhile is easy! If you want to create the best images that will outlast you - and your children go and build a body of work using traditional film based images. Digital photography is very effective as a way to generate income for commercial work. Clients want instant gratification and digital photography to some extent offers that. Digital photography is also a boon to manufactures of cameras and printers. This technology is a salesman's dream come through = New hardware every three or four years - no value in the old stuff! If your vision has developed to a point where your imagery has reached a level of artistic importance, print your own using the best light sensitive materials available. It is worth the time to put in ten years or more learning to print well if your vision is unique! So what if hypo spills out of the trays. So what if it takes time to come up with something exquisite! I know an artist - a painter and a sculptor - from the former Soviet Union - who used to make his own pigments. He spent 12 years of his life developing a binding agent that would allow him to paint in fast bold and heavy strokes. He also had to dig his own clay in his own secret pit! It is not - nor has it ever been easy to create art work of value! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp1 Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 Thanks for the response, Kelly. Which artists? I have been trying to research those who leave/left printing to others, with little success. I know Cartier-Bresson's work, after a time, were printed by others. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_hicks1 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Sorry for the late response. Since you use a hasselblad, one of the artist that comes to mind is Charlie Waite who shoots colorful landscapes with traditional film but prints them out digitally. Other fine art artists that you can find online, or even on these forums, are Keith Laban, David Henderson, Chris Jordan, and Jamie Drouin. I've correpsonded with these guys in the past and they have been very helpful in describing what equipment they use and their workflow. I'm kind of in the same boat as I'm looking at purchasing a hasselblad/bronica and using a digital workflow instead of darkroom. I don't mind developing film but I just don't enjoy standing in the dark for hours at a time :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp1 Posted January 25, 2004 Author Share Posted January 25, 2004 Thanks, Kelly. You folks are soooo helpful. It is greatly appreciated. F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now